Mrs J Wallace Head of Paid Service Torridge District Council Riverbank House Bideford Devon EX39 2QG

DX 53606 BIDEFORD Tel : Bideford (01237) 428700

Date: 25 October 2019

MEETING OF PLANS COMMITTEE

Town Hall - Bridge Street, Bideford, EX39 2HS Thursday 7 November 2019 at 9.30 am

NOTICE OF MEETING

To: Councillor C Leather (Chair) Councillor M Brown (Vice-Chair) Councillors: R Boughton, P Christie, R Craigie, R Lock, D McGeough, P Watson and R Wiseman

Members are requested to turn off their mobile phones for the duration of the Meeting

AGENDA

1. Apologies For Absence To receive apologies of absence from the meeting.

2. Minutes (Pages 5 - 10) To receive the Minutes from the meeting held on

3. Declaration of Interest Members with interests to declare should refer to the Agenda item and describe the nature of their interest when the item is being considered.

Elected Members of Devon County Council and Town/Parish Councils who have considered a planning application by virtue of their membership of that Council hold a personal interest and are deemed to have considered the application separately and the expressed views of that Council do not bind the Members concerned who consider the application afresh.

4. Agreement of Agenda between Parts I and II

5. Urgent Matters Information to be brought forward with the permission of the Chair.

6. Future Site Visits The Chair to advise the Committee of any future site visits.

7. Public Participation The Chair to advise the Committee of any prior requests to speak made by members of the public and to advise of the details of the Council’s public participation scheme.

8. Appeal Decisions Summary (Pages 11 - 33) Appeal Decision Summary and Reports of Planning Inspectorate

Summary

Appeal Decision - Application No. 1/0400/2018/CPL Appeal Decision - Application No. 1/0554/2018/CPE Appeal Decision - Application No. 1/1316/2018/FUL Appeal Decision - Application No. 1/1078/2018/LBC Appeal Decision - Application No. 1/0231/2019/FUL Appeal Decision - Application No. 1/0196/2019/OUT

9. Costs on Appeals (Pages 34 - 37) Application No. 1/1316/2018/FUL Application No. 1/0231/2019/FUL

10. Delegated Decisions - AGMB Applications (Page 38)

11. Planning Applications The information, recommendations and advice contained in the reports are correct as at the date of preparation which is more than ten days in advance of the Committee meeting. Due to these time constraints any changes or necessary updates to the reports will be provided in writing or orally at the Committee meeting.

(a) Application No. 1/1343/2018/OUTM (Pages 39 - 100) Outline application for residential development of up to 110 dwellings, public open space and associated infrastructure with all matters reserved except access - Land At Wooda Road, Pitt Lane, Appledore.

(b) Application No. 1/0750/2019/REMM (Pages 101 - 119) Reserved Matters application for up to 10 dwellings pursuant to application 1/0614/2017/OUTM (Landscaping, Appearance, Scale and Layout) - Land At Torridge Road, Appledore, Devon.

(c) Application No. 1/0753/2019/FUL (Pages 120 - 131) Detached dwelling - Land Off Staddon Road, Appledore, Devon

(d) Application No. 1/0775/2019/FUL (Pages 132 - 142) Installation of children's play park adventure trail - Playground At Kingsmead Drive, Torrington, Devon

(e) Application No. 1/0805/2019/FULM (Pages 143 - 154) Variation of condition 12 of application 1/0781/2015/OUTM (Roads, access, street furniture and maintenance) in relation to Reserved Matters - Land At Hoopers Way, Torrington, Devon

(f) PM Session To commence at 2pm

(g) Application No. 1/0669/2019/FUL (Pages 155 - 170) Proposed conversion of redundant pool/spa building into two dwellings - Barton Court, Buckland Brewer, Bideford

(h) Application No. 1/0639/2019/FUL (Pages 171 - 180) Proposed sub-division of single dwelling to three dwellings (Amended Red Edge) - Barton Court, Buckland Brewer, Bideford

(i) Application No. 1/0617/2019/FUL (Pages 181 - 185) Retrospective application for the erection of decking. - 4 Devonshire Park, Bideford, Devon

(j) Application No. 1/0711/2019/FUL (Pages 186 - 191) Removal of existing roof and replacement to create loft conversion, and rearrangement of extraction flue on rear elevation. - Atlantic Bay Fish & Chips, Golf Links Road, Westward Ho!

12. Planning Decisions (Pages 192 - 201) List of Delegated Planning Decisions, Consultee Abbreviations and Application Types enclosed 19 September 2019 to 24 October 2019.

13. Exclusion of Public The Chair to move:-

That the public be excluded from the remainder of the meeting because of the likely disclosure of exempt information by virtue of Part 1 Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

14. Part II - Closed Session There are no Part II items.

The background papers are considered to comprise the following documents:

- The individual planning application file (reference number quoted in each case) - North Devon and Torridge Local Plan 2011-2031 (Adopted October 2018) - Current Government guidance contained in Circulars, the National Planning Policy Framework, Planning Policy for Traveller Sites and Ministerial Statements - Any other documents specifically referred to in the report.

All background papers referred to are available for examination during normal office hours.

NOTE TO MEMBERS

All letters of representations are readily available for inspection on the files or through the website and public access. If any Member requires assistance in using this facility, please contact the Development Enabling Manager directly.

Members of the Committee only will receive hard copies of representations received.

Meeting Organiser: Sandra Cawsey

For those wishing to speak at Plans Committee please contact:

Planning Support - Tel: 01237 428778 or 428711 Email: [email protected] Website: www.torridge.gov.uk/speakplanning

Agenda Item 2 1

TORRIDGE DISTRICT COUNCIL

PLANS COMMITTEE MEETING

Town Hall - Bridge Street, Bideford, EX39 2HS

Thursday, 3 October 2019 - 9.30 am

PRESENT Councillor C Leather (Chair)

Councillor M Brown (Vice-Chair)

Councillors R Boughton, P Christie, R Craigie, R Lock, D McGeough, P Watson and R Wiseman

ALSO PRESENT S Harrington - Development Manager S Dorey - Senior Solicitor S Boyle - Planning Officer K Evely - Planning Officer K Hewlett - Electoral and Democratic Services Officer

Councillors D Bushby, P Hames

36. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

No apologies for absence were received.

37. MINUTES

It was propose by Councillor Watson, seconded by Councillor Lock and

Resolved: That the Minutes of the meeting held on 5 September 2019 should be agreed and signed as a correct record, subject to the following amendments:

 Councillor Brown was not present at the meeting, Councillor Ford was a substitute for Councillor Brown.  Minute 34 , at the bottom of page 7 of the Agenda. Agricultural Impact Assessment should read Arboricultural Agricultural Impact Statement. (Vote: For 9, Abstention 1)

There was a query raised in relation to Minute 28 – Urgent Matters. Members wished to know if the Local Plan was being renewed. The Development Manager confirmed this is being looked at by the Joint Forward Planning Group, which includes North Devon District Council, but there wasn’t a definite timescale for this at present.

Page 5 2

38. DECLARATION OF INTEREST

The Chair reminded Members to declare their interests when the relevant item was up for discussion. Declarations of interest were made as indicated below and in accordance with the previously agreed arrangements for “dual-hatted” Members.

39. AGREEMENT OF AGENDA BETWEEN PARTS I AND II

That the Agenda as circulated be agreed.

40. URGENT MATTERS

There were no urgent matters bought forward.

41. FUTURE SITE VISITS

The Chair informed the Committee that there were currently no site visits planned.

42. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

The Chair advised the Committee and members of the public of the details in respect of the Council’s public participation scheme.

43. APPEAL DECISIONS SUMMARY

The Committee noted the Appeal Decisions.

44. COSTS ON APPEALS

There were no costs on Appeals.

45. DELEGATED DECISIONS - AGMB APPLICATIONS

The Committee noted the Delegated Decisions.

46. PLANNING APPLICATIONS

(a) Application No. 1/0629/2019/FUL

The following Councillors attended the site visit:

Councillor Boughton, Councillor Brown, Councillor Christie, Councillor Craigie, Councillor Leather, Councillor Lock, Councillor McGeough, Councillor Watson, Councillor Wiseman.

Application No. 1/0629/2019/FUL - Renovations and extension to existing dwelling - Homemead, Diddywell Road, Northam.

Interests: None stated.

Page 6 3

Officer Recommendation: Grant

The planning application had been called into Plans Committee by Councillor Hames so that Members can consider whether the proposal would be in keeping with the character of the existing dwelling, and would harm the sense of place, contrary to policies DM04, ST04 and DM25 of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan and the policies within the National Planning Policy Framework.

The Planning Officer presented their report and advised Members of the main planning considerations.

It was proposed by Councillor McGeough and seconded by Councillor Lock that the application be granted and a recorded vote was taken.

Councillor For Against Abstain Cllr C Leather X Cllr M Brown X Cllr R Lock X Cllr P Watson X Cllr R Wiseman X Cllr D McGeough X Cllr R Boughton X Cllr P Christie X Cllr R Craigie X

(Vote: For Unanimous)

The motion was carried.

RESOLVED:

That the application be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Jon Lynd (Applicant) and Andy Labato (Public) spoke in support of the application.

Councillor Hames addressed the committee and spoke against the application.

Page 7 4

(b) Application No. 1/0478/2019/FUL

The following Councillors had attended the site visit:

Councillor Boughton, Councillor Brown, Councillor Christie, Councillor Craigie, Councillor Leather, Councillor Lock, Councillor McGeough, Councillor Watson, Councillor Wiseman.

Application No. 1/0478/2019/FUL - Erection of two storey dwelling - Land Adjacent To 5 Victoria Terrace, Bideford, Devon

Interests: Councillor Christie declared a personal interest – dual hatted – Bideford Town Council.

Officer Recommendation: Refuse

The planning application had been referred to Plans Committee for the following reasons:

Part of the application site is located on Torridge District Council land and so automatically is referred to Plans Committee.

Councillor Christie had also called the application in if Officers were minded to approve, stated the following reasons:

“Am concerned at possible over development of a small site, possible overlooking and loss of amenity land to 5 Victoria Terrace and impact on heritage housing in Terrace itself”.

Prior to the presentation of the report, Members were informed of the following updates:  A letter had been sent from the Agent, Lewis Andrews, to all Plans Committee Members.  If Members were minded to grant the planning application an Archaeological Survey would be required.

The Planning Officer presented their report and advised Members of the main planning considerations and the reasons for recommending refusal.

It was proposed by Councillor Christie seconded by Councillor Watson that the application be refused.

A recorded vote was taken to refuse the application.

Page 8 5

Councillor For Against Abstain Cllr C Leather X Cllr M Brown X Cllr R Lock X Cllr P Watson X Cllr R Wiseman X Cllr D McGeough X Cllr R Boughton X Cllr P Christie X Cllr R Craigie X

(Vote: For Unanimous) The motion was carried.

RESOLVED:

That the application be refused for the reasons as set out in the report.

Lewis Andrews (Agent) addressed the committee and spoke in support of the application.

(c) Application No. 1/0557/2019/FUL

Application No. 1/0557/2019/FUL - Retrospective application for the alteration of walled entrance and erection of sand school - Land Adjacent Woodside, Littleham, Bideford

Interests: None stated

Officer Recommendation: Grant

The planning application had been referred to Plans Committee due to the applicant being related to a Torridge District Council employee.

The Planning Officer presented the report and advised Members of the main planning considerations.

It was proposed by Councillor McGeough and seconded by Councillor Lock that the application be granted with the an additional condition that:

„Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015, (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order), no external lighting shall be used on the site unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Page 9 6

Reason: To protect the character and appearance of the surrounding area, neighbouring amenity, and ecology.‟

A recorded vote was taken to grant the application.

Councillor For Against Abstain Cllr C Leather X Cllr M Brown X Cllr R Lock X Cllr P Watson X Cllr R Wiseman X Cllr D McGeough X Cllr R Boughton X Cllr P Christie X Cllr R Craigie X

(Vote: For Unanimous)

RESOLVED:

That the application be granted subject to the amendments as stated above and the conditions as set out in the report.

47. PLANNING DECISIONS

RESOLVED

That the Planning decisions for the period 22 August 2019 and 19 September 2019 be noted.

The meeting commenced at 9.30 am and closed at 10.28 am

Chair: Date:

Page 10

APPEAL DECISIONS SUMMARY Committee 7th November 2019

Application Number Address/Proposal Appeal Officer Committee/ Cost Decision Recommendation Delegated

Barn At Grid Reference 257022 117175 Allowed Refused Delegated No 1/0400/2018/CPL Roborough Devon

The Garage Dismissed Refused Delegated No Hole Station 1/0554/2018/CPE Highampton Beaworthy

Devon Page 11 Page EX21 5JH 1/1316/2018/FUL Town Farm Cottage Allowed Refused Delegated Yes Fairy Cross Bideford Devon EX39 5DA Brendon Farm Allowed Refused Delegated No Halwill 1/1078/2018/LBC Beaworthy Devon

EX21 5UH Agenda Item 8

1/0231/2019/FUL East Staddon Farm Dismissed Refused Delegated Yes Hartland Bideford Devon EX39 6EG 1/0196/2019/OUT Springfield Meadows Dismissed Refused Delegated No Halwill Junction Beaworthy Devon EX21 5UF

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 16 September 2019 by Gareth Symons BSc(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 20 September 2019

Appeal Ref: APP/W1145/X/18/3219027 Barn at ref 257020 117178, Roborough, Winkleigh, Devon EX19 8SY • The appeal is made under section 195 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 against a refusal to grant a certificate of lawful use or development (LDC). • The appeal is made by Mrs Jeanette Folland against the decision of Torridge District Council. • The application Ref: 1/0400/2018/CPL, dated 12 April 2018, was refused by notice dated 22 June 2018. • The application was made under section 192(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended. • The use for which a certificate of lawful use or development is sought is change of use to a single dwellinghouse.

Decision

1. The appeal is allowed and attached to this decision is a certificate of lawful use describing the proposed use which is found to be lawful.

Background and Main Issue

2. In 2017, the appellant made an application for Prior Approval (PA) (Ref: 1/0422/2017/AGMB) under Class Q of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 1995 (GPDO) for the change of use of the appeal building to a dwelling. Although the Council issued a decision on that application on 25 July 2017 and refused to grant PA consent, the Council subsequently accepted that it had not made that determination within the required 56 days. Where the PA procedure applies, the development proposed cannot lawfully begin until the Local Planning Authority (LPA) has confirmed that prior approval is not required; or the LPA gives its prior approval; or the period prescribed in the GPDO expires without the LPA having given or refused prior approval. This application for a LDC seeks to confirm that it would now be lawful to carry out the change of use of the building to a dwellinghouse.

3. The Council’s first reason for refusing the LDC is based on the proposal not being permitted development because a PA application has not been submitted for consideration by the LPA. In its statement, the Council has referred to various legal judgements. The basis of the Council’s point is that the LDC application should be considered in accordance with the amended GPDO and Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) and not the GPDO and guidance which was relevant when considering the earlier PA application. I have read the Council’s legal opinion and the view taken by the Council that modifications to the GPDO

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 12 Appeal Decision APP/W1145/X/18/3219027

in 2018 mean that the original prior notification application is no longer deemed an application.

4. I do not agree with the Council’s approach. The Council’s case might be valid if it, or I, was considering an application for PA now. However, this appeal is against the refusal by the Council to issue a LDC. Under s192(1)(a) of the 1990 Act it is open to any person to seek to ascertain whether any proposed use of buildings or other land would be lawful by making an application for the purpose to the LPA. If, on an application under this section, the LPA is provided with information satisfying it that the use or operations described in the application would be lawful if instituted or begun at the time of the application, it shall issue a certificate to that effect. The key date is therefore the date of the LDC application which was 12 April 2018. I therefore need to look back to see whether, on that date, there are grounds to find the proposed use lawful. Based on the appellant’s case, that requires me to examine the earlier PA application.

5. Under relevant parts and paragraphs of the GPDO, if the LPA does not determine or notify the applicant of its determination within the statutory period from the date when it received the application, prior approval is deemed to be granted. However, the proposed change of use would only be lawful if it was Permitted Development (PD) in the first place. If it was, and thus the planning permission granted by the GPDO stands, the later amendments to the GPDO cannot take that away.

6. Turning then to the Council’s second reason for refusal, planning permission granted by Class Q of the GPDO allows for building operations reasonably necessary to convert the building to a dwellinghouse. The Council specifies that the building is not already suitable for conversion and it raises concerns about the structural supports and the potential extent of replacement walls.

7. In view of the above, the main issue is whether the agricultural building is capable of functioning as a dwelling and whether the works proposed would go beyond what is reasonably necessary to convert it to residential use.

Reasons

8. The Council confirm that the structural integrity of the building is not a major concern. Based on the submitted evidence, including structural reports on the building, and what I saw at my site visit, I agree. In terms of the external walls, the appellant has clearly stated that it is not intended to replace them. Instead the building would be insulated internally and have plasterboard internal linings. Whether or not that is common sense, that is what is stated would occur and there is no substantive evidence to show this could not be the case. There is also nothing showing that keeping the existing walls with internal linings would not successfully provide suitable living accommodation.

9. For the reasons given, the building is capable of functioning as a dwelling and the works do not go beyond what is reasonably necessary for its conversion to residential use. Consequently, the change of use proposed in PA application (Ref: 1/0422/2017/AGMB) under Class Q of the GPDO was PD. Furthermore, because the 56 days determination period of that PA application expired without the LPA having given or refused prior approval, prior approval was deemed to have been granted. As such, the PA development proposed could

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 13 2 Appeal Decision APP/W1145/X/18/3219027

have lawfully begun. Thus, on 12 April 2018 the proposed change of use of the barn to a dwellinghouse was lawful.

Conclusion

10. I conclude, on the evidence now available, that the Council’s refusal to grant a LDC in respect of the change of use to a single dwellinghouse was not well- founded and that the appeal should succeed. I will exercise the powers transferred to me under section 195(2) of the 1990 Act as amended.

Gareth Symons

INSPECTOR

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 14 3

Lawful Development Certificate

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990: SECTION 192 (as amended by Section 10 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991)

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) (ENGLAND) ORDER 2015: ARTICLE 39

IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that on 12 April 2018 the use described in the First Schedule hereto in respect of the land specified in the Second Schedule hereto and edged in red on the plan attached to this certificate, was lawful within the meaning of section 192 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), for the following reason:

Planning permission was deemed to have been granted by virtue of Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 1995 following the Council’s failure to determine or notify the applicant of its determination of an application for prior approval for the change of use of the building to a dwelling (Ref: 1/0422/2017/AGMB) within the statutory period from the date when it received the application.

Signed Gareth Symons

INSPECTOR

Date 20 September 2019 Reference: APP/W1145/X/18/3219027

First Schedule

Change of use to a single dwellinghouse.

Second Schedule Barn at ref 257020 117178, Roborough, Winkleigh, Devon EX19 8SY

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate IMPORTANTPage NOTES 15 – SEE OVER CERTIFICATE OF LAWFULNESS FOR PLANNING PURPOSES

NOTES

This certificate is issued solely for the purpose of Section 192 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

It certifies that the use described in the First Schedule to take place on the land specified in the Second Schedule would have been lawful, on the certified date and, thus, was not liable to enforcement action under section 172 of the 1990 Act on that date.

This certificate applies only to the extent of the use described in the First Schedule and to the land specified in the Second Schedule and identified on the attached plan. Any use which is materially different from that described, or which relates to any other land, may result in a breach of planning control which is liable to enforcement action by the local planning authority.

The effect of the certificate is subject to the provisions in section 192(4) of the 1990 Act, as amended, which state that the lawfulness of a specified use or operation is only conclusively presumed where there has been no material change, before the use is instituted or the operations begun, in any of the matters which were relevant to the decision about lawfulness.

www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 16

Plan This is the plan referred to in the Lawful Development Certificate dated: 20 September 2019 by Gareth Symons BSc(Hons) DipTP MRTPI Land at: Barn at ref 257020 117178, Roborough, Winkleigh, Devon EX19 8SY Reference: APP/W1145/X/18/3219027 Scale: Do not scale.

www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 17

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 16 September 2019 by Gareth Symons BSc(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 23 September 2019

Appeal Ref: APP/W1145/X/18/3214936 The Garage, Hole Station, Highampton, Beaworthy, Devon EX21 5JH • The appeal is made under section 195 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 against a refusal to grant a certificate of lawful use or development (LDC). • The appeal is made by Mr Gregory Brown against the decision of Torridge District Council. • The application Ref: 1/0554/2018/CPE, dated 24 May 2018, was refused by notice dated 2 August 2018. • The application was made under section 191(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended. • The use for which a certificate of lawful use or development is sought is a C3 dwellinghouse.

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Preliminary Matter

2. On reading the submitted evidence in the lead up to my site visit, I noticed that the Council had referred to the certain details about the appellant moving into the garage from the main house. I could not see where that reference had come from in the appellant’s appeal documentation and thus sought clarification. In response, the Council sent a copy of the LDC application form it had received which showed where that information was taken from. It did not match the form sent by the appellant with his appeal. Despite some subsequent correspondence on the matter, it remains unresolved what caused the discrepancy between the two forms. Nevertheless, based on my reasoning below which was aided by my site visit, this is not an issue that I need to clarify or resolve. It has not been a reason why I have determined that the appeal should fail.

Main Issue

3. S191 of the 1990 Act enables any person to apply to the Local Planning Authority (LPA) for a Certificate to the effect that, relevant to this appeal, any existing use of buildings or other land is lawful. S191(2)(a) sets out that uses and operations are lawful at any time if no enforcement action may be taken in respect of them (whether because they did not involve development or require planning permission or because the time for enforcement action has expired or for any other reason). The relevant enforcement expiry time in this case is 4 years. That would need to have expired at least by the date of the application https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 18 Appeal Decision APP/W1145/X/18/3214936

for the Lawful Development Certificate (LDC) to the Council which was 24 May 2018 (hereinafter referred to as “the material date”). The burden of proof rests firmly with the appellant.

4. In view of the above, the main issue is whether the garage at Hole Station has, as a matter of fact and degree, been used as a C3 dwellinghouse and, if it has, whether, on the balance of probability, that has been on a substantially uninterrupted basis for four years before the material date.

Reasons

5. The appellant states that the garage was built by the previous owner who then converted it into living accommodation at some point between 1999 and 2007. The appellant purchased the whole property known as Hole Station, along with his wife, in 2007. There are very limited details about how the previous owner occupied the garage other than it apparently having some basic kitchen and bathroom facilities and a telephone line installed. There is no confirmation about how long the previous owner lived in the garage, whether it was truly independent of the main house or if that use was on a substantially uninterrupted basis. The previous owner’s use of the garage does not show that it achieved a lawful status as a C3 dwellinghouse.

6. From 2007 to 2012 the appellant states that the garage was used for storage and ancillary living accommodation by his children. This, again, does not indicate a C3 use. Although there might be an issue around exactly when the appellant claims he moved into the garage, with reference to the preliminary matter section above, I have taken that it occurred sometime in 2012. As that is well in excess of four years before the material date, it makes no difference that I establish the exact date.

7. Although occupation is often the determinative factor when it comes to assessing use as a single C3 dwellinghouse, the test is whether there has been a material change of use to a separate dwelling. For example, it can be the case that an annex has the means of self-contained living, but if it cannot be demonstrated that the use is one that has been separate, thus severing the link with the main house and becoming its own planning unit, then the dwellinghouse use may not be established. In this case, the building was constructed as a garage to the main house. It would thus have had an ancillary residential use to start with.

8. I note the marital difficulties that led to the appellant moving into the garage. However, the appellant and his wife were partners in the campsite business, which always required at least one person on the site, as did care of the appellant’s wife’s horses and goats and ‘shared’ chickens. There were also children still living at home and both parents wished to maintain good relations with each other and the children. The move into the garage ensured continuity of the business, family contact and lifestyle. The business connection still exists, and the appellant is clear that if he had to move out it would be disastrous for the business which is their sole means of income. Moreover, the exterior timber cladding on the garage was replaced in 2017 which was done at the same time as the appellant’s wife was having a conservatory on the main house replaced. It made practical and financial sense for the appellant and his wife to have the work done by the builders at the same time.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 19 2 Appeal Decision APP/W1145/X/18/3214936

9. There is evidence supporting the case that the appellant has lived in the garage for six years and I have had regard to the statutory declaration stating the building has been his independent residential unit of accommodation. Nevertheless, it is very clear against the above background that while the garage has a residential use and it has the facilities needed for the appellant to live not in the main house due to the marriage breakdown, there is still an established link between the occupation of the main house and the business. The use does not show, as a matter of fact and degree, a material change of use to an independent C3 dwellinghouse or a separate planning unit.

10. Furthermore, while the garage is detached from the main house and on one side it has an enclosed area, it is not separated from a large yard at the entrance to the site which is used as a shared car park for campsite users, the main house and the garage. The main door to the garage also opens out onto the access to the campsite which is situated to the rear of both buildings. As such, the building does not have a clearly defined separate curtilage to the main house. It looks part and parcel of the same planning unit which comprises a mixed residential and related campsite use of the site. Consequently, while the garage appears to have a telephone line and a separate electricity meter, as a matter of fact and degree the physical evidence does not show a separate C3 dwellinghouse use either.

11. I note the circumstances of how the Council came to investigate the occupation of the garage which led to the LDC application and I note the appellant’s suggestion of a “106 agreement”. However, I cannot comment on any advice the Council may have given that suggested an LDC application was a way forward and it is not my place to suggest that an agreement under S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 would be appropriate. I acknowledge the appellant is worried about his continued occupation of the garage. This is a matter for discussion with the Council away from this appeal against the background of my decision.

12. I conclude that although the building has a residential use, as a matter of fact and degree the garage at Hole Station has not materially changed use to a C3 dwellinghouse. In view of this conclusion I do not need to consider the issue of the four year ‘rule’. Based on the evidence now available, the Council’s decision to refuse the LDC application was well founded.

13. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.

Gareth Symons

INSPECTOR

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 20 3

Appeal Decisions Site visit made on 17 September 2019 by Paul Griffiths BSc(Hons) BArch IHBC an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 02 October 2019

Appeal A: APP/W1145/W/19/3227889 Town Farm Cottage, Alwington, Bideford EX39 5DA • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr & Mrs Nigel & Joan Mather against the decision of Torridge District Council. • The application Ref.1/1316/2018/FUL, dated 18 November 2018, was refused by notice dated 14 February 2019. • The development proposed is described as ‘a small porch extension to Grade II listed dwelling’.

Appeal B: APP/W1145/Y/19/3227890 Town Farm Cottage, Alwington, Bideford EX39 5DA • The appeal is made under section 20 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 against a refusal to grant listed building consent. • The appeal is made by Mr & Mrs Nigel & Joan Mather against the decision of Torridge District Council. • The application Ref.1/1317/2018/LBC, dated 18 November 2018, was refused by notice dated 14 February 2019. • The works proposed are described as ‘a small porch extension to Grade II listed dwelling’.

Preliminary Matters

1. The Council amended the description of development and works to read: erection of porch. In my view this better describes what is proposed and I have adopted that description for the purposes of my decisions below.

2. Applications for costs have been made by the appellant against the Council. These applications are the subject of separate decisions.

Decisions

Appeal A

3. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a porch at Town Farm Cottage, Alwington, Bideford EX39 5DA in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref.1/1316/2018/FUL, dated 18 November 2018, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: P02 Revision B: Proposed Plans & Elevations. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 21 Appeal Decisions APP/W1145/W/19/3227889 & APP/W1145/Y/19/3227890

3) No development shall take place until samples of roof and walling materials have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Appeal B

4. The appeal is allowed and listed building consent is granted for the erection of a porch at Town Farm Cottage, Alwington, Bideford EX39 5DA in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref.1/1317/2018/LBC, dated 18 November 2018, and the plans submitted therewith, subject to the following conditions: 1) The works authorised by this consent shall begin not later than three years from the date of this consent. 2) No works shall take place until samples of roof and walling materials have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Main Issue

5. Town Farm Cottage dates from the 17th Century and is a Grade II listed building. It adjoins, and is visible from, the churchyard of the Church of St Andrew, a Grade I listed building. The lych gate that serves the Church of St Andrew is itself a Grade II listed building, and there are other listed buildings1 in the churchyard too.

6. In that context, the main issue in these appeals is the effect of the proposal on the special architectural and historic interest of Town Farm Cottage itself, and on the setting of the Church of St Andrew and its attendant listed buildings.

Reasons

7. Town Farm Cottage was originally three cottages but is now occupied as a single dwelling. It seems that one of the cottages was replaced, relatively recently, by the two-storey extension that forms the southern part of the building. The porch proposed would be added to the gable of this extension.

8. With its lower ridge line and eaves, the existing extension is clearly subservient to what remains of the original building. Moreover, its format respects the original linear form of that building. The porch, which would not require the removal of any historic fabric, would defer in scale to the existing extension, and its roof-line would respect the linear form of the existing composition.

9. As a consequence, and subject to the use of appropriate materials, a matter that could be secured by conditions, the proposed porch would have no harmful impact on the special architectural and historic interest of Town Farm Cottage.

10. The porch proposed would be visible from the churchyard but it would be seen as a continuation of the stepped form of Town Farm Cottage that reflects the sloping ground. As set out above, the porch would respect the form of the listed building and as a result, the ability to see it from the churchyard, or indeed in longer distance views, would not harm the setting of the Church of St Andrew or its attendant listed buildings.

1 The remains of a Churchyard Cross (Grade II) and a War Memorial (Grade II) https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 22 2 Appeal Decisions APP/W1145/W/19/3227889 & APP/W1145/Y/19/3227890

11. Bringing those points together, the proposal meets the requirements of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Policies DM07 and ST15 of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan 2011-2031 which support proposals that conserve heritage assets, Policies DM04 and ST04 that address the need for good design, Policy DM25 that deals with residential extensions, and the approach to designated heritage assets set out in paragraph 193 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

12. On that overall basis, the appeals are allowed, subject to conditions. Paul Griffiths

INSPECTOR

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 23 3

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 17 September 2019 by Paul Griffiths BSc(Hons) BArch IHBC an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 02 October 2019

Appeal Ref: APP/W1145/Y/19/3229142 Brendon Farm, Halwill, Beaworthy EX21 5UH • The appeal is made under section 20 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 against a refusal to grant listed building consent. • The appeal is made by Mr & Mrs J Ovens against the decision of Torridge District Council. • The application Ref.1/1078/2018/LBC, dated 5 October 2018, was refused by notice dated 3 December 2018. • The works proposed are a garden room.

Decision

1. The appeal is allowed and listed building consent is granted for a garden room at Brendon Farm, Halwill, Beaworthy EX21 5UH in accordance with the terms of the application Ref.1/1078/2018/LBC, dated 5 October 2018, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions: 1) The works authorised by this consent shall begin not later than three years from the date of this consent. 2) No works shall take place until details/samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details/samples.

Main Issue

2. The farmhouse dates from the 17th Century, or earlier, and is a Grade II listed building. The main issue to be considered, therefore, is the effect of the proposal on the special architectural and historic interest (or significance) of the listed building (a designated heritage asset).

Reasons

3. I agree with the Council that the special interest of the listed building lies in its vernacular character, linear plan form and what remains of its historic fabric1.

4. The extension proposed would be relatively large in terms of its footprint, and it would have an orthogonal relationship with the linear form of the main building. However, it would be single-storey and joined to the main building with a glazed link. As such, it would very clearly defer to the main building, which would remain the dominant element in the composition.

1 It appears that the building was repaired extensively after a fire in the early to mid C20 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 24 Appeal Decision APP/W1145/Y/19/3229142

5. Allied to that, far from being a difficulty, as the Council suggests, the contemporary design approach taken to the extension, in terms of its form and appearance, and use of materials, would set it apart from the farmhouse as an obvious modern addition. As a result, the orthogonal relationship with the listed building would not obscure the historic linear form of the farmhouse. Moreover, as the Council accepts, the nature of the link to the main building means that there would be no loss of any historic fabric.

6. On that overall basis, subject to a condition to give the Council some control over the palette of external materials, it is my conclusion that the proposal would have no harmful impact on the special architectural or historic interest of the listed building.

7. The Council has suggested that there would be a harmful impact on the setting of the listed building as a result of the proposal. I agree that the extension proposed would figure prominently in some views of the building. However, as set out above, it would be read as a subtly-linked, subservient addition and as a result, I do not consider that the union between the contemporary extension and the vernacular farmhouse would be an unhappy one.

8. Bringing those points together, I am content that the proposal does not fall foul of s.16 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. On top of that, it would accord with Policies DM07 and ST15 of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan 2011-2031 which support proposals that conserve heritage assets, and the approach to designated heritage assets set out in paragraph 193 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

9. For all those reasons, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Paul Griffiths

INSPECTOR

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 25 2

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 10 September 2019 by Matthew Jones BA(Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 2 October 2019

Appeal Ref: APP/W1145/W/19/3231716 East Staddon Farm, Hartland, Bideford EX39 6EG • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the development of land without complying with conditions subject to which a previous planning permission was granted. • The appeal is made by Mrs Debbie Symons against the decision of Torridge District Council. • The application Ref 1/0231/2019/FUL, dated 14 March 2019, was refused by notice dated 15 May 2019. • The application sought planning permission for conversion of garage to annex for dependent relative without complying with a condition attached to planning permission Ref 1/1321/2014/FUL, dated 1 May 2015. • The condition in dispute is No 4 which states that: ‘The accommodation hereby permitted shall be used solely for purposes ancillary to the existing dwelling known as East Staddon Farm, sharing the parking and external amenity space of that dwelling, and not as an independent dwelling.’ • The reason given for the condition is: ‘As creation of a separate residential unit would be contrary to the policies of the development plan.’

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Application for Costs

2. An application for costs was made by Mrs Debbie Symons against Torridge District Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

Procedural Matter

3. I used the site address given within the appeal form as it is consistent with that contained within the disputed condition.

Main Issue 4. The main issue is whether the proposed development would provide a suitable location for housing, having regard to local and national policy and the accessibility of services and facilities.

Reasons

5. East Staddon Farm is a detached dwelling located within a very small grouping of buildings approximately 2.3km from the village of Hartland. It is within an overtly rural landscape away from any defined settlement, services or facilities. As such, for planning purposes, it occupies an isolated countryside location.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 26 Appeal Decision APP/W1145/W/19/3231716

6. The appeal relates to a domestic building in its grounds. The structure was in the early stages of being converted into a self-contained annex to support a dependent relative, a restriction imposed pursuant to condition No 4 of planning permission Ref 1/1321/2014/FUL. However, the ancillary status of the development has led work to stall for financial reasons. The appellant now seeks to remove the condition to progress the work and allow the creation of an unrestricted dwelling within which her elderly mother could receive care.

7. Policy ST07 of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan 2011-2031 (adopted 2018) (NDTLP) states that, in the countryside, development will be limited to that which is enabled to meet local economic and social needs, rural building reuse and development which is necessarily restricted to a countryside location. The circumstances under which the reuse of disused and redundant rural buildings into dwellings can be supported is set out in more detail in Policy DM27 of the NDTLP, which is consistent with Paragraphs 79 and 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

8. In this case the building is still required for its intended use. In addition, as a domestic building associated with the main house, I consider that it has an integral purpose and value to the property, notwithstanding the acknowledged personal circumstances of its occupants, or what is essentially a choice not to currently utilise it for storage. This leads me to the conclusion that the building is not disused or redundant. Furthermore, as only limited landscaping details are before me, it has not been established that the proposed amenity space would positively impact the building’s immediate setting. Consequently, it has not been demonstrated that the scheme would accord with Policies ST07 and DM27.

9. The NDTLP recognises that dependence on private transport is a continuing constraint in rural areas, and Policy ST10, amongst other things, seeks to reduce the environmental and social impacts of transport by reducing the need to travel by car. Hartland, which is the nearest settlement containing day-to- day services, is a fair distance to the north of the site. The connecting road network is in many places narrow and devoid of footways and street lighting. These factors would be a significant disincentive to walking or cycling, and private transport would be a necessity in all but exceptional cases. Although the main road to Hartland and the Atlantic Highway are a relatively short distance away, use of these roads would still be by car.

10. I note the appellant’s view that vehicular movements associated with a dwelling would be equivalent to the approved annex. However, the annex would be used in association with the dwelling and may therefore be intermittently occupied by guests or by non-car users, such as, as with this case, a dependent relative. Given these circumstances, I find that the proposal to form a dwelling would increase, not reduce, the need to travel by car. It would therefore conflict with Policy ST10.

11. My attention has been drawn to a planning permission elsewhere1. Whilst I acknowledge that Long Furlong is also in a rural location, the scheme was approved on the principal basis that it reused a redundant building in compliance with Policies ST07 and DM27, which would not be the case here. As such, the circumstances in that decision were significantly different. In addition, limited information as to the quality of the highway network or the

1 Ref 1/0286/2019/FUL https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 27 2 Appeal Decision APP/W1145/W/19/3231716

site’s relationship to the facilities in Hartland has been provided. In any case, I have determined the appeal on its own merits, based on the evidence before me.

12. I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not provide a suitable location for housing, having regard to local and national policy and the accessibility of services and facilities. The proposal would conflict with Policies ST07, ST10 and DM27 of the NDTLP and the relevant guidance contained within the Framework.

Other Matters

13. The site lies within the North Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The building is screened from wider views and well related to the other buildings at East Staddon Farm so the proposal would not have a significant impact on the special landscape character of the AONB as a whole.

Planning Balance and Conclusion

14. The government is seeking to significantly boost the supply of housing and the scheme would contribute to the local housing stock. However, the small scale of the proposal leads me to conclude that its benefits would be minimal in this regard. The scheme would not harm the character and appearance of the area and would provide policy compliant levels of parking with no additional risk to highway safety. However, these are neutral factors in my assessment.

15. The proposal would introduce an independent residential development in an isolated rural location with occupants subsequently dependent on private transport, in conflict with the development plan when read as a whole. These are matters that attract significant weight and which outweigh the limited benefits of the proposal. There are no other matters, including the Framework, which outweigh this conflict.

16. For the reasons outlined above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

Matthew Jones

INSPECTOR

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 28 3

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 13 September 2019

by Christopher Miell MPlan MRTPI

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 9th October 2019

Appeal Ref: APP/W1145/W/19/3232360 Springfield Meadows, Halwill Junction, Beaworthy, Devon EX21 5UF • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant outline planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr & Mrs Bob Langford against the decision of Torridge District Council. • The application Ref 1/0196/2019/OUT dated 4 March 2019, was refused by notice dated 1 May 2019. • The development proposed is a single dwelling.

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Procedural Matters

2. The application is submitted in outline. The application form indicates that approval is sought only for access, with the matters of layout, scale, appearance and landscaping reserved for future approval. I have dealt with the appeal on this basis.

3. I have used the site address from the Council’s decision notice within the banner heading above as this is more complete.

Main Issues

4. The main issues are (i) whether the proposal would adhere to the Council’s spatial development strategy for residential development within Northern Devon’s Rural Area; and (ii) whether or not the site would be accessible by a range of transport modes thereby minimising reliance on the private motor vehicle.

Reasons

Spatial development strategy for residential development

5. The appeal site is a small parcel of land located within the Springfield Fisheries operation, which is located on the western side of Halwill Junction and encompasses several fishing lakes, owners accommodation, managers accommodation and several holiday units.

6. The appeal site currently comprises a combination of a grassed area and a pond near to the site’s northern boundary, with the existing access route into the fisheries to the west. The A3079 road adjoins the site to the north and provides access to the appeal site.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 29 Appeal Decision APP/W1145/W/19/3232360

7. It is proposed to erect a dwelling at the appeal site, which would be occupied by the current owners of Springfield Fisheries as a self-build retirement property. The remaining land and other residential and holiday-let properties associated with the business would be sold to a third party.

8. Policy ST07 of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan 2011-2031 (October 2018) (NDTLP) sets out the Council’s spatial development strategy for Northern Devon's Rural Area. The policy supports development which accords with the Council’s settlement hierarchy of Local Centres, Villages, Rural Settlements and Countryside. Within Local Centres and Villages development will be supported within development boundaries and on allocated sites defined on the Policies Map.

9. The appellant argues that the Council have failed to put forward any evidence to support the spatial development strategy and therefore it conflicts with advice contained within the Planning Practice Guidance (Paragraph: 009 Reference ID: 67-009-20190722), which relates to the use of blanket policies restricting housing development in some types of settlements.

10. However, I note that the supporting text to Policy ST07 of the NDTLP sets out in detail the Council’s approach to the spatial development strategy for Northern Devon's Rural Area. In particular, Paragraph 4.10 explains that the purpose of the policy is to allow villages to grow to maintain the viability of the rural area, whilst also seeking to ensure that development does not exacerbate the areas dispersed settlement pattern, that the landscape quality is not compromised and any conflicts with the principles of sustainable development are minimised. Consequently, I consider that the Council’s spatial development strategy is based on an appropriate evidence base.

11. The settlement of Halwill Junction is identified as a Local Centre by Policy ST07 of the NDTLP. Criterion (1) of Policy ST07 states ‘Local Centres, will be the primary focus for development in the rural area; development will be supported in accordance with the local spatial strategies, to enhance the sustainability of the locally important service centres and to enable wider than local needs to be met’.

12. Policy HAL of the NDTLP sets out the local spatial strategy for Halwill Junction. The policy aims to deliver a minimum of 30 dwellings, including affordable homes, to meet the range of housing needs in the local community. The supply of housing will be delivered through extant planning consents and an additional site allocation with a capacity for approximately 25 dwellings. Policy HAL02 of the NDTLP identifies Land East of Chilla Road for the development of approximately 25 dwellings.

13. The appeal site is located adjacent to, but outside of the development boundary for Halwill Junction. In addition, it does not form part of the allocated site for residential development. Therefore, for the purposes of Policy ST07 of the NDTLP, the appeal site is within the countryside.

14. The appellant argues that the appeal site is previously developed land, which adjoins the other development within Halwill Junction, and it is thus a suitable location for residential development, which would contribute to the rural area’s economy and social vitality, in particular because it would enable existing residents to remain in the village.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 30 2 Appeal Decision APP/W1145/W/19/3232360

15. In addition to the above, the appellant also contends that it is unlikely that the housing delivery objectives of Policies HAL and HAL02 of the NDTLP will be met during the plan period. In respect of the allocated site at Land East of Chilla Road, it is argued that the infrastructure requirements associated with the development are too onerous and therefore that no developer would be interested in bringing the site forward. However, no information has been put forward to substantiate this argument. Accordingly, and given the recent adoption of the development plan, I have afforded the appellant’s assessment of Policies HAL and HAL02 of the NDTLP limited weight in my overall assessment.

16. In this instance, the site is located within the countryside and outside of the development boundary for Halwill Junction. In such locations, there is a presumption against new open market residential development, with Criterion (4) of Policy ST07 stating that ‘development will be limited to that which is enabled to meet local economic and social needs, rural building reuse and development which is necessarily restricted to a Countryside location’. On the evidence that is before me, the proposal does not satisfy any of the circumstances identified by Criterion (4) of Policy ST07 of the NDTLP.

17. In addition to the above, Paragraph 4.16 of the supporting text to Policy ST07 of the NDTLP states that ‘housing, adjoining a Local Centre, Village or Rural Settlement, may also be enabled on an “exceptions” basis to meet an identified local need that could not otherwise be addressed’. The appellant maintains that as the proposal would be a self-build property, it would qualify as an ‘exception dwelling’ and thus it would be suitable in a countryside location. Policy ST19 of the NDTLP deals with ‘exceptions’ and it relates solely to affordable housing. The proposal is for an open-market dwelling and therefore it would not meet the definition of an ‘exception dwelling’, as set out within Policy ST19 of the NDTLP.

18. In conclusion, the proposal would conflict with the Council’s spatial development strategy for residential development within Northern Devon’s Rural Area and if allowed would undermine the local spatial strategy for Halwill Junction, which seeks to boost housing supply through extant planning consents and the delivery of approximately 25 dwellings on an allocated site. Consequently, the proposal would not accord with Policies ST07, HAL and HAL02 of the NDTLP.

19. In reaching the above conclusion, I am cognisant of the fact that the proposal would not result in the creation of an isolated home in the countryside in the context of paragraph 79 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), in so far as that the dwelling would be in close proximity to a number of existing buildings and indeed the defined settlement. Furthermore, I note that the proposal would lead to the development of previously developed land as distinct from greenfield land which is a positive matter to weigh in the overall planning balance. However, these are not matters which overcome the very weighty conflict with the identified development plan policies above.

Accessibility to a range of transport modes

20. Halwill Junction benefits from a range of services and facilities, including several shops, a post office, a community hall and primary school, sports and play provision and a regular doctor’s service. Public transport services also link the village with larger settlements.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 31 3 Appeal Decision APP/W1145/W/19/3232360

21. Most of the services and facilities are located near to the junction of Station Road and the A3079, which is approximately 700 metres to the east of the appeal site. The closest bus stops are located on the A3079 approximately 250 metres (eastbound service) and 350 metres (westbound service), respectively, to the east of the appeal site.

22. The appeal site is accessed from the A3079. The section of the road outside the appeal site has no pedestrian footway. Consequently, occupiers of the proposed development would have to walk on a grass verge for approximately 140 metres to reach the nearest pavement, which provides pedestrian access to the local services and facilities and bus stops to the east of the appeal site.

23. On my site visit, I noted that the grass verge was of a variable width and overgrown in parts, which would make it difficult to use for pedestrians coming and going from the appeal site, without walking onto a busy road and into the path of on-coming vehicular traffic, which would be prejudicial to pedestrian safety. This adverse matter would be amplified for those with mobility issues such as wheelchair and pushchair users, to whom the use of the grass verge would be impractical, thereby forcing such individuals into the road. As such, the use of the grass verge by pedestrians, especially those with mobility issues, to access to the local services and facilities and bus stops to the east of the appeal site would not be an attractive alternative to the use of the private motor vehicle for most journeys.

24. I accept that the proposed dwelling on the site would be no less accessible to the services and facilities within Halwill Junction and the bus stops on the A3079 by pedestrians, when compared to the occupiers of the existing owners accommodation, managers accommodation and holiday units. However, the existing properties appear to pre-date the development plan and the Framework. Consequently, a precedent has not been set in favour of allowing the appeal.

25. In conclusion, the proposal would be prejudicial to pedestrian safety and thus future occupiers of the proposed dwelling would be unacceptably reliant upon the private motor vehicle to access day to day facilities and services. Consequently, the proposal would not accord with Policy DM05 of the NDTLP which requires new development to consider the needs and accessibility of all highway users, including pedestrians. In addition, the proposal would not accord with the Framework which seeks at paragraph 108 to ensure that ‘safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users’.

Other Matters

26. The proposal would make some contribution to the vitality and viability of the facilities and services in the adjacent settlement. However, any social or economic benefits associated with the erection of only one dwelling would be modest. Such benefits would not be significant enough to alter or outweigh my conclusions on the main issues.

27. The Council state that the section of the grass verge between the appeal site and Springfield Barn, is not public highway, but private land. Consequently, they say that use of the grass verge by pedestrians cannot be secured in the long term. This is disputed by the appellant. The position regarding this matter is not certain. However, even if the grass verge was part of the public highway

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 32 4 Appeal Decision APP/W1145/W/19/3232360

and could be reasonably used by pedestrians on a permanent basis, this would not in any event overcome my concerns in respect of the second main issue.

Conclusion

28. For the reasons given above, and taking into account all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

Christopher Miell INSPECTOR

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 33 5 Agenda Item 9

Costs Decisions Site visit made on 17 September 2019

by Paul Griffiths BSc(Hons) BArch IHBC

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 02 October 2019

Costs application in relation to Appeal A: APP/W1145/W/19/3227889 Town Farm Cottage, Alwington, Bideford EX39 5DA • The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78, 322 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5). • The application is made by Mr & Mrs Nigel & Joan Mather for a full award of costs against Torridge District Council. • The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for the erection of a porch.

Costs application in relation to Appeal B: APP/W1145/Y/19/3227890 Town Farm Cottage, Alwington, Bideford EX39 5DA • The application is made under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, sections 20, 89 and Schedule 3, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5). • The application is made by Mr & Mrs Nigel & Joan Mather for a full award of costs against Torridge District Council. • The appeal was against the refusal of listed building consent for the erection of a porch.

Decisions

1. The applications for awards of costs are allowed in the terms set out below.

Reasons

2. Planning Practice Guidance1 sets out that in general terms, parties in planning appeals normally meet their own expenses. However, where a party has behaved unreasonably, and this has directly caused another party to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeals process, they may be subject to an award of costs.

3. PPG goes on to give examples of situations where a local planning authority may be at risk of an award of costs. These include: preventing or delaying development which should clearly be permitted, having regard to its accordance with the development plan, national policy and other material considerations; failure to produce evidence to substantiate each reason for refusal on appeal; and vague, generalised assertions about a proposal’s impact, which are unsupported by any objective analysis.

4. The appellant makes a number of points about the way the Council approached the applications. I do not think it unreasonable for the Conservation Officer not to have visited the site and neither do I think it unreasonable for the Council not to have entered into discussions on alternative approaches when it is clear that their objection to the proposal was an ‘in principle’ one.

1 Referred to hereafter as PPG

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 34 Costs Decisions APP/W1145/W/19/3227889 & APP/W1145/Y/19/3227890

5. That said, the appellant makes the point that the Council failed to consider the scheme on its merits. The Officer’s delegated report accepts that the porch would be subservient, and appropriate in the use of materials and design. However, it then goes on to suggest that: because of previous extensions to the building, any further extension would be harmful; a linear extension would make it difficult to read the building; and the introduction of a domestic element would harm the setting of the nearby Church. The refusals of permission and consent were predicated on those conclusions.

6. However, there seems to me to be a fundamental disconnect between the two strands of the Council’s analysis. If, as I have found in my parallel decisions on the appeal, the porch is subservient to, and respects the linear form of, the existing building, it is not going to make it difficult to read the listed building. Neither is it going to have any injurious impact on views out of the churchyard, or anywhere else. I take the view that in deciding that because of previous extensions, any further addition would be harmful, the Council has failed to consider what is proposed, properly, on its merits.

7. As a consequence, it has prevented development which should clearly be permitted; failed to substantiate the reasons for refusal on appeal; and made vague, generalised assertions about a proposal’s impact, which are unsupported by any objective analysis. I therefore find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense, as described in the PPG, has been demonstrated and that full awards of costs are justified.

Costs Orders

Appeal A

8. In exercise of the powers under section 250(5) of the Local Government Act 1972 and Schedule 6 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended, and all other enabling powers in that behalf, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Torridge District Council shall pay to Mr & Mrs Nigel & Joan Mather, the costs of the appeal proceedings described in the heading of this decision; such costs to be assessed in the Senior Courts Costs Office if not agreed.

9. The applicant is now invited to submit to Torridge District Council, to whom a copy of this decision has been sent, details of those costs with a view to reaching agreement as to the amount.

Appeal B

10. In exercise of the powers under section 250(5) of the Local Government Act 1972 and Schedule 3 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, and all other enabling powers in that behalf, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Torridge District Council shall pay to Mr & Mrs Nigel & Joan Mather, the costs of the appeal proceedings described in the heading of this decision; such costs to be assessed in the Senior Courts Costs Office if not agreed.

11. The applicant is now invited to submit to Torridge District Council, to whom a copy of this decision has been sent, details of those costs with a view to reaching agreement as to the amount. Paul Griffiths

INSPECTOR

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 35 2

Costs Decision Site visit made on 10 September 2019 by Matthew Jones BA(Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 2 October 2019

Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/W1145/W/19/3231716 East Staddon, Hartland, Bideford EX39 6EG • The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78, 322 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5). • The application is made by Mrs Debbie Symons for a full award of costs against Torridge District Council. • The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for conversion of garage to annex for dependent relative without complying with a condition attached to planning permission Ref 1/1321/2014/FUL, dated 1 May 2015.

Decision

1. The application for an award of costs is refused.

Reasons

2. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that, irrespective of the outcome of the appeal, costs may only be awarded against a party who has behaved unreasonably and thereby directly caused the party applying for costs to incur unnecessary expense in the appeal process.

3. The applicant submits that the Council has acted unreasonably by failing to properly publish the planning application or engage proactively with the applicant prior to its determination. It did not fully assess the proposal against the development plan, has been inconsistent in its decision making and it should have granted planning permission, preventing the need for the appeal.

4. The Council found the site to be isolated and did not consider the building to be redundant or disused. These are matters of judgment and the Council adequately substantiated its case at the appeal. Without prejudice to its position, it applied the criteria within Policy DM27 of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan 2011-2031 during the appeal and found conflict.

5. The Council considered that the scheme at Long Furlong did constitute the reuse of a redundant building. The circumstances in that case were therefore different. Given such, and as each case is considered on its own individual merits and on the basis of the evidence available, I find no substantive inconsistency in the Council’s approach.

6. As the two covering letters submitted in support of the planning application pertain to the health of a third party, I understand why they were not published. However, the content of the letters was acknowledged within the Officer Report which supports the Council’s decision. The lack of publication did not therefore prejudice the Council’s consideration of the scheme.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 36 Costs Decision APP/W1145/W/19/3231716

7. The Council could have engaged with the applicant earlier. However, given its consistent position with regard to the scheme, there is no substantive basis upon which to conclude that discussion between the parties would have avoided the need for the appeal. Furthermore, the applicant also had the opportunity to initiate engagement pursuant to a pre-application enquiry or at an earlier stage, prior to determination of the planning application.

Conclusion

8. Whilst I appreciate that the outcome of the application will have been a disappointment to the applicant, I find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process, as described in the PPG, has not been demonstrated.

Matthew Jones INSPECTOR

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 37 2 Agenda Item 10

AGMB DECISIONS 19th September 2019 – 24th October 2019

Application Number Address/Proposal Decision 1/0708/2019/AGMB Barn At Garnacott Farm, Permitted Huntshaw, Torrington.

Prior notification for the change of use of agricultural building to 1no. dwellings under Class Q and associated operational development

1/0798/2019/AGMB Agricultural Building At Approved Determination

Borough Farm, Bridgerule, Devon.

Prior notification for the change of use of agricultural building to 1no. dwelling under Class Q and associated operational development

Page 38 Agenda Item 11a

Committee Report – 07 November 2019

© ApplicationCrown copyright Number: and database 1/1343/2018/OUTMrights 2012 Ordnance Survey 100022736

Registration date: 4 January 2019

Expiry date: 5 April 2019

Applicant: Baker Estates Ltd

Agent: Mr Simon Collier

Case Officer: Helen Smith

Site Address: Land At Wooda Road, Pitt Lane, Appledore, Devon,

Proposal: Outline application for residential development of up to 110 dwellings, public open space and associated infrastructure with all matters reserved except access

Recommendation: Grant subject to a legal agreement.

© Crown copyright and database rights 2019 Ordnance Survey 100022736

Page 39

Reason for referral:

The application has been called in by former Councillor Davis for the following reason:

‘I would like a site visit by Plans Committee to see whether such an undertaking of that on Pitt Hill Appledore, along with other developments in close proximity, as it is of my own considered opinion that the proposed development would be likely to create as well as exacerbate a particular traffic problem that is common to all roads that lead to and from the Heywood Roundabout, as I feel the present road system is inadequate for such an undertaking and therefore feel the proposal is contrary to Policy DM05 of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan’.

Relevant History:

Application No. Description Status Closed

1/1540/2002 STABLING FOR PONIES & PER 07.10.2002 SHEEP

Site Description & Proposal

The Site: The site is located to the south of Appledore and to the north east of Northam. It forms part of a wider residential allocation in the adopted North Devon and Torridge Local Plan and is located within the development boundary for Appledore.

The site lies approximately half a mile from Appledore village centre and occupies an area of circa 3.75 hectares. It is currently greenfield enclosed by hedgerows and trees. The development site abuts residential land to the north and east and public highway to the south and west.

The site is located within walking distance to the established village centre of Appledore that provides a range of facilities including schools, a variety of shops, places of worship, sports facilities and play areas.

Public transport routes run along Churchill Way with bus stops located close to the western edge of the site.

The site is within Flood Zone 1 so has less than a 0.1% chance of fluvial or tidal flooding in any one year. It is not subject to any landscape or heritage designations. The site is, however, located within the Coast and Estuarine Zone, as identified by the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan.

In terms of topography, the western field is almost flat but the eastern field has a slope that falls from 38 metres AOD to the north to approximately 26 metres AOD to the south-eastern corner. There is a single storey building in the western field located at the northern edge.

There are existing overhead electricity cables running through the site which will be grounded and diverted through the development.

The Proposal: The application is made in outline with all matters reserved other than access for ‘residential development of up to 110 dwellings, public open space and associated infrastructure’. The supporting Design and Access Statement advises there will likely be a mixture of building typologies and sizes ranging from 1 and 2 bed apartments, 2 and 3 bed bungalows and 2, 3 and 4 bed houses.

Page 40 The application is supported by a series of indicative plans, including an illustrative masterplan. Given the outline nature of the proposal, these plans are for information only, however they serve to demonstrate how the site could be developed for the level of housing proposed.

The illustrative masterplan shows public open space as including a linear green corridor along the southern edge of the site to protect boundary trees and vegetation and utilise far-reaching views to Tapeley House park and gardens. The existing watercourse is shown as diverted alongside the carriageway before reconnecting with its existing alignment through the trees. Open spaces have been created to provide areas of amenity space to the southeast and to the middle of the eastern field, the latter providing a viewing zone for views to the south. Play space has been provided as a mixture of seating/picnic areas and equipped play, complimented by the use of trim trail features to move people through the development.

Supporting information confirms permeability testing has proved that the strata is unsuitable for soakaway drainage. Consequently, the proposed surface water drainage arrangements will include underground tanks, utilisation of the existing watercourse and a new sewer leading to the River Torridge. Foul drainage will be via a new pumping station into the existing foul sewer network. A new sub-station will also be required.

The main access into the site is from a new junction formed onto Wooda Road. There is also a small vehicular access to the pumping station to the east of the site. The existing arrangement from Pitt Hill is proposed to be closed off to vehicles between the point of connection to the northern boundary of the site and Wooda Road. This section would then become a pedestrian/cycle link only. There is a network of footways that will ensure permeability.

The level of parking being proposed is a matter for the detailed stage however the application seeks to achieve a minimum of one space per apartment and two spaces per house.

Consultee representations:

Northam Town Council: It was resolved to recommend that this application be refused. Members referred to the consultation document provided by Devon County Council Highways and agreed with its statements that the cumulative impact on traffic and the surrounding highway network would be too great and that there is insufficient information provided on this matter. There are also issues surrounding drainage, pedestrian and cyclist safety and biodiversity, in particular over-wintering birds.

Devon County Council - Flood Risk Management: First Response: Due to the tidal nature of the River Torridge at this location, we have no requirement for restricted discharge however the applicant should ensure a feasible surface water drainage strategy is put forward and the impacts of tidal locking are assessed.

It is noted that Devon County Council Highways do not allow discharge of surface water into their network, and have raised and objected to this end, therefore the surface water drainage design will need revising. If attenuation is to be proposed, in light of Sewers for Adoption 8 being released in the next few months with the expectation that South West Water will be accepting above ground SuDS features we therefore expect to see above ground SuDS features considered at the detailed design stage.

Section 5.13 of the Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy 18002 - First Issue indicates that an existing ditch will be diverted and culverted in sections. DCC only permit culverting for essential access purposes only further information on DCC culverting policy is provided here; https://new.devon.gov.uk/floodriskmanagement/land-drainage-consent/. It is noted that the area used within the Micro Drainage calculations, 2.326 ha, varies from the impermeable area stated on the Proposed Drainage Layout 200 18002 of 2.053 ha. The applicant should provide clarification of the

Page 41 areas. We would be pleased to provide another substantive review once further information has been submitted to the local planning authority.

At this stage, we object to this planning application. The applicant will therefore be required to submit additional information in order to demonstrate that all aspects of the proposed surface water drainage management system have been considered.

Second Response: Following my previous consultation response FRM/TO/1343/2019, dated 20.03.2019, the applicant has submitted additional information in relation to the surface water drainage aspects of the above planning application, for which I am grateful.

 Letter from Trace Design dated 22nd May 2019 to Helen Montgomery Land At Wooda Road, Pitt Lane, Appledore;  Surface Water Discharge Feasibility Assessment, Report Reference 18002 Feasibility Statement B, April 2019;  Network with Attenuation 1 in 100 + 40%Climate Change;  Network 1 in 30 + 0% Climate Change; and  Email from Trace Design to DCC regarding Land Drainage Consent.

The additional information includes two Micro Drainage outputs but neither include for the allowance of the impact of tidal locking which will impact on the attenuation volume. The Surface Water Discharge Feasibility Assessment refers to several options some of which propose discharge at Qbar and some propose discharge at the current 1 in 30-year runoff rate. The applicant should provide information on these rates at this stage in line with our DCC SuDS Guidance (2017). We are happy to provide a further substantive response once additional information is provided to the local planning authority.

At this stage, we object to this planning application because we believe it does not satisfactorily conform to Policy ST03 of North Devon and Torridge Local Plan 2011 - 2031. The applicant will therefore be required to submit additional information in order to demonstrate that all aspects of the proposed surface water drainage management system have been considered.

Third Response: Following my previous consultation response FRM/TO/1343/2019, dated 11th June 2019, the applicant has provided additional information in relation to the surface water drainage aspects of the above planning application, in an e-mail dated 12.06.2019, for which I am grateful.

 Email from Jamie Law Trace Designs to Helen Montgomery dated 12th June 2019; and  Greenfield Runoff Rates - Attenuation Estimates dated 27/11/2018.

The applicant has put forward a feasible surface water drainage strategy in line with the surface water management hierarchy.

Infiltration testing has been undertaken at the site and indicated that the underlying ground conditions are not viable for infiltration-based techniques such as soakaways. The applicant has put forward several options for the disposal of surface water drainage from the site. To summarise, these include discharge into the watercourse, connection to the existing highways drain or the requisition of a new surface water sewer.

At detailed design, the options should be progressed in consultation with DCC Highways and South West Water dependent on the preferred option. If the preferred option is to connect into the existing highways drain, a detailed survey would be required of the full length of this drain is likely to be required to determine the capacity and condition of the sewer and any improvement works or upgrade would have to be undertaken by the applicant. The site will ultimately drain into the tidal estuary consequently in line with current best practice, attenuation is not required.

Page 42 DCC asked the applicant to assess the proposed surface water drainage network for the impact of tidal locking from the Torridge Estuary but due to the level difference between the estuary and the site, it was deemed that tidal locking would have no impact on the site. It is understood that the applicant has been in discussion with DCC Flood & Coastal Risk Team concerning the Land Drainage Consent for the diversion of the watercourse and culverting. Please note that we would only accept culverting for essential access purposes only.

Our objection is withdrawn and we have no in-principle objections to the above planning application at this stage, assuming that the following pre-commencement planning conditions are imposed on any approved permission:

 No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the detailed design of the proposed permanent surface water drainage management system has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with Devon County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority. The application for the detailed drainage should be submitted and agreed at the same time that the reserved matters for layout are submitted and agreed. The design of this permanent surface water drainage management system will be in accordance with the principles of sustainable drainage systems, and those set out in the Surface Water Discharge Feasibility Assessment, Report Ref 18002 - Feasibility Statement B dated April 2019 and Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy Report Ref 18002 First Issue dated December 2018. No part of the development shall be occupied until the surface water management scheme serving that part of the development has been provided in accordance with the approved details and the drainage infrastructure shall be retained and maintained for the lifetime of the development.

Reason: To ensure that surface water runoff from the development is managed in accordance with the principles of sustainable drainage systems. Advice: Refer to Devon County Council’s Sustainable Drainage Guidance.

 No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the detailed design of the proposed surface water drainage management system which will serve the development site for the full period of its construction has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with Devon County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority. This temporary surface water drainage management system must satisfactorily address both the rates and volumes, and quality, of the surface water runoff from the construction site. Reason: To ensure that surface water runoff from the construction site is appropriately managed so as to not increase the flood risk, or pose water quality issues, to the surrounding area.

Reason for being a pre-commencement condition: A plan needs to be demonstrated prior to the commencement of any works to ensure that surface water can be managed suitably without increasing flood risk downstream, negatively affecting water quality downstream or negatively impacting on surrounding areas and infrastructure. Advice: Refer to Devon County Council’s Sustainable Drainage Guidance.

 No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the full details of the adoption and maintenance arrangements for the proposed permanent surface water drainage management system have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with Devon County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the development’s permanent surface water drainage management systems will remain fully operational throughout the lifetime of the development. Reason for being a pre- commencement condition: These details need to be submitted prior to commencement of any works to ensure that suitable plans are in place for the maintenance of the permanent surface water drainage management plan, for the reason above.

DCC Rights Of Way: Please note the application may have some effect on Northam footpath 4, however, the route of the footpath appears to be just outside the eastern site boundary. However, there is a suggestion that a

Page 43 link to the footpath may be proposed. Should the applicant wish to connect to the footpath network, please ensure that they consult with Devon County Council prior to any designs or works taking place. Finally, may we remind the applicant that Planning Permission does not grant the right to close, alter or build over a Public Right of Way in anyway, even temporarily. Therefore, should the application be successful, the applicant must ensure that the way remains open and available to the public at all times, including during the period of construction activity such as with buildings materials, or spoil and contractors’ vehicles and plant etc. Should it be necessary to permanently divert the path to enable development to take place, this can be achieved by the Local Planning Authority through section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. If a temporary diversion or closure is required during construction works then the applicant may apply to DCC for a temporary closure order.

Devon County Council (Highways): First Response: The proposal is supported by a transport statement which does not go into enough detail on the operation of junctions on the highway network likely to be affected by traffic generated by the proposal. In particular no detailed assessment has been carried out of the operation of the junction of Heywood Road and Churchill Way, and the impacts of the proposal on the Heywood Road roundabout have not been identified and discussed.

Local Plan policy ST10 requires the proposal to ensure the operational effectiveness of the A39, but no assessment of the impact on this road has been provided. The A39 is now part of the DfT’s Major Road Network and impacts on this road need to be given appropriate consideration. This policy also requires the proposal to recognise the seasonal nature of traffic, which in this area is dramatic as people flock to the beaches in the summer. No summer time assessment has been provided. No assessment has been provided of the cumulative impact of the proposal alongside the committed development also impacting on the highway network and other sites coming forward as identified in the Local Plan.

The application has been ‘called in’ on the basis of the traffic impact on the highway, but nothing can be said about this impact as such assessment has not been carried out.

The proposed drainage strategy is not acceptable to the Highway Authority as it uses the public highway drainage system for drainage of the surface water from the site. The submitted ‘Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy’ states that: '5.7 The surface water drainage option is based on sewer requisition by SWW along Wooda Road and a discharge into the estuary. The outfall will feed in to the last section of the existing Highway drainage and utilise the existing outfall. This last section of the Highway drainage will need to be upsized to allow for unattenuated discharge from the development during 1 in 30-year storm event and the current discharge from the highway drainage upstream. The upsized section of the existing Highway drainage will subsequently be adopted by SWW. 5.8 An unrestricted discharge into the estuary was agreed in principle with Devon County Council (DCC).'

I do not know what the Flood Risk Management Team have said regarding this proposal, but during pre-application discussions I said by email on 20th July 2018: 'We have considered your request for joining the surface water from this site into the highway drainage and we will not allow it. You will need to explore other options for dealing with surface water from this site.'

No calculations have been provided to show that the drainage will work using this route or the upgrades required. Obtaining permission to discharge into the Highway system and river are two separate permissions, obtaining one does not automatically mean that the other will be obtained. While the situation remains that the Highway Authority objects to the use of this system for the drainage of the site, if this application is approved, any such connection via the highway drainage will be considered as a ransom and we will seek full value for allowing this to proceed. The Highway Authority is not the land owner, so that owner will also need to be accepting of this proposal and presumably also seek one third of the development value as a ransom.

Page 44 The Head of Planning, Transportation and Environment, on behalf of Devon County Council, as Local Highway Authority, is likely to recommend refusal of planning permission, in the absence of further information.

Second Response: The planning officer has provided me with a copy of an Addendum to the Transport Statement dated April 2019. This document provides evidence regarding the impact of the proposal on the highway network including at the junctions of Churchill Way with Wooda Road, Churchill Way with Heywood Road and the A39Heywood Road roundabout. The evidence shows that for the junction of Churchill Way with Wooda Road there is no need for a right turn lane at this junction in capacity terms. I agree with this conclusion, and would add that any such junction would be substandard due to the constraints on all sides of the road to make it large enough to be safely used by the traffic on this road.

Regarding the impact at the A39 Heywood Road roundabout the applicant has written that this junction is due to be upgraded as part of the DCC North Devon Link Road scheme to cater for the traffic associated with all development in the Local Plan. This scheme is due to start from November 2020 subject to Government approval of the full business case. The applicant has investigated options for improving the junction of Churchill Way with Heywood Road. A proposal to extend the right turn lane from Appledore to Westward Ho! was considered, but due to the viability issues with this site, and the mainly due to the very limited benefit that this would provide to vehicle traffic, it would not be a cost-effective mitigation of traffic issues at this junction. Instead of improvement to this junction the applicant has looked into providing 13 car parking spaces on the current grass verge between the Town Hall and Bloody Corner. These spaces would allow for traffic on the A386 Churchill Way to flow more freely in this location without simply removing all the on-street parking which is the cause of traffic delay here.

The applicant has also agreed to pay £30,000 to DCC to build a zebra crossing near to Appledore school. In conclusion, the applicant has provided evidence regarding the impact of the proposal on the local highway network and subject to improvements being delivered by the developer and DCC, there is no evidence to show that there would be a severe residual cumulative impact to refuse the application as is the test set out in NPPF paragraph 109.

Conditions are recommended to be included on any planning permission.

Environmental Protection: First Response: In relation to the above application, the Environmental Protection Team provides the following comments:

Land Quality: The 'Geotechnical Investigation and Contamination Assessment Report' is comprehensive and indicates suitable ground testing has been undertaken. The Environmental Protection Team is satisfied that an appropriate assessment has been carried out in relation to potential contamination at the application site. The Environmental Protection Team agrees with the findings that there is unlikely to be a contamination issue or risk to human health arising from the proposed development of the site. Should the Authority grant planning permission, the Environmental Protection Team recommends the imposition of the Authority's standard contaminated land condition (copy provided separately).

Amenity Impact (Noise): The acoustic assessment accurately identifies road traffic and Appledore Shipyard as noise sources that could potentially impact adversely on the proposed development. Given the measurements and information provided within the assessment, the Environmental Protection Team is satisfied that road traffic noise is unlikely to adversely impact the proposed development and agrees that mitigation measures can be introduced in the site layout and design to reduce the predicted noise levels from traffic. Such measures have been included in the assessment.

Page 45 Although Appledore Shipyard has been identified as having a potential adverse impact on the residential amenity of future dwellings, its potential impact has not been quantified. It is acknowledged that the Shipyard is currently operating at a significantly lower capacity and the future of the site is uncertain. However, its potential impact on the proposed development should be provided within the assessment. Noise data has been provided that it is envisaged should be used to assist in assessing the potential impact. The assessment indicates that a full acoustic assessment, in accordance with British Standard BS4142:2014, will be carried out. Careful consideration must be given to the potential noise impact as it may also affect the future operations and viability of the Shipyard.

The Environmental Protection Team will be able to provide further comments upon receipt of the full assessment. Ideally this assessment should be provided at the outline stage in order to assess the noise impact and where necessary, assist informing the site layout and design. However, should planning permission be granted, the Environmental Protection Team recommends the imposition of the following conditions:

‘A detailed noise assessment in accordance with BS4142:2014 will be undertaken in order to evaluate the noise impact on future dwellings from operations and activities at Appledore Shipyard. The noise assessment will be undertaken by an acoustic consultant with membership of a relevant professional body (e.g. Institute of Acoustics). A noise control scheme shall be submitted detailing appropriate noise mitigation measures. The noise control scheme must be based on the assessment methodology in BS4142:2014 and shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to development commencing. All mitigation works, as approved, shall be completed prior to the occupation of any dwellings’.

Amenity Impact (Construction Works): Given the extent of the development site and the close proximity of existing neighbouring dwellings, there is the real potential for an adverse impact on residential amenity from dust and noise nuisance during the construction works. If the application is approved, the applicant should be asked to provide a detailed and robust Construction Environmental Management Plan prior to commencing construction activities. The Environmental Protection Team recommends the imposition of the following condition:

‘Prior to the commencement of development, including any site clearance, groundworks or construction within each sub-phase (save such preliminary or minor works that the Local Planning Authority may agree in writing), a Construction Management Plan (CMP) to manage the impacts of construction during the life of the works, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt, the CMP shall include:- a) measures to regulate the routing of construction traffic; b) the times within which traffic can enter and leave the site; c) the importation of spoil and soil on site; d) the removal /disposal of materials from site, including soil and vegetation; e) the location and covering of stockpiles; f) details of measures to prevent mud from vehicles leaving the site and must include wheelwashing facilities g) control of fugitive dust from demolition, earthworks and construction activities; dust suppression h) impact assessments and associated mitigation measures in relation to noise, vibration, dust and lighting. (Assessments must be carried out by suitably qualified persons and the plan should demonstrate the adoption and use of best practice to reduce impacts) i) details of any site construction office, compound and ancillary facility buildings j) specified parking arrangements for vehicles associated with the construction works and the provision made for access thereto; k) a point of contact (such as a Construction Liaison Officer/site manager) and details of how complaints will be addressed.

The details so approved and any subsequent amendments as shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority shall be complied with in full and monitored by the applicants to ensure continuing compliance during the construction of the development’.

In addition, construction works and deliveries to site should be restricted to Monday to Friday 0700- 1900 hours and Saturdays 0800-1300 with no working on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

Amenity Impact (Stables):

Page 46 It is noted that the application site adjoins a stables premises to the south east. Depending on the location of the manure waste storage, there is the potential for an adverse impact on the residential amenity of future occupants arising from odour and fly nuisance. Should planning permission be granted, the Environmental Protection Team recommends a condition stipulating that a minimum distance of 50 metres exists between the stables premises and the boundary of new dwellings.

Second Response: In relation to the above application, I have reviewed the revised acoustic assessment dated 15 March from Clarke Saunders Acoustics which provides a better understanding of the acoustic environment as noise associated with the shipyard site is now included. The following comments are an addendum to the previous consultation response provided by the Environmental Protection Team.

As mentioned in the previous consultation response, the Environmental Protection Team is satisfied that road traffic noise can be adequately suppressed through good acoustic design and layout to ensure there is no adverse impact on the residential amenity of future occupants. No further comments shall be made in relation to road traffic noise.

It is acknowledged that the shipyard site has now closed and its future use or operations are uncertain. It is the opinion of the Environmental Protection Team that the revised acoustic assessment has been produced appropriately, namely considering the shipyard site as operational.

The revised acoustic assessment indicates that a significant adverse impact will arise at several proposed properties, mainly as a result of shot blasting noise emanating from the shipyard site, when assessed using BS4142:2014. It is acknowledged that the frequency and duration of shot blasting activity is difficult to quantify but this does provide a potential “worst case” scenario. It would appear that in the absence of shot blasting activity, noise emanating from the shipyard site is generally at a reasonable level and is not expected to cause detriment to amenity value.

Due to the presence of shot blasting, mitigation measures are considered necessary and also to ensure the application site is suitable for residential use alongside any other industrial/commercial operations at the site in the future. The revised acoustic assessment recommends noise mitigation measures including façade treatments, screening and sealed windows to prevent shipyard noise adversely affecting properties on the application site.

The Environmental Protection Team’s original consultation response dated 16 January recommended the following condition be imposed:

A noise control scheme shall be submitted detailing appropriate noise mitigation measures. The noise control scheme must be based on the assessment methodology in BS4142:2014 and shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to development commencing. All mitigation works, as approved, shall be completed prior to the occupation of any dwellings.

The mitigation measures indicated in the revised acoustic assessment are acknowledged. Although sealed glazing may be effective in noise reduction, the loss of natural ventilation may not be considered an acceptable option. However, this would be a planning decision. The Environmental Protection Team believes that further mitigation measures may need to be considered, such as site layout, non-sensitive rooms facing towards the shipyard site, windowless facades and greater separation distances. The potential noise impact can be lessened significantly with careful consideration of all of the above mitigation measures and good design layout.

In summary, the Environmental Protection Team has no objection in principle to the application. However, having regard for this being an outline application and the site layout being indicative, the above condition is considered relevant and its imposition is still recommended by the Environmental Protection Team on the outline application.

Third Response: Thank you for providing the odour assessment in relation to the above application.

Page 47 The assessment is very thorough, utilising a number of assessment methods to evaluate the potential odour impact arising from the adjoining stable to the south east of the application site. The resulting impact indicates insignificant odour effects which are based on some assumptions that require clarification as follows:

·The qualitative assessment appears to be based on two horses (para 4.3) but it is assumed that the stable is not restricted to this number. What would be the potential impact with an increased number of horses? ·The assessment is based on the assumption that good housekeeping practices occur. Was it confirmed that ‘mucking out’, for example, is undertaken regularly? ·The assessment suggests it unlikely that a large amount of manure will be stored on site. Has this been confirmed? It is quite probable that manure is collected and stored on site.

The 50-metre separation distance was recommended to prevent or reduce the potential adverse impact on residential amenity resulting from fly nuisance as well as odour. Subsequently, a reasonable separation distance must be provided between the existing stable and the boundary of any proposed residential properties.

Chief Education Officer: Regarding the proposed planning application, Devon County Council has identified that the proposed 110 family type dwellings will generate an additional 27.5 primary pupils and 16.5 secondary pupils which would have a direct impact on Appledore Primary school, St Georges Infant school, St Margaret’s Junior school, and Bideford College. In order to make the development acceptable in planning terms, an education contribution to mitigate its impact will be requested. This is set out below:

There is no available primary capacity across the wider Northam and Bideford area and the County Council urgently needs to secure new school provision to meet the needs of the housing growth coming forward across the area. The education strategy for the Northam and Appledore area is for a new primary school to serve the housing development. The Local Plan identifies a school site on the Daddon Hill (NOR01) allocation. Whilst the designated school for this development would be Appledore Primary, this site cannot be expanded further and capacity will be created through a push- back of Northam pupils to the Northam schools. Devon County Council therefore cannot fulfil its statutory responsibilities with regard to pupil provision without new primary provision. When taking into account approved but not yet implemented developments our forecasts show a shortfall of 50 places and therefore a contribution towards primary education would be required.

The contribution sought towards primary is £440,522 (based on the DfE new build rate of £16,019 per pupil). This will relate directly to providing education facilities for those living in the development. We have forecast that the nearest secondary school has currently got capacity for the number of pupils likely to be generated by the proposed development and therefore a contribution towards secondary education would not be sought. In addition, as a new primary school is required, we would also need to request a proportionate land contribution of 10sqm per family-type dwelling. Based upon a land value of £440,000 per hectare, this land contribution would equate to £48,400 and would be used to assist in the procurement of the new school site. In addition, a contribution towards Early Years provision is needed to ensure delivery of provision for 2, 3 and 4 year olds. This is calculated as £27,500 (based on £250 per dwelling). This will be used to provide early years provision within the new school for children likely to be generated by the proposed development.

All contributions will be subject to indexation using BCIS, it should be noted that education infrastructure contributions are based on March 2015 prices and any indexation applied to contributions requested should be applied from this date. The amount requested is based on established educational formulae (which related to the number of primary and secondary age children that are likely to be living in this type of accommodation). It is considered that this is an appropriate methodology to ensure that the contribution is fairly and reasonably related in scale to the development proposed which complies with CIL Regulation 122. If this application reaches the stage of preparing a Section 106 agreement, it is considered that the contribution can be allocated in accordance with the pooling regulations set out in the CIL Regulation 123. In addition to the

Page 48 contribution figures quoted above, the County Council would wish to recover legal costs incurred as a result of the preparation and completion of the Agreement. Legal costs are not expected to exceed £500.00 where the agreement relates solely to the education contribution. However, if the agreement involves other issues or if the matter becomes protracted, the legal costs are likely to be in excess of this sum.

The Environment Agency: No response.

Designing Out Crime Officer - DC&D Police: I am unable to comment in depth as the available illustrative masterplan does not reveal many details that would be of concern to the police. It is appreciated that at this time it is for outline only, however, please note the following initial comments from a designing out crime, fear of crime, antisocial behaviour (ASB) and conflict perspective:-

Too much permeability in a development makes controlling crime and anti-social behaviour very difficult as it allows easy intrusion around the development by potential offenders. All planned routes should be needed, well used by generating adequate footfall, well overlooked and well-integrated.

Research confirms that inappropriate access can create hiding places and give anonymity to offenders enabling them to familiarise themselves with an area, search for vulnerable targets, offend and escape. If the existing access points to public footpaths and bridleways are to be retained, as appears to be the case, any new connecting paths must not run to the rear of / between plots or through parking courts. Crime is always easier to commit where there is little or no chance of an offender being challenged or recognised. Levels of anti-social behaviour will also be correspondingly high in designs that reduce residential influence and ownership. If existing hedgerow is likely to comprise new rear garden boundaries then it must be fit for purpose. They should be of sufficient height and depth to provide both a consistent and effective defensive boundary as soon as residents move in. If additional planting will be required to achieve this then temporary fencing may be required until such planting has matured. Any hedge must be of a type which does not undergo radical seasonal change which would affect its security function.

I would also advise that for all plots, private front gardens are suitably defined. Open frontage, particularly but not exclusively, on corner plots, can for many reasons frequently lead to community conflict, for example, desire lines for pedestrians and cyclists are created, dog fouling, ball games and anti-social behaviour.

Parking spaces would preferably be on plot, must not be disconnected from the associated dwellings and should be well overlooked by ‘active rooms’. Residents should have line of sight to their allotted parking spaces, otherwise the burden of surveillance is placed upon neighbours and other residents. Regrettably, there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that unless a crime directly involves a member of the public, many will not intervene or report it for fear of repercussions. Residents will also look to park as near to their choice of main access point, likely resulting in inappropriate parking on footpaths and verges.

Strategic Enabling Officer: First Response: In terms of Affordable Housing, Local Plan Policy ST18 is applicable which requires 30% of the overall number of units to be provided as Affordable Housing. The required tenure split is for 75% to be provided at a Social Rent level and 25% at an ‘intermediate’ level - the associated definitions being detailed in the National Planning Policy Framework.

For the Intermediate provision, it is preferable for this to be provided in the form of Shared Ownership Housing or Discounted Market housing. It is important to note that the sales value for such properties is required to be set in line with 3.5 x the average median household income for Torridge. A Section 106 agreement is required to secure the agreed affordable housing in perpetuity. Other forms of ‘intermediate’ housing may be considered providing they are deemed to be affordable by Torridge District Council. I note the applicant has advised a viability appraisal will be submitted with a view to

Page 49 establishing the viable level of affordable housing. However, this does not appear to have been received and therefore this is now required to be submitted as a matter of urgency.

Second Response: Further to my consultation response dated 24th January 2018, the applicant has presented a case that the provision of 30% affordable housing on this scheme would make the scheme financially unviable. Evidence to support this position has been submitted by the developer in the form of a development viability appraisal and this has now been assessed on behalf of Torridge District Council by the District Valuation Office

Through this assessment, the District Valuation Office have advised that whilst recognising this as an outline application, based on the design information submitted as part of this planning application and the size of the development then “in the context of this proposed scheme, the use of BCIS median rates is fair and reasonable”. The Building Cost Information Service (BCIS) of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) produces data which reflects the build costs of the actual dwelling on a per m2 basis, excluding aspects such as ground works to the plot. Using this BCIS Median rate, the District Valuation Office have concluded the development cannot viably deliver any affordable housing units.

However, the District Valuation Office have advised “caution that if the scheme were to be developed by a volume national house builder with less heterogeneity, quality and detailing, cost savings could be made, and the use of lower quartile BCIS rates would be fairer”. The District Valuation Office therefore also re-assessed the scheme on the basis of an assumption that it is developed more economically and to a lower standard by a volume house builder, assuming plot build cost based on lower quartile BCIS. This shows that a more hypothetical scheme of the same scale and property types, however assuming a volume house builder; could yield circa 9% on-site affordable housing provision together with the other Section 106 contributions as stated.

Therefore if there is an acceptance here that the design and quality of the development as proposed by the applicant is material in this circumstance, and as such the associated detrimental impact on the level of affordable housing to be provided is deemed justified, it is imperative that measures are put in place to ensure that if a lesser design is submitted at Reserved Matters stage and/or a volume house builder acquires the site, then affordable housing is secured at the rate of 9% provision across the development.

Recreation Development Officer: The proposals in terms of trim trails and play spaces are sufficient to service the number of dwellings planned. The site is well laid out with good cycle and footpath routes throughout.

Planning Policy: Two detailed consultation responses have been received. Due to their length and the inclusion of tables, both responses (dated 13th February and 10th June 2019) are appended to this Committee Report. The responses primarily discuss green infrastructure and biodiversity requirements linked with housing density.

Conservation Officer: No comments received.

South West Water: I refer to the above application and would advise that South West Water has no objection subject to surface water being discharged to the Estuary as proposed in the flood risk Assessment/drainage strategy. For information foul drainage capacity has previously been determined to be available to support the development.

DCC Archaeology Section: I refer to the above application. The proposed development lies in a landscape where a putative battle between Harold and Brian, son of Eudo, took place in AD1069, in which there is considerable local interest. In addition, a recent geophysical survey recorded a number of anomalies potentially

Page 50 associated with pits/ditches as well as a possible curvilinear feature that could represent Iron Age or Roman activity. Groundworks for the construction of the proposed development have the potential, therefore, to expose and destroy archaeological and artefactual deposits associated with this activity. The impact of development upon the archaeological resource here should be mitigated by a programme of archaeological work that should investigate, record and analyse the archaeological evidence that will otherwise be destroyed by the proposed development.

The Historic Environment Team recommends that this application should be supported by the submission of a Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) setting out a programme of archaeological work to be undertaken in mitigation for the loss of heritage assets and archaeological interest. The WSI should be based on national standards and guidance and be approved by the Historic Environment Team.

If a Written Scheme of Investigation is not submitted prior to determination the Historic Environment Team would advise, for the above reasons and in accordance with Policy DM07 of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan 2011 - 2031 and paragraph 199 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2018), that any consent your Authority may be minded to issue should carry the condition as worded below, based on model Condition 55 as set out in Appendix A of Circular 11/95, whereby:

‘No development shall take place until the developer has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation (WSI) which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out at all times in accordance with the approved scheme, or such other details as may be subsequently agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure, in accordance with Policy DM07 of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan 2011 - 2031 and paragraph 199 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2018), that an appropriate record is made of archaeological evidence that may be affected by the development.'

This pre-commencement condition is required to ensure that the archaeological works are agreed and implemented prior to any disturbance of archaeological deposits by the commencement of preparatory and/or construction works.

I would envisage a suitable programme of work as taking the form of a staged programme of archaeological works, commencing with the excavation of a series of evaluative trenches, targeting the potential archaeological anomalies identified in the geophysical survey to determine the presence and significance of any heritage assets with archaeological interest that will be affected by the development. Based on the results of this initial stage of works the requirement and scope of any further archaeological mitigation can be determined and implemented either in advance of or during construction works. This archaeological mitigation work may take the form of full area excavation in advance of groundworks or the monitoring and recording of groundworks associated with the construction of the proposed development to allow for the identification, investigation and recording of any exposed archaeological or artefactual deposits. The results of the fieldwork and any post- excavation analysis undertaken would need to be presented in an appropriately detailed and illustrated report, and the finds and archive deposited in accordance with relevant national and local guidelines I will be happy to discuss this further with you, the applicant or their agent. The Historic Environment Team can also provide the applicant with advice of the scope of the works required, as well as contact details for archaeological contractors who would be able to undertake this work. Provision of detailed advice to non-householder developers may incur a charge. For further information on the historic environment and planning, and our charging schedule please refer the applicant to: https://new.devon.gov.uk/historicenvironment/development-management/.

Natural England: First Response: We have considered the proposal against the full range of Natural England’s interests in the natural environment and have the following comments.

Page 51 European designated sites: Braunton Burrows Special Area of Conservation (SAC) – further information advised Braunton Burrows SAC is one of the most important sand-dune systems in the country. The application is for residential development likely to have an indirect impact on the Braunton Burrows SAC because of its proximity to the European site and the likelihood of recreational impacts associated with the development.

North Devon and Torridge District Council’s Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) at the Joint Plan level (JLP) considered whether there would be an increase in recreational pressures on the Braunton Burrows SAC associated with housing development allocated in North Devon and Torridge Districts over the life of the JLP. It identified the main recreational pressure as coming from the Braunton, Wrafton and Chivenor area and concluded that there is unlikely to be an adverse effect on the integrity of the interest features for which the Braunton Burrows SAC has been notified. However, since adoption of the JLP, new evidence has come to light through an assessment of the potential recreational impacts linked to non and plan-led development for the Braunton Burrows SAC (Footprint Ecology September 2018) commissioned by the Council. The report states that ‘recreational impacts are currently evident at Braunton Burrows’ and that ‘recreational impacts would be likely to intensify and spread as a result of an increase in visitor numbers’. It also states that ‘where likely significant effects are identified it is anticipated that it will be difficult to rule out adverse effects on integrity without appropriate mitigation’. This would suggest that there is a probability or risk that recreational activities arising from occupants of all new residential development within a certain distance of the Burrows which would, in combination, have a significant effect on the SAC. In light of the new evidence, it is no longer appropriate to conclude no adverse effect on integrity (AEOI) from plan led housing. The Councils are currently working on identifying a Zone of Influence (ZoI) where effects from development could have a likely significant effect (LSE) on the special interest of the Braunton Burrows SAC. It is possible that this proposal at Appledore will fall within the ZoI. As significant effects cannot be ruled out, all new applications likely to have a significant effect will require Appropriate Assessment and need to address measures for mitigation prior to determination. All future assessments should be made in light of the best and most recent evidence available. As a competent authority under the provisions of the Habitats Regulations, Torridge District Council should have regard for any potential impacts that a plan or project may have2 and are required (by Regulations 63 and 64 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017) to conduct a Habitat Regulations Assessment to determine the significance of these impacts on the SAC and the scope for mitigation. The Conservation Objectives for the Braunton Burrows SAC explain how the sites should be restored and/or maintained and may be helpful in assessing what, if any, potential impacts a plan or project may have.

People Over Wind - Torridge District Council as the competent authority will need to seek and rely upon their own legal advice on the interpretation of People Over Wind3 . This case relates to how mitigation measures are treated at the screening stage of a Habitats Regulations Assessments (HRA) when deciding whether an appropriate assessment of a plan/project is required. This judgment is now the leading case on mitigation and screening assessments and all competent authorities should be mindful of it in the context of their own screening decisions taken under the Habitats Regulations. They should come to their own view as to whether to undertake appropriate assessments of plans and projects that they are responsible for.

Designated sites - Taw Torridge Estuary Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) – no objection subject to mitigation This application is within 500m of the Taw Torridge Estuary Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and has triggered Natural England’s Impact Risk Zones4 . The Taw Torridge Estuary SSSI is notified for its intertidal mud and saltmarsh habitat and overwintering bird interest. Further information on the SSSI and the special interest features can be found at www.magic.gov.uk.

Water quality – mitigation required. We would look to the Lead Authority to determine the appropriateness of any drainage system proposed for a development site but suggest that where sustainable drainage systems are proposed their amenity and wildlife value should be increased with careful design https://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/SuDS_report_final_tcm9-338064.pdf We note the Drainage strategy is subject to detailed design. The preferred strategy would be for several SuDS throughout the site to form a treatment train to treat, control and attenuate surface water as outlined in the submitted drainage strategy. General guidance on the suitability of the Treatment Train

Page 52 components can be found in the SuDS Guidance CIRIA 2007 (section 5 tables 5.6 and 5.7). A detailed SuDs scheme with planting detail and a long-term management and maintenance regime should be detailed within a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) secured via conditions or obligations as appropriate. In terms of the outfall into the estuary, it is welcome that the option for linking in to the existing outfall has been selected. It is not clear whether flows will be unattenuated. The final drainage strategy design should consider how flows could be controlled to allow discharge at high tide rather than low tides to avoid discharge scour of intertidal habitats at the outfall. Natural England would expect the Environment Agency to appropriately condition any discharge consent to ensure the quality of effluent from development is of high enough quality to avoid eutrophication of the SSSI. A proposal will require a permit from the EA where it is within 500m of a designated site and has a capacity greater than 5 cubic metres. There is a hydrological connection between the development site and the River Torridge via a small stream in the eastern field. During construction we would also expect best practice measures, as outlined in Section 4.1.1 of the Ecological Impact Assessment (EAD December 2018), to be secured via the CEMP to ensure there is no risk of contamination or increase in nutrient load of the water or estuary sediment.

Overwintering birds - Birds associated with the estuary make use of agricultural land around the estuary (both close grazed pasture and arable) and may be displaced by such proposals and roosting/feeding habitat may be lost. As development pressure around the estuary increases this reduces the carrying capacity of the estuary and reduces opportunities for the birds around the estuary as a whole. Other than strategic roosts within the estuary, very little is known about how the birds use surrounding farmland. Without survey information Natural England is unable to advise the Local Authority in any detail other than generic impacts, such as possible displacement of birds from the site. The development site is close to the estuary and has the potential to support birds when they are pushed off the estuary by high tides. However, based on the information provided (Ecological Impact Assessment EAD December 2018), the site is unlikely to support significant numbers of wildfowl or waders and therefore unlikely to have a significant impact on the SSSI interest. Although only a single visit was made in February 2018 at high tide, which did not record any wildfowl or waders using the fields, the small size of the fields with high hedgerows is also likely to mean they are unsuitable because of reduced site lines.

Biodiversity Net gain and Green Infrastructure - Development provides opportunities to secure a net gain for nature in line with paragraphs 170 and 174 of the revised NPPF (2018) and the Defra 25-year Environment Plan. Policy ST14 Enhancing Environmental Assets of the North Devon and Torridge Joint Local Plan expects all development to provide a net gain in biodiversity (note 6.4 of Policy ST14). We note the proposed watercourse diversion and would recommend consideration is given to incorporating the existing features into the green infrastructure before considering diversions or culverts. This would be in line with Local Plan Policy DM08 (8) i.e. development should avoid adverse impact on existing features as a first principle and enable net gains by designing in biodiversity features. Based on the information provided, biodiversity net gain cannot be achieved within the development site. Biodiversity metrics5 are available to provide certainty and assist developers and local authorities in quantifying and securing net gain. Local Authorities can set their own net gain thresholds but Natural England would currently expect a minimum of 5% net gain and LPAs should aim to negotiate upwards. To ensure delivery of appropriate mitigation and enhancement measures, Landscape and Environmental Management Plans should be secured via conditions or obligations as appropriate. All new development should create high quality locally distinctive places where people want to live and work. Green infrastructure (GI) is increasingly recognised as an essential component of any truly sustainable development and the most effective means of providing a wide range of ecosystem services for quality of life and health benefits. Natural England has produced a GI document which is available to planners, developers and others to download at http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/35033?category=9002 The Town and Country Planning Association’s publication ‘Biodiversity By Design’ provides further information on this issue.

Landscape - The proposed development is for a site close to the North Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), a nationally designated landscape. Natural England advises that the planning authority uses national and local policies, together with local landscape expertise and information to determine the proposal. The policy and statutory framework to guide your decision and the role of local advice are explained in Annex 1 of this letter.

Page 53

Second Response: After reference to the ‘Braunton Burrows Visitor Survey Results 2019’ prepared by Footprint Ecology, Natural England confirmed by email dated 20 March 2019 that the Zone of Influence does not apply to this outline planning application and that there is no requirement to undertake a Habitat Regulations Assessment.

Third Response: Natural England doesn’t currently have a statutory role with regard to Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG). Our role at the moment is to raise awareness of the metric and draw attention to policy. It is the LPA’s role to satisfy itself that BNG can be achieved. From the information provided it sounds like the development can achieve 10% gain through providing net gain offsite.

Historic England - Southwest Casework: Thank you for your letter of 26 February 2019 regarding the above application for planning permission. We refer you to Historic England's guidance on "The Setting of Heritage Assets: Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3 (Second Edition)", particularly in relation to the impact of the proposed residential development on the setting of the Grade II* listed Tapeley Park and its associated Grade II* Registered Park and Garden and how this can be mitigated and the harm to significance can be minimised. We also suggest that you seek the views of your specialist conservation and archaeological advisers, as relevant. It is not necessary for us to be consulted on this application again, unless there are material changes to the proposals. If you would like detailed advice from us, please contact us to explain your request.

North Devon Council’s Conservation Officer: I have this morning been to consider this site from the registered parkland at Tapeley. My opinion is that although the development will be visible in the long-range views, I do not think it will cause harm to the significance of the heritage through effect on its setting.

Westleigh Parish Council: Westleigh Parish Council strongly object to the application, on the basis that the proposal will introduce a substantial mass of built structures into an otherwise rural environment. The development will directly impact on Westleigh and Tapeley Park which enjoy a rural landscape and dark skies.

Representations:

Number of neighbours consulted: 15 Number of letters of support: 0 Number of representations received: 150 Number of neutral representations: 2 Number of objection letters: 147

The application has attracted 150 letters of representation, with 147 of these being made in objection raising the following concerns:

- Impacts on highway safety, particularly along Pitt Hill; - Adverse impacts on the highway network in terms of congestion; - Adverse impacts on wildlife – there has been insufficient rigorous examination of the area as a north south wildlife corridor; - The proposal would be a blot on the landscape harming the entrance to Appledore; - The owner of land within the remainder of allocation NOR07 has raised concerns over the access proposals and how they will prejudice the future development of this land and prevent appropriate highway access to the remainder of the allocated site. A request is made that the any approval includes conditions and/or obligations upon the Applicant to safeguard appropriate access rights/provision to ensure the whole of the allocation can come forward. - The CPRE has made the following comments: o The site is delivering 62% of the NOR07 allocation in terms of land take, and yet providing 85% of the housing yield;

Page 54 o Approval of this development would only serve to encourage a piecemeal approach to developing this strategic site, which will prejudice the realisation of the overall vision for the area and will result in development unsupported by the infrastructure needed for the community; o The piecemeal approach is in danger of producing a gated community isolated from the main settlement of Appledore; o It is noted the scheme has been subject to Design Review, but there is no mention of Building for Life 12 or Manual for Streets; o The proposal is supported by a Landscape and Visual Appraisal – this is not of the same calibre of a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment. Why has a LVIA not been required in this instance? o There is no information submitted with the application to justify the scale of development on this particular area of NOR07 – e.g. no details have been provided to highlight that the proposal is informed by robust and up to date evidence of housing need to warrant this scale of development on this part of the site alone; o Insufficient green infrastructure and biodiversity net gain provisions; o The site has not been assessed to establish its agricultural land classification, and as such a full consideration of how the scheme contributes towards the natural and local environment cannot be carried out. - The proposed site forms part of the setting of the identified site of the Battle of Northam 1069 and there is the possibility of historically important archaeology that would be destroyed with this development. The damage to the setting of the battlefield and increased traffic in Pitt Lane would mean that battlefield walks for tourists exploring the routes taken by the sons of Harold would be curtailed - potentially damaging the tourist industry and the local economy; - The proposed housing would be visible from the grounds of Tapeley House and would have an adverse impact on the setting of these grounds; - The proposed development would increase light pollution; - The provision of affordable housing in the development is inadequate and does not meet local needs; - The proposal will result in the loss of open countryside between Appledore and Northam; - The development would cause existing property values to fall and the highest proportion of buyers will be those looking for second homes; - There is insufficient infrastructure to support these houses – jobs, schools, healthcare etc; - There is no need/demand for this level of housing; - The proposals need to at least demonstrate sufficient green infrastructure provision to meet the minimum requirement but also need to show what is necessary and effective in meeting the requirement of strategic housing allocation NOR07 criteria (2)(a) and (b); - A masterplan approach is needed for the whole allocation to ensure sufficient green infrastructure is provided; - It is important that the Applicant provides a housing mix to reflect local needs and meets the 30% affordable housing requirement; - If the same density is carried forward to the remainder of the allocation, 180 dwellings could be built; - The landscape impact would have a significant knock-on effect on tourism in the area; - There would be significant light pollution from the proposal; - An assessment should be carried out of the likely air pollution from the site; - The closure of part of Pitt Lane to vehicles from its junction with Wooda Road will be detrimental to local residents; - The amenities of local residents will be harmed by increased traffic movements associated with the development; - There is one TPO located near Carleton House on the eastern side of the site, covering 2 areas of trees; - The development will increase flood risk to nearby properties and the village of Appledore; - Potential purchasers of the shipyard will be put off by such mass scale residential development adjacent to the Yard, with the potential for noise pollution claims from residents of the new housing estate, affecting the viability of the Yard; - Increased traffic congestion during peak holiday times and during the Appledore Book Festival;

Page 55 - The sewerage system would be overstretched; - The proposal does not comply with the provisions of NOR07 as the vehicular access is not in accordance with the site-specific development principle in paragraph (2)(c) of the policy. The proposal is a departure and should be advertised as such; - Pitt Hill is a historic main route into Appledore and should not be closed at its junction with Wooda Road; - The public benefit offered by the scheme will not outweigh the harm caused to heritage assets (Tapeley Park House); - There are brownfield sites in Bideford and the surrounding area that should be developed further before this should even be considered; - The Appledore Residents Association has submitted comments raising concerns in respect of: impacts on highway capacity; there being insufficient schools and healthcare; noise and pollution; harm to wildlife; there is no mention of the percentage of affordable homes; concern over the part closure of Pitt Lane; adverse impact on tourism; - Concerns that new dwellings will affect the privacy currently enjoyed by existing dwellings; - Sewerage and drainage systems will be overloaded; - It would set a precedent for further development in the countryside; - Most journeys for the purposes of shopping will be made by car; - It is not a viable proposal; - There is already a larger planning application at Bay View Road. This will open Knapp House to change their application from holiday homes back to the planning application they wanted; - There will be pressure to develop the football ground; - The drawing shows a proposed footpath extending onto third party land – alternative routing is requested; - The density of development would be completely out of keeping with the surrounding area; - Planning states development must be sustainable – this development is not; - There is mounting evidence to support the protection of Green Spaces in the interests of the public health crisis that are depression and obesity; - The Design and Access Statement states that a 3-storey building is proposed on the corner of Churchill Road and Wooda Road and on the corner of Pitt Lane and Wooda Road – these buildings will not respect the rural setting; - It is a nonsense to attempt to transfer the characteristic forms of the close-knit urban fabric of Appledore centre into a new build greenfield situation – the result will at best appear inappropriate and worst as ‘toytown pastiche’; - A significant application of this nature should not be offered in outline form, this approach was discouraged by Central Government from the outset of the NPPF. An imbalance of ‘reserved matters’ should be regarded with suspicion as an attempt to seek approval by stealth. The Council should reject any proposal on the NOR07 site that does not demonstrate full compliance with the Council’s policies from the outset in a transparent manner; - The erosion of river views and fears of further developments in this area once a precedent has been set, erodes ‘community spirit’, an unquantifiable but vital component of Appledore’s health as a community and tourist economy; - Safety concerns for children walking to Appledore School; - The Taw and Torridge Estuary Forum objects for the following reasons: over development of this kind does not improve access to the coast, rather it restricts it; the proposal will add to problems with development already creeping around the estuaries of the Taw and Torridge; these fields are important to indigenous wildlife and the loss of habitat will damage local plants, birds and animals; building on this site will further close the gap between Appledore and Northam. The site is also likely to be visible from parts of the Torridge Estuary, the Tarka Trail and the village of Westleigh as well as from Tapeley Park; - This is not an area that should be ruined with generic modern houses; - There are wintering birds that use the fields – curlers, oyster catchers, egrets; - Why doesn’t the Council encourage developers to go back into the local towns – local high streets are under great change, surely rather than look at rows of empty shops they can be persuaded to build on already developed brown sites; - Concerns over street lighting and subsequent light pollution; - Access to work on the site is dependent on the submission of a workable Method Statement on the burial of existing cables and removal of the overhead cables;

Page 56 - Where the secondary street passing Wooda Farm joins the primary street it meets on the secondary street from the western part of the site. This is far from ideal and needs to be ‘eased’ in any future design; - If an access to the field to the north east were to be implemented all the traffic information, including road layouts that have been submitted with the application would become meaningless; - Pitt Hill will be an unacceptably dangerous road with pedestrians and cyclists having to seek refuge on rough verges or in field and property entrances to avoid vehicles travelling in both directions on Pitt Hill. Likewise, at other times of the day there will also be increased conflict between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles; - Consideration needs to be given to improving the Churchill Way/Wooda Road junction due to the predicted increased volume of traffic on Wooda Road; - The possibility of failure of the reservoir uphill of the site has not been considered and the proposal for land drainage in the fields north and east of the site implies some agreement for access.

Where the above concerns relate to material planning issues, they will be addressed within the Planning Considerations below. Comments made in relation to land ownership and suggestions that the development encroaches onto third party land are legal matters.

One letter of representation has suggested that as the development proposal does not include a new right-hand turn from Churchill Way into Wooda Road, as required by North Devon and Torridge Local Plan Policy NOR07, then it constitutes a departure from the Local Plan and should have been advertised as such.

The Town and Country Planning (Development Plans and Consultation) (Departures) Directions 1999 provides a legal framework for all local planning authorities in deciding departure applications. Departure applications are defined as an application for planning permission for development which does not accord with one or more provisions of the development plan in force in the area in which the site is situated. From time to time, there may be cases where other material considerations outweigh the policies set out in the Local Plan and where it will be appropriate to grant permission which is not fully in accordance with them. Where the Council considers such a decision would represent a departure from the Plan, it will be advertised as a formal ‘departure’ and any representations considered, before a final decision is made. In this case, it is not considered that the proposed access arrangements would constitute a departure. The application proposes residential development, consistent with Policy NOR07. Part 2(c) of this policy concerns access and requires: ‘Vehicular access achieved from Wooda Road, by improvement to Pitt Hill and an access from Pitt Hill Road and the provision of a right-hand turn from Churchill Way into Wooda’. The application proposal is broadly consistent with these access requirements and the Applicant has justified why a dedicated right-hand turn from Churchill Way is not necessary. This position is supported by the Local Highway Authority.

Policy Context:

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan 2011-2031: DM01 (Amenity Considerations); DM02 (Environmental Protection); DM04 (Design Principles); DM05 (Highways); DM06 (Parking Provision); DM07 (Historic Environment); DM08A (Landscape and Seascape Character); DM08 (Biodiversity and Geodiversity); DM10 (Green Infrastructure Provision); NOR07 (Site Adjoining Pitt Hill (Appledore)); NOR (Northam Spatial Vision and Development Strategy); ST01 (Principles of Sustainable Development); ST02 (Mitigating Climate Change); ST03 (Adapting to Climate Change and Strengthening Resilience); ST04 (Improving the Quality of Development); ST05 (Sustainable Construction and Buildings); ST06 (Spatial Development Strategy for Northern Devon's Strategic and Main Centres); ST08 (Scale and Distribution of New Development in Northern Devon); ST09 (Coast and Estuary Strategy); ST10 (Transport Strategy); ST14 (Enhancing Environmental Assets); ST15 (Conserving Heritage Assets); ST17 (A Balanced Local Housing Market); ST18 (Affordable Housing on Development Sites); ST23 (Infrastructure);

Page 57

Government Guidance: CROW (Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000); NERC (Natural Environment & Rural Communities); NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework); NPPG (National Planning Practice Guidance); WACA (Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981);

Planning Considerations

The main planning considerations of relevance to this proposal are:

1. Principle of Development; 2. Layout and Impact on Landscape Character; 3. Impact on Residential Amenities; 4. Access and Parking; 5. Heritage; 6. Drainage; 7. Ground Conditions and Contamination; 8. Ecology and Trees; 9. Viability and Section 106 Obligations.

Principle of Development Paragraph 2 of the NPPF states that planning law (namely Section 38(6) of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and Section 70(2) of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990) requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF must be taken into account in the preparation of local and neighbourhood plans, and is a material consideration in planning decisions.

In policy terms, the entire site is located within the development boundary for Appledore (Proposals Map 8B). Policy ST06 of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan 2018 (NDTLP) identifies Appledore as forming part of the Main Centre of Northam, where appropriate levels of growth that will increase the towns’ capacities to increase self-containment, to meet their own needs and those of surrounding communities where such is sought through the local vision, will be supported. Policy ST06 is clear that development will be supported within the development boundaries of the Main Centres.

NDTLP Policy NOR (Northam Spatial Strategy) states: 'The three centres will continue to provide a range of services and facilities to meet locally generated needs and to accommodate the expanded needs of visitors to the area. Across Appledore, Northam and Westward Ho! a range of housing appropriate to local needs will be provided. Development will be supported by necessary infrastructure that will be delivered in a manner to minimise deficiencies against service capacity'.

Policy NOR further advises that the spatial vision will be delivered through: (a) ‘provision of a minimum of 1,916 dwellings to meet all the communities housing needs, including affordable and supported homes together with an expanded supply to meet the increasing needs of the area's ageing population, which will be supported with associated development and infrastructure on a continuous basis’.

Paragraph 10.358 of the NDTLP reiterates the delivery of a minimum of 1,916 dwellings and clarifies that this will be delivered through a mixture of development completed since April 2011, existing commitments, identified housing allocations and non-strategic housing sites as set out in Table 10.14. Table 10.14 indicates that 1,735 dwellings will be delivered through allocations. Policy ST08 reiterates and confirms this housing provision for Northam.

The application site forms a significant part of an allocation for housing development, as prescribed by NDTLP Policy NOR07. This policy states:

‘Policy NOR07: Site Adjoining Pitt Hill (Appledore)

Page 58 (1) Land adjoining Pitt Hill, extending to about 6 hectares and as defined on Policies Map 8B, is allocated for housing development that includes: (a) approximately 130 dwellings, providing a mix of housing type and size to reflect local need, including affordable housing; and (b) as necessary the relocation of a Public Right of Way to support its contained presence through the site. (2) The site will be developed in accordance with the following site-specific development principles: (a) Development located and of a form that minimises any loss of landscape character of the surrounding area; (b) Areas of green infrastructure providing opportunities for biodiversity enhancement and informal recreation focused to the south of the site within the coastal and estuarine zone; (c) Vehicular access achieved from Wooda Road, by improvement to Pitt Hill and an access from Pitt Hill Road and the provision of a right-hand turn from Churchill Way into Wooda; and (d) Safeguarding an appropriate vehicular access extending to the northern boundary, to enable the future delivery of the adjoining site on land east of Churchill Way’.

Supporting paragraph 10.383 confirms that the site will be developed in a comprehensive manner to ensure the necessary highway improvements to Pitt Hill are secured as housing delivery is achieved. The application covers an area of 3.75 hectares and therefore only forms part of the wider allocated area of 6 hectares. Third parties have raised concern over the consideration of the application site in isolation from the rest of the allocation and how this prevents a comprehensive approach prejudicing the ability for necessary infrastructure to be delivered.

The NOR07 policy text does not require a comprehensive approach to the whole 6-hectare site and it is considered that the application proposal is of sufficient size so as not to prejudice the delivery of the wider allocation. In fact, the application will provide the necessary highway infrastructure to facilitate delivery of the remainder of the allocation. Furthermore, and as discussed below, the proposal meets its own generated requirements in respect of green infrastructure, drainage and biodiversity. Given this, the Local Planning Authority is satisfied that the application proposal will not prejudice delivery of the wider allocation, instead it will facilitate it coming forward.

Part 1(a), as reiterated in supporting Paragraph 10.384, directs that the development will make a significant contribution to meeting the future housing needs of Appledore, providing 130 new homes, the size and tenure of which will be reflective of local needs. Concerns were initially raised by the Council’s Planning Policy Team over the housing numbers proposed exceeding a proportionate element of the allocation and there being insufficient green infrastructure and biodiversity enhancements proposed on site.

In response to these concerns, the Applicant has increased the on-site green infrastructure so as to now be compliant with NDTLP Policy DM10 (discussed further below). In addition, the level of biodiversity enhancements proposed on site has been justified in the submission of a Biodiversity Position Statement (discussed further below). The level of development proposed and how appropriate this would be in the context of the surrounding landscape is discussed further below, however there are no ‘in principle’ objections to the number of dwellings being proposed provided the necessary supporting infrastructure can also be delivered alongside an appropriate layout. This outline application proposes ‘up to’ 110 dwellings and exact numbers will be confirmed at reserved matter stage. It is also important to note that Policy NOR07 seeks development to be located and of a form that minimises landscape harm and the supporting text highlights the northern part of the allocation as being sensitive to development.

NDTLP Policy ST17 states that ‘the scale and mix of dwellings, in terms of dwelling numbers, type, size and tenure provided through development proposals should reflect identified local housing needs, subject to consideration of: (a) site character and context; and (b) development viability’. Supporting Paragraph 7.13 requires the housing mix to be provided by an individual development proposal to have regard to relevant up-to-date and robust evidence. Paragraph 7.13A indicates that Policy ST17 recognises that ‘the character and context of an individual development site may

Page 59 influence or constrain the types of residential development that are appropriate in individual circumstances’. The Housing and Economic Needs Assessment (HENA) for Torridge and North Devon Councils undertaken by GL Hearn and dated May 2016, concludes based on the evidence, that it is expected for the focus of new market housing provision to be on two and three-bed properties. Continued demand for family housing can be expected from newly forming households. There may also be some demand for medium-sized properties (2- and 3-beds) from older households downsizing and looking to release equity in existing homes, but still retain flexibility for friends and family to come and stay. The HENA sets the following required housing mix on development sites:

 1 bed = 15%  2 bed = 35%  3 bed = 35%  4 bed = 15%

An initial housing mix has been agreed with the Applicant and this has informed the necessary viability appraisal. This equates to an overall housing mix as follows:

 11 x 1 bed (10%)  34 x 2 bed (32%)  41 x 3 bed (38%)  21 x 4 bed (20%)

This is considered to be broadly consistent with the HENA; it is likely that the slight over provision of 4-bed units can be justified on the grounds of both design and viability. Therefore, subject to this mix being carried forward into the detailed design, the proposal is considered to be in accordance with NDTLP Policy ST17.

Affordable housing provision is considered below under ‘Viability and Section 106 Obligations’.

NOR07 Parts 1(b) and 2 (a-d) are considered under the relevant sections below.

Given the above, it is clear that the principle of development is acceptable in this location given the sites position within the development boundary for Appledore and it forming part of an allocation for residential development. Third party representations urge against the development of this green field site in favour of brownfield sites within the District’s town centres. The site was allocated for residential development through the extensive consultation involved in the preparation of the NDTLP and contributes, alongside identified brownfield sites, towards meeting the necessary housing supply for the District up to 2031.

Layout and Impact on Landscape Character; NDTLP Policy ST04: 'Improving the Quality of Development' requires that 'development will achieve high quality inclusive and sustainable design to support the creation of successful, vibrant places. Design will be based on a clear process that analyses and responds to the characteristics of the site, its wider context and the surrounding area'. Policy DM04 sets out a series of Design Principles which are overarched by a desire for good design to guide overall scale, density, massing, height, landscape, layout, materials, access and appearance of new development. Paragraph 30 of the NPPF states that permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions.

NDTLP Policy DM08A concerns landscape and seascape character and states in part (1) that 'development should be of an appropriate scale, mass and design that recognises and respects landscape character of both designated and undesignated landscapes and seascapes; it should avoid adverse landscape and seascape impacts and seek to enhance the landscape and seascape assets wherever possible'.

The site is located within the Coast and Estuary Zone where the NDTLP distinguishes between ‘developed’ and ‘undeveloped coast’, with stricter development controls being applied within the latter.

Page 60 The application site falls to be within the ‘developed coast’, due to it being within the development boundary for Appledore.

NDTLP Paragraph 10.385 requires a high-quality design throughout the development, which provides a reflection of the area’s historic character with an emphasis on green infrastructure delivery. It further requires the layout of development within the site to minimise any consequent landscape impact, particularly in respect of the area to the north of Wooda Road.

The application is made in outline, with only access for determination. Matters of layout, scale, external appearance and landscaping will be for later consideration. Notwithstanding this, the application is supported by an illustrative masterplan which seeks to demonstrate that an acceptable layout can be achieved at detailed stage, in light of proposed housing numbers and the generated requirements for supporting infrastructure, including green infrastructure. The application is also supported by a detailed Design and Access Statement, which sets out the analysis and concepts developed to inform the masterplan.

Dealing firstly with the indicative layout, were 110 dwellings to come forward, this would represent a density of just under 30 dwellings per hectare. Notwithstanding concerns raised by third parties over the housing numbers proposed, this is considered appropriate for an allocated site and with reference to the prevailing character of the area. The concerns raised by the Planning Policy Team related to housing numbers combined with the onsite requirements for green infrastructure and biodiversity.

Policy NOR07 2(b) specifically requires ‘areas of green infrastructure providing opportunities for biodiversity enhancement and informal recreation focused to the south of the site within the coastal and estuarine zone’. The application site forms the southern part of the allocation and therefore NOR07 requires informal recreation to be provided as a key element of any proposal. In light of the concerns raised by the Planning Policy Team, it was agreed with the Applicant that the entire green infrastructure requirement should be secured on site within the development, however that this should predominantly take the form of informal recreation. Consequently, the required formal sports pitch provision has been agreed to take the form of further informal recreation space as it is considered that this would be a more appropriate approach.

It is proposed for the green infrastructure requirements to be secured as part of a Section 106 agreement (see below further commentary on the requirements of Policy DM10) and that this is confirmed at detailed design stage when final numbers are known. Paragraph 10.385, as quoted above, seeks a sensitive approach to development to the north of Wooda Road and this area has been identified as sensitive to development by the Local Planning Authority’s independent Landscape Consultant. Therefore, when considering the levels of housing and green infrastructure likely to come forward across the allocation as a whole, your Officers are confident that the overall density and levels of open space will be appropriate and consistent with the total allocation target of approximately 130 dwellings. In any event, layout is not for determination at this outline stage and there is flexibility in eventual housing numbers by virtue of the application description being ‘up to’ 110 dwellings.

Policy DM04 (2) requires all major residential proposals to be supported by a Building for Life 12 (BfL12) (117) (or successor) assessment. High quality design should be demonstrated through the minimisation of "amber" and the avoidance of "red" scores. The Applicant has submitted a BfL12 assessment and this is appended to this Committee Report for Members’ ease of reference.

The Applicant engaged with the Design Review Panel (DRP) at pre-application stage and the submitted Design and Access Statement details how the scheme has evolved in response to their comments. Notably, the DRP has advised that the sensitivity to which the landscape has been approached on this scheme is congratulated, in efforts to deliver play and recreation opportunities, however noting the approach needs amplifying in concept, particularly in how it relates to views and the opportunities presented by the green and blue infrastructure on the site. The DRP further commented that the layout could be a lot simpler and clearer, notably in the street typologies used and that efforts are needed to define the legibility of the site and perhaps use fewer typologies to assist that – the Design and Access Statement has taken this on board by reducing the character areas to just two. The DRP clearly acknowledges the unique opportunity this allocation presents and

Page 61 recommends the Applicant ‘be brave about this place, this is a new community for North Devon – Baker Estates are offering the beginnings of a new rural edge, and in the absence of a masterplan, it is encouraging that Baker Estates are keen to secure a quality outcome’.

Your Officers have researched other developments already constructed by the Applicant and note the quality outputs. Whilst all strategic housing allocations should strive to achieve high quality designs, the unique setting and character of the NOR07 allocation warrants a high quality, bespoke approach with flexibility for any design to respond to the local context. Your Officers believe the Applicant to be well placed to bring forward a high quality and appropriate scheme at the detailed stage. Your Officers recommend a condition be included on any decision requiring agreement to a design code and housing mix for the site prior to reserved matters being submitted and for this to draw on the concepts included within the Design and Access Statement. Ideally, there would also be further involvement from the DRP.

Letters of representation raise concern over harm to the local landscape and how this would in turn have a harmful impact on tourism. The application is supported by a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) and the Local Planning Authority instructed an independent Landscape Consultant to review and provide guidance on landscape matters. The Landscape Consultant’s advice concluded:

‘The allocation of the overall site for housing as policy NOR7 will lead to adverse landscape and visual effects in the local area and further afield. The policy proposes measures to mitigate potential effects to a level assumed to be acceptable to the local plan inspector. Assessment of the current application indicates effects in line with (or slightly less harmful) than those expected for the allocation as a whole. It is considered unlikely that the height of development or the density proposed would have an increased adverse effect on landscape character than that deemed acceptable in making the allocation. Policy NOR7 considers the whole allocation (rather than dividing it into parts). Our conclusion is that there is less capacity for development on the upper, northern parts of the allocation than on the application site. Within that context, the proposed development, at 110 units, is not seen as incompatible with an overall site allocation of around 135 units. It is recommended that, in order to meet the landscape elements of policy NOR7, the applicant and landowners are encouraged to consider the allocation holistically rather than as a series of unconnected, individual developments.’

The comments of the Landscape Consultant are noted and it is accepted that in allocating the site for development, the principle of harm to the landscape has been accepted, including any harm attributed to external lighting. It will be necessary to secure a high-quality scheme at reserved matters stage, with appropriate landscaping and open space provision, to ensure the proposal sits appropriately within the landscape.

The application, whilst in outline, is promoting good design. Inevitably the character of the locality will change from open green fields to a housing development. Third parties are concerned that the housing will be out of keeping with the character of the area and harm the landscape. A balance has to be struck between achieving the housing numbers needed to meet the five-year land supply and minimising the loss of greenfield. A certain density is required for effective use of land, which is in itself a scarce resource. A further assessment of the impact of the precise scale, massing and design of the new dwellings would be undertaken at the reserved matters stage when the layout, appearance and design of the proposed development is finalised.

On matters of crime and disorder, the Police Architectural Liaison Officer will be involved at the Reserved Matters Stage and the comments raised at this outline stage can be considered in the detailed design.

Against this background, at this outline stage the proposal is considered to meet the requirements of NDTLP policies ST04, NOR07, DM04 and DM08A as well as the relevant sections of the NPPF.

Page 62 Impact on Residential Amenities: NDTLP Policy DM01 requires that development should secure or maintain amenity appropriate to the locality with special regard to the likely impact on neighbours, the operation of neighbouring uses, future occupiers, visitors on the site and any local services. Policy DM02 (2) states development will be supported where it does not result in unacceptable impacts to (a) atmospheric pollution by gas or particulates, including smell, fumes, dust, grit, smoke and soot; (b) pollution of surface or groundwater (fresh and salt) including rivers, canals, other watercourses, waterbodies, wetlands, water gathering grounds including catchment areas, aquifers, groundwater protection areas, harbours, estuaries or the sea; (c) noise or vibration; and (d) light pollution. Policy DM04 (i) requires development to ensure the amenities of existing and future neighbouring occupiers are safeguarded.

The groups of properties directly along Wooda Road to the south of the application site would be the most closely affected by this development. Concerns have been raised over the proposed housing in terms of loss of amenity and privacy.

Inevitably as greenfield sites on the edge of settlements are considered for development, the outlook and aspect of existing properties will alter. It should be noted that the loss of a view or outlook is not a material planning consideration.

As the scheme is in outline, there are only indicative layouts that show the relationship of the proposed housing to these existing properties. Indicative plans however do show adequate separation distances between properties and potential for further landscaping to soften boundaries.

It will be important to protect residential amenities from the effect of development but this will not mean that development should be resisted. Short-term disruption through the build process can be addressed through appropriate conditions and the Environmental Protection Officer (EPO) has recommended conditions to secure a detailed and robust Construction Environmental Management Plan prior to commencement of construction activities and to control hours of construction works.

In the longer term, it is not considered that the increase in traffic movements associated with up to 110 dwellings would give rise to an unacceptable level of disturbance to residents so as to justify refusal. This position is supported by the EPO who is satisfied that road traffic noise can be adequately suppressed through good acoustic design and layout to ensure there is no adverse impact on the residential amenity of future occupants.

The EPO requested further assessments to enable better understanding of the potential impacts from the Appledore Shipyard operations on future residents. Third party representations raise concerns over the potential for complaints by new residents to affect the viability of the Shipyard.

The EPO has acknowledged that the shipyard site has now closed and its future use or operations are uncertain. It is the opinion of the EPO that the revised acoustic assessment has been produced appropriately, namely considering the shipyard site as operational. This revised acoustic assessment indicates that a significant adverse impact will arise at several proposed properties, mainly as a result of shot blasting noise emanating from the shipyard site, when assessed using BS4142:2014. It is acknowledged that the frequency and duration of shot blasting activity is difficult to quantify but this does provide a potential “worst case” scenario. It would appear that in the absence of shot blasting activity, noise emanating from the shipyard site is generally at a reasonable level and is not expected to cause detriment to amenity value.

Due to the presence of shot blasting, the EPO considers mitigation measures are necessary to ensure the application site is suitable for residential use alongside any other industrial/commercial operations at the site in the future. The revised acoustic assessment recommends noise mitigation measures including façade treatments, screening and sealed windows to prevent shipyard noise adversely affecting properties on the application site.

The Environmental Protection Team’s original consultation response dated 16 January recommended the following condition be imposed:

Page 63 A noise control scheme shall be submitted detailing appropriate noise mitigation measures. The noise control scheme must be based on the assessment methodology in BS4142:2014 and shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to development commencing. All mitigation works, as approved, shall be completed prior to the occupation of any dwellings.

The mitigation measures indicated in the revised acoustic assessment are acknowledged. The EPO believes that further mitigation measures may need to be considered, such as site layout, non- sensitive rooms facing towards the shipyard site, windowless facades and greater separation distances. The potential noise impact can be lessened significantly with careful consideration of all of the above mitigation measures and good design layout.

In summary, the EPO has no objection in principle to the application in respect of noise. However, having regard for this being an outline application and the site layout being indicative, the above condition is considered relevant and its imposition is recommended.

The EPO has also noted that the application site adjoins a stables premises to the south east. Depending on the location of the manure waste storage, there is the potential for an adverse impact on the residential amenity of future occupants arising from odour and fly nuisance. The EPO initially recommended a condition stipulating that a minimum distance of 50 metres exists between the stable premises and the boundary of new dwellings. The Applicant provided further information in the form of an odour assessment, utilising a number of assessment methods to evaluate the potential odour impact arising from the adjoining stable to the south east of the application site. The resulting impact indicates insignificant odour effects. The EPO has noted the conclusions of the odour assessment and further to discussions with the Applicant, it is considered most appropriate for a reasonable separation distance to be agreed between the existing stable and the boundary of any proposed residential properties at reserved matters stage.

At this outline stage, it is not considered that the proposed development would result in a harmful impact on the residential amenities of neighbouring occupiers, providing the conditions recommended by the Environmental Protection Officer are included on any planning decision. The siting of any new dwellings in proximity to the third-party stables can be given further consideration at reserved matters stage.

Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be in accordance with the provisions of Policies DM01, DM02 and DM04 of the NDTLP.

Access and Parking: NDTLP Policy DM05 requires development to have safe and well-designed vehicular access and egress, adequate parking and layouts which consider the needs and accessibility of all highway users including cyclists and pedestrians, and that all development shall protect and enhance existing public rights of way, footways, cycleways and bridleways and facilitate improvements to existing or provide new connections to these routes where practical to do so. Policy DM06 states that proposals will be expected to provide an appropriate scale and range of parking provision to meet anticipated needs.

Paragraph 108 of the NPPF requires specific applications for development to ensure that safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users. Paragraph 109 advises that development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.

A number of letters of objection raise highway capacity and safety concerns along with concern over the closure of part of Pitt Lane to vehicles. Furthermore, the Local Highway Officer (LHO) initially raised objections as the submitted Transport Statement was not considered to be in enough detail on the operation of junctions on the highway network likely to be affected by traffic generated by the proposal.

A Transport Statement Addendum was subsequently submitted to address the matters raised in DCC’S Highway Consultation, which concludes that:

Page 64 · ‘The Churchill Way/Wooda Road junction would operate within capacity in all scenarios with minimal levels of queuing and delay. Therefore, there is no operational reason to provide a right turning lane, or any other improvement, at this junction as a result of the proposed development. · DCC have previously identified improvements at the Heywood Road/Churchill Way junction in an effort to resolve the existing operational problems that have included a roundabout and traffic signals. Neither of these schemes is currently being progressed by DCC. · The existing junction encounters increased levels of queueing and delay once traffic growth, the seasonal adjustment and committed developments are added. The addition of the traffic associated with the proposed development only exacerbates these existing problems. · The problems experienced at this junction are mainly limited to the PM peak period and are not primarily caused by the addition of trips associated with the proposed development. · Three potential improvement options have been identified in an effort to reduce the impact of the proposed development at this location. One of which, the widening of Churchill Way, did marginally improve the operational performance of the junction. · Whilst this modification does not improve all aspects of the junction’s performance it does effectively mitigate the impact of the proposed development by enabling the Churchill Way approach to operate more efficiently than it would in 2023 with seasonal adjustments and committed development with the existing layout. · The proportional impact of the proposed development at this junction is a maximum of 2.0% and on Churchill Way by 3.8% in the congested PM peak. This confirms that the increase in traffic due to the proposed development is negligible and not the primary reason why the junction is experiencing operational problems. · No further improvements are required at the A39/Heywood Road roundabout as the DCC improvement scheme was designed to cater for the increase in traffic associated with the allocated development sites in the area. · DCC suggested that the applicant investigates a potential scheme to provide parking bays on Churchill Way in Northam at a location where on-street parking prevents the two-way flow of traffic along Churchill Way. A scheme has been identified that could deliver up to 13 parking bays on the southern side of Churchill Way and realign the footway. However, as there may be the need for a retaining structure the costs of such a scheme are unknown and so cannot be agreed to at present. · The applicant is prepared to pay a contribution of £30,000 towards a zebra crossing on Richmond Road close to Appledore Primary School as requested by DCC.

Based upon the work undertaken and the conclusions of this report, there will be no severe residual cumulative impacts associated with the development of the site and, as such, there are no highways or transportation reasons why this development should not be permitted’.

On review of the Addendum, the LHO notes it provides evidence regarding the impact of the proposal on the highway network including at the junctions of Churchill Way with Wooda Road, Churchill Way with Heywood Road and the A39Heywood Road roundabout. The evidence shows that for the junction of Churchill Way with Wooda Road there is no need for a right turn lane at this junction in capacity terms and the LHO agrees with this conclusion, and would add that any such junction would be substandard due to the constraints on all sides of the road to make it large enough to be safely used by the traffic on this road.

Regarding the impact at the A39 Heywood Road roundabout, the LHO notes that the applicant has written that this junction is due to be upgraded as part of the DCC North Devon Link Road scheme to cater for the traffic associated with all development in the Local Plan. This scheme is due to start from November 2020 subject to Government approval of the full business case. The applicant has investigated options for improving the junction of Churchill Way with Heywood Road. A proposal to extend the right turn lane from Appledore to Westward Ho! was considered, but due to the viability issues with this site, and mainly due to the very limited benefit that this would provide to vehicle traffic, it would not be a cost-effective mitigation of traffic issues at this junction. Instead of improvement to this junction the applicant has looked into providing 13 car parking spaces on the current grass verge between the Town Hall and Bloody Corner. These spaces would allow for traffic on the A386 Churchill Way to flow more freely in this location without simply removing all the on-street parking which is the cause of traffic delay here. The applicant has also agreed to pay £30,000 to the Local Highway Authority to build a zebra crossing near to Appledore school.

Page 65

In conclusion, the LHO notes the applicant has provided evidence regarding the impact of the proposal on the local highway network and subject to improvements being delivered by the developer and the Local Highway Authority, there is no evidence to show that there would be a severe residual cumulative impact to refuse the application as is the test set out in NPPF paragraph 109.

Given this view, it does not seem necessary or reasonable to require the right-hand junction to be constructed. Whilst this would be contrary to Policy NOR07 2(c), the views of the LHO and evidence put forward within the Transport Statement Addendum, are considered sufficient to justify this policy conflict.

A letter of representation raises concern over land within the remainder of the allocation being potentially landlocked and in a ransom situation in terms of accessing the new highway infrastructure. The LHO has noted this and advised that, if necessary, the Applicant can be required to build the road to the boundary without ransom strips, in order to facilitate comprehensive development across the entire site. The illustrative masterplan indicates that the remainder of the allocation could access Pitt Lane and in turn the new road leading to Wooda Road.

The Design and Access Statement indicates that the level of parking being provided aims to achieve a minimum of one space per apartment and two spaces per house. Exact parking provision will be confirmed at reserved matters stage.

The Public Right of Way Officer is raising no objection to the proposal.

Given all of the above, and the support afforded to the scheme by the LHO, the application proposal is considered to be in accordance with NDTLP Policies ST10, NOR07 (other than in respect of the right-hand turn), DM05 and DM06 as well as paragraphs 108 and 109 of the NPPF.

Heritage: There are no listed buildings within or adjoining the site and it is not located within a Conservation Area. The Council's Conservation Officer has been consulted on the application and has made no comments.

Letters of representation raise concern over the impact of the proposal on Westleigh and Tapeley Park to the east. Westleigh Parish Council and the Taw and Torridge Estuary Forum are raising objection. Both Historic England and North Devon Council’s Conservation Officer were consulted to seek their views as to the likely impacts on Tapeley Park. Neither consultee is raising objection and North Devon Council’s Conservation Officer has noted that although the development will be visible in the long-range views, it will not cause harm to the significance of the heritage asset through effect on its setting.

The accompanying Historic Environment Assessment records that there are no heritage assets currently recorded within the application area. Although the site is located in a landscape in which there is potential for artefactual material associated with a putative battle between Harold and Brian, son of Eudo, which took place in AD 1069. The County Archaeologist advises that a recent geophysical survey recorded a number of anomalies potentially associated with pits/ditches as well as a possible curvilinear feature that could represent Iron Age or Roman activity. Consequently, groundworks for the construction of the proposed development have the potential to expose and destroy archaeological and artefactual deposits associated with this activity. The impact of development upon the archaeological resource here should be mitigated by a programme of archaeological work that should investigate, record and analyse the archaeological evidence that will otherwise be destroyed by the proposed development.

The County Archaeology Officer is raising no objections subject to a condition being required to secure a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Subject to the inclusion of this condition on any decision, the development raises no concerns in respect of archaeology and is in accordance with NDTLP Policies ST15 and DM07.

Page 66

Drainage: NDTLP Policy ST03 requires that development takes account of climate change to minimise flood risk. Policy DM04 requires development to 'provide effective water management including Sustainable Drainage Systems, water efficiency measures and the reuse of rain water'.

The site is not within an Environment Agency flood risk zone.

The application is supported by a Flood Risk Assessment and Surface Water Strategy. Devon County Council’s Flood Risk Management Team (DCCFRM) initially raised objection to the surface water proposals and requested additional information. Specifically, DCCFRM noted that due to the tidal nature of the River Torridge at this location, they have no requirement for restricted discharge however the applicant should ensure a feasible surface water drainage strategy is put forward and the impacts of tidal locking are assessed. DCCFRM further noted the consultation response of the Local Highway Authority confirming they do not allow discharge of surface water into their network, and therefore the surface water drainage design will need revising.

The Applicant submitted further information which DCCFRM concludes is a feasible surface water drainage strategy in line with the surface water management hierarchy. They note that infiltration testing has been undertaken at the site that indicates the underlying ground conditions are not viable for infiltration-based techniques such as soakaways. The applicant has put forward several options for the disposal of surface water drainage from the site. To summarise, these include discharge into the watercourse, connection to the existing highways drain or the requisition of a new surface water sewer. DCCFRM advises that, at detailed design, the options should be progressed in consultation with DCC Highways and South West Water dependent on the preferred option. The site will ultimately drain into the tidal estuary consequently in line with current best practice, attenuation is not required.

DCCFRM, having asked the Applicant to assess the proposed surface water drainage network for the impact of tidal locking from the Torridge Estuary, has confirmed that due to the level difference between the estuary and the site, it was deemed that tidal locking would have no impact on the site.

On the basis of the further submission of details, DCCFRM is raising no objection subject to requested conditions being included on any decision notice.

Foul drainage will be disposed of via a new pumping station into the mains sewer network. South West Water is raising no objection to this.

In light of the above, the application is considered to meet the requirements of NDTLP Policies ST03 and DM02.

Ground Conditions and Contamination: NDTLP Policy DM02 states that development will be supported where it does not cause an unacceptable risk to public health and safety due to: coastal erosion or land instability or its siting on known or suspected contaminated land which is unsuitable for the use proposed.

The application is supported by a 'Geotechnical Investigation and Contamination Assessment Report'. The Environmental Protection Officer (EPO) has reviewed this and notes it is comprehensive and indicates suitable ground testing has been undertaken. The EPO is satisfied that an appropriate assessment has been carried out in relation to potential contamination at the application site and agrees with the findings that there is unlikely to be a contamination issue or risk to human health arising from the proposed development of the site. Accordingly, it is recommended that the Local Planning Authority's standard contaminated land condition is included on any decision notice. The proposal is considered acceptable when assessed against Policy DM02.

Ecology and Trees: Local Planning Authorities have a statutory duty to ensure that the impact of development on wildlife is fully considered during the determination of a planning application under the Wildlife and

Page 67 Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (Habitats Regulations 2010). Policy DM08 of the NDTLP concerns biodiversity and requires development to conserve, protect and, where possible, enhance biodiversity and geodiversity interests and soils commensurate with their status and giving appropriate weight to their importance. The policy further requires all development to 'ensure that the importance of habitats and designated sites are taken into account' and to 'consider opportunities for the creation of a local and district wide biodiversity network of wildlife corridors which link County Wildlife sites and other areas of biodiversity importance'.

Natural England in their consultation response identified a requirement for the Local Planning Authority to carry out a Habitat Regulations Assessment to determine the significance of any impacts on the Braunton Burrows Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and the scope for mitigation. Your Officers questioned whether such an assessment would be triggered by the application as the site is outside of the identified zone of influence. On this point, North Devon Council’s Sustainability Officer has confirmed:

‘The HRA for Braunton Burrows SAC has already progressed through the Screening Stage to the Appropriate Assessment of site integrity under the Local Plan HRA/AA. The AA is essentially being undertaken in 3 parts and considers the cumulative impacts arising from all future development. The HRA Screening process concluded no Likely Significant Effect from any individual designated site in isolation.

Firstly we commissioned Footprint Ecology to undertake an AA of visitor impacts on the Braunton Burrows SAC which concluded that currently the designated habitats are being significantly effected by visitor pressure and therefore any increase in plan or non plan led development will only serve to increase this detrimental impact. Secondly, Footprint Ecology have carried out further visitor survey work (attached) to substantiate the Zone of Influence data included in the Local Plan HRA/AA. Refer to the “convex hull” on Map 4 and p2.7 which states ‘These suggest a zone of influence, which might best be defined using local geography. This zone would encompass Croyde Bay in the north, and run from Putsborough across to Barnstable, including the whole of Barnstable. The southern edge would potentially follow the A361/A39 as far as the Torridge’.

Thirdly, we are currently seeking to progress a mitigation management plan for all development within the revised Zone of Influence which clearly will not cover the Northam area.’

Natural England subsequently confirmed that this proposal would not need to be subject to an assessment as it falls outside of the Zone of Influence for the Braunton Burrows SAC.

The application is accompanied by an Arboricultural Constraints Report and Tree Protection Plan, which show that retained vegetation can be adequately protected during development. A full site specific arboricultural method statement and an updated tree protection plan would be required at reserved matters stage.

The application is supported by an Ecological Impact Assessment (EIA) prepared by ead Ecology and dated December 2018. The EIA confirms there are no European designated sites within or adjacent to the site boundary. There are no nationally designated sites within or adjacent to the site boundary. Taw-Torridge Estuary SSSI is located 265m east of the site at its closest point. Four other SSSIs, two Marine Conservation Zones and two Local Nature Reserves are present within 5km of the site.

The EIA describes the application site as comprising improved grassland fields bounded by species- rich and species-poor hedgerows with a line of broadleaved trees. Other habitats include dense bramble scrub, tall ruderal, marshy grassland, plantation broadleaved woodland, a short section of running water and a derelict stable block. The ‘survey area’ covered the site and a further improved grassland field to the north-east bounded by species-poor and species-rich hedgerows, as well as hardstanding, a residential dwelling and amenity grassland in the north-western corner.

The following protected / notable species were identified:

Page 68 • Three-cornered garlic (a non-native, invasive species listed on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)) was found on the southern boundary of the western parcel. No further notable or invasive plant species were recorded within the site or survey area; • No significant populations of notable invertebrates were considered likely; • No suitable amphibian breeding habitat was present within the site or survey area. The site provided suitable terrestrial foraging habitat for widespread amphibian species; hedgerows, scrub and woodland also provided suitable hibernation habitat. The site lies within a ‘Great Crested Newt Consultation Zone’, but the presence of great crested newt was discounted; • A ‘Low’ population of slow-worms was recorded within the site and survey area. Suitable reptile habitat was restricted to the field margins, hedgerows and scrub; • The site provided nesting habitat for widespread bird species, including notable species such as bullfinch, dunnock and song thrush. A barn owl was recorded flying over the site, but is not thought to be nesting on site. Two swallow nests and a robin nest were recorded in the stable block; • No evidence of use of the site by over-wintering waterfowl species was identified; • No evidence of dormouse was recorded within hedgerows within the site or survey area; • No badger setts were recorded on site or within the survey area. The site provides suitable foraging habitat for badgers; • ‘Low/Moderate’ levels of bat activity were recorded, with activity dominated by common and widespread species. A minimum of eleven species was recorded, with common pipistrelle dominating activity. No regular or important commuting routes were identified. No bat roosts were identified.

The proposed development falls within 300 metres of the Taw-Torridge Estuary SSSI. The EIA notes there is potential that construction could have an adverse effect on the water quality and habitats within the Taw-Torridge Estuary SSSI as a result of contaminants within surface water run-off. Natural England highlighted this in their consultation response and noted that mitigation will be required. The EIA advises that the proposed drainage design for the development would ensure that there would be no adverse effects on habitats or water quality within the estuary during the post-construction phase.

The only habitat valued above Sub-Parish level to be lost is species-poor hedgerow. This would reduce available habitat for protected and notable species during construction and there is the risk of direct impacts (i.e. killing or injury) to common amphibians, reptiles, nesting birds and hedgehogs during site clearance. There would also be the potential for disturbance to commuting and foraging bats arising from lighting during and post-construction.

The EIA identifies the following measures to avoid, mitigate and compensate negative effects and provide ecological enhancement: • Best practice measures to protect water quality during construction would be implemented; these would be specified in a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). This would ensure that there would be no effects on Taw-Torridge Estuary SSSI during construction; • Site clearance (including hedgerow removal) would be preceded by habitat manipulation and a hand search of suitable habitats for amphibians, reptiles and hedgehog by an experienced ecologist. Any amphibians, reptiles or hedgehogs found would be captured and moved to suitable habitat adjacent to the site; • Nesting-bird habitat (hedgerows) would be removed outside of the bird nesting season (i.e. removed between October and February) or subject to a pre-start check by an ecologist to ensure that no active nests were affected; • Retained hedgerows and mature trees would be protected from disturbance during construction through the use of temporary barriers (e.g. Heras fencing). Work would be undertaken in accordance with BS5837. The majority of retained hedgerows would be enhanced; • No lighting would be left on during the night during the construction period. Any security lighting would be positioned at low-height and motion activated on short-timers. Ecological input to the public- realm lighting scheme would be undertaken to ensure that the boundary hedgerows were not subject to light spill from external lighting; • New landscape planting would include wildflower meadow seeding, scattered native tree planting and creation of approximately 326m new native species-rich hedgerow; • A minimum of 11 bat and 11 bird boxes would be included within the fabric of new buildings, and a further 10 bird and bat boxes attached to retained trees; and

Page 69 • Hedgehog passes would be created within new garden fences to allow hedgehogs to move around the site post-development.

The EIA identifies that a Construction and Ecological Management Plan (CEMP) would be produced to detail measures to ensure habitat and species protection during construction. A Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) would also be produced to detail how retained and proposed habitats will be managed in the long term.

The EIA concludes there would be no risk or probability of a Likely Significant Effect on Braunton Burrows SAC or other European designated sites. It advises there would be no significant negative residual effects on other designated sites of nature conservation importance, including the Taw- Torridge SSSI, or to habitats or to legally protected species are predicted. New habitat creation and the implementation of the LEMP would ensure the effective long-term management of new and retained habitats. Hedgerow planting / enhancement would result in a net increase in this Priority Habitat and would mitigate loss of this habitat during construction; loss of other habitats would be partially mitigated by new habitat creation. The EIA concludes that there would be a minor adverse effect on biodiversity within the development site, which would not be significant and that compliance with the legal protection of protected species and designated sites could be achieved.

As per the consultation comments of the Planning Policy Team and Natural England, the Applicant was asked to confirm their approach to achieving a biodiversity net gain. A Biodiversity Position Statement (BPS) was prepared by ead Ecology and this confirms that since the submission of the planning application, an off-site biodiversity compensation measure has been agreed with the North Devon Biosphere Reserve. This changes the conclusion of the EIA to a minor positive effect.

The BPS notes that the management of the ecological effects of the development should be in accordance with the following ecological hierarchy, as set out in Paragraph 175 of the NPPF and NDTLP Policy DM08:

• Avoid the effect where possible; • If avoidance is not possible or feasible, mitigate for the effect; • If mitigation is not possible or feasible, compensate for the effect.

The BPS advises that the proposed development accords with this hierarchy with avoidance and mitigation measures having informed the development layout. However, as set out in the EIA, these are not sufficient to achieve a net biodiversity gain within the development area. For net gain to be achieved, approximately 35% of the development area would have to be assigned to habitat creation, such as wildflower meadow, which would compromise the viability of the proposal. Therefore, a compensation measure is proposed, which is the biodiversity offset agreed with the North Devon Biosphere Reserve.

The biodiversity offset within the Kenwith Valley proposes the creation of 3.1 hectares of broadleaved woodland on agriculturally-improved grassland. A loss/gain calculation was undertaken in conjunction with the North Devon Biosphere Reserve Manager using the Defra Metric 2.0 Test Metric Tool, in accordance with the North Devon Biosphere Reserve Offsetting Strategy 2013-2018. The metric confirms that the proposed 3.1 hectares of woodland habitat creation would generate +4.3 ‘Biodiversity Units’, which would compensate for the net loss of -3.5 ‘Biodiversity Units’ within the development area. The biodiversity offset would deliver a ‘net gain’ in excess of 10%, in accordance with the Government’s response to Net Gain consultation (Defra, July 2019) and the expected requirement within the forthcoming Environment Bill. Furthermore, the delivery of new broadleaved woodland habitat within the Kenwith Valley would provide ‘Priority Habitat’ at a strategic location, and would therefore provide a wider biodiversity benefit than could be delivered within the development site. Delivery of the biodiversity offset would be managed by the North Devon Biosphere Reserve, funded through the proposed Section 106 Agreement contribution of £32,950.

The BPS has been shared with Natural England who have advised ‘from the information provided it sounds like the development can achieve 10% gain through providing net gain offsite’.

Page 70 Given all of the above, and notwithstanding concerns raised in letters of representation, the application proposal is considered acceptable with regards to ecology, subject to appropriate conditions and financial contributions to secure mitigation measures and achieve an overall biodiversity net gain. The proposal is considered to be in accordance with NDTLP Policies ST14, NOR07 and DM08.

Viability and Section 106 Obligations: Any shortfall in infrastructure for the proposed development should be funded by developer contributions in accordance with NDTLP Policy ST23 (Infrastructure), which requires development to provide or contribute towards the timely provision of physical, social and green infrastructure made necessary by the specific or cumulative impacts of those developments. The application generates the following infrastructure requirements:

Affordable Housing: NDTLP Policy ST18 sets a requirement for developments of 11 or more dwellings to provide on-site delivery of affordable housing equal to 30% of the number of dwellings on site. Affordable housing is sought at a tenure split of 75% social rent and 25% intermediate in accordance with the mix specified by the Strategic Enabling Officer.

Policy ST18 (5) states that ‘negotiation to vary the scale and nature of affordable housing provision, along with the balance of other infrastructure and planning requirements, will be considered on the basis of a robust appraisal of development viability’.

Paragraph 7.31 clarifies that: ‘it is however accepted that there may be occasions whereby circumstances conspire to mean that the delivery of affordable housing in line with the policy requirements may compromise development viability. The obligation will lie with the developer to provide a robust financial justification to support any proposals failing to meet identified policy requirements. The local planning authority will consider such requests on the basis of an open book financial appraisal of development viability. The Local Planning Authority will normally require the appraisal to be independently verified, with the developer liable for reasonable costs incurred to the local planning authority in doing so. Where it is demonstrated that scheme viability prohibits meeting the full policy requirements for the provision of affordable housing and/or other planning obligations, the local planning authority will enter into negotiations to vary the proportion and/or mix of affordable housing provision’.

Green Infrastructure: In respect of green infrastructure and built recreational facilities, NDTLP Policy DM10 states: ‘Development will provide new accessible green infrastructure, including public open space and built facilities, to meet at least the green infrastructure quantitative and accessibility standards, as set out in Table 13.1 and Infrastructure Delivery Plan, to meet the needs of its intended occupants’.

Based on the indicative mix of housing, the application of the provisions of Policy DM10 and associated Table 13.1 of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan, the LPA’s Green Infrastructure calculator identifies an on-site requirement for 0.843 hectares of open space across different typologies. With this in mind, and as indicated above, your Officers have indicated that the required sports space/parks and gardens element to be provided as more informal recreational space on-site, consistent with the requirements of Policy NOR07. Your Officers have also agreed that it will not be necessary to secure the 0.036-hectare allotment requirement, thus reducing the total requirement to 0.807 hectares. The application proposal also generates a need for off-site built recreation contributions, however given the significant viability issues, and the need for a policy compliant on-site green infrastructure provision, your Officers are not seeking these.

The Applicant has agreed for this 0.807 hectares to be secured via a Section 106 Agreement on a pro rata basis so that any eventual proportion is confirmed according to final dwelling numbers.

Page 71 Highways: As per the obligations set out above, namely £30,000 contribution towards a new zebra crossing at Appledore Primary School and construction of a parking layby on Churchill Way (or financial contribution of £50,000 if the Applicant doesn’t provide this).

Education: The Local Education Authority (LEA) is seeking contributions required for education. The LEA has identified that the proposed 110 family type dwellings will generate an additional 27.5 primary pupils and 16.5 secondary pupils which would have a direct impact on Appledore Primary school, St Georges Infant school, St Margaret’s Junior school, and Bideford College. In order to make the development acceptable in planning terms, an education contribution to mitigate its impact will be requested. This is set out below:

‘There is no available primary capacity across the wider Northam and Bideford area and the County Council urgently needs to secure new school provision to meet the needs of the housing growth coming forward across the area. The education strategy for the Northam and Appledore area is for a new primary school to serve the housing development. The Local Plan identifies a school site on the Daddon Hill (NOR01) allocation. Whilst the designated school for this development would be Appledore Primary, this site cannot be expanded further and capacity will be created through a push- back of Northam pupils to the Northam schools. Devon County Council therefore cannot fulfil its statutory responsibilities with regard to pupil provision without new primary provision. When taking into account approved but not yet implemented developments our forecasts show a shortfall of 50 places and therefore a contribution towards primary education would be required.

The contribution sought towards primary is £440,522 (based on the DfE new build rate of £16,019 per pupil). This will relate directly to providing education facilities for those living in the development. We have forecast that the nearest secondary school has currently got capacity for the number of pupils likely to be generated by the proposed development and therefore a contribution towards secondary education would not be sought. In addition, as a new primary school is required, we would also need to request a proportionate land contribution of 10sqm per family-type dwelling. Based upon a land value of £440,000 per hectare, this land contribution would equate to £48,400 and would be used to assist in the procurement of the new school site. In addition, a contribution towards Early Years provision is needed to ensure delivery of provision for 2, 3 and 4 year olds. This is calculated as £27,500 (based on £250 per dwelling). This will be used to provide early years provision within the new school for children likely to be generated by the proposed development’.

Given the above position, it is considered reasonable to secure the requested LEA contributions towards primary and early years and for this eventual sum to be calculated on the basis of the final housing numbers and mix that come forward. The Local Planning Authority has however questioned the justification for a land contribution of £48,400 to be secured when the land for a new primary school has already been secured through the granting of outline planning permission at Daddon Hill. The LEA has explained that they are still seeking the requested land contribution in case the Daddon site does not come forward.

There is no evidence to suggest that the Daddon Hill development will not come forward and, given the marginal viability for this application site, it is not considered reasonable or appropriate to seek the requested land contribution.

Biodiversity: As indicated above, in order to meet the requirement for a 10% net gain in biodiversity, the proposal includes a financial contribution of £32,950 towards off-site enhancements to be implemented by the North Devon Biosphere.

Viability Assessment: The Applicant has submitted viability appraisals that demonstrate with a policy compliant level of contributions, the development would be unviable. These appraisals, prepared by Belvedere Vantage, are available for Members of the Plans Committee to view on the Council’s website, in line with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Practice Guidance (NPPG).

Page 72

As indicated above, Policy ST18 allows for negotiation to vary the scale and nature of affordable housing provision, along with the balance of other infrastructure and planning requirements, on the basis of a robust appraisal of development viability. The District Valuation Office (DV) was instructed to independently verify the submitted viability information and the assigned DV Officer has provided two written reports to the Council, the most recent of which is appended to this Committee Report for Member’s ease of reference.

The application proposal is unviable when assuming a policy compliant level of planning obligations. This is primarily due to abnormal development costs relating to surface water drainage and the topography of the site and the application of a median build rate.

Given the significant difference in scheme viability when applying median versus lower quartile build rates, your Officers have sought further evidence and comfort that the median build rate is appropriate in this instance. On this matter, the DV Officer has advised that:

‘In this case, whilst observing that in schemes of over 100 units we would tend to use the lower quartile build cost, I adopted median reflecting the quality of the proposed scheme, assuming that it would be constructed by the applicants. I remain of that view, and would also observe that the overall number of units has now fallen to 102, and therefore much closer to an indicative scale that would assume median rather than lower quartile. I have to assess the scheme as proposed, and on this basis, I remain of the view that the use of the median build cost is reasonable in this case’.

The DV Officer’s most recent advice concludes that:

‘Based on their re-assessment and latest submission, the applicants contend that the net effect of the changes suggested indicate a further negative impact on viability of circa £1,249,800. This would render a previously assessed lack of viability, even with no affordable housing provision, considerably worse.

I have re-assessed the scheme as proposed based on my original assumptions, as amended above. My appraisal is attached at appendix A to this letter, and shows that the previously assessed marginally viable scheme with no affordable housing worsens to a deficit of circa £655,000. This still assumes other s106 contributions as stated.

Such a deficit would imply that the land value be reduced to say £405,000 (or circa £44,000 per gross acre), which is considered to be unrealistically low; or a reduction in developer profit to circa 15%.

I have also re-assessed the scheme on the basis of an assumption that it is developed more economically and to a lower standard by a volume housebuilder, assuming a plot build cost based on lower quartile BCIS. My appraisal summary in this regard is attached at appendix B.

This shows that a more hypothetical scheme of the same scale and property types, however assuming a volume housebuilder; could yield a circa 9% on-site affordable housing provision, together with the other s106 contributions as stated’.

The Strategic Enabling Officer has been involved in discussions on viability and advises:

‘Therefore if there is an acceptance here that the design and quality of the development as proposed by the applicant is material in this circumstance, and as such the associated detrimental impact on the level of affordable housing to be provided is deemed justified, it is imperative that measures are put in place to ensure that if a lesser design is submitted at Reserved Matters stage and/or a volume house builder acquires the site, then affordable housing is secured at the rate of 9% provision across the development’.

Your Officers have advised above that a high-quality development is essential on this allocated site and how they are of the firm view that the Applicant, Baker Estates, is an appropriate fit in terms of the build quality. In reviewing other developments undertaken by the Applicant, the contents of the

Page 73 Design and Access Statement and the comments made by the Design Review Panel, your Officers feel that the Applicant is well placed to deliver a high-quality scheme and that this would be preferable to a volume housebuilder in this location. Therefore, in in the interests of securing a high-quality development, and in recognition of the challenging viability position, your Officers accept the median build rate. However, as urged by both the DV Officer and the Strategic Enabling Officer, it is considered appropriate to include a clause in any Section 106 Agreement requiring a viability review should the site be sold to and developed by an alternative developer. Furthermore, and as set out above, a condition is recommended to require a design code/approach and housing mix to be agreed prior to the submission of reserved matters. On the basis of both the Section 106 clause and suggested condition, your Officers are satisfied that a high-quality development commensurate with the suggested median build rate can be secured.

Notwithstanding the significant viability issues as set out above and in the appended DV Officer’s report, the Applicant is offering 5% affordable housing across the development. The Strategic Enabling Officer has advised that this should be secured on the basis of 2 x 2 bed units and 3 x 3 bed units, assuming 5 units are proposed, and for there to be the required split of 75% social rent and 25% intermediate. The Applicant has been asked on what basis they are able to provide this affordable housing, given the clear viability issues. They have confirmed that any such commitment is at risk and that it would be their profit margins that would be adjusted accordingly. Given this, it is considered that Members of the Plans Committee can apply weight to this offer in their decision making and that a 5% affordable housing provision should be secured via the Section 106 Agreement.

Conclusion The application site forms a significant element of residential allocation NOR07 and therefore the principle of residential development is acceptable in this location. The proposed development would make a significant contribution to the District’s housing needs and it is understood that the Applicant would be looking to commence on site in 2020 meaning the proposal would support the Council’s five- year housing delivery. The site is considered to be in a sustainable location, as reflected in its allocation for residential development.

The application proposal is considered to meet technical planning requirements in respect of vehicular access and parking, amenity, foul and surface water drainage, ground conditions and ecology, subject to detailed design and the inclusion of appropriate conditions on any planning permission.

The application is made in outline and therefore detailed designs are not for consideration at this stage. However, the detailed Design and Access Statement, Landscape and Visual Impact Assessments, Building for Life 12 Assessment and comments made by the Design Review Panel all lead to your Officers having confidence that the Applicant is well placed to deliver a suitably designed and high-quality scheme at reserved matters stage. There is some flexibility over final numbers with ‘up to 110 dwellings’ being proposed alongside a policy compliant quota of public open space taking the form of areas for both formal and informal recreation as well as green amenity space.

Due to viability issue, the application is unable to make a policy compliant offer in terms of necessary infrastructure. The District Valuation Office has confirmed this and advised the Local Planning Authority that in applying the median built rate, the scheme is unable to deliver any affordable housing. Notwithstanding this, the Applicant is offering 5% affordable across the site, which along with the other stated planning obligations, would be secured via a Section 106 Legal Agreement.

The proposed development is therefore considered to be in accordance Policies ST03, ST04, ST06, ST08, ST10, ST14, ST15, ST17, ST18, ST23, NOR, NOR07, DM01, DM02, DM04, DM05, DM06, DM07, DM08A, DM08, DM10 and DM08A of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan (2018) and the relevant provisions of the NPPF.

Human rights

Consideration has been given to the Human Rights Act 1998.

Page 74

Conclusion

It is therefore considered that subject to the compliance with the attached conditions and taking into account all other material planning considerations, including the development plan the proposal would be acceptable.

Recommendation

GRANT subject to the conditions detailed below and the prior satisfactory completion of a Section 106 Agreement covering the above matters:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later.

Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. Prior to the commencement of each phase of the development details of the following matters for that phase (in respect of which approval is expressly reserved) shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority: (a) The scale of the development; (b) The layout of the development; (c) The external appearance of the development; (d) The landscaping of the site;

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

Reason: The application was made for outline planning permission and is granted to comply with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Article 3(1) of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995.

3. For those matters not reserved for later approval, the development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed in the Plans Schedule.

Reason: To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

4. As part of the first reserved matters application a detailed phasing plan for the whole site shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The phasing plan shall include details of: a) intended number of market and affordable dwellings for each phase; b) general locations and phasing of key infrastructure including, surface water drainage, green infrastructure, and access for pedestrians, cyclist, buses and vehicles; c) Timing and delivery of the road improvements; and d) Timing and delivery of the footway improvements.

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved phasing plan.

Reason: To enable the development to be delivered in controlled phases.

5. The reserved matters shall be carried out in accordance with a Design Code which shall be submitted before or at the same time as the first reserved matters application and shall provide details of the following: a) architectural and design principles; b) a schedule of materials and finishes for buildings and, where so required by the Local Planning Authority, samples of such materials and finishes;

Page 75 c) the identification of character areas including street types, street materials and street furniture; d) landmark buildings; e) housing unit sizes and mix; f) external lighting; g) boundary treatments; h) roofscapes; i) the road hierarchy type and standard; j) car and cycle parking; k) footpath and cycleway networks including any internal/external links; l) parking; m) existing landscape features to be retained; n) details and location of areas of open space; o) proposed landscape framework, including structural planting; p) details of any ground re-contouring or remodeling required within the site; q) foul and surface water drainage; r) the identification of design areas: general layout, built form and design principles with special regard to the sensitive sub-phases including appropriate separation from stables adjoining the site.

The Design Code shall be developed in accordance with the principles set out in the Design and Access Statement prepared by Focus on Design and submitted with this outline planning application.

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details.

Reason: To define the details of the proposal and to ensure a high standard of design is achieved in the interests of the appearance and character of the area in accordance with North Devon and Torridge Local Plan Policies ST04, NOR07, DM04 and DM08A.

6. Prior to the commencement of development, including any site clearance, groundworks or construction within each sub-phase (save such preliminary or minor works that the Local Planning Authority may agree in writing), a Construction Management Plan (CMP) to manage the impacts of construction during the life of the works, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt, the CMP shall include:-

a) measures to regulate the routing of construction traffic; b) the times within which traffic can enter and leave the site; c) the importation of spoil and soil on site; d) the removal /disposal of materials from site, including soil and vegetation; e) the location and covering of stockpiles; f) details of measures to prevent mud from vehicles leaving the site and must include wheel- washing facilities g) control of fugitive dust from demolition, earthworks and construction activities; dust suppression h) impact assessments and associated mitigation measures in relation to noise, vibration, dust and lighting. (Assessments must be carried out by suitably qualified persons and the plan should demonstrate the adoption and use of best practice to reduce impacts) i) details of any site construction office, compound and ancillary facility buildings j) specified parking arrangements for vehicles associated with the construction works and the provision made for access thereto; k) a point of contact (such as a Construction Liaison Officer/site manager) and details of how complaints will be addressed

The details so approved and any subsequent amendments as shall be agreed in writing by the local Planning Authority shall be complied with in full and monitored by the applicants to ensure continuing compliance during the construction of the development.

Page 76 Reason: To minimise the impact of the works during the construction of the development in the interests of highway safety and the free flow of traffic and to safeguard the amenities of the area in accordance with Policies DM01, DM02 and DM04 of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan.

7. A detailed noise assessment in accordance with BS4142:2014 will be undertaken in order to evaluate the noise impact on future dwellings from operations and activities at Appledore Shipyard. The noise assessment will be undertaken by an acoustic consultant with membership of a relevant professional body (e.g. Institute of Acoustics). A noise control scheme shall be submitted detailing appropriate noise mitigation measures. The noise control scheme must be based on the assessment methodology in BS4142:2014 and shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to development commencing. All mitigation works, as approved, shall be completed prior to the occupation of any dwellings.

Reason: To protect the amenities of occupants of the approved development in accordance with North Devon and Torridge Local Plan Policies DM01, DM02 and DM04.

8. A waste audit statement shall be submitted as part of the first reserved matters application. This statement shall include all information outlined in the waste audit template provided in Devon County Council's Waste Management and Infrastructure Supplementary Planning Document. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved statement.

Reason: To minimise the amount of waste produced and promote sustainable methods of waste management in accordance with Policy W4 of the Devon Waste Plan and the Waste Management and Infrastructure Supplementary Planning Document.

9. The site access and visibility splays shall be constructed, laid out and maintained for that purpose in accordance with the approved plans where the visibility splays provide intervisibility between any points on the X and Y axes at a height of 1.05 metres above the adjacent carriageway level and the distance back from the nearer edge of the carriageway of the public highway (identified as X) shall be at least 2.4 metres and the visibility distances along the nearer edge of the carriageway of the public highway ( identified as Y ) shall be at least 43 metres in both directions.

Reason: To provide a satisfactory access to the site and to provide adequate visibility from and of emerging vehicles.

10. Traffic Regulation Orders required for the works to Pitt Lane including any downgrading or stopping up shall be determined by the relevant authority prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved.

Reason: To ensure that the development can proceed in accordance with other legislation.

11. Provision shall be made within the site for the disposal of surface water so that none drains on to any County Highway.

Reason: In the interest of public safety and to prevent damage to the highway.

12. Any proposed estate road, cycleways, footways, footpaths, verges, junctions, street lighting, sewers, drains, retaining walls, service routes, surface water outfall, road maintenance/vehicle overhang margins, embankments, visibility splays, accesses, car parking and street furniture shall be constructed and laid out in accordance with details to be approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before their construction begins, For this purpose, plans and sections indicating, as appropriate, the design, layout, levels, gradients, materials and method of construction shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that adequate information is available for the proper consideration of the detailed proposals.

Page 77

13. No part of the development hereby approved shall be occupied until: A) The access road has been laid out, kerbed, drained and constructed up to base course level for the first ten metres back from its junction with the public highway B) The ironwork has been set to base course level and the visibility splays required by this permission laid out C) The footway on the public highway frontage required by this permission has been constructed up to base course level D) A site compound and car park have been constructed to the written satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority E) The offsite parking spaces on the A386 Churchill Way as shown indicatively in the Addendum to the Transport Statement have been completed.

Reason: To ensure that adequate on-site facilities are available for all traffic attracted to the site during the construction period, in the interest of the safety of all users of the adjoining public highway and to protect the amenities of the adjoining residents.

14. The occupation of any dwelling in an agreed phase of the development shall not take place until the following works have been carried out to the written satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority: A) The spine road and cul-de-sac carriageway including the vehicle turning head within that phase shall have been laid out, kerbed, drained and constructed up to and including base course level, the ironwork set to base course level and the sewers, manholes and service crossings completed; B) The spine road and cul-de-sac footways and footpaths which provide that dwelling with direct pedestrian routes to an existing highway maintainable at public expense have been constructed up to and including base course level; C) The cul-de-sac visibility splays have been laid out to their final level; D) The street lighting for the spine road and cul-de-sac and footpaths has been erected and is operational; E) The car parking and any other vehicular access facility required for the dwelling by this permission has/have been completed; F) The verge and service margin and vehicle crossing on the road frontage of the dwelling have been completed with the highway boundary properly defined; G) The street nameplates for the spine road and cul-de-sac have been provided and erected.

Reason: To ensure that adequate access and associated facilities are available for the traffic attracted to the site

15. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the detailed design of the proposed permanent surface water drainage management system has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with Devon County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority. The application for the detailed drainage should be submitted and agreed at the same time that the reserved matters for layout are submitted and agreed. The design of this permanent surface water drainage management system will be in accordance with the principles of sustainable drainage systems, and those set out in the Surface Water Discharge Feasibility Assessment, Report Ref 18002 - Feasibility Statement B dated April 2019 and Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy Report Ref 18002 First Issue dated December 2018. No part of the development shall be occupied until the surface water management scheme serving that part of the development has been provided in accordance with the approved details and the drainage infrastructure shall be retained and maintained for the lifetime of the development.

Reason: To ensure that surface water runoff from the development is managed in accordance with the principles of sustainable drainage systems.

16. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the detailed design of the proposed surface water drainage management system which will serve the development

Page 78 site for the full period of its construction has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with Devon County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority. This temporary surface water drainage management system must satisfactorily address both the rates and volumes, and quality, of the surface water runoff from the construction site.

Reason: To ensure that surface water runoff from the construction site is appropriately managed so as to not increase the flood risk, or pose water quality issues, to the surrounding area.

This pre-commencement condition is required to ensure that surface water can be managed suitably without increasing flood risk downstream, negatively affecting water quality downstream or negatively impacting on surrounding areas and infrastructure.

17. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the full details of the adoption and maintenance arrangements for the proposed permanent surface water drainage management system have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with Devon County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the development’s permanent surface water drainage management systems will remain fully operational throughout the lifetime of the development.

This pre-commencement condition is required to ensure that suitable plans are in place for the maintenance of the permanent surface water drainage management plan, for the reason above.

18. Unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority, development other than that required to be carried out as part of an approved scheme of remediation must not commence until conditions 1 to 4 have been complied with. If unexpected contamination is found after development has begun, development must be halted on that part of the site affected by the unexpected contamination to the extent specified by the Local Planning Authority in writing until condition 4 has been complied with in relation to that contamination.

1. Site Characterisation An investigation and risk assessment, in addition to any assessment provided with the planning application, must be completed in accordance with a scheme to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the site. The contents of the scheme are subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons and a written report of the findings must be produced. The written report is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The report of the findings must include: (i) a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination; (ii) an assessment of the potential risks to: • human health, • property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, livestock, pets, woodland and service lines and pipes, • adjoining land, • groundwaters and surface waters, • ecological systems, • archaeological sites and ancient monuments; (iii) an appraisal of remedial options, and proposal of the preferred option(s). This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency’s ‘Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11’. Approval by the Local Planning Authority of the report submitted at this stage will confirm whether there is a need to undertake remediation measures under conditions 2, 3 and 5 below.

2. Submission of Remediation Scheme A detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the natural and historical environment must be prepared, and is subject to the approval in writing of the

Page 79 Local Planning Authority. The scheme must include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works and site management procedures. The scheme must ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the intended use of the land after remediation.

3. Implementation of Approved Remediation Scheme The approved remediation scheme must be carried out in accordance with its terms prior to the commencement of development other than that required to carry out remediation, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Local Planning Authority must be given two weeks written notification of commencement of the remediation scheme works. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme, a verification report (referred to in PPS23 as a validation report) that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be produced, and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

4. Reporting of Unexpected Contamination In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development that was not previously identified it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of condition 1, and where remediation is necessary a remediation scheme must be prepared in accordance with the requirements of condition 2, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification report must be prepared, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority in accordance with condition 3.

5. Long Term Monitoring and Maintenance Where an approved remediation scheme includes a requirement for a monitoring and maintenance scheme to ensure the long-term effectiveness of the proposed remediation over time, a report setting out monitoring and maintenance requirements must be submitted in writing for the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority. Following completion of the measures identified in that scheme and when the remediation objectives have been achieved, reports that demonstrate the effectiveness of the monitoring and maintenance carried out must be produced, and submitted to the Local Planning Authority. This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency’s ‘Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11’.

Reason (common to all): To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.

19. Construction works shall not take place other than between 0700 and 1900hrs on Mondays to Fridays, Saturdays between 0800 and 1300hrs and at no time on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

Reason: To protect the amenities of neighbouring properties.

20. No development shall take place until the developer has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation (WSI) which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out at all times in accordance with the approved scheme, or such other details as may be subsequently agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure, in accordance with Policy DM07 of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan 2011 - 2031 and paragraph 199 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2018), that an appropriate record is made of archaeological evidence that may be affected by the development.

Page 80

This pre-commencement condition is required to ensure that the archaeological works are agreed and implemented prior to any disturbance of archaeological deposits by the commencement of preparatory and/or construction works.

21. Prior to the commencement of any development hereby granted planning permission and before any equipment, machinery or materials are brought onto the site for the purposes of the development hereby granted planning permission, site specific details of the specification and position of the fencing for the protection of any retained tree/group of trees, a tree constraints report and plan in accordance with the recommendations in BS5837:2012, together with a site specific arboricultural impact assessment and arboricultural method statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The works shall be carried out as approved and the fencing shall be erected prior to the commencement of any of the development hereby permitted and shall be maintained until the development has been completed and all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site.

Reason: To protect the trees to be retained on this site from damage before and during the course of development.

This pre-commencement condition is required to ensure that the Local Planning Authority is satisfied of the proposed tree and landscaping works prior to works commencing on site. Failure to provide this information prior to works commencing on site could lead to the loss of existing trees and/or hedges which are of amenity value.

22. The development shall be carried out in strict accordance with Section 4 of the Ecological Impact Assessment (EIA) dated December 2018 and the Biodiversity Position Statement dated 6 September 2019, both prepared by ead Ecology. Prior to the commencement of development, both a Construction and Ecological Management Plan (CEMP) to detail measures to ensure habitat and species protection during construction and a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) to detail how retained and proposed habitats will be managed in the long term, will be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The required management plans and strategies shall include conservation audit and monitoring provisions to measure the success or otherwise of their implementation.

The approved mitigation measures shall be implemented both during and post construction in accordance with the approved details. Post construction mitigation measures shall be maintained in perpetuity.

Reason: To ensure the interests of protected species on the site are maintained and to achieve biodiversity enhancement in accordance with North Devon and Torridge Local Plan Policies ST14 and DM08.

23. The application for the approval of Reserved Matters required by Condition 1 shall specify as (datum) the proposed finished floor levels of all buildings and other proposed site construction levels in relation to existing ground levels. The agreed construction levels shall be implemented as approved.

Reason: The application is made in outline and building levels relative to existing levels on the sloping site are required to ensure that construction levels are the optimum in the interests of minimising the visual impact of the development in the countryside.

Page 81 Plans Schedule

Reference Received

LOCATION PLAN 20.12.2018

18002-SK007-A 04.01.2019

18002-SK008 04.01.2019

Statement of Engagement

The National Planning Policy Framework (paragraphs 38) requires local planning authorities to work positively and proactively with applicants to achieve sustainable development. Throughout the application process guidance has been given to the applicants and all outstanding issues have been identified.

In this instance the Council required additional information following the consultation process in respect of a number of material planning issues, including highways, amenity (noise and amenity), ecology, green infrastructure and viability. The need for additional information was addressed with the applicant and submitted for further consideration.

The Council has therefore demonstrated a positive and proactive manner in seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to the planning application.

Page 82

Planning Policy Consultation Response

Pre-application Reference: 1/1343/2018/OUTM

Site Address: Land at Wooda Road, Pitt Lane, Appledore (pt NOR07)

Proposal: Outline application for residential development of up to 110 dwellings, public open space and associated infrastructure with all matters reserved except access

Case Officer: Helen Smith

Date of Consultation: 9th January 2019

Response Deadline: 30th January 2019

Respondent: Ian Dawn Burgess (Senior Planning Policy Officer)

Date of Response: 4th February 2019

Consultation Response

The following should be taken as a formal planning policy consultation response to the proposal detailed above. The response focusses on the key principles of the proposal and does not cover all detailed considerations or all material considerations that may be relevant in determining the application.

Development Plan

The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (PCPA) at s38(6) requires that if regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the Planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The principal component of the development plan in this instance is the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan 2011-2031 (adopted 29th October 2018) (NDTLP).

Appledore is identified as part of the Northam Main Centre through Policy ST06: Spatial Development Strategy for Northern Devon’s Sub-regional, Strategic and Main Centres. The policy provides support for development within the Appledore defined development boundary (Policies Map 8B1) and there within on allocated sites.

Part 1 of the NDTLP contains strategic policies, including the Spatial Vision and Development Strategy for Northam (Policy NOR). The Spatial Vision provides that across the three centres (Northam, Appledore and Westward Ho!) a range of housing appropriate to local needs, will be supported by necessary infrastructure and that development will be delivered without prejudice to valued environmental assets having regard to the importance of the area’s setting and landscape quality. All development proposals within Northam (Appledore and Westward Ho!), including those on allocated sites, will be considered within this context. The related Development Strategy reflects the housing requirement for Northam defined in Policy ST08: Scale and Distribution of New Development in Northern Devon, at a minimum

1 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan Policies Map 8B: Northam and Appledore: http://consult.torridge.gov.uk/portal/planning/localplan/adoption/

Page 83

of 1,916 dwellings. The Development Strategy also includes that a range of new sites, including allocations are provided to deliver approximately 1,740 dwellings.

The site subject to the application forms the southern component of a larger NDTLP allocated housing site, which is recognised (paragraph 10.384) as being significant in respect of the contribution to be made to the future housing needs of Appledore. Policy NOR07: Site Adjoining Pitt Hill (Appledore) allocates a site of about 6 hectares for the delivery of approximately 130 dwellings with an emphasis on providing a mix of housing type and size to reflect local needs including affordable housing. The policy also sets out a range of site specific development principles:

(a) development located and of a form that minimises any loss of landscape character of the surrounding area;

(b) areas of green infrastructure providing opportunities for biodiversity enhancement and informal recreation focused to the south of the site within the coastal and estuarine zone;

(c) vehicular access achieved from Wooda Road, by improvement to Pitt Hill and an access from Pitt Hill Road and the provision of a right hand turn from Churchill Way into Wooda; and

(d) safeguarding an appropriate vehicular access extending to the northern boundary, to enable the future delivery of the adjoining site on land east of Churchill Way.

The application site comprises 3.75 hectares, which equates to 62% of the NOR07 allocation, while providing 85% of the housing yield expected to be delivered from the site. If the balance of the allocated site were to be developed at the approximate density of the application site, the allocated site would delivery about 180 dwellings, almost 40% above the expected yield. It is recognised that the yield attributed to allocated sites is stated as an approximate figure and that the average density across the application site is marginally less than 30 dwellings per hectare.

The NDTLP allocated housing site yields have been determined through the application of a standardised approach2, which included a range of density guidelines and the means by which the net developable area would be calculated. The approach sought to enable the delivery of quality development and ensure that all necessary infrastructure can be provided within an allocation. Based on this approach a yield of approximately 130 dwellings was attributed to the NOR07 site; if the application site were subject to the same calculation the associated yield would be approximately 70 dwellings.

It is recognised that there can be some flexibly around the housing yield achieved from an allocated site, both above and below the attributed level of development. Where there is variance in the proposed housing numbers relative to the policy provision, consideration will be required to be given as to whether or not the site’s development principles will be compromised, together with the acceptability of the proposal when considered against other relevant policies of the NDTLP.

2 Northern Peninsula Housing Market Area SHLAA Methodology – 2013/14 Refresh: https://www.torridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=14076&p=0

Page 84

Although the application is only in outline and detailed matters will be subject to later consideration, it will be necessary at this time to determine if the above site specific development principles could be achieved without prejudice, most significantly in respect of criterion (a) and (b). It is also considered relevant with regard to the landscape impact to have regard to the location of the application site. Although within an allocated site the application site forms only the southern part of the allocation; in the absence of the balance of the allocation coming forward it will hold a poor relationship to the principal built form of Appledore.

Housing Mix

It is noted that there is no reference to property mix. Policy NOR07 (1) (a) requires that the dwellings provided on the allocation are of a mix, type and size that reflect local need, including affordable housing. Policy ST17: Balanced Local Housing Market, further requires that the scale and mix of dwellings, in terms of numbers, type size and tenure should reflect identified housing need, whilst having regard to the character and context of the site, alongside development viability. The Housing and Economic Needs Assessment3 (HEDNA) provides robust and up-to-date evidence of housing need which is appropriate to be used in establishing the mix of housing provided by development proposals. More localised evidence, such as housing needs surveys, can be used if they are available and up-to-date. The policy is intended to influence both market and affordable tenures.

Affordable Housing

Subject to a range of thresholds and criteria, NDTLP Policy ST18: Affordable Housing on Development sites, requires the provision of 30% affordable housing, with an expectation of on-site provision unless alternative off-site provision or a financial contribution of broadly equivalent value can be justified. Policy ST18 in association with Policy ST17 on the mix of housing provides a range of provisions governing the requirements for affordable housing.

The supporting material provided with the application provides no information on the level of affordable housing to be delivered, other that to indicate that such will be a matter for later agreement. Having regard to the requirements of Policy ST18, on-site delivery of 33 affordable dwellings should be sought.

The Strategic Enabling Officer should be consulted to seek advice on the specific details of provision that will be required from the development proposal.

Open Space and Built Sports Facilities

NDTLP Policy ST23: Infrastructure, provides that developments will be expected to provide or contribute to the timely provision of physical, social and green infrastructure made necessary by the specific and/or cumulative impact of those developments. NDTLP Policy DM10: Green Infrastructure Provision is relevant with regard to recreation and open space; it provides the means to determine development generated requirements. With regard to the application site, it is assumed that the proposed 110 dwellings are family homes in the absence of information to the contrary, which will generate the need for the following:

3 North Devon and Torridge Housing Needs Assessment (GL Hearn May 2016) http://consult.torridge.gov.uk/file/3980185

Page 85

Typology Ha Allotments: 0.04 Amenity and Natural Greenspace: 0.49 Play Space (Children): 0.01 Play Space (Youth): 0.00 Parks, Sport and Recreation Grounds: 0.32 Total: 0.87

Information provided with the application (Design Statement 2) states that 0.41 hectares of public open space, including play features will be incorporated into the site. The above table sets out the requirements that would be generated by a development of 110 family dwellings, which is more than double that proposed. The proposal on a quantitative basis and by typology falls short of the green infrastructure requirements set out in the NDTLP.

Policy NOR07 (2)(b) and the related supporting text (paragraph 10.385) set out the importance of green infrastructure in nature and location. In addition to meeting generated needs, green infrastructure is recognised as being an important contributor to the required high quality development and to minimising any consequential landscape impact, which is identified as particularly important to the north of Wooda Road. Accepting the application is in outline form, it is nevertheless difficult to appreciate how the policy objectives in respect green infrastructure can be secured.

Policy ST23: Infrastructure, as indicated above, additionally enables contributions to be sought to meet needs that would be met through built facilities. Subject to the presence of suitable projects the following financial contributions would be sought from a development of 110 dwellings: swimming pool £58,780.33, health and fitness suites £35.417.85 and community hall £145,275.59; maintenance costs will also be applied at a rate of 20% of the capital cost. This contribution is established on the basis of applying the provisions of the Green Infrastructure Strategy for North Devon and Torridge District Councils 2013-2031 (Tables 21 & 23, David Wilson Partnership / JPC Strategic Planning & Leisure, April 2014) to the projected population and indexed to a 2018-base with RPI.

Conclusion

The principle of development is satisfied on the basis that the application site forms part of a site allocated in the NDTLP for housing and falls within the Appledore development boundary. It is also recognised that the allocated site will make a significant contribution to meeting the future housing needs of Appledore and to the Northam housing requirement.

While accepting the above principle it is necessary to ensure that any development proposals reflect all relevant policies, which may include strategic, site specific and development management policies.

As set out above the planning application presents a number of issues which would be required to be addressed to deliver a policy compliant proposal, which other than matters relating to the nature and mix of the proposed residential development, generally relate to the potential consequences of the scale of the proposed development and how such could be accommodated without prejudice to the development principles of Policy NOR07.

Page 86

Planning Policy Consultation Response (supplementary)

Pre-application Reference: 1/1343/2018/OUTM

Site Address: Land at Wooda Road, Pitt Lane, Appledore (pt NOR07)

Proposal: Outline application for residential development of up to 110 dwellings, public open space and associated infrastructure with all matters reserved except access

Case Officer: Helen Smith

Respondent: Ian Rowland (Senior Planning Policy Officer)

Date of Response: 10th June 2019

Consultation Response

An initial planning policy response was provided in response to the application on this site on the 4th February 2019. The following is supplemental to that and is provided in response to a letter from the applicant’s agent of the 29th March, with respect to open space provision and other matters.

Open Space

The original planning policy consultation response provided details of the green infrastructure and potential built community and sports facilities contributions that are required by virtue of Policies DM10: Green Infrastructure Provision and ST23: Infrastructure.

In the letter of the 29th March, the applicant challenges the required levels of green infrastructure and built community and sports facilities, raising the following principle issues:  Is an outline application, with the number and mix of housing not fixed – therefore not possible to establish requirements with absolute certainty;  To accord with the provisions of the NPPF, the Council needs to demonstrate a deficiency of existing provision, in accordance with accessibility standards;  Parks, sport and recreation provision should not be required on-site as the allocation policy, NOR07, does not make explicit reference to the requirement to do so, in contrast to, for example, NOR04, which does state such with respect to sports pitches;  Requirements for parks, sports and recreation grounds, along with the allotments can, if needed, be met off-site as the development site does not make it suitable for the former and the requirement for the allotments makes it undesirable to be provided on site; and  There is a significant overlap of requirements between the requirements for parks, sports and recreation grounds requirements and that sought as built facilities.

It is recognised that the application is outline in nature and that, with the exception of access, all matters are proposed to be reserved. On this basis, it is acknowledged that the application provides for ‘up to 110 dwellings’, rather than establishing a specific, fixed level of housing.

In reviewing the application and determining the scope for policy compliance, it is however considered necessary to carry out an appraisal on the highest level of housing that could be delivered by the development proposals; so as to satisfy the local planning authority that the proposal, and in particular the site, could accommodate all necessary requirements.

Should the local planning authority be satisfied that compliance can be achieved, a formulaic approach could be used, as part of any legal agreement, to secure the required level of green Page 87 infrastructure or alternate financial contributions which is proportionate to the level of housing brought forward through any subsequent reserved matters application(s).

The proposed mix of housing has been clarified by the applicant and it is possible to recalculate the levels of green infrastructure required to provide full policy compliance to the proposed maximum level of housing; although recognising that the application is outline and provides for ‘up to 110 dwellings’. Based on the indicative mix of housing, the application of the provisions of Policy DM10 and associated Table 13.1 of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan, establishes the following requirements arising from the proposed development:

(1) Development Proposals

Residential Proposals Applied Occupancy Rates Generated Proposed (persons Population Dwelling Size Dwellings /dwelling) (persons) One Bedroom 12 1.26 15.12 Two Bedroom 35 1.81 63.35 Three Bedroom 41 2.4 98.4 Four Bedroom 22 2.85 62.7 Five or More Bedroom 0 3.18 0 Unknown Bedrooms 0 2.27 0 Residential Sub-total 110 239.57

Generated Residential Population: 239.57 Generated Non-Residential Population: 0 Total Generated Population: 239.57 Applied Capital Index (BCIS): 321 @ 2019Q1 Applied Maintenance Period (years): 10 Applied Revenue Index (CPIH): 106.7 @ 2019Q1 Assumed annual inflation rate for maintenance (%): 2

(2) GI Requirements

Required Total Maintenance Equivalent (Revenue) Generated Contribution Build (Capital) (£ @ 2% Generated Contribution growth for 10 Typology Requirement (ha) (£ @ 2019Q1) Years) Amenity Green Space 0.168 £32,691.12 £12,270.28 Natural Green Space 0.311 £60,712.08 £15,436.80 Play Space (Child) 0.012 £26,464.24 £5,188.01 Play Space (Youth) 0.005 £10,585.70 £2,075.20 Parks and Gardens 0.103 £96,392.10 £26,745.82 Outdoor Sports Space 0.208 £195,025.89 £22,629.33 Allotments 0.036 £14,010.48 £551.31 0.843 £435,881.61 £84,896.76

Page 88

Note: Amenity + Natural Greenspace, along with Parks and Gardens + Outdoor Sports Space have been disaggregated in the above analysis but can be combined to equate to the standards stated in the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan.

(3) Built Facilities Requirements

Proportionate Capital Cost Facility Generated Requirement (% of Facility) (£ @ ) TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 1.43 x Affordable Community Swimming Pool - 25m x 4 Indoor Swimming Pools Lane (25 x 8.5m) £54,355.41 Sports Halls 1.557 x Affordable Sport Hall - 4 Court (34.5 x 20m) £38,002.19 Health & Fitness Suites 1.102 x Fifty-station Gym £0.00 Community Halls 18.854 x Small Community Hall £143,190.50 1.054 x Senior Football (65mm 3G, Fenced, Sports Artificial Grass Pitch (AGP) Lighting) (106 x 70) £10,513.98 Total £246,062.08

It is advocated by the applicant’s agent that in order to require the provision of parks, sports and recreation, along with allotments, the onus is on the local planning authority to demonstrate a quantitative deficiency of provision against prescribed requirements within the locality, taking account of the application of the prescribed accessibility standards.

This is not considered to be the case and is not a correct application of the standards set out in the Local Plan. Policy DM10 (through Table 13.1) of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan does not set out global standards of provision associated to meeting the needs of the wider community but rather provides specific requirements that are directly attributable to meeting the net additional needs generated directly from new development.

The standards derive from the findings and recommendations of the Green Infrastructure Strategy for North Devon and Torridge District Councils and specifically the standards for new development set out in Tables 7 and 81. These requirements for new development have been established to take into account needs generated from the planned levels of housing growth across northern Devon, whilst having regard to existing levels of provision within northern Devon, as a whole and for individual localities, and at the same time reflecting local community views as to appropriate accessibility and levels of provision. The standards have been through a recent examination in public and are considered to be up-to-date. As such, they are considered to provide a robust basis to seek new provision, or contributions towards such provision, from development and to ensure that such requirements comply with the three tests for planning obligations, that require them to be necessary, directly related and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind.

The Council therefore considers that the requirements for parks, sport and recreation grounds, allotments and in fact all other requirements, are applicable and not affected by any surplus or deficit of existing provision within the locality of the site, when prescribed accessibility standards are applied. The Green Infrastructure Strategy cited above, did carry out an assessment to establish any existing surplus or deficit of each green infrastructure typology by locality (parish). In doing so, for the

1 Available at: http://consult.torridge.gov.uk/file/3371422 Page 89 parish of Northam it identified, with the exception of allotments, a deficit in all Green Infrastructure typologies. This is considered to further substantiate the need for the development to provide green infrastructure in accordance with prescribed standards.

It is suggested that there is no need for the on-site provision within the parks, sports and recreation ground, or allotment typologies by virtue of such a requirement not being stipulated within the provisions of the allocation policy (NOR07); citing NOR04 as the basis for such a conclusion, given that the need for sports pitch provision is explicit within the latter. This notion is not accepted, rather the provisions of Policy DM10 are considered to be normal development requirements that are not necessarily repeated in all allocation policies, but are rather taken to be more general requirements applicable to development proposals more widely; much as car parking standards would be through Policy DM06, or biodiversity net gain through Policy DM08. In the case of Policy NOR04, the requirement for football pitch provision in clause (d) is included as this is a very specific requirement to the site in question, with the site providing the opportunity to deliver beyond the needs directly generated from the housing on the allocation and to provide land for more strategic sports pitch provision. As such, a comparison between the requirements stated in Policies NOR07 and NOR04 is not appropriate, nor does it provide the basis for negating the requirement for provision in accordance with Policy DM10.

It is suggested that the topography of the site makes it unsuitable to provide any on-site provision in the parks, sport and recreation ground typology. It does not appear that this conclusion is currently substantiated by appropriate evidence from the applicant to demonstrate that this is the case. Whilst it is acknowledged that parts of the site are sloping, there are other parts of the site that are broadly flat, or that could be made so with relatively modest works. Equally, the combined typology would allow for non-sport, or non-pitch based provision (i.e. parks), which could be accommodated on a smaller area of level ground, or creatively incorporated into sloping parts of the site. As such, on the basis of current information, it is not accepted that the c.0.31 ha of green infrastructure in the parks, sports and recreation grounds typology could not be accommodated on site as part of the proposals.

With respect to the provision of allotments, it is acknowledged that the development proposals generate a very modest requirement for allotment provision, amounting to c. 360 sq. m; equivalent to just over one and a half standard allotment plots, or three half plots (which are now often more readily adopted). Such, is unlikely to provide a sustainable proposition and it is therefore reasonable that the requirement could be converted to be an equivalent financial contribution towards off-site provision, or could else be transposed into an alternative but comparable use – such as a community garden or community orchard.

It is suggested that there is significant overlap between the identified requirements for provision arising from the parks, sport and recreation ground typology in accordance with Policy DM10 and that identified in the planning policy response regarding built recreation facilities to be sought under Policy ST23 on infrastructure. This is not the case, and the two requirements are distinct with no overlap; with the Green Infrastructure Strategy upon which the requirements are based providing distinct and separate standards for ‘outdoor’ green infrastructure through the sport and recreation ground typology and for a number of specific built facilities through different standards in the Built Facilities Strategy. With the basis and justification for the latter supplemented by the more recent (2017) Torridge District Council Built Facilities Assessment2.

2 Torridge District Indoor/Built Sports Facility Needs Assessment - Final Report; August 2017, available at: https://www.torridge.gov.uk/LeisureStrategies Page 90

The legitimacy for seeking the built facilities contributions is also challenged on the basis of whether they meet the statutory tests for seeking planning obligations; namely that they are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the development; and fairly and reasonable related in scale and kind to the development. It is considered that the built facilities contributions do meet the statutory tests for seeking planning obligations, being founded on robust evidence that derives a direct need for new provision arising from the proposed development, whilst providing a basis to tie the scale of contribution to the need generated by the intended population. That being said, whilst it is considered that the need for the built facility contributions previously cited can be robustly justified, it is not considered appropriate to pursue securing contributions towards health and fitness suites, nor a community hall, by virtue of not having appropriate identified opportunities upon which to spend such receipts.

For the avoidance of doubt, areas of landscaping and vegetation that cannot be considered to form part of publically accessible green infrastructure, cannot be attributed towards meeting the requirements arising for green infrastructure under Policy DM10.

Finally, I would draw your attention to the requirement within Policy DM08 to achieve biodiversity net gain. In doing so, I would note the practice of applying the mitigation hierarchy and the need to first seek to avoid and then minimise the loss of habitat, before moving on to rehabilitation/ restoration through mitigation and then compensation, with a view to the latter being provided on- site where possible; moving to off-site compensation or off-setting and gain where it is demonstrated that on-site is not possible or desirable. In doing so, we would expect this narrative to be explained and supported by robust evidence of consideration to support and justify proposals.

Page 91 Page 92 Page 93 Page 94 Page 95 Page 96 Page 97 Page 98 INTEGRATING INTO THE NEIGHBOURHOOD INTEGRATING INTO THE NEIGHBOURHOOD CREATING A PLACE

1. CONNECTIONS 3. PUBLIC TRANSPORT A traditional landscape design will work well to compliment the Does the scheme integrate into its surroundings by reinforcing Does the scheme have good access to public transport to help character and setting of the site. The large green space forms a key existing connections and creating new ones, whilst also respecting reduce car dependency? space and movement corridor. existing buildings and land uses around the development site? Buildings will reflect the traditional architecture of Appledore. Bus stop locations are within a 2 minute walk of the site and Coloured renders will predominate, sat on a strong black plinth; grey Due to the current junction arrangement onto Wooda Road and provide a direct route into Appledore or to further afield. roofs, occasionally contrasted by the odd red ridge; red brick the narrow nature of Pitt Hill likely being insufficient to serve a New pedestrian links are proposed to link to the existing PRoW to chimneys; sash-style windows with surrounds or painted concrete or stone cills; some stone facades with red brick detailing. Grandeur is redevelopment of the land, the site provides a suitable new the east and to Churchill Way to the west where bus stops are afforded to the larger buildings with little detailing to the smaller junction onto Wooda Road further east, linking back into Pitt Hill located, both of which lead north into Appledore. The link to the properties. The building architecture creates a pattern of rhythm to to the north. A section of Pitt Hill is proposed to be downgraded to west also gives a direct link towards Northam. the existing streets and proposed tertiary streets and a less formal, a cycle/pedestrian route only, ensuring the existing landscape Discussions with DCC have identified a preference for highway individual approach to the streets such as Pitt Hill. character of Pitt Hill is maintained. contributions to improve the existing network as opposed to Streets will be proposed in tarmac with contrasting hard surfacing to A pedestrian link along the southern boundary connects the reducing car dependency. define the public/private edges. existing highway network to the west to the existing PRoW to the east. Both of these routes lead north to Appledore, and south to 6. WORKING WITH THE SITE AND ITS CONTEXT further afield. Additional pedestrian links in, through and out of 4. MEETING LOCAL HOUSING REQUIREMENTS Does the scheme take advantage of existing topography, the site are proposed in the northwest corner, along the northern landscape features (including water courses), wildlife habitats, edge, and onto Wooda Road - one closely located to the PRoW Does the development have a mix of housing types and tenures existing buildings, site orientation and microclimates? that 99 Page leads south to the coastal path to Bideford. that suit local requirements? The site proposes residential uses with associated public open The existing tree grouping to the SE corner is protected and thus space which compliment and are generally commensurate with The scheme is anticipated to deliver a broad mix of dwellings from retained. All existing boundary hedgerows are also proposed to be the surrounding area. 1 bedroom apartments, 2 and 3 bedroom bungalows and 2, 3 and retained (aside from short section removal for connectivity) Existing residential properties along Wooda Road have been 4 bedroom houses, of open market and affordable tenures. The regardless of quality. This helps maintain the landscape character- sensitively considered in relation to the siting and scale of specific split and mix is subject to detailed discussions with the particularly of Pitt Hill - and the segmented development properties in close proximity, notably to the SE corner where they local authority. approach bound by historic field boundaries common to the area. abut the site boundary. The design of the affordable housing will be completely tenure blind to ensure integration and no segregation. Enhancement of some existing hedgerows may be required. Their retention along with new landscaping aids in providing suitable 2. FACILITIES AND SERVICES areas for protecting and enhancing wildlife habitats. Does the development provide (or is it close to) community 5. CHARACTER The existing hedgerows are fronted onto by properties in most facilities, such as shops, schools, workplaces parks, play areas, Does the scheme create a place with a locally inspired or instances, providing a natural rural outlook for the proposed pubs or cafes? otherwise distinctive character? dwellings. In the east of the site, an existing watercourse runs north-south The site is well linked to local services and facilities, adjacent the The proposals are inspired by Appledore, reflecting a mix of a tight through the site and is proposed to be diverted and kept open as a local football club and within a 5 minute walk of the local primary linear urban grain of repetitive narrow terraced cottages along the swale feature such as a rain garden. school. Main high street services, places for work and worship, existing streets and tertiary side streets, and a looser grain, of a more Although the sloping topography is not overly challenging, it does play areas and all other local facilities are all within a 10 minute detached and casual built form to routes such as Pitt Hill. The provide views in and out and in particular an opportunity to align a walk from the site. retention and utilisation of the existing vegetation into the scheme route where the existing tight bend on Pitt Hill - where cars will The site is situated on a main bus route into Appledore and out to maintains the strong landscape character for the site, enhanced by divert into the site – for cars and pedestrians being afforded a further afield such as Barnstaple. the green tree-lined corridors providing movement routes for long distance view south toward the River Torridge. pedestrians. The properties along the southern edge of the site will be afforded views toward the River Torridge at first floor level over the tops of the existing properties to the south of the site.

BUILDING FOR LIFE CREATING A PLACE STREET & HOME STREET & HOME

7. CREATING WELL DEFINED STREETS AND SPACES 9. STREETS FOR ALL 11. PUBLIC & PRIVATE SPACE Are buildings designed and positioned with landscaping to define Are streets designed in a way that encourage low traffic speeds Will public and private spaces be clearly defined and designed to and enhance streets and spaces and are buildings designed to and allow them to function as social spaces? be attractive, well managed and safe? turn street corners well? There is a clear hierarchy of streets varying in width, character, A perimeter block form is proposed to provide clear fronts and backs A perimeter block form is proposed to provide clear fronts and enclosure, building and role. Variations in surfacing material separating public and private areas and ensuring all streets, spaces and backs separating public and private areas and ensuring all streets, contrast to define the public and private spaces and to accord with routes are framed and overlooked. All adoptable routes will be spaces and routes are framed and overlooked. A mix of corner current DCC standards are proposed. The routes have been adequately lit. Where front gardens are enclosed, a mix of native hedgerow, low stone walling or low render walling with railings above turning housetypes and gable ends with secondary windows designed to naturally follow the existing topography where are proposed to provide suitable enclosures to the more important /features are proposed to corners. Key landmark buildings are appropriate, link to existing streets and to provide a potential streets and buildings. Tertiary side streets will have none at all. proposed at intersections and to form end of street vistas through future link. Areas of green space, all of which will be managed by a management a change in scale or contrasting architectural detailing and/or Street lengths are short before narrowing's or bends aid in company, provide for a variety of activities. Private rear garden spaces to enclosure. Larger premium houses are proposed overlooking the reducing traffic speeds. Good provision of allocated and visitor dwellings will contain high boundary walls and fences with secure access key green space and lining the newly proposed Pitt Hill alignment, parking avoids streets being littered with cars, preventing their gates making them safe and secure. reflecting the street character to the north. use as a street for all. The scheme has a fully integrated landscape structure to routes Timber cycle gates and bollards are proposed to convert part of and block edges such as hedges forming the Pitt Hill street the existing Pitt Hill into a cycle/pedestrian only route.

realignment 100 Page and strong linear tree-lining of the green corridors. Integrated landscaping, street furniture - such as areas for seating Feature buildings are placed to assist legibility and the creation of - and small informal feature spaces are designed to create interest points of reference to guide people through the development, as and informal social activity. Where appropriate, routes contain well as to turn corners. natural horizontal deflection to assist further.

8. EASY TO FIND YOUR WAY AROUND 10. CAR PARKING 12. EXTERNAL STORAGE AND AMENITY SPACE Is the scheme designed to make it easy to find your way around? Is resident and visitor parking sufficient and well-integrated so Is there adequate external storage space for bins and recycling, that it does not dominate the street? as well as vehicles and cycles? The masterplan has been designed to create easy to understand and legible routes, waypoints and connections. Streets are direct Parking standards will accord with DCC requirements, inclusive of Storage space for waste and recycling bins will be provided within and well defined by building alignments. There is a clear hierarchy visitor parking; subject to further detailed design. A mixture of the rear garden of each property or in a communal bin store for of streets varying in width, character, enclosure, building and role. parking strategies is proposed with the majority where residents apartments. Key landmark buildings are proposed at intersections and to form can see their car with parking closely associated to the property it Rear access with paths of 900mm wide will be provided for ease end of street vistas through a change in scale or contrasting serves. Where parking is to the fronts, landscaping of heights is of movement of the bins to collection areas and routes are kept architectural detailing and/or enclosure. used to help limit continuous lengths of cars. When overlooking is short wherever possible. Green corridors have been proposed running east-west and north- limited in courtyards, these small areas are securely gated. Cycle storage will be within garages and for those without south providing direct and legible routes for pedestrians moving garages, lockable sheds/cycle stores will be provided. in, through and out of the development. The east-west route links All garages and parking spaces will meet the standards set out by Churchill Way through to the retained tree cluster which forms DCC. part of the open space/play area proposals. The north-south route All houses are provided with good sized private amenity areas and utilises a long distance view to the south over existing properties the apartments have a small area of communal green space, but and toward the River Torridge, whilst linking back into the east- are located adjacent the key east-west green corridor. west route. All routes are combined with naturalistic play features and way finder signage is proposed at key intersections.

BUILDING FOR LIFE Agenda Item 11b

Committee Report – 7th November 2019

© ApplicationCrown copyright Number: and database 1/0750/2019/REMMrights 2012 Ordnance Survey 100022736

Registration date: 19 August 2019

Expiry date: 18 November 2019

Applicant: Chichester Homes Ltd

Agent: Fearnley Lott Architects

Case Officer: Laura Davies

Site Address: Land At Torridge Road, Appledore, Devon,

Proposal: Reserved Matters application for up to 10 dwellings pursuant to application 1/0614/2017/OUTM (Landscaping, Appearance, Scale and Layout)

Recommendation: Grant

© Crown copyright and database rights 2019 Ordnance Survey 100022736

Page 101

Reason for referral:

This application has been called into Plans Committee for consideration by Cllr Hames for the following reasons: ‘The site is outside of the development boundary and therefore within the open countryside and the undeveloped coast. The proposed designs of the properties would adversely affect the character of the countryside and undeveloped coast. I refer to Local Plan policies ST04 (not responding to character of the site), ST09 (7) (detracting from the unspoiled character, appearance and tranquillity of the area;ST14(e,f,g) (not conserving, enhancing, protecting local distinctiveness and landscape);DM04 (a) (not appropriate designs for the landscape setting).NPPF para 127, 170 (c).’

Relevant History:

Application No. Description Status Closed

1/0614/2017/OUTM Outline application for the REF 28.09.2017 erection of up to 10 dwellings and associated infrastructure with all matters reserved except access

Site Description & Proposal

Site Description: The application site is located to the south-eastern side of Torridge Road to the south of the settlement of Appledore. As existing the application site is an open field with mature hedgebanks to the boundaries and a field gate to the western boundary. To the north of the application site are existing detached dwellings within Polywell, to the east and south are further open fields and the coastline is located approximately 50 metres to the west of the front boundary. The application site slopes down from the north-east to the south west as well as from the rear (eastern) boundary to the frontage of the site. To the east of the application site the land levels slope steeply up. Northam Burrows to the west is designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), part of the UNESCO Biosphere and within the North Devon Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

Proposed Development: This application is a Reserved Matters submission further to a previous Outline Planning Permission on the site.

Planning permission has previously been granted for the 'Erection of up to 10 dwellings and associated infrastructure' (application reference: 1/0614/2017/OUTM. This application was sought in outline with all matters reserved apart from access. The application was allowed on appeal on 28th February 2018 subject to a number of conditions.

The current application seeks reserved matters in relation to appearance, landscaping, layout and scale.

The submitted site plan proposes the addition of 10 dwellings including 2 two bed semi-detached dwellings, 2 three bedroom semi-detached dwellings, 2 three bed detached dwellings and 4 four bed detached dwellings. The proposed access to the site would be located centrally to the front boundary with a new hedgebank to the frontage. Two parking spaces have been provided for each dwelling. The proposed dwellings would all be two storeys in height, designed to take account of the gradient of the site and would include a contemporary design.

Page 102 Consultee representations:

Northam Parish/Town Council: It was resolved to recommend that this application be refused. The site is outside of the development boundary and therefore within the open countryside and the undeveloped coast. The proposed design is inappropriate and would be detrimental to the countryside and undeveloped coast as seen from across the river and Northam Burrows. Members quoted Local Plan policies DM04 and ST04.

South West Water: With reference to the planning application at the above address, the applicant/agent is advised to contact South West Water if they are unable to comply with our requirements as detailed below.

Asset Protection Please find enclosed a plan showing the approximate location of a public 375mm sewer in the vicinity. Please note that no development will be permitted within 3 metres of the sewer, and ground cover should not be substantially altered.

Should the development encroach on the 3 metre easement, the sewer will need to be diverted at the expense of the applicant. Please click here to view the table of distances of buildings/structures from a public sewer.

Further information regarding the options to divert a public sewer can be found on our website via the link below: www.southwestwater.co.uk/developer-services/sewer-services-and-connections/diversion-of- publicsewers/

Should you require any further information, please contact the Planning Team via email: [email protected].

Clean Potable Water South West Water is able to provide clean potable water services from the existing public water main for the above proposal. The practical point of connection will be determined by the diameter of the connecting pipework being no larger than the diameter of the company’s existing network.

Foul Sewerage Services South West Water is able to provide foul sewerage services from the existing public foul or combined sewer in the vicinity of the site. The practical point of connection will be determined by the diameter of the connecting pipework being no larger than the diameter of the company’s existing network.

The applicant can apply to South West Water for clarification of the point of connection for either clean potable water services and/or foul sewerage services. For more information and to download the application form, please visit our website: www.southwestwater.co.uk/developers

Surface Water Services The applicant should demonstrate to your LPA that its prospective surface run-off will discharge as high up the hierarchy of drainage options as is reasonably practicable (with evidence that the Run-off Destination Hierarchy has been addressed, and reasoning as to why any preferred disposal route is not reasonably practicable): 1. Discharge into the ground (infiltration); or where not reasonably practicable, 2. Discharge to a surface waterbody; or where not reasonably practicable, 3. Discharge to a surface water sewer, highway drain, or another drainage system; or where not reasonably practicable, 4. Discharge to a combined sewer.( Subject to Sewerage Undertaker carrying out capacity evaluation)

I trust this provides confirmation of our requirements, however should you have any questions or queries, please contact the Planning Team on 01392 442836 or via email:

Page 103 [email protected].

Further response dated 4th October following the submission of additional information: A discharge of surface water attenuated to 1.5l/s as proposed is acceptable to South West Water.

Recreation Development Officer - James Jarroudi: No response received.

Designing Out Crime Officer - DC&D Police: Thank you for this application.

Police have no objections in principle to the proposal. The layout will provide both active frontages and good overlooking to the new internal street which is welcome.

It is now widely accepted that a key strand in the design of a 'sustainable' development is its resistance to crime and anti-social behaviour. Therefore please note the following comments from a designing out crime, fear of crime, antisocial behaviour (ASB) and conflict perspective:- Residential - Building Regulations - Approved Document Q - Security.

The security element within the Building Regulations, namely Approved Document Q (ADQ), creates security requirements in relation to all new dwellings, including those resulting from a change of use, for example commercial, warehouse or barns undergoing conversion into dwellings. It also applies to conservation areas.

All doors at the entrance to a building, including garage doors where there is a connecting door to the dwelling and all ground floor, basement and other easily accessible windows, including roof lights, must be shown to have been manufactured to a design that has been tested to an acceptable security standard i.e. PAS 24 2016 or equivalent.

To assist the process in ensuring compliance with the requirements of ADQ it is recommended that all doors and windows are sourced from a Secured by Design (SBD) member company. SBD requires that doors and windows are not only tested to meet PAS 24 2016 standard by the product manufacturer, but independent third-party certification from a UKAS accredited independent third- party certification authority is also in place, thus reducing much time and effort in establishing the provenance of non SBD approved products.

SBD also incorporates a bespoke element to assist in the crime prevention approach with regard to listed buildings and heritage status.

Secured by Design (SBD) is a crime prevention initiative owned by the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) on behalf of the UK police services. SBD aims to reduce crime, the fear of crime and opportunities for antisocial behaviour and conflict within developments by applying the attributes of Environmental Design, as follows, in conjunction with appropriate physical security measures.

The seven attributes of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) are key to ensuring a safe and sustainable community and in addition to the layout the physical security is now a consideration. - Access and movement: Places with well-defined and well used routes, with spaces and entrances that provide for convenient movement without compromising security. - Structure: Places that are structured so that different uses do not cause conflict - Surveillance: Places where all publicly accessible spaces are overlooked, have a purpose and are managed to prevent the creation of problem areas which can attract the antisocial to gather, dumping and dog fouling etc. - Ownership: Places that promote a sense of ownership, respect, territorial responsibility and community - Physical protection: Places that include necessary, well-designed security features as laid out in SBD Homes 2019

Page 104 - Activity: Places where the level of human activity is appropriate to the location and creates a reduced risk of crime and a sense of safety at all times. - Management and maintenance: Places that are designed with management and maintenance in mind, to discourage crime and ASB. The planting plan and boundary treatments are noted, and I welcome the intention to supplement the new hedge planting with fencing.

Planning Policy: No response received.

DCC Archaeology Section: I refer to the above application and your recent consultation. The consent granted for application 1/0614/2017/OUTM is conditional upon a programme of archaeological work being undertaken - Condition 4. This requires the submission and approval of a written scheme of investigation that sets out the scope of the archaeological mitigation required and is worded as: No development hereby permitted shall be undertaken until a programme of archaeological work has been agreed in writing by the local planning authority (including details of how any relevant archaeological features identified will be recorded). The development hereby permitted shall be undertaken in accordance with the programme of archaeological work thus agreed.

To date, I am unaware that Condition 4 has been discharged to enable development to commence and, as such, I would advise that the applicant is made aware of this outstanding requirement to enable the commencement of development.

I will be happy to discuss this further with you, the applicant or their agent. The Historic Environment Team can also provide the applicant with advice of the scope of the works required, as well as contact details for archaeological contractors who would be able to undertake this work. Provision of detailed advice to non-householder developers may incur a charge. For further information on the historic environment and planning, and our charging schedule please refer the applicant to https://new.devon.gov.uk/historicenvironment/development-management/.

Conservation Officer: The proposed site sits outside the conservation area and the views into the conservation area are limited by both the topography and the post war development of houses at Polywell and the backdrop of The Mount. These developments have a varied but modern architectural appearance and so there is no distinctive vernacular style nearby to dictate the appearance of these new dwellings. The site is on the edge of Appledore and was granted on appeal so that the principle of development is given and it remains to design the new dwellings to assimilate and add to the existing street scene and in wider views from the burrows. In this case there are no observations on the current proposal which takes elements of design from the new development approved along the estuary frontage at west Appledore. It is considered that the proposal would result on less than substantial harm on the views into and out of the conservation area which finishes at the end of Irsha Street. In this case the proposal is acceptable under paragraph 201 of the NPPF and wider guidance contained in that document.

Devon County Council - Flood Risk Management: Recommendation: At this stage, we object to the above planning application because the applicant has not submitted sufficient information in order to demonstrate that all aspects of the surface water drainage management plan have been considered. In order to overcome our objection, the applicant will be required to submit some additional information, as outlined below.

Observations: The applicant has clarified that soakaway tests failed. Therefore, surface water is proposed to be attenuated and discharged to South West Water's combined sewer within Torridge Road.

Page 105 The model outputs submitted for the application analyse 0.185ha draining to the proposed network. However, the area to be drained is calculated to be 0.2492ha on the impermeable area plan (drawing No.0501; Rev. P3; dated 7th August 2019). The applicant should clarify the area draining to the network.

The Hydrobrake stated on the Drainage Layout (drawing No. 0500; Rev. P3; dated 7th August 2019) is noted to be 101mm in diameter. However, the model outputs analyse a Hydrobrake 55mm in diameter. The applicant should clarify the size of the Hydrobrake. A Hydrobrake 55mm in diameter is likely to have a high risk of blockage.

The applicant should clarify whether the parking spaces to plots 2, 3, 4 and 5 shall be constructed with kerbs to prevent potential exceedance flows being routed towards dwellings.

The applicant should confirm whether they intend for South West Water to adopt the pipework upstream of the box culverts.

Devon County Council (Highways): Initial comments dated 13th September 2019:

Observations: Clarification is needed regarding the submitted plans which show different things. The service margins along the new road are shown as grass verge on plan 18 127 11L but as tarmac on plan 1236 0710 revision P2.

The design of the footway is also not clear as it is a different size on either side of the access. Wheelchair / mobility scooter users and people pushing prams could find it hard to use the path, along the road or in and out of the site unless the change in surface is flush.

To ensure visibility splays for the new access are maintained as such in the future, the hedges of plots 3 and 4 should be set back even further to allow for growth, or replaced with a fence.

Pedestrian accesses from the gardens of plots 1 to 6 onto the new footway would be nice.

It is unclear if any street lighting is proposed.

Recommendation: THE HEAD OF PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENT, ON BEHALF OF DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL, AS LOCAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY, IS LIKELY TO RECOMMEND REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION, IN THE ABSENCE OF FURTHER INFORMATION.

Further Comments dated 21st October: I have looked at the resubmitted plans and have no objection to the proposal.

Chief Education Officer: No response received.

Natural England: Thank you for your consultation on the above proposal dated and received by Natural England on 27 August 2019. We have the following comment1.

SUMMARY OF NATURAL ENGLAND'S ADVICE - no objection subject to mitigation

Designated sites Mitigation is required for works in close proximity to the Taw Torridge Estuary Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

Our more detailed advice is provided below.

Page 106 Natural England's advice on protected species and other natural environment issues is provided at Annex A of this letter.

European designated sites Braunton Burrows Special Area of Conservation (SAC) - no objection Based on the information provided, the site is a departure from the Local Plan. The North Devon and Torridge Joint Local Plan (JLP) Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) considered whether there would be an increase in recreational pressures on the Braunton Burrows SAC associated with housing development allocated in North Devon and Torridge Districts over the life of the JLP. It concluded that there was unlikely to be an adverse effect on the integrity of the interest features for which the Braunton Burrows SAC has been notified.

However, since adoption of the JLP, the Councils commissioned further assessment of the potential recreational impacts linked to non and plan-led development for the Braunton Burrows SAC (Footprint Ecology September 2018).

The report states that 'recreational impacts are currently evident at Braunton Burrows' and that 'recreational impacts would be likely to intensify and spread as a result of an increase in visitor numbers'. It also states that 'where likely significant effects are identified it is anticipated that it will be difficult to rule out adverse effects on integrity without appropriate mitigation'. This would suggest that there is a probability or risk that recreational activities arising from occupants of all new residential or tourist development within a Zone of Influence (ZoI) referred to in the report, which would, in combination, have a significant effect on the SAC. In light of the new evidence, it is no longer appropriate to rely on the JLP's conclusion of no adverse effect on integrity (AEOI). Your Authority has identified an interim Zone of Influence where effects from development would be likely to have a significant effect (LSE) on the special interest of the Braunton Burrows SAC. Despite being a departure from the Local Plan, the location of this site in Appledore, falls out with the interim ZoI and mitigation measures are therefore unlikely to be required. Our advice is that significant effects can therefore be ruled out and the proposal can be screened out from requiring further assessment. To meet the requirements of the Habitats Regulations2, we advise you to record your decision that a likely significant effect can be ruled out. The Culm Grasslands Special Area of Conservation (SAC) - no objection Your Authority's JLP HRA considered whether there would be air quality impacts on the Culm Grasslands SAC associated with housing development allocated in North Devon and Torridge Districts over the life of the Joint Plan. The Plan HRA concluded that there is unlikely to be an adverse effect on the integrity of the interest features for which the Culm Grasslands SAC has been notified. The Culm Grasslands SAC assessment of non plan led development further concluded no effect on site integrity as a result of additional growth up to 10,000 dwellings in-combination with the JLP. Our advice is that significant effects can therefore be ruled out and the proposal can be screened out from requiring further assessment. Nationally Designated sites Taw Torridge Estuary Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) - mitigation required The development site is in close proximity to the Taw Torridge Estuary SSSI and has triggered Natural England's Impact Risk Zones3 (IRZ) for residential development outside the existing built up area. The SSSI is notified for its intertidal habitats and overwintering bird interest (aggregations of overwintering Golden Plover, Lapwing and Curlew, >20,000 Non-Breeding Water birds). Further information on the SSSI and its special interest features can be found at www.magic.gov.uk.

As development pressure around the estuary increases this reduces opportunities for the birds around the estuary as a whole. The 2018/2019 report 'Identification of Wintering Wildfowl High Tide Roosts & Recreational Disturbance Impacts on the Taw Torridge Estuary'4 identifies that 'the foreshore between the Skern Pill and Appledore, as well as the wider mudflats and creeks exposed within the bay, are particularly important foraging areas as the tide retreats. At high tide birds become concentrated in the bay with two core high tide roosts identified'. We are also aware from discussion with local WeBS surveyors

Page 107 that at times of high tide curlew, oyster catcher, lapwing and little egret have been recorded in the fields to the west of Appledore.

Survey for overwinter birds have not been conducted for the development site. However, the site is small (0.48Ha) and therefore unlikely to support significant numbers of birds. Our advice is that mitigation during construction over the winter period should be secured to avoid disturbing birds using the estuary and any adjacent fields. Acoustic screening would help to mitigate construction noise as well as visual disturbance.

Based on the plans submitted, Natural England considers that the proposed development will not damage or destroy the interest features for which the site has been notified and has no objection subject to:

- Securing suitable Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) (with planting detail and a long term management and maintenance regime) and

- Best Practice Measures during construction for pollution prevention and control in terms of surface water drainage, waste management and pollution control to ensure there is no risk of contamination or increase in nutrient or sediment load of the surface water runoff.

- Securing acoustic screening to mitigate noise and visual disturbance during construction. The design and access statement states that 'the result of the site being visible, is that the views from the site across Skern bay, the estuary, Northam Burrows and the wider bay are desirable' which indicates visual and noise disturbance is likely.

We welcomed the proposal to include SuDS at Outline planning which would help to maintain water quality into the estuary. However, the reserved matters application appears to rely on surface water going to a new combined sewer. Keeping surface water out of the mains sewer means that it reduces peak flows and reduces the chance of treatment works and pumping stations overflowing in heavy rain and avoids untreated sewage entering the estuary.

Other softer SuDS options such as rain gardens may help with attenuation and water quality. SuDS can also contribute towards green infrastructure by increasing biodiversity and amenity value. The RSPB and Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust have published guidance for local authorities and developers on designing (and managing) SUDs features that are also good for wildlife which can be found at www.rspb.org.uk/sustainabledevelopment We would recommend that management of the SuDS is included in an ecological management plan as maintenance of these features is key to a properly functioning system.

Further advice on the consideration of other natural environment issues is provided at Annex A. Should the proposal change, please consult us again. If you have any queries relating to the advice in this letter please contact me on 0208 026 7393.

Environmental Protection: In relation to the above application, the Environmental Protection Team has no objections.

Strategic Enabling Officer: Further to my consultation response of 14th August 2017 relating to the Outline planning application for this proposal with Planning reference 1/0614/2017/OUTM, I have no further comment to make.

Representations:

Number of neighbours consulted: 34 Number of letters of support: 0 Number of representations received: 45 Number of neutral representations: 0 Number of objection letters: 45

Objections raised can be summarised as follows:

Page 108 - Development will set precedent; - Existing problems with parked cars and traffic congestion; - Lack of affordable housing and contrary to Policy ST17 of Local Plan; - Current undersupply of smaller properties to cater for local needs; - Loss of greenfield site; - Concern neighbouring settlements will join up; - Adverse impact of development on identity of village of Appledore; - Objection to additional second/holiday homes; - No need for additional housing in this area; - Design out of keeping with surrounding area; - Existing road is narrow with little space for lorries to pass; - Development will result in loss of views; - Development would result in noise and visual pollution; - Loss of wildlife and habitats with no net gain as required by Local Plan policy; - Exacerbate existing road safety concerns; - Loss of privacy and overlooking to neighbouring occupiers; - Existing flooding and surface water drainage problems adjacent to the site; - Pavement needed as part of the development; - Landscape impact of development due to heights of the proposed dwellings; - Insufficient local infrastructure for additional development and no Section 106; - Adverse impact on neighbouring house prices; - Environmental impact of development; - Cumulative impact with surrounding recent developments; - Increased pressures on local sewerage and water provision; - Existing surface water drainage issues on the site; - Development outside of village boundary; - Development not orientated to gain maximum use of solar panels; - Maintenance arrangements for proposed hedging and landscaping unclear; - Little soft landscaping proposed; - Light pollution; - Omissions by the archaeological consultants; - Insufficient parking provision within the development; - Additional land within applicant's ownership noted on plans which could be developed in future.

Policy Context:

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan 2011-2031:

ST07 (Spatial Development Strategy for Northern Devon's Rural Area); ST09 (Coast and Estuary Strategy); ST14 (Enhancing Environmental Assets); ST17 (A Balanced Local Housing Market); DM01 (Amenity Considerations); DM04 (Design Principles); DM05 (Highways); DM06 (Parking Provision); DM08 (Biodiversity and Geodiversity); DM08A (Landscape and Seascape Character); DM07 (Historic Environment);

Government Guidance:

NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework); NPPG (National Planning Practice Guidance); NERC (Natural Environment & Rural Communities); WACA (Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981);

Page 109 Planning Considerations

Main Planning Considerations: 1. Principle of Development 2. Mix of Dwellings 3. Impact on Landscape, Character and Appearance 4. Impact on Historic Character 5. Impact on Residential Amenities 6. Access and Parking 7. Drainage 8. Ecology.

1. Principle of Development: The application site is located outside of the boundary of the settlement of Appledore as identified on the Proposals Maps to the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan, which extends to the north-eastern boundary of the site. As a result, the site would be considered to be in the open countryside in terms of the Local Plan and the provisions of part (4) of Policy ST07 would be relevant. Policy ST07 notes that developments in such locations will be limited to that which is enabled to meet local economic and social needs, rural building reuse and development which is necessarily restricted to a Countryside location.

The application site is also located within the defined Coast and Estuary Zone, as identified on the Proposals Maps to the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan. The provisions of Policy ST09 are therefore relevant and this notes at part (7); 'Development within the Undeveloped Coast and estuary will be supported where it does not detract from the unspoilt character, appearance and tranquillity of the area, nor the undeveloped character of the Heritage Coasts, and it is required because it cannot reasonably be located outside the Undeveloped Coast and estuary.'

Supported text to Policy ST09 within paragraph 4.39 states that the Developed Coast will be limited to the extent of defined settlements, the edge of Rural Settlements and other previously developed sites. Due to the nature of the application site, it would be considered to be within the Undeveloped Coast as defined within Policy ST09, notwithstanding its proximity to the edge of the settlement of Appledore.

The principle of the development of the site for the provision of 10 dwellings would not therefore be supported in principle by the Local Plan. Notwithstanding this, the application site has the benefit of outline planning permission which remains extant and is a material planning consideration, with the current application providing the reserved matters to this previous permission. On this basis, the principle of the development of the site for up to 10 dwellings in this instance has been previously established.

2. Mix of Dwellings: Policy ST17 of the Local Plan relates to the housing market within the District noting that: '(1) The scale and mix of dwellings, in terms of dwelling numbers, type, size and tenure provided through development proposals should reflect local housing needs, subject to consideration of: (a) site character and context; and (b) development viability.'

The Council's Housing and Economic Needs Assessment, which forms part of the supporting documentation for the Local Plan identifies that the long term demographic for the District would required the provision of 5-10% of market dwellings as 1 bed units, 30-35% as two bed units, 40-45% as 3 bed units and 15-20% as 4+ bedroom units. The mix of development proposals should therefore reflect these proportions unless there is more local justification for this to be altered. The proposed development would include 20% of the provision as 2 bed units, 40% as three bed units and 40% as 4 bed units. No one bedroom units are proposed. The applicant has submitted a report in relation to the housing mix noting the policy background and the discussions which have taken place at pre- application stage and indicating that the inclusion of any greater mix would result in the development

Page 110 being unviable, although no viability information has been provided to substantiate this. The submitted report notes that much of the housing stock in Appledore currently includes a large number of two and three bedroom dwellings, with a smaller number of four bedroom properties, due to the terraced nature of much of the housing in Appledore. A letter has been provided from a local estate agent which confirms that the greatest number of recent properties for sale or sold in Appledore are either two or three bedroom with the majority not having off-street parking. The letter from the estate agent confirms that there is a relative lack of 4 bedroom dwellings within Appledore with a similar lack of dwellings with off-street parking provision.

The proposed mix of dwellings in the development is considered to be reflective of the demand in the local area and would include a mix of 2, 3 and 4 bed properties as well as some semi-detached and some detached dwellings. Due to the Reserved Matters stage of the application, the provision of any affordable housing is not a matter for consideration, taking into consideration the timing and national policy in place when the outline planning application was considered. This is confirmed within the consultation response received from he Strategic Enabling Officer at the time of the outline planning application. The proposed development is therefore considered to be in keeping with Policy ST19 of the Local Plan.

3. Impact on Landscape, Character and Appearance: Policy DM04 of the adopted Local Plan relates to design principles and emphasises that development proposals should be appropriate and sympathetic to their setting in terms of their scale, density, massing, height, layout appearance, fenestration, materials and relationship to existing buildings and landscape features.

The application site is located within landscape character area 5B Coastal Undulating Farmland as defined by the Joint Landscape Character Assessment for North Devon and Torridge Districts (LCA). This area is characterised by open, uninterrupted sea views, strong field patterns, low levels of development with peace and tranquillity. The application site is considered to be consistent with the local landscape characteristics and this was confirmed by the Inspector in determining the appeal in relation to the outline planning permission. The forces for change in the future for this character area specifically notes the development pressure of nearby settlements and resorts due to the ever- increasing popularity of the area as a place to live/retire to. In addition, higher traffic levels due to the growth of recreation and tourism is also noted.

Policy DM08A of the Local Plan relates to landscape and seascape character noting that development should be of an appropriate scale, mass and design that recognises and respects landscape character of both designated and undesignated landscapes and seascapes. Further, the policy notes that adverse landscape and seascape impacts should be avoided and an enhancement should be sought where possible.

A detailed Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment formed part of the previous outline planning permission and the principle of the provision of up to 10 dwellings on the site was considered acceptable by the Inspector who noted that the development proposed would be seen in conjunction with the adjacent properties accessed via Polywell and that it would broadly reflect the prevailing pattern of development at Appledore of properties arranged close to the water's edge. A key view of the development is that taken from Northam Burrows to the west of the site when looking back inland. The Inspector also addressed this in the previous appeal noting: 'Looking landwards from the coastal path or Northam Burrows, the dwellings proposed would also be seen in connection with other visible beyond the site at the crest of the headland. Moreover, given expansive views towards the west in this location, the eye is naturally drawn to the coastline and seascape scale, including preserving or enhancing boundary features and planting, could furthermore ensure that the dwellings are partially screened from nearby vantage points and the overall effect of the proposal moderated.'

An addendum to the previous LVIA has been provided with a photomontage indicating the proposed development, as now proposed within this Reserved Matters application. These indicate the longer distance view of the site from Northam Burrows before the development, at year one post development and at year 10 post development. The submitted photomontages result in the

Page 111 development appearing as a continuation of the built form of Polywell, as indicated by the Inspector and would step down to take account of the change in levels and to provide some tapering to the open fields beyond to the south-west. Further, the proposed development would include a replanted hedgebank to the frontage together with further tree and shrub planting to a 3 metre wide buffer in addition to the existing hedges to the south-western and south-eastern boundaries.

Due to the considerable change in levels across the site from the front to rear, the dwellings located towards the rear of the site (Plots 7, 8, 9 and 10) would be set approximately 3 metres above those to the frontage of the site (Plots 1-6). In addition, areas of retaining walls would need to be provided between the dwellings due to the change in levels between the front and rear elevations. Soft landscaping has been included within the proposed plans in an effort to soften the impact of these retaining walls to some degree. A large retaining wall would also be required to the rear boundary of the site to take account of the steep land level rise to the rear of the site. This would be of a timber construction and further details of this structure have been provided by the applicant upon request. It is considered that a timber structure to this part of the site would be appropriate given the landscape and would provide a less stark impact on the surrounding landscape than a rendered wall. In addition, the proposed timber structure would weather to some degree over time.

As well as the view back from Northam Burrows to the site (within the context of Appledore), the other key view of the site would be along Torridge Road. The proposed development would include a replacement hedgebank.

The proposed development would include a contemporary design with a mix of light coloured render and dark grey coloured cladding to the elevations and steel standing seam cladding to the roof in a dark grey. The proposed dwellings would include low profile rooflines, with balconies to the frontage. In addition, due to the change in levels across the site, the proposed dwellings have been designed to appear as single storey to the eastern (rear) elevations and two storey to the frontage (western elevation).

The surrounding context to the site includes 1960s bungalows and detached dwellings to neighbouring Polywell to the north-east as well as some properties along Torridge Road to the north- east. It is noted that a number of more recent contemporary schemes have been approved and constructed in the immediately surrounding area, including the provision of 6 apartments on the site of Fairways, Torridge Road (application reference: 1/1222/2018/FUL which has a Committee resolution to grant, subject to a Section 106), development at Harbour Lights on Torridge Road and the former Fords Boatyard site on Torridge Road. The surrounding character to the application site is therefore mixed in nature and in terms of the materials used, although in Appledore more generally and within wider views of the vicinity from Northam Burrows, there is a predominance of rendered elevations with dark coloured roofing. The proposed materials would be in keeping with the surrounding character and there is no objection to the contemporary design of the proposed development.

Policy DM04 notes at section (2) that all major residential proposals will be expected to be supported by a Building for Life 12 assessment and high quality design should be demonstrated through the minimisation of 'amber' and the avoidance of 'red' scores. The applicant has provided a Building for Life assessment for the development in which they have assessed each of the 12 categories and concluding that the development would mainly meet a 'green' assessment with some 'amber' scores. Having reviewed this assessment, it is agreed that the development would meet a 'green' score in many categories although would allocate an 'amber' score. These have mainly been allocated due to the siting of the application site and its gradient which would preclude certain design features (e.g. the proximity to public transport and a level access between front and rear garden areas). Taking note of the Reserved Matters stage of the application and the previous outline permission being a material consideration, the submitted Building for Life assessment is considered to be acceptable and meet the requirements of Policy DM04.

The proposed development is considered to be in keeping with the provisions of Policy DM04 and DM08A of the Local Plan and the impact on landscape, character and appearance is considered to be acceptable.

Page 112 4. Impact on Historic Character: Policy DM07 of the Local Plan states that proposals which conserve and enhance heritage assets and their settings will be supported. Where there is unavoidable harm to heritage assets and their settings, proposals will only be supported where the harm is minimised as far as possible and an acceptable balance between harm and benefit can be achieved giving great weight to the conservation of heritage assets.

The application site is located some distance from the boundary with the West Appledore conservation area which is centred on Irsha Street and views into the conservation area from the application site are limited due to the topography and orientation of the site in relation to the conservation area. Views can be gained of the proposed development within the context of the conservation area from Northam Burrows as part of a wider view of this part of Appledore.

The Council's Conservation Officer has commented on the submitted development, noting the relationship of the application site to the conservation area. The comments note that the surrounding developments have a varied but modern architectural appearance and so there is no distinctive vernacular style nearby to dictate the appearance of these new dwellings. The Conservation Officer notes that they have no observations on the current proposal which takes elements of design from the new development approved along the estuary frontage at west Appledore. Further, it is considered that the proposal would result on less than substantial harm on the views into and out of the conservation area which finishes at the end of Irsha Street. The Conservation Officer therefore considers that the development would be in keeping with the provisions of paragraph 201 of the NPPF. As the proposed development would result in less than substantial harm to the significance of the heritage asset of the conservation area and there would be public benefits in the development, the proposal is considered to be in keeping with the provisions of Policy DM07 of the Local Plan and the provisions of the NPPF.

4. Impact on Residential Amenities: Policy DM01 of the Local Plan notes that development will be supported where it would not significantly harm the amenities of any neighbouring or future occupants.

The proposed dwellings to Plots 1 and 10 would be located closest to existing neighbouring properties to Polywell. The closest neighbouring dwelling to the north-east would be The Well House which is accessed from Polywell and includes an extensive garden area to the front of the dwelling which extends to be level with the front boundary of the site. The proposed dwelling to Plot 1 would be set at a significantly lower level than the existing dwelling at The Well House with the roof level of this dwelling being set below the ground floor level to the front of The Well House. The only window to the side elevation of Plot 1 will serve a bathroom and is likely to be obscure glazed. Irrespective of its use, the window would be located some distance from the dwelling at The Well House and would have a view over the bottom of the garden area to this neighbouring dwelling and to the road beyond.

Plot 10 would be located closer to The Well House but would also include a ground floor level which is set below the height of this neighbouring property. The side elevation of Plot 10 would include two bedroom windows at first floor level facing towards the side boundary. The ground floor garage window would be obscured from views from the neighbouring property due to the proposed retaining wall to the side of the dwelling. The proposed first floor side windows to the bedroom would be set forward of the main front building line of the neighbouring dwelling to The Well House and at a minimum distance of 14 metres from the nearest part of the neighbouring dwelling.

Within the proposed development, Plots 4 and 5 would include bedroom windows to the side elevations facing towards the neighbouring property, however these are set at ground floor level and a boundary wall between the two properties would limit overlooking between these two dwellings. This situation is also replicated between the proposed dwellings to Plots 7, 8, 9 and 10 and again, boundary treatments between the dwellings would limit any overlooking and associated loss of privacy.

First floor windows are proposed to the side elevations of Plots 10, 9, 8 & 7 to provide a secondary light source to the main habitable room windows. Due to the existing main windows to the front or

Page 113 rear elevations of the these dwellings, providing the main light and outlook from these rooms, it is considered reasonable that a condition ensuring that these are obscure glazed due to their proximity to one another and limit overlooking and any loss of privacy.

Whilst balconies are proposed to the front elevations of properties to the rear of the site, these are set above the height of windows to the front elevations of properties to the front part of the site. Due to the change in levels across the site, views from the balconies would largely be focussed over the height of the properties in front, rather than resulting in direct overlooking into neighbouring windows. It is also noted that properties to the rear of the site are angled to take account of the changing gradient across the site north to south and are therefore orientated at an angle to neighbouring properties in front.

The dwellings proposed to Plots 1-6 to the front of the site would include a number of windows to the side elevations at first floor level. These principally serve bathrooms or utility rooms and therefore it is considered reasonable to include a condition to ensure that these are retained as obscure glazed to ensure that an unacceptable level of overlooking and loss of amenity does not occur between the proposed dwellings.

Taking into consideration the recommended conditions set out above, the proposed development is not considered to result in an adverse impact on the residential amenities of either existing neighbouring occupiers or future occupiers of the development. The proposed development would therefore be in keeping with the provisions of Policy DM01 of the Local Plan.

6. Access and Parking: Policy DM05 of the Local Plan notes that all development must ensure safe and well designed vehicular access and egress, adequate parking and layouts which consider the needs and accessibility of all highway users including cyclists and pedestrians. Policy DM06 relates specifically to parking provision within developments noting that an appropriate scale and range of parking provision should be provided to meet anticipated needs, taking account of the accessibility and sustainability of the site, availability of public transport, walking and cycling routes and the specific scale, type and mix of development.

The access was approved as part of the previous outline planning permission however further highway details have now been provided to confirm the turning spaces within the site, visibility splay and position of the proposed hedgebank and the parking provision within the site. The submitted site plan proposes the inclusion of two parking spaces for each dwelling, with garages also being provided in addition to this on two of the plots.

The County Council's Highways Officer has commented on the submitted plans. Initial comments received requested clarification in relation to the visibility splays and the provision of street lighting. The Highways Officer also requested pedestrian access onto the new footway from plots 1-6.

Due to the scale of the development and the limited length of the access road, it is not considered that additional pedestrian accesses direct from Plots 1-6 would be required, noting that these would also generate additional breaks in the hedgebank which is a key feature of the street scene and landscaping screening for the development.

The applicant has provided additional information in response to the Highways Officers queries confirming the visibility splay and making alterations to ensure that the new footpath would extend into the site further on the south-western side of the access, to match that on the north-eastern side.

Further comments have been received from the County Council's Highways Officer confirming that following the amended plans they have no objection to the proposed development.

The proposed access and parking arrangements are considered to be acceptable for a development of this size, in this location and would be in keeping with the provisions of Policies DM05 and DM06 of the Local Plan.

Page 114 7. Drainage: The previous outline planning permission confirmed that the development would be connected to the mains for foul drainage and proposed surface water drainage would be discharged via the South West Water combined sewer.

The submitted details within the Drainage Statement confirm that infiltration testing has been undertaken on site and this is not a suitable proposal for surface water drainage on this site. The statement has also confirmed that Natural England will not accept a new outfall into the estuary, as was initially proposed within the outline application. The applicant has therefore proposed that the surface runoff is discharged via private drains to the existing South West Water combined sewer which runs through the site and it is intended to restrict the flow to mimic that of greenfield runoff. Drainage Layout and Impermeable Area plans have been provided as part of the current application.

Comments have been received from the County Council's Flood Risk Engineers in relation to the proposed drainage arrangements. Their initial comments raise an objection to the proposals as insufficient information was considered to have been provided in relation to clarifying the impermeable areas and the size of the hydrobrake proposed to attenuate the discharge from the site.

Additional information has been provided by the applicant in an effort to address these concerns, including an amended Drainage Statement, Drainage Layout plan and Impermeable Area plan.

Further comments have been received from the County Council's Flood Risk Engineers in relation to this additional information confirming that they have no objection to the proposed attenuation tanks being located within the rear gardens of Plots 1-6 and notes that for maintenance purposes the flow controls could be located to ensure access for a maintenance company. As details of this arrangement have not been provided as part of the submitted scheme, albeit the applicant has confirmed that this is acceptable in principle, the County Council’s Flood Risk Engineer has recommended that a condition to ensure that these details are provided by way of a condition.

The Flood Risk Engineer has also recommended a condition to ensure that details of the surface water drainage arrangements for the construction phase are secured via a condition of any approval granted, to ensure that the surface water from the construction site would not result in an increased flood risk elsewhere or result in water quality issues in the surrounding area.

The County Council’s Flood Risk Engineer has further recommended that a condition to ensure the details of the maintenance company for the surface water drainage are submitted for approval.

On the basis, of the additional information submitted, it is considered that an acceptable scheme for surface water drainage from the site has been provided. As noted above, the foul drainage details will be secured via a condition of the previous outline planning permission (Condition 7). No objection is therefore raised in terms of drainage.

8. Ecology: Local Planning Authorities have a statutory duty to ensure that the impact of development on wildlife is fully considered during the determination of a planning application under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (Habitats Regulations 2010). This is further reinforced within the adopted North Devon and Torridge Local Plan through Policy DM08 which states that development proposals should conserve and, where possible, enhance biodiversity interests.

The Inspector notes within the Appeal Decision that given the contents of the Preliminary Ecology Appraisal and an appropriate approach within the Reserved Matters application, the development would not detrimentally affect ecology. Further, a Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA) screening was also undertaken at the outline stage and it was concluded that there would be no significant effect and the objectives of the nearby Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) would be maintained.

Page 115 An updated Ecological Impact Assessment has been submitted in support of this Reserved Matters application which includes a re-surveying of the existing site and an assessment of any revisions to the proposed mitigation.

The Assessment confirms that there is no evidence on site to suggest that there has been any significant change in the baseline conditions on site and therefore no significant change is considered to have occurred in relation to the predicted effects of the proposed development. The Assessment also includes a number of proposed enhancements including bat boxes and bird boxes to the new dwellings, additional native tree and shrub planting to enhance hedgerows and the planting of native species within the site. The locations of all of these enhancements are indicated on the submitted Ecological Constraints and Opportunities Plan and the proposed landscaping details are provided on the Soft Landscaping Plan.

Natural England have commented on the proposed development noting that they do not consider that a harmful impact would result in designated sites, including the Taw Torridge Estuary SSSI subject to mitigation. Comments are also provided in relation to the Braunton Burrows SAC and Culm Grasslands SAC. In terms of the mitigation for any potential impacts on the SSSI, Natural England recommend that to avoid disturbance of overwintering birds on or near the site during the construction period mitigation measures should be implemented, including acoustic screening which would help to mitigate construction noise as well as visual disturbance. A condition could be included as part of any permission granted to ensure that details of these mitigation measures are submitted for approval and implemented on site.

Further the Natural England raises no objection to the development subject to appropriate sustainable drainage systems being implemented, best practice measures being followed during the construction process to ensure that there is no risk of contamination or increased nutrient and sediment load in surface water run-off. A condition to this effect has been recommended by the County Council’s Flood Risk Engineers to ensure that such details are submitted for approval prior to the commencement of works on site. In addition, the acoustic screening noted above is recommended.

Taking into consideration the recommended conditions and submitted details, the proposed development is not considered to result in a harmful impact on protected species or ecology.

Other Matters: Concerns raised in representations in relation to the potential for the development to set a precedent are noted however this is not a material planning consideration and each application is assessed on its own merits. As highlighted above, the application site already benefits from an extant outline planning permission which is a material consideration in the determination of this reserved matters application, notwithstanding its location outside of the settlement boundary of Appledore as identified on the Proposals Maps to the Local Plan.

The potential use of the new dwellings as second or holiday homes has been raised in representations received however this would not be a material planning consideration. The dwellings were approved in outline with no restrictions on their occupation.

The lack of contributions towards local infrastructure via a Section 106 agreement has also been raised within representations to this application. The outline planning permission was granted on appeal by the Planning Inspectorate. The Inspector considered the Council's evidence for contributions sought towards education and recreation provision concluding: 'I am therefore not satisfied that the obligations within the UU are compliant with relevant statutory provisions, the NPPF or the PPG (...). Accordingly they are not necessary to render the development acceptable in planning terms.'

It was not therefore considered necessary for contributions towards local infrastructure as part of the development.

In relation to archaeology, the County Council's Archaeologist has commented on the current application noting that a condition ensuring the submission of a programme of archaeological works

Page 116 was included as part of the outline planning permission. The applicant would therefore need to submit further details in relation to these works prior to the commencement of works on site.

Representations received also raise concerns about the potential development of the adjacent parcel of land which is also in the applicant's ownership. As noted above, any application for other sites would be determined on its own merits in accordance with the local plan policies and national policies and guidance. The proposed site layout includes access adjacent to the north-eastern boundary leading to the adjacent parcel of land which is within the applicant's ownership. The agent for the applicant has confirmed that this access is to be retained to allow access for maintenance only, with only a track to be retained for access. In addition, the agent notes that the gradient for this access track would be at a significant gradient due to the topography of the site.

Conclusion: The submitted reserved matters details are considered to be in keeping with the character and appearance of the surrounding landscape and adjacent development and would not result in a harmful impact on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers or protected species. Further, it is considered that the proposed access, parking and drainage details are acceptable.

Human rights

Consideration has been given to the Human Rights Act 1998.

Conclusion

It is therefore considered that subject to the compliance with the attached conditions and taking into account all other material planning considerations, including the development plan the proposal would be acceptable.

Recommendation

GRANT subject to the following conditions

1 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed in the Plans Schedule.

Reason: To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

2 The materials indicated on the plans hereby permitted shall be used in the construction of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The materials shall be installed before the development hereby permitted is brought into use and shall thereafter be retained as such.

Reason: To ensure that the materials, hereby considered to be acceptable, are used for the development. To ensure that the development has an acceptable impact on the surrounding landscape.

3 The obscure glazing to the following windows as indicated on the approved plans hereby granted planning permission, shall be obscure glazed and permanently retained as such thereafter with only a fanlight opening:

Plot 2: First floor window to the south west side elevation Plot 3: First floor window to the north east side elevation Plot 4: First floor window to the south west side elevation Plot 5: First floor window to the north east side elevation Plot 7: First floor window to the north east side elevation Plot 8: First floor window to the north eastern and south western side elevations

Page 117 Plot 9: First floor window to the north eastern and south western side elevations Plot 10: First floor window to the south western side elevation.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of neighbouring residents.

4 Prior to the commencement of works hereby granted consent, details of proposed acoustic screening to be installed on site for the duration of the construction works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (in consultation with Natural England). The development shall then be undertaken in accordance with such permitted details.

Reason: To ensure that the proposed construction works do not result in an adverse impact on overwintering birds to the nearby Taw Torridge Estuary Site of Special Scientific Interest.

This is a pre-commencement condition which is imposed to ensure that the Local Planning Authority (in consultation with Natural England) is satisfied of the details of the acoustic screening prior to works commencing on site. Failure to provide this information prior to works commencing on site could lead to the risk of a harmful impact on birds using the nearby Taw Torridge Estuary Site of Special Scientific Interest.

5 Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015, (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) no development of the types described in Classes A, B, C, D, E, G and H; Part 1 ; of Schedule 2, other than that hereby permitted shall be carried out without the further grant of planning permission.

Reason: In the interest of residential amenities and the surrounding landscape.

6 No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the detailed design of the proposed surface water drainage management system which will serve the development site for the full period of its construction has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with Devon County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority. This temporary surface water drainage management system must satisfactorily address both the rates and volumes, and quality, of the surface water runoff from the construction site.

Reason: To ensure that surface water runoff from the construction site is appropriately managed so as to not increase the flood risk, or pose water quality issues, to the surrounding area.

Reason for being a pre-commencement condition: A plan needs to be demonstrated prior to the commencement of any works to ensure that surface water can be managed suitably without increasing flood risk downstream, negatively affecting water quality downstream or negatively impacting on surrounding areas and infrastructure.

7 Notwithstanding the information included on submitted on plan no. 0500 P3 in relation to surface water drainage, prior to the commencement of works on site, details of the location of the proposed flow controls to the surface water attenuation tanks together with details of the proposed maintenance company for the surface water drainage system, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with Devon County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority. The development shall be undertaken in accordance with such approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the surface water drainage system will be correctly maintained and will be accessible to the maintenance company once the development is occupied.

This is a pre-commencement condition which is imposed to ensure that the Local Planning Authority is satisfied of the proposed surface water drainage maintenance arrangements prior to works commencing on site. Failure to provide this information prior to works commencing

Page 118 on site could lead to the risk of surface water run-off from the site resulting in an increased flood risk and potential adverse impact on water quality.

Plans Schedule

Reference Received

1236 0500 P4 11.10.2019

1236 0501 P4 11.10.2019

1236 0700 P4 11.10.2019

1236 0710 P3 11.10.2019

1236 0750 P2 11.10.2019

18 127 11M 11.10.2019

18 127 17F 11.10.2019

18 127 19C 11.10.2019

1236 0760 P2 11.10.2019

0821 v 1 09.08.2019

01 09.08.2019

0740 P2 09.08.2019

18 127 10G 09.08.2019

18 127 12E 09.08.2019

18 127 13E 09.08.2019

18 127 14F 09.08.2019

18 127 15E 09.08.2019

18 127 16E 09.08.2019

18 127 17 E 09.08.2019

18 127 18B 09.08.2019

18 127 20A 09.08.2019

447/100 09.08.2019

Statement of Engagement

The National Planning Policy Framework (paragraphs 38) requires local planning authorities to work positively and proactively with applicants to achieve sustainable development. Throughout the application process guidance has been given to the applicants and all outstanding issues have been identified. In this instance the Council required additional information following the consultation process. The need for additional information was addressed with the applicant and submitted for further consideration. The Council has therefore demonstrated a positive and proactive manner in seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to the planning application.

Page 119 Agenda Item 11c

Committee Report – 07.11.2019

© ApplicationCrown copyright Number: and database 1/0753/2019/FULrights 2012 Ordnance Survey 100022736

Registration date: 27 August 2019

Expiry date: 22 October 2019

Applicant: Mr Mounce

Agent: Mr Johnson

Case Officer: Helen Smith

Site Address: Land Off Staddon Road, Appledore, Devon,

Proposal: Detached dwelling

Recommendation: Grant

© Crown copyright and database rights 2019 Ordnance Survey 100022736

Page 120

Reason for referral:

In line with the constitution, the application has been brought before the Plans Committee due to the Applicant being employed by Torridge District Council.

Relevant History:

Application No. Description Status Closed

1/0500/2014/OUT Erection of 4 Residential WDN 12.06.2014 Dwelling

1/0723/2014/OUT Erection of 4 Residential REF 02.10.2014 Dwellings

Site Description & Proposal

The Site: The site is currently agricultural land, sited to the west of Staddon Road, leading off Churchill Way (A3836 entering Appledore). The wider field within which it is sited is approximately 2.15 hectares and is currently rented out as grassland. This arrangement is to continue through the retention of an access from Staddon Road, via an access strip leading down to the remainder of the field.

The application site covers an area of approximately 550m2 and is generally level before the field slopes down towards Northam Burrows to the West. The perimeter of the entire field comprises of mature and established hedgerows.

Adjacent to the site to the east are a row of residential dwellings, which front onto Staddon Road. They are a mix between single storey with a room-in-the-roof and 2 storey detached dwellings with single storey garages. To the south, there is a row of detached dwellings, which then leads on to semi detached buildings.

The site is not located within an area that is at risk of flooding and it is not subject to any landscape or heritage designations. It is however prominent in the landscape, being set on an elevated area overlooking Northam Burrows, with the sea beyond, to the west. The South West Coast Path is about 350m to the west of the site at its closest point.

The Proposal: The application is made in full and proposes the erection of one dwelling. The dwelling would accommodate 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms, with living and amenity space comprising a kitchen, living area, dining area, a utility and study, with a garage for storage. Two bedrooms would be provided at ground floor level with a master bedroom provided in the roof space. A significant parking and driveway area would be provided off the proposed access (from Staddon Road).

The building would take the appearance of a single storey dwelling with a low roof eaves level. It would be constructed in a palette of white render and natural stone walls, grey slate roof and grey aluminium fenestration. The dwelling would be set over a footprint of approximately 12 x 12 metres with the attached garage covering an area of approximately 7 x 7 metres. The roof would extend to approximately 7 metres in height at its ridge.

The western boundary of the site will be formed by a new Devon hedgebank.

Page 121 Consultee representations:

Northam Town Council: It was resolved to recommend that this application be approved.

Devon County Council (Highways): Standing advice.

DCC Archaeology Section: I refer to the above application. The proposed development lies in an area where little previous archaeological investigation has taken place. Historic Landscape Characterisation shows it to be in an area of medieval enclosures based on strip fields. The Devon Historic Environment Record (HER) records the existence of a possible medieval barrow to the west of the site. The field to the north was named Gun Field at the time of the 1838 Tithe Map. This may indicate some association with the Civil War earthworks on Staddon Hill to the north. The Tithe Map field name Burying Ground (now under a residential development) to the north-east of the site may be a further indication of Civil War military activity in the vicinity of the proposal. It is possible that evidence for such activity may survive within the application site, in the form of buried archaeological deposits. As such, groundworks for the construction of the proposed development have the potential to expose and destroy archaeological and artefactual deposits associated with these heritage assets. The impact of development upon the archaeological resource here should be mitigated by a programme of archaeological work that should investigate, record and analyse the archaeological evidence that will otherwise be destroyed by the proposed development.

The Historic Environment Team recommends that this application should be supported by the submission of a Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) setting out a programme of archaeological work to be undertaken in mitigation for the loss of heritage assets and archaeological interest. The WSI should be based on national standards and guidance and be approved by the Historic Environment Team.

If a Written Scheme of Investigation is not submitted prior to determination the Historic Environment Team would advise, for the above reasons and in accordance with Policy DM07 of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan 2011 - 2031 and paragraph 199 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2018), that any consent your Authority may be minded to issue should carry the condition as worded below, based on model Condition 55 as set out in Appendix A of Circular 11/95, whereby:

'No development shall take place until the developer has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation (WSI) which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out at all times in accordance with the approved scheme, or such other details as may be subsequently agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: 'To ensure, in accordance with Policy DM07 of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan 2011 - 2031 and paragraph 199 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2018), that an appropriate record is made of archaeological evidence that may be affected by the development' This pre-commencement condition is required to ensure that the archaeological works are agreed and implemented prior to any disturbance of archaeological deposits by the commencement of preparatory and/or construction works'.

I would envisage a suitable programme of work as taking the form of the archaeological monitoring and recording of all groundworks associated with the proposed development to allow for the identification, investigation and recording of any exposed archaeological or artefactual deposits. The results of the fieldwork and any post-excavation analysis undertaken would need to be presented in an appropriately detailed and illustrated report, and the finds and archive deposited in accordance with relevant national and local guidelines.

Page 122 I will be happy to discuss this further with you, the applicant or their agent. The Historic Environment Team can also provide the applicant with advice of the scope of the works required, as well as contact details for archaeological contractors who would be able to undertake this work. Provision of detailed advice to non-householder developers may incur a charge. For further information on the historic environment and planning, and our charging schedule please refer the applicant to: https://new.devon.gov.uk/historicenvironment/development-management/.

Representations:

Number of neighbours consulted: 10 Number of letters of support: 0 Number of representations received: 27 Number of neutral representations: 0 Number of objection letters: 27

The application has attracted 27 letters of objection, which raise the following concerns:

 There have been previous refusals on this site both by the Council and Planning Inspectorate;  This was a protected landscape and has been included in the local plan despite much public opposition. The CPA designation should be reinstated;  Concern over 3 more plots being identified on a submitted plan and the potential for even more development. These plots have already been distributed to other family members;  Roads leading to the site are already congested, especially at school times, and there are concerns over highway safety;  There is no need for these additional houses;  The development will harm ecology - the supporting statement refers to a wildlife survey from 2014;  The construction of this dwelling will not bring any financial, economic or local benefit to the area;  Appledore doesn't need more large homes or second homes - it needs affordable housing;  The development will harm views of Appledore from a number of locations;  This is a prominent headland location and the proposed building would add to the skyline deterioration;  An archaeological survey must be undertaken as this is an area of high historic implications; Concerns over the public consultation process;  This would be an 'executive home', which would add nothing to the village;  There would be harmful impacts to residents across the road;  There would be a fundamental alteration of the sight line at the top of the hill;  The Applicant is using tactics to apply for a single dwelling and then gradually get four;  Loss of agricultural land;  The proposed design and materials are not modest or respectful of existing local housing;  Development will lead to coalescence of Appledore, Northam and Westward Ho!;  There is insufficient infrastructure (schools, healthcare etc) to accommodate extra housing;  Loss of privacy;  Loss of a view;  Overshadowing;  Disruption during construction:  The proposed dwelling is too big and overbearing;  The application proposes insufficient parking, which will give rise to additional parking on Staddon Road;  Why is there no police road traffic report?;  Questions over the accuracy of the photographic images.

Where the above concerns relate to material planning considerations, they will be addressed within the Planning Considerations below.

A number of letters of objection refer to a previous refusal and dismissed appeal at the site in relation to application 1/0723/2014/OUT, which proposed the erection of 4 dwellings over a larger site area.

Page 123 By way of background, the application was refused by Torridge District Council primarily due to the site being within the Coastal Preservation Area (CPA). The CPA was a landscape designation within the previous local plan, which sought to protect such land from development unless there was a particular and proven need for such development to be located in the CPA. The Case Officer refused the application due to the proposed 4 dwellings not complying with any of the exceptions which would have permitted development in the CPA and that it would have adversely affected the open character and appearance of the CPA.

The Applicant appealed this decision and it was subsequently dismissed by an Inspector who concluded that: ‘the proposed development would introduce substantial built form into an otherwise open and rural area. In effect it would extend the development boundary towards the country park. While it would be seen against the backdrop of built development, it would encroach on the open slope, appear to be near the skyline and would be prominent in views from the Country Park and South West Coast Path. Thus the proposed development would reduce and be detrimental to the open and rural character and appearance of the area to the west of the appeal site’.

In the context of the letters of objection, it is important to note that the planning policy position in respect of the application has changed since the above decisions were made. The site is no longer subject to the CPA designation (which has been removed from the local plan) and now benefits from being sited within the development boundary and from a non-strategic housing allocation (see below). Therefore, only limited weight can be given to the previous Inspector’s decision. However, the application must still be assessed against the relevant policies of the current local plan, including those that relate to design and landscape impact.

Some concerns are raised over the consultation process for this application. The Local Planning Authority has satisfied its legislative requirements in terms of advertising the proposal. The site notice, which was consistent in size with all other planning site notices, was clearly displayed on the site for the required period of time. It is not considered that anyone has been prejudiced in not being able to put their views forward.

Policy Context:

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan 2011-2031: DM01 (Amenity Considerations); DM04 (Design Principles); DM05 (Highways); DM06 (Parking Provision); DM08A (Landscape and Seascape Character); DM08 (Biodiversity and Geodiversity); ST03 (Adapting to Climate Change and Strengthening Resilience); ST04 (Improving the Quality of Development); ST06 (Spatial Development Strategy for Northern Devon's Strategic and Main Centres); ST09 (Coast and Estuary Zone); ST10 (Transport Strategy); ST14 (Enhancing Environmental Assets); NOR (Northam Spatial Vision and Development Strategy);

Government Guidance: NERC (Natural Environment & Rural Communities); NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework); NPPG (National Planning Practice Guidance); WACA (Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981).

Planning Considerations

The main planning considerations of relevance to this proposal are:

1. The principle of development; 2. Design and impact on landscape character; 3. Highways; 4. Amenity; 5. Drainage; and 6. Ecology.

Page 124 The Principle of Development: Paragraph 2 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that planning law (namely Section 38(6) of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and Section 70(2) of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990) requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF must be taken into account in the preparation of local and neighbourhood plans, and is a material consideration in planning decisions.

In policy terms, the entire site is located within the development boundary for Appledore (Proposals Map 8B). Policy ST06 of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan 2018 (NDTLP) identifies Appledore as forming part of the Main Centre of Northam, where appropriate levels of growth that will increase the towns’ capacities to increase self-containment, to meet their own needs and those of surrounding communities where such is sought through the local vision, will be supported. Policy ST06 is clear that development will be supported within the development boundaries of the Main Centres.

NDTLP Policy NOR (Northam Spatial Strategy) states: 'The three centres will continue to provide a range of services and facilities to meet locally generated needs and to accommodate the expanded needs of visitors to the area. Across Appledore, Northam and Westward Ho! a range of housing appropriate to local needs will be provided. Development will be supported by necessary infrastructure that will be delivered in a manner to minimise deficiencies against service capacity'.

Policy NOR further advises that the spatial vision will be delivered through: (a) ‘provision of a minimum of 1,916 dwellings to meet all the communities housing needs, including affordable and supported homes together with an expanded supply to meet the increasing needs of the area's ageing population, which will be supported with associated development and infrastructure on a continuous basis’.

Paragraph 10.358 of the NDTLP reiterates the delivery of a minimum of 1,916 dwellings and clarifies that this will be delivered through a mixture of development completed since April 2011, existing commitments, identified housing allocations and non-strategic housing sites as set out in Table 10.14. Table 10.14 indicates that 92 dwellings will be delivered through non-strategic allocations with associated Appendix 5 identifying these. The application site forms part of an area referred to as ‘land between Watertown and Staddon Road, Appledore’, which is identified as a non-strategic housing site with an assumed dwelling yield of 5 dwellings. The footnotes confirm that the non-strategic housing allocation only extends to land within the defined development boundary adjoining Staddon Road.

Given the above, it is clear that the principle of development is acceptable in this location given the site’s position within the development boundary for Appledore and it forming part of a non-strategic housing site. Concerns have been raised in letters of representation that approval of the application would set a precedent for further housing within the wider field. The NDTLP is clear that the ‘in principle’ support for housing only relates to land within the development boundary, so it is unlikely that any development beyond the 5 dwellings identified as part of the allocation will come forward. It would therefore be open to the Applicant to come forward with further dwellings in the future, but only within the development boundary and, as with this proposal, any application would be assessed against the relevant policies of the NDTLP and the NPPF.

Concerns have been raised by third parties that there is no need for, or benefits from, this proposal. The development of a single dwelling in this location does not generate any policy triggers in respect of affordable housing, unit size or supporting infrastructure (such as financial contributions towards education) and therefore there is no objection in principle to the Applicant proposing a 3-bedroom open market dwelling in this location. Furthermore, it is not considered that a single dwelling coming forward would prejudice the delivery of the non-strategic allocation to such an extent as to raise an objection.

Design and Impact on Landscape Character: NDTLP Policy ST04: 'Improving the Quality of Development' requires that 'development will achieve high quality inclusive and sustainable design to support the creation of successful, vibrant places. Design will be based on a clear process that analyses and responds to the characteristics of the site,

Page 125 its wider context and the surrounding area'. Policy DM04 sets out a series of Design Principles which are overarched by a desire for good design to guide overall scale, density, massing, height, landscape, layout, materials, access and appearance of new development. Paragraph 30 of the NPPF states that permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions.

NDTLP Policy DM08A concerns landscape and seascape character and states in part (1) that 'development should be of an appropriate scale, mass and design that recognises and respects landscape character of both designated and undesignated landscapes and seascapes; it should avoid adverse landscape and seascape impacts and seek to enhance the landscape and seascape assets wherever possible'.

The site is located within the Coast and Estuary Zone where the NDTLP distinguishes between ‘developed’ and ‘undeveloped coast’, with stricter development controls being applied within the latter. The application site falls to be within the developed coast, due to it being within the development boundary for Appledore.

It is considered that the proposed dwelling would be constructed in an appropriate palette of materials that would be sensitive to the surrounding area. The use of white render and natural stone for the walls would break up the main facades (particularly the western elevation) thus enabling the dwelling to better sit within the landscape. The scale of the dwelling, having a room in the roof set with low eaves, helps in reducing its visual impact when viewed from the west.

The dwelling would not appear out of context or incongruous with existing development in the vicinity when viewed from Northam Burrows. However, when the site is viewed more closely from the Appledore to Watertown road to the west, the proposal would be more prominent on the skyline as the dwellings on Staddon Road are much less visible. Consequently, the siting of the building within the plot does give rise to some concerns and your Officer is of the view that a more sensitive and appropriate siting could be achieved by pulling the building closer to Staddon Road thus providing a larger rear garden. The Applicant has confirmed that they would not be willing to re-site the dwelling as suggested and, whilst this is disappointing, your Officer is unfortunately of the view that the visual impacts of the building are not so harmful as to justify refusal. The scale and design of this single dwelling, combined with the proposed Devon hedgebank along the western boundary, lead your Officer to being of the opinion that it is acceptable in terms of design and landscape considerations.

The width of the dwelling within the plot also raises concerns, however it is acknowledged that as this proposal is for just a single dwelling with significant open space on either side, this could not be justified as a reason for refusal. However, it is noted by the submission of drawing reference ‘1801-P- 03 Plot Divisions’ that the immediate land to the south, which falls within the development boundary, has been divided into 3 additional plots between other family members. Drawing 1807-P-03 is not for approval and the granting of planning permission for a single dwelling on the application site does not in any way guarantee that similarly sited dwellings would be considered acceptable on these other plots. A key concern with any future group of dwellings will be how they are seen collectively in the landscape. Four large dwellings, each set across the width of the plots with limited gaps between, could give rise to an unacceptable impact on the landscape. Whilst no such assessment can be made at this stage, the Applicant has been made aware that as the current application proposal leaves minimal space between the dwelling and its southern boundary, it is quite possible that the need for appropriate gaps between any further dwellings could result in less development coming forward. This is obviously a risk for the Applicant in terms of coming forward with a single dwelling in isolation.

Notwithstanding the areas of concern raised above in respect of the siting of the proposed dwelling, it is not considered that the harm is so significant as to warrant refusal.

Heritage: There are no listed buildings within or adjoining the site and it is not located within a Conservation Area.

Page 126 The County Archaeology Officer has commented on the application and raised that ‘the proposed development lies in an area where little previous archaeological investigation has taken place. Historic Landscape Characterisation shows it to be in an area of medieval enclosures based on strip fields. The Devon Historic Environment Record (HER) records the existence of a possible medieval barrow to the west of the site. The field to the north was named Gun Field at the time of the 1838 Tithe Map. This may indicate some association with the Civil War earthworks on Staddon Hill to the north. The Tithe Map field name Burying Ground (now under a residential development) to the north-east of the site may be a further indication of Civil War military activity in the vicinity of the proposal. It is possible that evidence for such activity may survive within the application site, in the form of buried archaeological deposits. As such, groundworks for the construction of the proposed development have the potential to expose and destroy archaeological and artefactual deposits associated with these heritage assets. The impact of development upon the archaeological resource here should be mitigated by a programme of archaeological work that should investigate, record and analyse the archaeological evidence that will otherwise be destroyed by the proposed development’.

The County Archaeologist is raising no objections subject to a condition being required to secure a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Subject to the inclusion of this condition on any decision, the development raises no concerns in respect of archaeology and is in accordance with NDTLP Policies ST15 and DM07.

Highways: NDTLP Policy DM05 requires development to have safe and well-designed vehicular access and egress, adequate parking and layouts which consider the needs and accessibility of all highway users including cyclists and pedestrians, and that all development shall protect and enhance existing public rights of way, footways, cycleways and bridleways and facilitate improvements to existing or provide new connections to these routes where practical to do so. Policy DM06 states that proposals will be expected to provide an appropriate scale and range of parking provision to meet anticipated needs.

Paragraph 108 of the NPPF requires specific applications for development to ensure that safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users. Paragraph 109 advises that development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.

The Local Highway Authority has been consulted on the proposal and has advised the Local Planning Authority to apply its Standing Advice.

The proposal is considered to be small scale in nature and the traffic associated with a single dwelling will not have a significant impact on the capacity of the local road network. Your Officer is also satisfied that the proposed site access and visibility splays down the road are acceptable. Future occupants would be able to cross the road and join the existing public footway to enable a safe and suitable pedestrian access to the main services and facilities of Appledore, as well as public transport links.

Given the above, and notwithstanding the concerns raised by third parties, the proposal is considered to be in accordance with NDTLP Policies DM05 and DM06 and the relevant paragraphs of the NPPF.

Amenity: NDTLP Policy DM01 requires that development should secure or maintain amenity appropriate to the locality with special regard to the likely impact on neighbours, the operation of neighbouring uses, future occupiers, visitors on the site and any local services. Policy DM04 (i) requires development to ensure the amenities of existing and future neighbouring occupiers are safeguarded.

Concerns have been expressed in letters of representation that the proposed dwelling would give rise to harmful impacts in terms of overlooking and overshadowing. The nearest dwelling to the application proposal would be at a distance of almost 40 metres, with the nearest windows being approximately 45 metres away. Furthermore, Staddon Road and the respective parking/drive ways of the existing and proposed dwellings would sit between the buildings. Given this distance, there are not considered

Page 127 to be any harmful impacts in terms of overlooking and overshadowing. The proposed upper floor windows would not overlook any existing properties as the site is bounded by agricultural land to the east, south and west.

Concerns have also been raised over the loss of outlook and views towards the west. Inevitably as greenfield sites on the edge of settlements are considered for development, the outlook and aspect of existing properties will alter. It should be noted however that the loss of a view or outlook is not a material planning consideration.

Further concerns have been raised in respect of disruption and noise that would occur during the construction phase. It will be important to protect residential amenities from the effect of development but this will not mean that development should be resisted. Short-term disruption through the build process can be addressed through appropriate conditions, such as a restriction on construction hours. In the longer term, it is not considered that the increase in traffic movements associated with a single dwelling would give rise to an unacceptable level of disturbance to residents so as to justify refusal.

Given the above, the application proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of amenity.

Drainage: NDTLP Policy ST03 requires that development takes account of climate change to minimise flood risk. Policy DM04 requires development to 'provide effective water management including Sustainable Drainage Systems, water efficiency measures and the reuse of rain water'.

The site is not within an Environment Agency flood risk zone.

The application form advises that surface water would be discharged of via a sustainable drainage system to include permeable paving. The supporting Design and Access Statement indicates that this method will ensure that no surface water will drain onto the public highway. Given the topography of the site, it is considered that an appropriate surface water approach can be achieved, however it is recommended that a condition is included on any decision that seeks to prevent water from draining onto the public highway.

The application proposes for foul drainage to be discharged into the mains sewer. No objection has been received from South West Water so this method is considered acceptable.

Ecology: Local Planning Authorities have a statutory duty to ensure that the impact of development on wildlife is fully considered during the determination of a planning application under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (Habitats Regulations 2010). Policy DM08 of the NDTLP concerns biodiversity and requires development to conserve, protect and, where possible, enhance biodiversity and geodiversity interests and soils commensurate with their status and giving appropriate weight to their importance. The policy further requires all development to 'ensure that the importance of habitats and designated sites are taken into account' and to 'consider opportunities for the creation of a local and district wide biodiversity network of wildlife corridors which link County Wildlife sites and other areas of biodiversity importance'.

The application is supported by a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report (PEA), which aims to provide baseline ecological conditions and determine potential ecological constraints to the proposed works in the form of protected and priority habitats and species.

The PEA was carried out in February 2019 and confirms that the development would have no impact on statutory or non-statutory designated sites, protected species or priority habitats. There would be a loss of 0.2 hectares of poor semi-improved grassland and 12 metres of defunct species poor hedgerow.

Page 128 The PEA sets out that no further surveys are required as adequate information was gathered during the preliminary appraisal to assess the potential ecological impacts of the proposed development. The following mitigation measures are recommended: • To minimise risks to reptiles, any hedgerow clearance will be carried out in two stages to enable any reptiles present to relocate from the construction area naturally; • No removal of hedgerows, trees or shrubs should take place between 1 March and 31 August inclusive unless a competent ecologist has undertaken a careful detailed check of vegetation for active bird nests before the vegetation is cleared and provided written confirmation that no birds will be harmed and/or that there are appropriate measures in place to protect nesting bird interest on site; • All new boundary features (e.g. garden fence) must incorporate suitable access points (hedgehog highways) to allow hedgehogs to move freely around and through the site; • Measures should be put in place to protect mobile species such as badgers and hedgehogs from being trapped or injured in open excavation and/or pipes during development work.

The PEA recommends compensation and site enhancement measures, which include a new species rich hedgerow along the western boundary and provision for bats and birds on the new dwelling.

In light of the above, it is considered that the proposal is in accordance with NDTLP Policies ST14 and DM08 and the above referenced legislation, subject to a condition securing the mitigation and enhancement measures set out in the PEA.

Conclusion: The application proposal is considered to meet technical planning requirements in respect of vehicular access and parking, amenity, drainage and ecology. Furthermore, the proposal is acceptable in principle due to the site being located within the development boundary of Appledore and subject to a non-strategic housing allocation. Concerns have been raised above in respect of the siting of the dwelling, however these are not considered to be sufficient to warrant refusal of the application. However, any future dwellings that may be proposed within the wider non-strategic allocation will have to be carefully considered to prevent cumulative visual harm arising from inappropriate siting and scale.

The proposed development is therefore considered to be in accordance with the provisions of Policies ST03, ST04, ST06, ST14, NOR, DM01, DM04, DM05, DM06, DM07, DM08, DM08A of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan (2018).

Human rights

Consideration has been given to the Human Rights Act 1998.

Conclusion

It is therefore considered that subject to the compliance with the attached conditions and taking into account all other material planning considerations, including the development plan the proposal would be acceptable.

Recommendation

GRANT subject to the following conditions

1 The development to which this permission relates must be begun no later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted.

Reason: The time limit condition is imposed in order to comply with the time requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

Page 129 2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed in the Plans Schedule.

Reason: To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

3 No development shall take place until the developer has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation (WSI) which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out at all times in accordance with the approved scheme, or such other details as may be subsequently agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure, in accordance with Policy DM07 of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan 2011 - 2031 and paragraph 199 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2018), that an appropriate record is made of archaeological evidence that may be affected by the development'

4 The proposed Devon hedgebank, as shown on approved drawing reference 1801_P_05 A shall be implemented in accordance with full details to be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details, which shall include the time of planting, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the proposed development is commenced and the scheme shall be implemented at those times specified. If within a period of five years from the date of the planting of any tree/plant, that tree/plant, or any tree/plant planted in replacement for it, is removed, uprooted, destroyed, dies or becomes seriously damaged or defective another tree of the same species and size as that originally planted shall be planted at the same place, unless the Local Planning Authority gives its written consent to any variation.

Reason: To safeguard visual amenity and to assimilate the development into the landscape.

5 The materials indicated on the plans hereby permitted shall be used in the construction of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The materials shall be installed before the development hereby permitted is brought into use and shall thereafter be retained as such.

Reason: To ensure that the materials, hereby considered to be acceptable, are used for the development.

6 Construction works shall not take place other than between 0730hrs and 1800hrs on Mondays to Fridays, Saturdays between 0900hrs and 1700hrs and at no time on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

Reason: To protect the amenities of neighbouring properties.

7 Provision shall be made within the site for the disposal of surface water so that none drains on to any County Highway.

Reason: In the interest of public safety and to prevent damage to the highway

8 The development shall proceed in accordance with the Recommendations made in Section 5 of the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report issued 03.03.2019 and prepared by Orbis Ecology.

Reason: In the interests of protected species in accordance with North Devon and Torridge Local Plan Policy DM08.

Page 130 Plans Schedule

Reference Received

1801_P_01 A 17.10.2019

1901_P_02 A 27.08.2019

1901_P_05 A 27.08.2019

1901_P_06 27.08.2019

1901_P_07 27.08.2019

1901_P_08 27.08.2019

1801_P_09 12.08.2018

1801_P_10 12.08.2019

1801_P_11 12.08.2019

1801_P_12 12.08.2019 1801_P_13 A 12.08.2019

1801_P_03 A 17.10.2019 1801_P_04 A 17.10.2019 1801_P_14 17.10.2019

Statement of Engagement

The National Planning Policy Framework (paragraphs 38) requires local planning authorities to work positively and proactively with applicants to achieve sustainable development. Throughout the application process guidance has been given to the applicants and all outstanding issues have been identified.

In this instance the Council required additional information following the consultation process. The need for additional information was addressed with the applicant and submitted for further consideration.

The Council has therefore demonstrated a positive and proactive manner in seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to the planning application.

Page 131 Agenda Item 11d

Committee Report – 7th November 2019

© ApplicationCrown copyright Number: and database 1/077rights 20125/2019/FUL Ordnance Survey 100022736

Registration date: 4 September 2019

Expiry date: 30 October 2019

Applicant: Ms Emma Weeks

Agent:

Case Officer: Laura Davies

Site Address: Playground At Kingsmead Drive, Torrington, Devon,

Proposal: Installation of children's play park adventure trail

Recommendation: Grant

Page 132

© Crown copyright and database rights 2019 Ordnance Survey 100022736

Reason for referral:

This application is to be determined by the Plans Committee in accordance with the terms of the Council’s Constitution as the land is owned by Torridge District Council.

Relevant History:

Application No. Description Status Closed

Site Description & Proposal

Site Description: The application site relates to an existing park and open space located centrally within a group of residential dwellings to Kingsmead Drive and Fairfax Way. The western boundary of the existing park is formed by Kingsmead Drive with the boundaries of residential properties forming the remaining boundaries to the site. There is an existing footpath which extends through the park from north to south linking properties in Kingsmead Drive to the north and dwellings on Fairfax Way. The existing park includes an equipped play area to the western side of the footpath. There are a number of trees throughout the park.

Proposed Development: This application seeks the addition of play equipment to the eastern side of the park to form an adventure trail for children.

The proposed development includes a number of separate pieces of equipment, namely: - Inclined balance beam extending from a height of 0.2 metres to 0.5 metres (length of 2.5 metres); - Burma bridge with the bridge height to be set 0.5 metres above ground level (2.4 metres in length); - Chain walk with the chain to be set at 0.5 metres above ground level and the supporting posts having a height of 1.6 metres (2.4 metres long); - Jump bars x 6 within a maximum height of 0.5 metres above the ground; - Rubber stepping stones x 10 at either 0.2 metres or 0.4 metres in height; - Overhead rings to be set at a height of 1 metre above the ground with the supporting posts (1.8 metres long). Overall structure to be a maximum of 2.4 metres in height ; - Wobble log with a maximum height of 0.4 metres above the ground (length 2.5 metres); - Tyre crossing with the tyres set at a height of 0.75 metres (length 2.4 metres). Overall structure to be a maximum of 2.4 metres in height; - Balance beam to be set 0.2 metres above ground level (length 2.5 metres); - Climbing wall with a maximum height of 1.5 metres above ground level (length 2.24 metres); - Curved beam to be set at a height of 0.2 metres above ground level (length 2.5 metres).

Grass matting is proposed to be added to the ground around the climbing wall and overhead rings.

Consultee representations:

Great Torrington Parish/Town Council: Item adjourned pending clarification on Plans. The Chair confirmed that the item would be adjourned to another meeting as the Town Council could only consider plans set before them and there were clearly anomalies.

The Town Council therefore confirmed that the item was adjourned and to be heard on the 9th October 2019 once Torridge District Council clarified correct documents and application to be considered. Great Torrington Town Council formally requites an extension of consultation time from 29th September to 10th October 2019.

Page 133

Further Response dated 9th October 2019: Following a Planning Committee Meeting at Great Torrington Town Council this morning, I am writing to confirm that Members had no objections to the above referenced planning application. Upon voting, 4 Members voted 'no objections' and 2 Members abstained. Following a Planning Committee Meeting at Great Torrington Town Council this morning, I am writing to confirm that Members had no objections to the above referenced planning application. Upon voting, 4 Members voted 'no objections' and 2 Members abstained.

Designing Out Crime Officer - DC&D Police: Initial response: 19th September 2019:

Thank you for this application. Having visited the location, spoken with local residents and sought the views of local officers I have no objections in principle from a crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour (ASB) perspective to the proposal. However, given the lack of natural surveillance across the site, should the Local Authority be minded to approve the application, care must be taken with regard to placing any equipment as to ensure that a single or group of dwellings is not be adversely affected by all or part of the installation.

Consideration must also be given to the careful placement of any climbing type structures and the potential loss of privacy into and increased vulnerability of rear gardens. Additional defensive planting should therefore also be considered to further protect rear / side boundaries.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if any clarification is sought or I can assist further.

Further response received 25th September 2019: Thank you for this amended application.

The revised layout (removal of equipment adjacent to existing play park) is noted. Given the intended user group, age 1-12 years, I would suggest for reasons of safety and security, consideration should be given to keeping the adventure trail in the space adjacent to the existing play equipment. This would improve surveillance of the site, both natural and casual and assist parents with more than one child to supervise who want to use different equipment simultaneously. The remaining open space would then continue to be available to other users, for example dog walkers, whilst reducing the opportunity for community conflict.

TDC - Corporate Property Manager: Further to our conversation this morning with regard to the proposal to install play equipment on TDC amenity land at Kingsmead Drive Torrington.

In principle we would have no objection to the proposals, subject to a number of ongoing management and maintenance considerations being confirmed and verified; - We would require a full management and maintenance schedule, along with a full risk assessment put forward before Estates and Legal Services could grant permission for any installation on TDC land. - Any cost implications relating to ongoing maintenance and management would need to be addressed. Including any repair and maintenance to adjoining grassed areas surrounding the proposed equipment. - The project would need to demonstrate that there is compliance with all relevant Health and Safety and Play Area regulations and advise.

Environmental Protection Officer: I have reviewed the information provided by the applicant, the comments on the application (both for an against) and have visited the application site.

The application is an irregular shaped area of green space in a central location of this housing development, with a variety of young but established trees around the site, bordered on all sides by

Page 134 residential property. The area has a number of accesses to various parts of the estate. The proposal is for a play park ‘adventure trail’ which consists of a variety of play equipment arranged in series, running approximately east to west across the site.

The location and nature of the equipment suggests that the aim is for the catchment for the play area to be localised. There is no dedicated parking associated with the site, so it is not a facility that is being promoted as a resource for the wider village. There is an existing play and picnic area close to the application site which we have no record of giving rise to any complaints or issues.

A number of residents have raised concerns around potential noise and antisocial behaviour from the use of the equipment, and the impacts of this on homes immediately surrounding the area. However, having regard to a number of factors, it is the conclusion of the environmental protection team that there are insufficient grounds to raise an objection to the proposals.

I am aware of the separation distances given in the Fields in Trust guidance and the recommended buffer zones for play equipment provided by them. These are not statutory separation distances, but recommendations to reduce conflict between local residents and those at play. It should be noted that the dimensions of the play areas used in the guidance fall well below the proposals under consideration so we would need to caution against the use of these buffer zones for a smaller development such as this. In addition, rather than a concentrated area of activity, the play zone will be elongated along the site, further mitigating the impacts. Finally, the types of equipment proposed are not associated with older youths who can give rise to anti social behaviour: this tends to be equipment that encourages congregation, such as around large swings and structures, or those structures themselves providing shelter. No additional lighting is proposed, this will be limited to the existing street light on the adjacent path. Finally, consideration has to be given to the existing use of the site as a public green space. Given the allocation of this public space within the estate and existing play facilities, I don’t think that this proposal is out of place, and the scale and nature of the facilities appear to have given consideration the wider residential amenity. As such, the environmental protection team do not raise objections to this application.

Representations:

Number of neighbours consulted: 14 Number of letters of support: 35 Number of representations received: 60 Number of neutral representations: 1 Number of objection letters: 24

Objections raised can be summarised as follows: - Additional noise and disturbance for neighbouring residents; - Unclear whether additional lighting is proposed; - Existing drainage issues to application site; - Sufficient space should be retained for dog walkers; - Play area has previously been enlarged and money should be spent elsewhere; - Development would change the character and established use of the area; - Lack of public discussion or opinion prior to planning application; - No site notice and limited public consultation; - Adverse impact on wildlife and birds; - Additional on street parking could block emergency vehicles; - lack of demand for additional play area; - Increased litter and potential of graffiti and vandalism; - Adverse impact on road safety; - Impact on house prices; - Existing play area is sufficient for surrounding dwellings; - Overlooking and overshadowing of neighbouring properties due to height of some of the equipment; - Potential loss of trees; - Lack of information relating to the maintenance and insurance of the play equipment; - Potential appeal of play area to general public, not just local residents;

Page 135 - Location inappropriate for this type of development; - Inadequate protection for children in case of accidents.

Letters of support received can be summarised as follows: - Additional play equipment in close proximity to the homes of local children; - Use and enjoy existing play area; - Existing large open area; - Community fundraising to regenerate the park; - Addition of play equipment for older children would be an asset; - Additional traffic generated due to 'cut through' within the estate; - Considered design which enhances the natural green area within the estate; - Lack of alternative facilities for children in surrounding area; - Equipment will develop social and motor skills and keep children active; - Development will enhance and add value to the estate; - Enhancement to health, well-being and social interaction; - Area is already a park.

Policy Context:

Government Guidance:

NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework); NPPG (National Planning Practice Guidance); NERC (Natural Environment & Rural Communities); WACA (Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981);

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan 2011-2031:

ST06 (Spatial Development Strategy for Northern Devon's Strategic and Main Centres); ST22 (Community Services and Facilities); DM01 (Amenity Considerations); DM04 (Design Principles); DM05 (Highways); DM08 (Biodiversity and Geodiversity); DM10 (Green Infrastructure Provision);

Draft Neighbourhood Plan:

ENV1 (Landscape Protection); ENV2 (Wildlife Enhancement); ENV3 (Enhance The Green Infrastructure Of The Parish); CF1 (Community Facilities);

Planning Considerations

Main Planning Considerations: 1. Principle of Development 2. Impact on Character and Appearance 3. Impact on Residential Amenities 4. Access 5. Ecology 6. Maintenance.

1. Principle of Development: The application site is located within the settlement of Great Torrington as identified on the Proposals Maps to the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan (2018). Great Torrington is identified as a Main Centre within the Local Plan and Policy ST06 notes that development will be supported in principle within the development boundaries of Main Centres noting that they should support appropriate levels of growth to increase the town's capacity to increase self-containment, to meet its own needs and those of surrounding communities.

Policy ST22 relates to community services and facilities and notes that the development of new or extensions and improvements to existing community facilities to meet the needs of local communities will be supported within settlements where: '(a) it does not harm the character of the area and the amenities of the surrounding uses;

Page 136 (b) it is well related to public transport infrastructure, where possible, and is accessible by walking or cycling; and (c) it can be accessed without generating unacceptable levels of traffic on the local road network and/or reducing highway safety.'

Policy DM10 further seeks the provision of green infrastructure to meet the needs of local residents.

The Great Torrington Neighbourhood Plan has been the subject of public consultation and the Inspector's Report is awaited. As a result, limited weight can be attributed to the policies of the Neighbourhood Plan at this stage. Policy CR1 supports the principle of improved recreational facilities with one of the objectives of the Plan being for priority to be given to providing appropriate facilities for young people: 'Policy CF1: Community Facilities Proposals for new and/or enhanced sporting and recreational facilities, including allotments, will be supported so as to enhance the range and quality of facilities within the town, providing any such development would not be detrimental to the character of the area or the amenity of any nearby residents'.

The principle of additional play equipment within the existing park would therefore be supported in principle.

2. Impact on Character and Appearance: Policy DM04 of the Local Plan notes that development proposals should be appropriate and sympathetic to their setting in terms of their scale, density, massing, height, layout appearance, materials and their relationship to buildings and landscape features in the local neighbourhood. Further, part (g) of Policy DM04 notes that development proposals should provide public and private spaces which are well designed, safe, attractive and complement the built form, designed to minimise anti-social behaviour.

The proposed play equipment would be located within the existing park area, to the eastern side of the public footpath which extends north-south through the park. The proposed equipment would be located centrally within this side of the park with all of the existing trees to be retained.

The proposed equipment would be of various heights and designs to provide an adventure trail extending south-west to the north-east part of the existing open space. The applicant has provided details of each piece of equipment and the heights at which the children using the equipment would be above the ground. The highest pieces of equipment would be the frame of the overhead rings, the climbing wall and frame of the tyre crossing. These would extend to a maximum height of 2.4 metres.

The proposed play equipment would be seen within the context of the surrounding dwellings which extend to two storeys in height, the existing trees to the site which would be retained and the boundary features to neighbouring properties which include walls, fencing and hedgerows. The boundary walls and fencing to the southern boundary of the site adjacent to the play equipment (the rear boundary of dwellings on Fairfax Way) would extend to approximately 2 metres in height. The hedgerow to part of the northern boundary with no. 54 Kingsmead Drive similarly extends to around 2 metres in height with areas of fencing and brick wall to a similar height to the remainder of the northern boundary. The eastern boundary of the site wraps around no. 56 Kingsmead Drive and this boundary includes a hedgerow and fence to a lower level. The existing open area to the eastern side of the park is therefore already significantly enclosed by the boundaries of neighbouring properties and these, together with the trees on site provide the main character of the existing site.

The proposed play equipment would be located centrally within the existing open space to the eastern side of the park and within the existing trees which are to a greater height than the proposed equipment. The proposed design of the equipment would be formed of steel frames to be coloured green.

Page 137 Due to the nature and scale of the proposed equipment, together with the existing enclosed nature of this part of the park, the proposed development is not considered to result in a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the existing park.

3. Impact on Residential Amenities: Policy DM01 of the Local Plan relates to residential amenities and notes that development will be supported where it would not significantly harm the amenities of any neighbouring or future occupants.

As noted above, the existing park area is enclosed to the northern, eastern and southern sides by the boundaries of neighbouring dwellings, with properties to Fairfax Way located to the south of the application site and those to Kingsmead Drive located to the north and east. The various pieces of equipment have different heights and vary in terms of the height to which the children using them would reach. In addition, the design of the adventure trail extending across the site means that the relationship of the equipment to neighbouring properties varies.

The nearest neighbouring properties on Fairfax Way to the south of the application site (nos. 7, 9, 11, 15) include a brick and fence rear boundary which extends to approximately 2 metres in height and forms most of the southern boundary of the site. The nearest piece of equipment to this rear boundary would be inclined beam (marked A on the submitted plans) which would extend to a maximum height of 0.5 metres above existing ground level. This would be located at a distance of approximately 5.8 metres. The next nearest piece of equipment would be the jumping bars, which would be located at a distance of 7.7 metres from the rear boundary of the neighbouring properties and would extend to a maximum height of 0.5 metres above ground level. Given the existing boundary treatment, the distance to the proposed equipment and the nature of the nearest pieces of equipment, a detrimental impact on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers is not considered to result.

The south-eastern boundary of the site is adjacent to the side elevation of no. 17 Fairfax Way however this is located some distance from the proposed equipment, a minimum of 13 metres to the boundary, with the dwellinghouse itself set further away from the equipment.

The existing north-eastern boundary is located immediately adjacent to no. 56 Kingsmead Drive and includes the lowest level boundary treatment. The nearest part of the equipment would be located some 5.8 metres from this boundary and this would relate to a curved beam (marked L on the submitted plans) which extends to a maximum height of 0.2 metres above ground level. There are clear views from the first floor windows of no. 56 Kingsmead Drive over the park as existing.

The northern boundary of the site is located adjacent to no. 54 is formed of an existing mature hedgerow and this neighbouring dwelling is a bungalow with limited views of the side elevation (with the exception of the roofline) from the park as existing. The nearest piece of equipment proposed to this boundary would be over 8 metres away.

As noted above, the heights of the frames of two of the pieces of equipment extend to 2.4 metres in height although this would not be the height that users of the adventure trail would be climbing to. The applicant has confirmed the maximum height that children would reach above ground level on each piece of play equipment and the highest would be the climbing wall (marked as K on the submitted block plan) at 1.5 metres above ground level). The climbing wall would be located over 10 metres from the northern boundary with no. 54 Kingsmead Drive, approximately 10 metres from the boundary with no. 56 Kingsmead Drive and over 19.5 metres from properties on Fairfax Way. Due to the location, design and nature of the proposed equipment together with its relationship to neighbouring properties, it is not considered that the proposal would result in any loss of amenities for neighbouring occupiers in terms of overlooking or a loss of privacy.

Guidance on buffer zones between residential dwellings and play spaces is provided by Fields in Trust and this notes that a minimum of a 20 metre separation should be provided between the proposed activity area and the habitable room facade of neighbouring dwellings for a Locally Equipped Area of Play. The positions of the proposed equipment would not meet this minimum buffer

Page 138 zone to neighbouring properties, particularly those to Fairfax Way and no. 56 Kingsmead Drive, due to the orientation and layout of the existing park area. There is an existing equipped play area to the western side of the park which has been installed with a similar proximity to neighbouring properties to that which is proposed as part of this application. This equipped play space would also not meet the recommended buffer zone set out by the Fields In Trust.

It is noted that the Fields in Trust guidance is intended as a recommendation and seeks the provision of play spaces of a sufficient size to enable effective use, in accessible locations and in close proximity to dwellings. The guidance also seeks to maintain the longevity of equipped playspaces and ensure their continued use. Within the National Planning Policy Framework, paragraph 96 emphasises the need to access to a network of high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and physical activity. Within the Local Plan, Policy DM10 seeks the provision of new accessible green infrastructure and built facilities to meet the Council's accessibility standards, which include the provision of children's play space within a close proximity of residential properties. The proposed play equipment is intended for use by children across a wide age range (1-12 years) and therefore accessibility for smaller children to such equipment being close to home is a key consideration, as with any proposed Local Area of Play (LAP) intended for smaller children.

The Council’s Environmental Protection Officer has commented on the submitted proposals in terms of the potential noise impacts. This notes that there is no record of any complaints associated with the existing play area of picnic bench although notes the concerns raised in representations about the potential for noise and antisocial behaviour.

The Environmental Protection Officer makes specific reference to the Fields In Trust guidance and recommended buffer zones noting that the proposal would be elongated across the site, rather than resulting in a concentrated area of activity and that the types of equipment proposed would not be associated with older youths who can give rise to antisocial behaviour as the equipment would not naturally give rise to congregation such as around large swings or shelters and other structures. In addition, the Environmental Protection Officer has noted that no additional lighting is proposed and therefore this will remain limited to the footpath which extends through the centre of the park. The Environmental Protection Officer has not raised an objection to the proposed development in terms of the potential noise impact and comments that the scale and nature of the proposed facilities would not be out of place in this location.

Due to the existing use of the application site as a park area for use by local residents which would not preclude children playing within this area, the likely noise impacts are not considered to be significantly increased as a result of the proposed development. The existing dwellings surrounding the application site (with the exception of 54 Kingsmead Drive) have a views over this area of the park as existing and an element of noise and disturbance is likely to result from this proximity to the public open space. Due to the nature of the proposed adventure trail equipment which is spread over a wider area than a traditional play area (such as that to the opposite side of the park), it is not considered that a harmful impact on neighbouring residents, above and beyond any existing noise and disturbance, would result from the proposed development.

The proposed development is not therefore considered to result in a harmful impact on residential amenities and would be in keeping with the provisions of Policy DM01 of the Local Plan.

4. Access: The access arrangements to the site, with the pedestrian footpath running north-south through the wider park and the footpath along the roadside of Kingsmead Drive in the west would all be retained as a result of the proposed development. The proposal is not considered to result in a harmful impact on the existing access arrangements into the park.

5. Ecology: Local Planning Authorities have a statutory duty to ensure that the impact of development on wildlife is fully considered during the determination of a planning application under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (Habitats Regulations 2010). This is further

Page 139 reinforced within the adopted North Devon and Torridge Local Plan through Policy DM08 which states that development proposals should conserve and, where possible, enhance biodiversity interests.

A completed Wildlife Trigger List has been submitted in support of the application which does not highlight any proposed impact on protected species. Given the nature and scale of the proposed development, it is not considered that the proposed amendments sought would result in a harmful impact on protected species or their habitats.

6. Maintenance: The application site is owned by the District Council although this application has been submitted by a third party as a representative of a local community group.

The Council's Property Services team who manage and maintain the existing park area have been consulted on the development and have raised no objections to the proposed development in principle subject to a number of ongoing management and maintenance considerations being confirmed by the applicant.

The submitted details from the applicant note that the existing park is maintained by the Council with the grass around the proposed equipment being mown by the Council. The Property Services team have confirmed that this is undertaken by a contractor on behalf of the Council on a periodic basis. No specific details have been provided by the applicant in relation to the ongoing and long term management and maintenance of the proposed play equipment. It is therefore considered reasonable to include a condition as part of any planning permission granted to ensure that a detailed management and maintenance agreement is submitted and approved by the Council prior to the commencement of works on site.

7. Other Matters: A number of other concerns have been raised in letters of objection. The proposed development is not indicated to include any lighting to this part of the park and should any be proposed this would be the subject of a separate planning application. Concerns regarding existing drainage issues on the site are noted, however the proposed development would not result in the creation of a significant impermeable area around the equipment, with only small areas of grass matting being proposed adjacent to the higher pieces of equipment and no other resurfacing being proposed.

Further, concerns in relation to anti-social behaviour are noted. The Police Designing Out Crime Officer has visited the site and provided comments on the proposed scheme and confirms that there are no objections in principle to the development in terms of crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour perspective. It is recommended by the Police that the play equipment be located closer to the other play area in the park, however following pre-application discussions the siting of the proposed adventure trail to the western side of the park was considered to be located too close to the highway on Kingsmead Drive as it was initially proposed to immediately adjacent to the western boundary of the site. The Police comments notes that the siting of the proposed equipment should ensure that one dwelling or specific group of dwellings should not be adversely affected by all or part of the installation. The layout of the proposed trail in a linear arrangement would retain the equipment as centrally as possible within this part of the park and would spread any impacts in terms of noise across this part of the site rather than concentrated adjacent to one particular dwelling.

Conclusion: The proposed development is considered to be in keeping with the character and appearance of the existing park area and is not considered to result in a harmful impact on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers or protected species. Consideration can be given to the ongoing maintenance and management of the site via a condition to ensure a detailed management plan.

Human rights

Consideration has been given to the Human Rights Act 1998.

Page 140 Conclusion

It is therefore considered that subject to the compliance with the attached conditions and taking into account all other material planning considerations, including the development plan the proposal would be acceptable.

Recommendation

GRANT subject to the following conditions

1 The development to which this permission relates must be begun no later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted.

Reason: The time limit condition is imposed in order to comply with the time requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed in the Plans Schedule.

Reason: To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

3 Prior to the commencement of any works in relation to the approved development, a detailed Management and Maintenance Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be subsequently carried out in accordance with such approved details. The Management and Maintenance Plan should be prepared in consultation with the Torridge District Council Property Services team and include long term arrangements for the ongoing maintenance of the equipment.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of neighbouring occupiers and the character and appearance of the existing park. This is a pre-commencement condition which is imposed to ensure that the Local Planning Authority is satisfied of the proposed management and maintenance details prior to works commencing on site. Failure to provide this information prior to works commencing on site could lead to the risk of the play equipment not being properly maintained and managed in the long term.

Plans Schedule

Reference Received

MAN102 R6-2 Revision 5 20.09.2019

MAN102 R6-1 04.09.2019

MAN102 R6-3 Revision 6 04.09.2019

TT01 19.08.2019

TT02 19.08.2019

TT03 19.08.2019

TT04 19.08.2019

TT05 19.08.2019

TT07 19.08.2019

TT10 19.08.2019

TT12 19.08.2019

TT13 19.08.2019

TT14 19.08.2019

Page 141

Statement of Engagement

The National Planning Policy Framework (paragraphs 38) requires local planning authorities to work positively and proactively with applicants to achieve sustainable development. Throughout the application process guidance has been given to the applicants and all outstanding issues have been identified. In this instance the Council required additional information following the consultation process. The need for additional information was addressed with the applicant and submitted for further consideration. The Council has therefore demonstrated a positive and proactive manner in seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to the planning application.

Page 142 Agenda Item 11e

Committee Report – 7th November 2019

© ApplicationCrown copyright Number: and database 1/0805/2019/FULMrights 2012 Ordnance Survey 100022736

Registration date: 29 August 2019

Expiry date: 28 November 2019

Applicant: Beechcroft Land Ltd

Agent: RPS Group

Case Officer: Laura Davies

Site Address: Land At Hoopers Way, Torrington, Devon,

Proposal: Variation of condition 12 of application 1/0781/2015/OUTM (Roads, access, street furniture and maintenance) in relation to Reserved Matters

Recommendation: subject to a legal agreement

Page 143

© Crown copyright and database rights 2019 Ordnance Survey 100022736

Reason for referral:

This application has been called in for consideration by Plans Committee by Councillor Cottle-Hunkin if recommended for approval for the following reasons: ‘It is vital that condition 12 is neither removed nor varied and the details must be provided upfront as soon as possible.

Condition 12 asks for essential information which must be included. Of particular concern is information regarding the sewers, drains and access. Public foul drainage was raised as a concern by Southwest Water back in 2015 when the initial application was made. They said they were not satisfied with it back then and nothing has changed. Highways also talked about surface water issues in the initial application. Access to the site is also a major worry in terms of community safety for both the site in question and the housing estate and residents surrounding it.’

Relevant History:

Application No. Description Status Closed

1/0781/2015/OUTM Outline application for PER 06.12.2016 residential development of up to 60 dwellings and ancillary development, with vehicular access off Hoopers Way

1/1019/2015/SCRHI Outline application for SCRP 14.10.2015 D residential development of up to 60 dwellings and ancillary development, with vehicular access off Hoopers Way

1/0246/2017/OUTM Outline application for REF 14.06.2018 residential development of up to 181 dwellings and ancillary development, with vehicular access off Hoopers Way, Burwood Lane and Caddywell Lane (affecting a public right of way)

1/0702/2017/OUT Outline application (with all PER 28.06.2018 matters reserved) for car park and associated access, landscaping and ancillary infrastructure

1/0340/2019/OUTM Outline application for REF 12.08.2019 residential development of up to 181 dwellings and ancillary development, with all matters reserved except access (Resubmission of application 1/0246/2017/OUTM)

Page 144 Site Description & Proposal

Site Description: The application site is located to the western side of the town of Great Torrington which is identified as a Strategic Centre within the Torridge District Local Plan. The application site is located outside of the settlement boundary of Torrington, immediately to the south of existing residential dwellings to Hoopers Way and Hunterswood which are located within the settlement boundary. Burwood Lane wraps around the eastern, southern and western boundaries of the site and provides access to The Granary which is located to the south-western side of the application site.

Proposed Development: This application seeks the variation of Condition 12 of planning permission reference 1/0781/2015/OUTM. This application granted outline planning permission for the development of the site to provide up to 60 dwellings and ancillary development with vehicular access from Hoopers Way. This planning permission was granted on 6th December 2016.

Condition 12 of this outline planning permission states: 'Any proposed estate road, cycleways, footways, footpaths, verges, junctions, street lighting, sewers, drains, retaining walls, service routes, surface water outfall, road maintenance/vehicle overhang margins, embankments, visibility splays, accesses, car parking and street furniture shall be constructed and laid out in accordance with details to be approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing as Reserved Matters before their construction begins. For this purpose, plans and sections indicating, as appropriate, the design, layout, levels, gradients, materials and method of construction shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval as part of any Reserved Matters application. Reason: To ensure that adequate information in available for the proper consideration of the detailed proposals.'

This application seeks to vary the wording of condition 12 to remove the required highways details from consideration at the Reserved Matters stage.

Consultee representations:

Great Torrington Parish/Town Council: Cllr Mrs Strode proposed an objection to the application, Cllr Smith seconded the proposal. Members took a vote: Objection = 6 Abstention = 1 Outcome = OBJECTION to removal of condition 12.

Devon County Council (Highways): I have no objection to changing the condition to a pre-commencement condition. It would however be in the applicant's interest to consider the details required for this condition at reserved matters stage. Recommendation: THE HEAD OF PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENT, ON BEHALF OF DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL, AS LOCAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY, MAY WISH TO RECOMMEND CONDITIONS ON ANY GRANT OF PLANNING PERMISSION

1. Any proposed estate road, cycleways, footways, footpaths, verges, junctions, street lighting, sewers, drains, retaining walls, service routes, surface water outfall, road maintenance/vehicle overhang margins, embankments, visibility splays, accesses, car parking and street furniture shall be constructed and laid out in accordance with details to be approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before their construction begins, For this purpose, plans and sections indicating, as appropriate, the design, layout, levels, gradients, materials and method of construction shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: To ensure that adequate information is available for the proper consideration of the detailed proposals.

Page 145 Representations:

Number of neighbours consulted: 29 Number of letters of support: 0 Number of representations received: 29 Number of neutral representations: 0 Number of objection letters: 29

Objections raised can be summarised as follows: - Inadequate road access to the site; - Road safety issues with additional traffic; - Lack of capacity in sewerage system; - Other preferable brownfield sites for development; - Visual amenities; - Residential amenities; - Noise; - Loss of wildlife on the site; - Lack of capacity in local schools and services as existing; - Potential for more dwellings to be constructed.

Policy Context:

Government Guidance:

NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework); NPPG (National Planning Practice Guidance); NERC (Natural Environment & Rural Communities); WACA (Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan 2011-2031:

ST06 (Spatial Development Strategy for Northern Devon's Strategic and Main Centres); ST18 (Affordable Housing on Development Sites); ST23 (Infrastructure); GTT (Great Torrington Spatial Vision and Development Strategy); GTT05 (North of Burwood Lane); DM01 (Amenity Considerations); DM04 (Design Principles); DM05 (Highways); DM06 (Parking Provision); DM07 (Historic Environment); DM08 (Biodiversity and Geodiversity); DM10 (Green Infrastructure Provision); ST14 (Enhancing Environmental Assets);

Draft Neighbourhood Plan:

TI1 (Car Parking); ); ENV1 (Landscape Protection); ENV2 (Wildlife Enhancement); H1 (Housing Types); H2 (Allocation Of Affordable Housing); TI2 (Pedestrians And Cyclists);

Planning Considerations

Main Planning Considerations: 1. Principle of Development and Fallback Position 2. Highways Access 7, Section 106 Matters.

1. Principle of Development and Fallback Position: The application site is located within the settlement boundary of Great Torrington, as identified on the Proposals Maps to the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan. As a result, the provisions of Policy ST06 of the Local Plan are relevant which identifies Torrington as a Main Centre and notes that development will be supported within the boundaries of Main Centres. Further, Policy ST06 notes that Main Centres will support appropriate levels of growth that will increase the town's capacity to increase self-containment, to meet its own needs and those of the surrounding communities.

Policy GTT sets out the spatial vision and development strategy for Great Torrington noting that high quality development and supporting infrastructure will be enabled to meet the needs within Great

Page 146 Torrington, including the provision of a minimum of 632 dwellings including affordable and supported homes to meet the community's housing needs, together with associated development and infrastructure. Policy GTT also notes that the housing requirement will be delivered via redevelopment opportunities on brownfield sites within the town and modest urban extensions to the east and south.

The application site is allocated within the Local Plan for development and Policy GTT05 sets out the nature of development sought on the site: '(1) A site of about 2.5 hectares north of Burwood Land, ad defined on Policies Map 5, is allocated for residential and associated development that includes: (a) about 60 dwellings, the type, size and tenure of which will be reflective of local needs. (2) The site will be developed in accordance with the following site specific development principles: (a) enhance and make connections to the existing network of local and strategic green infrastructure through and around the site including the provision of new footpaths, cycleways, public open space, wildlife corridors, formal and informal sport and recreation facilities; and (b) facilitate connections for motor vehicles, cycles and pedestrians between the proposed development, the town centre and key employment areas including increased opportunities for public transport links and sustainable travel choices within and around Great Torrington to reduce reliance on the private motor car.'

Taking into consideration the nature of the proposed development for up to 60 dwellings, the principle of the proposed development would be in keeping with the provisions of Policies ST06, GTT and GTT05 of the Local Plan.

The application site has an extant planning permission for the development of the site for up to 60 dwellings. This decision was taken on 6th December 2016 with a three year time period for the submission of the reserved matters application. This extant planning permission is a material consideration in the determination of this application to vary condition 12 and therefore a detailed discussion of the impacts of the development on landscape, character and residential amenities will not be repeated as part of this report.

For clarification the current application seeks only a variation of the existing wording to Condition 12. Guidance contained within the National Planning Practice Guidance confirms that planning permissions granted under Section 73 for the variation of a condition of an existing planning permission (as is the case in this submission) cannot be granted to extend the time limit within which a development must be started or an application for approval of reserved matters must be made. The application therefore remains extant at this time, however the outline permission will expire in December 2019 unless a Reserved Matters application is made before the expiry date.

2. Highways Access: Policy DM05 of the Local Plan states that all development must ensure safe and well designed vehicular access and egress, adequate parking and layouts which consider the needs and accessibility of all highway users including cyclists and pedestrians. Policy DM06 relates specifically to car parking provision.

The approved outline planning permission on the application site included a proposed access from Hoopers Way. The County Council's Highways Officer was consulted in relation to this application and commented on a number of occasions. Their comments in relation to this access arrangement from Hoopers Way were as follows:

'In principle this limited level of development is acceptable to be accessed via Hoopers Way only, if the site makes provision for highway access to the future allocated sites and does not prejudice their delivery in the way proposed in the draft local plan. That proposed way is for Burwood Lane to be widened to accommodate two way traffic.

The indicative layout submitted with this outline application does not provide for the widening of Burwood Lane on land fronting this highway, but this must be so if approved. To this end, any detailed layout must construct highway or provide the Highway Authority with land for road widening on the

Page 147 west, south and east sides of the site. In terms of traffic impact, the figures submitted by the developer show that roads in the immediate area including Hoopers Way, Burwood Road, Borough Road, Pathfield and Hatchmoor Road experience a moderate level of traffic. I have no reason to believe that these figures, a level of some 600 vehicle movements on Hatchmoor Road in the busiest hour, are incorrect. The transport assessment shows that junctions in the area currently work within capacity and with the proposed development they would still. The increase in traffic associated with the proposed development would no doubt be significant for existing local residents. However, considering paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework, I would not classify this impact as severe'.

The Highways Officer recommended a number of conditions, including condition 12 which noted that these details should be submitted at the Reserved Matters stage. The County Council's Highways Officer has commented on the current application noting that there is no objection to the change of the condition to a pre-commencement condition. The following condition has been recommended by the County Council's Highways Officer as an amendment to the previously imposed condition 12:

'Any proposed estate road, cycleways, footways, footpaths, verges, junctions, street lighting, sewers, drains, retaining walls, service routes, surface water outfall, road maintenance/vehicle overhang margins, embankments, visibility splays, accesses, car parking and street furniture shall be constructed and laid out in accordance with details to be approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before their construction begins, For this purpose, plans and sections indicating, as appropriate, the design, layout, levels, gradients, materials and method of construction shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: To ensure that adequate information is available for the proper consideration of the detailed proposals.'

This amendment will ensure that highways details are provided by the applicant and formally approved by both the Council and DCC Highways prior to works commencing on site, although not as part of a Reserved Matters application. This variation has been discussed with the applicant and they have agreed that the variation of the condition to be 'pre-commencement' would be acceptable for their purposes.

On this basis, the proposed variation to condition 12 is considered to be in keeping with the provisions of Policy DM05 of the Local Plan and no objections are raised to this proposed amendment to the wording of condition 12.

3. Section 106 Agreement: The previously granted outline planning permission (reference: 1/0781/2015/OUTM) was subject to a Section 106 agreement in relation to affordable housing provision on site, equipped playspace provision on site, bus and cycle vouchers, a contribution towards education and a contribution towards the enhancement of the bus service.

A Deed of Variation would be sought to link this application to the previous Section 106 agreement to ensure that these obligations are retained in relation to this variation.

4. Other Matters: Representations received which raise concerns about visual and residential amenities, noise, wildlife and infrastructure are noted, however there is an extant outline planning permission for the development of the application site and these aspects of the development were discussed as part of the outline planning application (1/0781/2019/OUT). The current application seeks only to vary the details of condition 12 in relation to highways details.

Concerns in relation to the lack of adequate sewerage system are noted and this is also raised within the call-in request. South West Water were consulted on the application and raised no objection however recommended the inclusion of a condition relating to foul drainage to ensure that investigation works are undertaken prior to the new dwellings being connected to the public foul sewerage network. This was included as condition 17 of the outline planning approval.

Page 148

Conclusion: Taking into consideration the nature of the proposed variation to condition 12 and the extant permission on the site, the proposed development is considered to be ensure a suitable and safe vehicular access and egress into the site, subject to the submission of the details required within condition 12. These will remain a pre-commencement condition of the previously approved outline planning permission.

Human rights

Consideration has been given to the Human Rights Act 1998.

Recommendation

Subject to the applicant entering into a legal agreement covering the following matters:

Deed of Variation relating to change in reference number.

1 Approval of the details of (delete matters approved at this stage)

a) layout, b) scale, c) appearance, d) access, e) landscaping

(hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced.

Reason: To comply with the provisions of Part 2 (4) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010.

2 (i) Application for the approval of reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from 6th December 2016.

(ii) The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of three years from 6th December 2016 or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last reserved matters to be approved whichever is the later.

Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 92(2) of the town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

3 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed in the Plans Schedule.

Reason: To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

4 Notwithstanding the details shown in the application hereby permitted, prior to their installation, details (and/or representative samples) of the colour and texture of the facing and roofing materials to be used in the construction of the proposed development shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The agreed details shall be implemented before the development hereby permitted is brought into use and shall thereafter be retained as such.

Page 149 Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to consider the suitability of the materials to be used for the development.

5 No works or development shall take place until full details (including species, type and size at time of planting) of all proposed tree planting and landscaping and the proposed times of planting, have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The agreed details shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed scheme and at those times specified. If within a period of five years from the date of the planting of any tree, that tree, or any tree planted in replacement for it, is removed, uprooted, destroyed, dies or becomes seriously damaged or defective another tree of the same species and size as that originally planted shall be planted at the same place, unless the Local Planning Authority gives its written consent to any variation.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area. This is a pre-commencement condition which is imposed to ensure that the Local Planning Authority is satisfied of the proposed tree and landscaping works prior to works commencing on site. Failure to provide this information prior to works commencing on site could lead to the loss of existing trees and/or hedges which are of amenity value.

6 Prior to the commencement of any development hereby granted planning permission and before any equipment, machinery or materials are brought onto the site for the purposes of the development hereby granted planning permission, site specific details of the specification and position of the fencing for the protection of any retained tree/group of trees, a tree constraints report and plan in accordance with the recommendations in BS5837:2012, together with a site specific arboricultural impact assessment and arboricultural method statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out as approved and the fencing shall be erected prior to the commencement of any of the development hereby permitted and shall be maintained until the development has been completed and all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site.

Reason: To protect the trees to be retained on this site from damage before and during the course of development. This is a pre-commencement condition which is imposed to ensure that the Local Planning Authority is satisfied of the proposed tree and landscaping works prior to works commencing on site. Failure to provide this information prior to works commencing on site could lead to the loss of existing trees and/or hedges which are of amenity value.

7 Prior to the commencement of works hereby granted planning permission, a detailed surface water drainage design for the proposed development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The proposed development shall thereafter be undertaken in accordance with such approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not result in increased flood risk to the proposed and neighbouring properties.

This is a pre-commencement condition which is imposed to ensure that the Local Planning Authority is satisfied of the proposed surface water drainage system prior to works commencing on site. Failure to provide this information prior to works commencing on site could lead to the risk of increased flooding within the surrounding area.

8 Prior to commencement of the development hereby permitted a plan identifying the finished floor level of the proposed dwellings and the finished garden levels in relation to an identifiable datum point shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with such agreed details.

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the agreed details.

Page 150 This is a pre-commencement condition which is imposed to ensure that the Local Planning Authority is satisfied of the proposed levels of the dwellings and associated gardens prior to works commencing on site. Failure to provide this information prior to works commencing on site could lead to a potential harmful impact on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers and the visual amenities of the surrounding open countryside.

9 Prior to commencement of any part of the site the Planning Authority shall have received and approved a Construction Management Plan (CMP) including: (a) the timetable of works; (b) daily hours of construction; (c) any road closure; (d) hours during which delivery and construction traffic will travel to and from the site, with such vehicular movements being restricted to between 8:00am and 6pm Mondays to Fridays inc.; 9:00am to 1:00pm Saturdays, and no such vehicular movements taking place on Sundays and Bank/Public Holidays unless agreed by the Local Planning Authority in advance; (e) the number and sizes of vehicles visiting the site in connection with the development and the frequency of their visits; (f) the compound/location where all building materials, finished or unfinished products, parts, crates, packing materials and waste will be stored during the demolition and construction phases; (g) areas on-site where delivery vehicles and construction traffic will load or unload building materials, finished or unfinished products, parts, crates, packing materials and waste with confirmation that no construction traffic or delivery vehicles will park on the County highway for loading or unloading purposes, unless prior written agreement has been given by the Local Planning Authority. (h) hours during which no construction traffic will be present at the site; (i) the means of enclosure of the site during construction works; and (j) details of proposals to promote car sharing amongst construction staff in order to limit construction staff vehicles parking off site; (k) details of wheel washing facilities and obligations; (l) the proposed route of all construction traffic exceeding 7.5 tonnes; (m) details of the amount and location of construction worker parking; (n) photographic evidence of the condition of adjacent public highways prior to the commencement of any works; The site access and visibility shall be constructed, laid out and maintained for that purpose in accordance with the visibility splays shown on the approved plans.

Reason: To provide a satisfactory access to the site and to provide adequate visibility from and of emerging vehicles.

This is a pre-commencement condition which is imposed to ensure that the Local Planning Authority is satisfied of the proposed construction works prior to works commencing on site. Failure to provide this information prior to works commencing on site could lead to a detrimental impact on highway safety.

10 Details of any pedestrian, cyclist or vehicle access other than the main access from Hoopers Way shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval as part of the Reserved Matters application and shall be constructed, laid out and maintained for that purpose in accordance with those Reserved Matters plans.

Reason: To provide a satisfactory access to the site and to provide adequate visibility from and of emerging vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians.

11 Provision shall be made within the site for the disposal of surface water so that none drains onto any County Highway.

Reason: In the interests of public safety and to prevent damage to the highway.

Page 151 12 Any proposed estate road, cycleways, footways, footpaths, verges, junctions, street lighting, sewers, drains, retaining walls, service routes, surface water outfall, road maintenance/vehicle overhang margins, embankments, visibility splays, accesses, car parking and street furniture shall be constructed and laid out in accordance with details to be approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before their construction begins, For this purpose, plans and sections indicating, as appropriate, the design, layout, levels, gradients, materials and method of construction shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: To ensure that adequate information is available for the proper consideration of the detailed proposals. This is a pre-commencement condition which is imposed to ensure that the Local Planning Authority is satisfied of the proposed highway details prior to works commencing on site. Failure to provide this information prior to works commencing on site could lead to a detrimental impact on highway safety.

13 At least two parking spaces (garages or hardstandings) shall be provided per dwelling on private land. Further details of the design shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and the development hereby approved shall not be occupied until this provision has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved development shall be undertaken in accordance with such approved details.

Reason: To minimise the extent of on street parking that may result as a consequence of the development.

14 The occupation of any dwelling in an greed phase of the development shall not take place until the following works have been carried out in accordance with details submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority: A) The spine road and cul-de-sac carriageway including the vehicle turning head within that phase shall have been laid out, kerbed, drained and constructed up to and including base course level, the ironwork set to base course level and the sewers, manholes and service crossings completed; B) The spine road and cul-de-sac footways and footpaths which provide that dwelling with direct pedestrian routes to an existing highway maintainable at public expense have been constructed up to and including base course level; C) The cul-de-sac visibility splays have been laid out to their final level; D) The street lighting for the spine road and cul-de-sac and footpaths has been erected and is operational; E) The car parking and any other vehicular access facility required for the dwelling by this permission has/have been completed; F) The verge and sevice margin and vehicle crossing on the road frontage of the dwelling have been completed with the highway boundary properly defined; G) The street nameplates for the spine road and cul-de-sac have been provided and erected.

Reason: To ensure that adequate access and associated facilities are available for the traffic attracted to the site.

15 A waste audit statement shall be submitted as part of the reserved matters application for each phase of the development. This statement shall include all information outlined in the waste audit template provided in Devon County Council's Waste Management and Infrastructure Supplementary Planning Document. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved statement.

Reason: To minimise the amount of waste produced and promote sustainable methods of waste management in accordance with Policy W4 of the Devon Waste Plan and the Waste Management and Infrastructure Supplementary Planning Document.

16 A Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) including a detailed reptile translocation plan within the site and updated surveys where required should be submitted

Page 152 with the Reserved Matters Application, The structure of the LEMP should be based on the Landscape and Ecological Management Strategy (LEMS) and include all objectives, actions and responsibilities relative to the Reserved Matters Application area. No development within the Reserved Matters Application area should take place prior to the approval of the LEMP by the Council. All construction and post-construction management for the approved Reserved Matters Application area should be undertaken in accordance with the approved LEMP.

Reason: To safeguard the ecology of the site.

17 No development shall commence until: a) a detailed survey and evaluation of the public foul sewerage network has taken place (at the Owner's expense) to identify improvements necessary to be funded in advance and executed to accommodate the discharge of foul sewage from the Development; and b) the Owner has submitted and application to the relevant Sewerage Undertaker for a public foul sewer requisition under s98 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (which shall include the provision of public sewerage improvement works identified as necessary). No dwelling hereby approved shall be occupied or brought into use and there shall be no discharge to the public foul sewerage network, unless approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (as in accordance with the scheme of improvement works identified by the Sewerage Undertaker as necessary to accommodate the discharge of foul sewage from the Development.

Reason: To ensure satisfactory foul drainage arrangements for the approved development.

This is a pre-commencement condition which is imposed to ensure that the Local Planning Authority is satisfied of the proposed foul drainage system prior to works commencing on site. Failure to provide this information prior to works commencing on site could lead to an inadequate foul drainage provision for the development.

18 No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Planning Authority.

The development shall be carried out at all times in strict accordance with the approved scheme, or such other details as may be subsequently agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure, in accordance with paragraph 199 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019) and Policy DM07 of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan (2018), that an appropriate record is made of archaeological evidence that may be affected by the development.

This is a pre-commencement condition which is imposed to ensure that the Local Planning Authority is satisfied of the programme of archaeological recording prior to works commencing on site. Failure to provide this information prior to works commencing on site could lead to the loss of historic assets from the site.

19 The layout of the approved development shall not include a vehicular link through to neighbouring sites which are yet to be developed to the east, south and west of the application site.

Reason: To limit the volume of traffic using the approved vehicular access from Hoopers Way in the interests of the residential amenities of neighbouring occupiers to Hoopers Way.

Plans Schedule

Page 153

Reference Received

AD01 29.07.2015

AD03 29.07.2015

2696.03 29.07.2015

SURVEY 01 22.09.2015

Statement of Engagement

The National Planning Policy Framework (paragraphs 38) requires local planning authorities to work positively and proactively with applicants to achieve sustainable development. Throughout the application process guidance has been given to the applicants and all outstanding issues have been identified. In this instance the Council required additional information following the consultation process. The need for additional information was addressed with the applicant and submitted for further consideration. The Council has therefore demonstrated a positive and proactive manner in seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to the planning application.

Page 154 Agenda Item 11g

Committee Report – 7th November 2019

© ApplicationCrown copyright Number: and database 1/0669/2019/FULrights 2012 Ordnance Survey 100022736

Registration date: 29 July 2019

Expiry date: 23 September 2019

Applicant: Mr Michael Way

Agent: Tree Tops Planning

Case Officer: Laura Davies

Site Address: Barton Court, Buckland Brewer, Bideford, Devon, EX39 5LN,

Proposal: Proposed conversion of redundant pool/spa building into two dwellings

Recommendation: GRANT

Page 155

Reason for referral:

This application has been called in to Plans Committee by both Cllr Hicks and Cllr Pennington.

The reasons for Cllr Pennington’s call-in are: ‘Concerns over highways have been raised. The DCCHW report appears not to have looked in detail on the road access. I request the Planning Committee to look at 1) the access onto Barton Road ii) is there any significant increase in traffic movements’.

The reasons for Cllr Hicks’ call-in are: ‘1. Highways. Barton Road is narrow without passing bays and visibility is bad. 2. Removal of good quality holiday complex.’

Relevant History:

Application No. Description Status Closed

1/2088/2001 RENEWAL OF CONSENT PER 18.12.2001 FOR ERECTION OF A PRIVATE SWIMMING POOL & GARAGES

1/1328/1986 CONVERSION OF PER 08.07.1988 REDUNDANT FARM BUILDINGS INTO FOUR DWELLINGS

1/1279/1994 RETAIN REBUILT FRONT PER 24.01.1995 AND REAR WALLS TO PARTLY COMPLETED DWELLING

1/1675/1995 CONVERSION OF PER 30.11.1995 REDUNDANT BARN TO DWELLING

1/1508/1996 ERECTION OF A PRIVATE PER 16.12.1996 SWIMMING POOL AND GARAGES

1/1756/2006/FUL Change of use of private PER 04.10.2006 swimming pool and Spa facilities to include limited private membership scheme including conversion of garages to fitness suite

1/0639/2019/FUL Proposed sub-division of PCO single dwelling to three dwellings (Amended Red Edge)

1/1756/2006/FUL Change of use of private PER 04.10.2006 swimming pool and Spa facilities to include limited private membership scheme including conversion of garages to fitness suite

Page 156 Site Description & Proposal

Site Description: The application site is located to the west of the settlement of Buckland Brewer and relates to an existing single storey detached building. The application site is located within a complex of buildings which are associated with Barton Court, accessed from Barton Road to the south-east. The application site includes the existing access and turning space for Barton Court and existing open lawned areas to the rear (east) and front (west) of the existing building. To the north-west and west of the application site is a two storey building which is currently in residential use. To the south of the application site is a two storey, detached residential property which is used for holiday occupancy. There is a hedgebank immediately adjacent to the northern elevation of the existing building.

The existing building contains a swimming pool and spa facilities together with a gym room to the southern end. The use is now redundant.

Proposed Development: This application seeks the conversion of the existing building into two dwellings each containing three bedrooms and with accommodation to the ground floor only. The submitted proposed site plan includes the addition of separate parking areas for each dwelling, each containing two parking spaces, together with a separate front and rear garden area for each dwelling.

As part of the proposed conversion, alterations are proposed to the existing openings to the building, to include the addition of a second entrance into the building to the front elevation (west), a new window to the west elevation and alterations to the fenestration to the rear to include the addition of a rear glazed door to each dwelling. In addition, a new bathroom window is proposed to the northern elevation.

Consultee representations:

Buckland Brewer Parish/Town Council: This application was discussed by Buckland Brewer Parish Council at its meeting on 14th August 2019. It objects to the application. It is concerned about the joint access arrangement with the adjacent property, the poor visibility onto Barton Road and the increase in traffic flow, especially its impact at the narrow part of the road between Barcott and the vicarage wall which is already a dangerous corner.

The Council has asked the District Councillors to call-in the application.

Devon County Council (Highways): Standing advice applies.

Follow-up Response dated 12th September 2019:

Observations: Given the similarities between the two, my response for this application effectively mirror my comments for the application: 1/0639/2019/FUL, which is on the same site.

The proposed development is accessed by a private drive onto Barton Road. The route between this access to Buckland Brewer is the most likely route to be taken by those in Barton Court, or at least they have the option to take this route to access the wider highway network. Barton Road is a typical Devon land, which is narrow, has high hedges either side and there is generally poor forward visibility. Where the existing access enters Barton Road is subject to a 20mph speed limit. Observed traffic volumes were extremely light and traffic speeds were compliant with the posted limit; speed of traffic was largely reduced by the highway environment.

Visibility measurements were taken at the junction. Given the classification of the road, the low traffic flows and the speed of traffic, I am satisfied that an ‘x’ axis measurement of 2 metres is acceptable.

Page 157 As the road is effectively reduced to a single vehicle width, I am satisfied to take the visibility splay measurement to the centre of carriageway. For a speed of 20mph, I would expect sight lines of 25 metres to be achievable. I am satisfied that these are acceptable, although visibility to the right (for an emerging vehicles) could be improved further with better maintenance of the adjacent verge.

I note concerns relating to traffic movements on Barton Road, between Barton Court and the village. This is approximately 200 metres. Although I appreciate this lane does narrow and this often prevents two-way vehicle movements, there are opportunities to pass between these points; I was able to allow another vehicles to pass when I conducted my site visit with little difficulty. Therefore, I do not believe that the predicted trip generation from this single proposal would lead to the cumulative impact of the development to be ‘severe’.

Notwithstanding the above paragraphs, I note the potential existing use of the site and the trip rates associated with this. Then, in comparison, we need to look at the likely trip generation of the proposed development. I do not believe the overall potential increase would be significant. Indeed, I believe the likelihood would be that there is likely to be an overall potential reduction.

As a result, I do not believe that there are satisfactory grounds to raise highway objections on the proposed development and that this meets the tests of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

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

Representations:

Number of neighbours consulted: 1 Number of letters of support: 0 Number of representations received: 2 Number of neutral representations: 0 Number of objection letters: 2

Objections raised can be summarised as follows: - Proposed increased traffic to shared access; - Impact of development on adjacent narrow road; - Adverse impact on highway safety; - Cumulative highway impact with previously approved development sites in the village; - Property only occupied intermittently to date with few vehicle movements; - Poor state of adjacent highway.

Policy Context:

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan 2011-2031:

ST07 (Spatial Development Strategy for Northern Devon's Rural Area); DM01 (Amenity Considerations); DM04 (Design Principles); DM05 (Highways); DM06 (Parking Provision); DM08 (Biodiversity and Geodiversity); DM13 (Safeguarding Employment Land); DM27 (Re-use of Disused and Redundant Rural Buildings).

Government Guidance:

NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework); NPPG (National Planning Practice Guidance); NERC (Natural Environment & Rural Communities); WACA (Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981);

Page 158

Planning Considerations

Main Planning Considerations: 1. Principle of Residential Development 2. Loss of Existing Use 3. Impact on Character and Appearance 4. Impact on Residential Amenities 5. Access and Parking 6. Drainage 7. Ecology.

1. Principle of Residential Development: Paragraph 2 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that planning law (namely Section 38(6) of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and Section 70(2) of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990) requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF must be taken into account in the preparation of local and neighbourhood plans and is a material consideration in planning decisions.

The NPPF sets out national policy in relation to rural housing and notes, at paragraph 78, that to promote sustainable development in rural area, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. Further, paragraph 79 notes that planning policies and decisions should avoid the development of isolated homes in the countryside apart from in specific circumstances, including: 'd) the development would involve the subdivision of an existing residential dwelling'.

The application site is located outside of the settlement boundary for Buckland Brewer as identified on the Proposals Maps to the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan. Buckland Brewer itself is identified as a Local Centre within the Local Plan and these are identified as being the primary focus for development in the rural area. Due to the location of the application site outside of the designated settlement boundary, the provisions of part (4) of Policy ST07 are relevant in the consideration of this application, which states: 'In the Countryside, beyond Local Centres, Villages and Rural Settlements, development will be limited to that which is enabled to meet local economic and social needs, rural building reuse and development which is necessarily restricted to a Countryside location'.

The provisions of paragraph 79 of the NPPF in relation to the sub-division of existing dwellings was introduced in the NPPF published in July 2018 which post-dated the examination of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan. As a result, the provisions of paragraph 79 are a material consideration in the determination of this application, as the Local Plan is silent on the specific matter of the sub- division of dwellings in the open countryside.

Paragraph 79 makes clear that planning decisions should avoid the development of isolated homes in the countryside, unless one of the specific criteria, including the sub-division of existing dwellings, applies. There is case law and a large number of appeal decisions which provide guidance in the consideration of the term 'isolated homes', perhaps of most relevance is the judgement of the Court of Appeal in March 2018 in the case of Braintree v SSCLG. Within this judgement Lindblom LJ provides an explanation of the term 'isolated' within the context of paragraph 79 (paragraph 55 of the former NPPF) stating that it assists in differentiating between the development of housing within a settlement and new dwellings that would be 'isolated' in the sense of being separate or remote from a settlement. He further states that within this context 'isolated homes in the countryside' simply relates to a dwelling that is physically separate or remote from a settlement.

The application site is located outside of the settlement of Buckland Brewer, although is located in close proximity to neighbouring buildings within Barton Court as well as neighbouring agricultural buildings to the south-west and to the opposite side of Barton Road. Whilst it is noted that the

Page 159 relationship of a dwelling to a settlement is key in determining whether it is isolated or not, the term settlement can relate to both designated and undesignated settlements within a Local Plan and does not need to contain specific services or facilities to be considered as a settlement. This point has also been established in case law. The collection of surrounding buildings to the application site would not be defined as a settlement and therefore the provisions of paragraph 79 of the NPPF are considered to be relevant in the consideration of this application, with the dwellings being 'isolated homes in the countryside' as is the requirement.

Policy DM27 of the Local Plan relates to the re-use of rural disused and redundant buildings. This notes that the conversion of such buildings will be supported where: '(a) such conversion would not harm any intrinsic qualities and historic interest of the building; (b) the proposal will have a positive impact on the immediate setting of the building and the wider rural character is protected; (c) development can be achieved without significant external alteration, extension or substantive rebuilding; (d) suitable highway access can be provided and the surrounding highway network can support the proposed use(s); and (e) any nature conservation interest within the building or wider site is retained.'

Policy DM27 would therefore support the principle of the reuse of the existing pool/spa/gym building for residential purposes.

The principle of residential dwellings in this location, as a change of use of an existing building, is considered to be in keeping with national policy guidance contained in the NPPF and the provisions of Policy DM13 of the Local Plan.

2. Loss of Existing Use: Policy DM13 of the Local Plan relates to the safeguarding of employment land within the district and seeks to maintain a range of suitable and available sites and buildings for employment. As a result, non-employment uses (such as residential) will not be supported in buildings previously used for employment or in buildings currently used for employment, unless they can satisfy the following criteria: '(a) there is sufficient quality and quantity of employment sites available in the local area to provide opportunities for local employment uses; or (b) it can be demonstrated through appropriate marketing that the site no longer provides a realistic prospect for employment uses; or (c) the existing use is causing harm to surrounding uses and the new use will not cause harm for the existing neighbouring uses; and in all cases (d) a sequential test has been applied for redevelopment of the site base on the following order of preference: (i) employment based redevelopment; (ii) mixed use including employment generating redevelopment (iii) non-employment generating redevelopment.'

The existing building was previously used as a spa, swimming pool and gym facilities for the adjacent dwellings, which have been used both as full-time residential units and holiday accommodation. The conditions of the previous planning permissions related to this building restrict its use to the residents of the adjacent dwellings at Barton Court and then, latterly, to allow private membership of the facilities. The use of the existing building has principally always related to the adjacent dwellings. This use is understood to have ceased in September 2016 at the same time as the holiday use of the adjacent units was stopped.

The applicant has provided details of the marketing which has previously been undertaken on the application site. This confirms that the existing pool/spa/gym building was marketed as part of the wider Barton Court site at various points during 2007, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014 & 2015 with various different agents. This marketing focussed on the site as a dwellinghouse with a number of associated cottages from which an income could be generated. Following a lack of success in

Page 160 marketing the entire site as one unit, the applicant is now in the process of selling off the properties individually.

The applicant has also confirmed that due to the nature of the pool/spa/gym facility there was no direct employment related to this building and has been out of use for over 3 years, with much of the equipment now being removed from the site. The applicant has further noted that the change of use of the existing building to a separate pool/spa facility would result in the physical separation of the use on site from the surrounding residential properties.

A letter has also been provided from a local agent which highlights the potential impacts in terms of noise and disturbance from the ongoing commercial use of the existing building. This letter notes that due to the limited internal space, there would be limited potential for any purchaser with the cost of converting or extending the existing facilities being at considerable expense. The local estate agent concludes that the marketing of the existing building further as a commercial unit would be un- advisable.

A further letter from a local estate agent has considered potential alternative uses for the existing building in more detail noting that alternative commercial uses such as an office use or small scale manufacturing would be likely to cause unwanted noise and traffic disturbance in this locality and incompatible with the desirable residential use of the site. In addition, it notes that small rural commercial units have been extremely difficult to sell or let historically and there are already a number of vacant commercial units in the local area which are not in demand due to poor transport links and a lack of space to expand. In addition, it is noted that the building also offers little or no outdoor storage space which would limit its use to office only.

A recent appeal decision in North Devon related to the lifting of a condition limiting the use of a property to holiday accommodation only to be ancillary to the adjacent County House Hotel (Appeal reference: APP/X1118/W/19/3232497 - Score Valley Cottage, off A361, Ilfracombe, included as Appendix 1 of this report). Within this appeal decision, the Inspector makes reference to the need for a marketing exercise to be undertaken (although in this instance in reference to Policy DM18 rather than DM13). The Inspector notes that whilst a recent marketing exercise has not been undertaken, he is mindful that the condition originally imposed required the accommodation to be occupied ancillary to the hotel and this would therefore limit the marketability of the property, excluding for example a prospective purchaser who intended to run it as part of a separate holiday let. The Inspector confirms that in this instance, a marketing exercise would not have given an accurate picture of the demand for general holiday accommodation in the locality. The Inspector also noted that the previous holiday use was unlikely to be reinstated if the appeal was dismissed.

Taking into consideration the nature of the pool/spa building and the restrictive condition which was originally imposed on its use (and then subsequently altered), it is considered that the undertaking of further marketing for this building in isolation would not generate any further interest in the site. In addition, it is noted that the potential alternative commercial uses for the site are unlikely to be in demand given the location and nature of the existing building. The constrained nature of the site within the wider Barton Court site as well as the limited scale and height of the existing building together with its current state, would preclude alternative viable commercial uses of the building. The conclusions of the recent appeal decision noted above are a material consideration in reaching this conclusion.

The proposed development would be in keeping with the provisions of part (d) of paragraph 79 of the NPPF and would bring back into use the existing building which has not been in operation as a swimming pool associated with the adjacent dwellings for some time. This is considered to result in an economic and social benefit for the surrounding area, in accordance with the provisions of Policy ST07 of the Local Plan. The proposed development is considered to be in keeping with the provisions of Policy DM13 (b) and (c). The provisions of Policy DM13 (d) are noted and sufficient information is considered to have been provided by the applicant to allow an acceptable sequential test to be undertaken in this instance.

Page 161 3. Impact on Character and Appearance: Policy DM04 of the Local Plan notes that development proposals should be appropriate and sympathetic to their setting in terms of scale, density, massing, height, layout appearance, fenestration, materials and their relationship to buildings and landscape features in the local neighbourhood.

There is an existing bund to the rear of the application site which partly obscures the existing building from the surrounding landscape. To the west, south-west and north-west of the application site are open agricultural fields, however due to the existing surrounding hedgerows and changes in level only limited views of the application site and wider Barton Court site can be gained from the public highway.

As noted above, the proposed conversion of the existing spa, swimming pool and gym facilities into two dwellings would largely be internal, with external alterations limited to additional window and door openings. The resulting impact on the character of the surrounding area from the actual conversion works would therefore be minimal. The proposed development would also result in the sub-division of the existing lawned areas to the front and rear of the building to create two garden areas for the new dwellings. The submitted plans propose the addition of a knee high timber rail fence to the frontage of the building and the addition of a 1.5 metre high close boarded fence to the rear boundary between the two properties. Further, a post and wire fence would be added to the existing bund to the rear boundary and to the northern and southern side boundaries to enclose the rear garden areas. The proposed post and wire fence to the northern, eastern and southern boundaries would be in keeping with the rural character of the surrounding area. The proposed low rail fence to the frontage is considered to be in keeping with the character of the existing and surrounding buildings. The proposed close boarded timber fence to the common boundary between the two properties would result in the creation of two private rear amenity spaces and the height of the fence is unlikely to be able to be viewed over the existing bund to the rear boundary, resulting in a minimal impact on the landscape of the surrounding area.

Taking into consideration the nature and scale of the proposed amendments and their setting, the proposed development is not considered to result in an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the existing or surrounding buildings or the surrounding landscape. The proposed development is considered to be in keeping with the provisions of Policy DM04 of the Local Plan.

4. Impact on Residential Amenities: Policy DM01 of the Local Plan states that development proposals will be supported where they would not significantly harm the amenities of neighbouring or future occupants.

The nearest neighbouring property is Haywain Barn which is located to the north-west of the application site and Owls Hollow, Meadowsweet Barn and Bramble Cottage located opposite the application site. The application building is located at a distance of almost 15 metres from the nearest part of Haywain Barn. The proposed development would include the addition of a new window in the northern elevation to serve a bathroom however this would be oriented to face directly north and not towards the neighbouring property at Haywain Barn. There is an existing hedgebank immediately adjacent to the northern elevation of the site which is intended to be retained and this would also partially obscure the proposed window. The proposed additional entrance door to the front elevation together with the existing windows to this elevation would be located at a distance of approximately 29 metres from the front elevation of the facing dwellings and therefore a harmful impact in terms of overlooking is not considered to result between the proposed and existing properties.

Taking into consideration the location of the proposed dwellings in relation to the existing dwellings and the proposed alterations, a harmful impact on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers is not considered to result. The proposed development would be in keeping with the provisions of Policy DM01 in this regard.

5. Access and Parking: Policy DM05 of the Local Plan states that all development must ensure safe and well designed vehicular access and egress, adequate parking and layouts which consider the needs of all highway

Page 162 users including cyclists and pedestrians. Policy DM06 relates more specifically to car parking provision stating that development proposals will be expected to provide an appropriate scale and range of parking provision to meet anticipated needs.

The proposed dwellings would be accessed via the existing entrance to Barton Court, which also serves the neighbouring dwellings. Two parking spaces are proposed within the site for each of the dwellings together with adequate turning space.

The County Council provided initial comments in relation to the proposed development raising no objections and making reference to standing advice. Further comments have subsequently been provided by the Highways Officer in response to representations received. These comments note that the proposed development would be accessed by a private drive onto Barton Road and this route back to the village of Buckland Brewer is most likely to be used by future occupants. The Highways Officer notes that Barton Road is a typical Devon land which is narrow, with high hedges on either side and generally has poor forward visibility. The existing access enters Barton Road within a 20mph speed limit and as part of a site visit, the observed speeds were compliant with this posted limit with traffic volumes extremely light. The Highways Officer has also commented on the visibility splay for vehicles exiting the site onto Barton Road noting that the visibility is acceptable given the speed limit and nature of the road.

In relation to concerns raised by local residents in relation to the traffic movements along Barton Road, the Highways Officer does not consider that the predicted trip generation from the proposed development would lead to the cumulative impact of the development being ‘severe’ as is the test in the NPPF. The Highways Officer therefore would raise no objection to the proposed development in terms of the parking and access arrangements.

In addition, it is noted that the existing pool/spa/gym building could be brought back into use and this also previously included use by local residents who were members. The overall number of vehicle movements compared to the potential reuse of the site would therefore be reduced.

The proposed development is considered to be in keeping with the provisions of Policies DM05 and DM06 of the Local Plan.

6. Drainage: The submitted application form confirms that both the foul and surface water drainage from the development will be via the existing treatment plant on site.

The nature of the proposed development as a conversion would not result in an increased surface water run-off compared to the existing situation. As a result, there is no objection to the proposed surface water treatment arrangements.

A completed Foul Drainage Assessment and supporting statement have been submitted in support of the development. This confirms that there is a sewage treatment system in place for the whole of Barton Court and notes that the existing spa and pool building already include a toilet and shower facilities together with the swimming pool itself. The supporting statement confirms that the sewage treatment system is sufficient to cater for the two proposed dwellings. Taking into consideration the existing use of the building and the scale of the proposed conversion providing two 3 bedroom dwellings, the drainage arrangements are considered to be acceptable for the proposed development.

7. Ecology: Local Planning Authorities have a statutory duty to ensure that the impact of development on wildlife is fully considered during the determination of a planning application under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (Habitats Regulations 2010). This is further reinforced within the adopted North Devon and Torridge Local Plan through Policy DM08 which states that development proposals should conserve and, where possible, enhance biodiversity interests.

Page 163 A completed Wildlife Trigger List has been submitted in support of the proposed development which notes that the site area would exceed 0.1 hectares taking into consideration the wider Barton Court site. An Ecology Statement has been submitted in support of the application which confirms that the development would be largely internal alterations and would not result in works to the roofslope. The proposed development is not therefore considered to result in a harmful impact on protected species or their habitats.

Conclusion: The principle of the proposed development is considered to be acceptable in this location and taking into account the specific circumstances of the existing building. The proposed development would not result in a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, the amenities of neighbouring occupiers or protected species. It is considered that suitable provision is being made for drainage, access and parking.

Human rights

Consideration has been given to the Human Rights Act 1998.

Recommendation

GRANT subject to the following conditions:

1 The development to which this permission relates must be begun no later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted.

Reason: The time limit condition is imposed in order to comply with the time requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed in the Plans Schedule.

Reason: To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

3 Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015, (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) no development of the types described in Part 1 ; of Schedule 2, other than that hereby permitted shall be carried out without the further grant of planning permission.

Reason: In the interest of the residential amenities of neighbouring occupiers and the character of the existing building and surrounding landscape.

4 Before the development hereby permitted is brought into use, the vehicular access, parking and manoeuvring facilities indicated on the approved plans shall be provided surfaced and drained and shall, thereafter, be permanently set aside and reserved for such purposes.

Reason: To ensure that adequate facilities are available for the traffic attracted to the site.

Plans Schedule

Reference Received

19 114 04 A 18.07.2019

19 114 09 18.07.2019

19 114 10 18.07.2019

Page 164

Statement of Engagement

The National Planning Policy Framework (paragraphs 38) requires local planning authorities to work positively and proactively with applicants to achieve sustainable development. Throughout the application process guidance has been given to the applicants and all outstanding issues have been identified.

In this instance the Council required additional information following the consultation process. The need for additional information was addressed with the applicant and submitted for further consideration.

The Council has therefore demonstrated a positive and proactive manner in seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to the planning application.

Page 165

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 17 September 2019 by Nick Davies BSc(Hons) BTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 27 September 2019

Appeal Ref: APP/X1118/W/19/3232497 Score Valley Cottage, off A361, Ilfracombe EX34 8NA • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the development of land without complying with conditions subject to which a previous planning permission was granted. • The appeal is made by Mr Christopher Copner against the decision of North Devon District Council. • The application Ref 66410, dated 8 March 2019, was refused by notice dated 31 May 2019. • The application sought planning permission for conversion of disused stable to form 1 unit of holiday accommodation without complying with a condition attached to planning permission Ref 41882, dated 26 July 2006. • The condition in dispute is No 4 which states that: The development hereby permitted shall not be used otherwise than as ancillary accommodation to Score Valley Country House Hotel for the provision of short let holiday accommodation. The property shall not be occupied as a permanent dwelling and shall not be occupied by any one person for a period exceeding 28 days in any calendar year. The owner or operator shall maintain a register of occupants for each calendar year. This shall be made available on request for inspection by any duly authorised officer of the Local Planning Authority. • The reason given for the condition is: The site is in a location within which new permanent residential use would not be acceptable in policy terms and to minimise traffic attracted to the locality which is in a non sustainable location and requires the use of a sub-standard access. However, use for holiday purposes only is considered acceptable.

Decision

1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for conversion of disused stable to form 1 unit of holiday accommodation at Score Valley Cottage, off A361, Ilfracombe EX34 8NA in accordance with the application Ref 66410 dated 8 March 2019, without compliance with condition number 4 previously imposed on planning permission Ref 41882 dated 26 July 2006 and subject to the following condition: 1) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development permitted in Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H and Schedule 2 Part 2 Class A, shall be carried out other than as expressly authorised by this permission.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 166 Appeal Decision APP/X1118/W/19/3232497

Background and Main Issue

2. The appeal building is a stone-built former stable building that is located adjacent to the site of a country house hotel. It lies in the countryside to the south of the built-up area of Ilfracombe. Planning permission was granted in 2006 to convert it to a unit of holiday accommodation with the disputed condition. The effect of allowing the appeal would be to enable the continuous residential occupation of the building by any individual or individuals. Whether or not that occupation was for leisure purposes, it would amount to establishing the lawful use of the building as an unrestricted residential dwelling, because holiday accommodation is a use that falls within Class C3 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987.

3. The main issue in this appeal is, therefore, whether the condition restricting the occupancy of the building to holiday accommodation ancillary to the hotel, is necessary and reasonable, having regard to the policies of the development plan, the strength of the rural economy and the accessibility of the site.

Reasons

4. Paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) advises that planning conditions should only be imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects. The appellant claims that the requirement for the building to be occupied ancillary to the hotel can no longer be enforced as the two buildings have been run separately ever since the planning permission was implemented. However, I have not been provided with evidence to demonstrate that this is the case.

5. It is also argued that this element of the condition is not precise or reasonable. However, I find that the requirements are clear, in that they entail the occupation of the building for holiday purposes with a functional or administrative link to the hotel. The evidence before me suggests that it was reasonable to impose the condition, in the light of planning policies and highway evidence that prevailed at the time. The condition is not, therefore, ultra vires.

6. Policy DM18 of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan 2011 – 2031 (adopted 2018) (the Local Plan) addresses the removal of holiday occupancy conditions. Removal will be permitted where the building is capable of permanent occupation and there is compelling evidence to demonstrate that the restriction is no longer justified. There is no dispute between the parties that the building is capable of permanent occupation. The supporting text indicates that appropriately marketing the property for a period of 12 months, prior to the application, would demonstrate there is no demand for the property in the locality.

7. In this instance there has not been a recent marketing exercise. However, I am mindful that the condition requires the accommodation to be occupied ancillary to the hotel. This would limit the marketability of the property, as it would exclude, for example, a prospective purchaser who intended to run it as part of a separate holiday letting portfolio. In these circumstances, a marketing exercise would not have given an accurate picture of the demand for general holiday accommodation in the locality. Nevertheless, the Local Plan Policy does

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 167 2 Appeal Decision APP/X1118/W/19/3232497

still require compelling evidence to demonstrate that the condition is no longer justified.

8. The appellant claims that the property proved to be not commercially viable as a holiday unit, quoting the results of 3 years of marketing in 2008 – 2011. It is claimed that the property can only attract an average rent of £400 per week for a maximum of 26 weeks. Taking account of the costs involved in servicing and maintaining the accommodation, there is little or no profit. Furthermore, 276 rentals in Ilfracombe are listed on the Airbnb website, the majority being within the town and close to the coast, which, it is argued, indicates a lack of demand for accommodation outside the town.

9. I have not been provided with details of the marketing that took place, and have no evidence to demonstrate whether, 8 years on, the same rents and costs would apply. Whilst the data may indicate that coastal properties are more likely to attract a listing on the Airbnb website, that does not demonstrate that the appeal property, in an attractive rural area outside the main town, would not be viable. In the absence of full up-to-date evidence, I cannot safely conclude that there is no demand for the property as a unit of holiday accommodation.

10. Nevertheless, the accommodation is not currently being used for holiday purposes and, based on the appellant’s evidence, it hasn’t been for at least 6 years. Although I have been unable to safely conclude that there is no demand for the property as holiday accommodation, I have not been presented with any evidence to demonstrate that it would be profitable. The owners cannot be compelled to occupy the building in accordance with the planning condition, so dismissing the appeal would not necessarily result in the building being used as holiday accommodation. If the owners were forced to cease the current residential occupation, the building could therefore become disused.

11. The disputed condition arose in the policy context that applied in 2006, but the former stable was a historic building that was not originally constructed for holiday purposes. The presence of the building in this location does not therefore result from its approved use. National and local planning policy has evolved since the original grant of planning permission. Paragraph 79(c) of the Framework indicates that the re-use of disused buildings in the countryside is acceptable, without any preferred hierarchy of uses related to the accessibility of the location. Policies DM27 and ST07 of the Local Plan, similarly, support the conversion of disused rural buildings without any preference for tourism uses over residential, or any reference to the accessibility of the location.

12. Therefore, if the stable was still disused, or if it became disused, its conversion to a dwelling would accord with the aims of the Framework and the Local Plan regarding the conversion of rural buildings. Consequently, the continued restriction on the occupation of the building for holiday purposes only, is not necessary or reasonable having regard to current development plan policy.

13. The occupation of the building for holiday accommodation would have benefits for the rural economy, as tourists would bring trade to businesses and facilities in the area. However, the evidence before me suggests that there is at least some doubt that a holiday use would be reinstated if the appeal were dismissed. Even if a holiday use was re-established, it is likely that the building would be occupied primarily in the summer months, and therefore the economic benefits would be concentrated during the holiday season. Occupants

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 168 3 Appeal Decision APP/X1118/W/19/3232497

of an unrestricted dwelling, however, would support local services and facilities throughout the year.

14. Whilst the economic benefits arising from a permanent dwelling may be different to a holiday use, I have no evidence before me to indicate that, in aggregate terms, they would be any less. Consequently, the condition restricting the occupancy of the building to holiday accommodation ancillary to the hotel, is not necessary or reasonable having regard to the strength of the rural economy.

15. It is common ground between the parties that permanent occupation of the building, independent of the hotel, will not give rise to additional highway danger. The site does, however, lie outside the settlement limits of Ilfracombe and the sustainability of the location for a permanent dwelling is questioned by the Council. The site lies about 100 metres from the A361 that leads into Ilfracombe. Whilst the road leading from the site to the A361 is quite steep, and has no footways or lighting, it carries little traffic. I found that it provided a short, safe pedestrian route from the site to the bus stop, which lies at the junction with the A361. From here, there are regular bus services between Ilfracombe and Appledore, via Bideford and Barnstaple, where all the services and facilities required by occupants could be obtained.

16. There is a footpath from the junction with the A361 all the way to the edge of Ilfracombe, albeit that the road needs to be crossed at one point. The edge of the town is about 500 metres from the junction, and the services within the settlement are about 1.5km from the site. The facilities available in the town are therefore within reasonable walking and cycling distance. Whilst the gradient may discourage walking or cycling back to the site, the availability of a bus service provides an alternative. The occupants of a permanent dwelling would therefore have sustainable transport options to access local services.

17. The occupation of the building for holiday purposes would also generate a need to access services and facilities. These needs may be different to those of permanent residents, but I have no evidence to indicate that an unrestricted residential use would result in a significantly greater level of private vehicular movements, compared with a holiday use. In any event, I have found that sustainable travel options exist. The condition restricting the occupancy of the building to holiday accommodation ancillary to the hotel is not therefore necessary or reasonable, having regard to the accessibility of the site.

18. I therefore conclude that the disputed condition is not necessary or reasonable in the light of current development plan policies. Furthermore, an unrestricted residential use would not harm the rural economy, and the site is accessible to local services and facilities by sustainable modes of transport. Taken together, these factors provide the compelling evidence required by Policy DM18 of the Local Plan to demonstrate that the restriction is no longer justified. The development without the disputed condition would comply with Policies DM27, ST07 and ST10 of the Local Plan, which support the conversion of rural buildings and the provision of sustainable travel options.

Conditions

19. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) says that, to assist with clarity, decision notices for the grant of planning permission under section 73 should also repeat the relevant conditions from the original planning permission, unless

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 169 4 Appeal Decision APP/X1118/W/19/3232497

they have already been discharged. As the development has already been completed, it is unnecessary to reimpose conditions 1 and 2 of the original permission, which required commencement within a set timescale and compliance with the approved plans.

20. A condition removing permitted development rights is still necessary in order to preserve the character of the building. I have therefore reimposed condition 3, but in an amended format, having regard to the advice in the PPG and to reflect the updated legislation.

Conclusion

21. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

Nick Davies

INSPECTOR

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 170 5 Agenda Item 11h

Committee Report – 7th November 2019

© ApplicationCrown copyright Number: and database 1/0639/2019/FULrights 2012 Ordnance Survey 100022736

Registration date: 20 September 2019

Expiry date: 15 November 2019

Applicant: Mr Michael Way

Agent: Tree Tops Planning

Case Officer: Laura Davies

Site Address: Barton Court, Buckland Brewer, Bideford, Devon, EX39 5LN,

Proposal: Proposed sub-division of single dwelling to three dwellings (Amended Red Edge)

Recommendation: Grant

Page 171

Reason for referral:

This application has been called in to Plans Committee by both Cllr Hicks and Cllr Pennington.

The reasons for Cllr Pennington’s call-in are: ‘Concerns over highways have been raised. The DCCHW report appears not to have looked in detail on the road access. I request the Planning Committee to look at 1) the access onto Barton Road ii) is there any significant increase in traffic movements’.

The reasons for Cllr Hicks’ call-in are: ‘1. Highways. Barton Road is narrow without passing bays and visibility is bad. 2. Removal of good quality holiday complex.’

Relevant History:

Application No. Description Status Closed

1/2088/2001 RENEWAL OF CONSENT PER 18.12.2001 FOR ERECTION OF A PRIVATE SWIMMING POOL & GARAGES

1/1328/1986 CONVERSION OF PER 08.07.1988 REDUNDANT FARM BUILDINGS INTO FOUR DWELLINGS

1/1279/1994 RETAIN REBUILT FRONT PER 24.01.1995 AND REAR WALLS TO PARTLY COMPLETED DWELLING

1/1675/1995 CONVERSION OF PER 30.11.1995 REDUNDANT BARN TO DWELLING

1/1508/1996 ERECTION OF A PRIVATE PER 16.12.1996 SWIMMING POOL AND GARAGES

1/1756/2006/FUL Change of use of private PER 04.10.2006 swimming pool and Spa facilities to include limited private membership scheme including conversion of garages to fitness suite

1/0669/2019/FUL Proposed conversion of PDE redundant pool/spa building into two dwellings

Site Description & Proposal

Site Description: The application site is located to the west of the settlement of Buckland Brewer and relates to an existing two storey dwelling which is attached to the adjacent dwellings to the south. The application site is located within a complex of buildings which are associated with Barton Court, accessed from Barton Road to the south-east. The application site includes the existing access and turning space

Page 172 for Barton Court and existing open lawned areas to the rear (east) and front (west) of the existing building. To the west of the application site is a single storey building which has previously been used as a swimming pool and gym facility. To the south are two further separate two storey dwellings (Meadow Sweet and Bramble Cottage). To the south-west of the application site is a two storey, detached residential property which is used for holiday occupancy. There is an amenity space to the rear of the application site which includes a terrace at the same level as the dwelling and a wider grassed area to the north-west and north-east which slopes steeply up.

The existing dwelling includes five bedrooms and accommodation over two floors. There is a roundhouse feature to the rear elevation, together with a covered porch area and a pitched roofline.

Proposed Development: This application seeks the conversion of the existing dwelling into three separate dwellings, each with three bedrooms. Each dwelling would include accommodation to both the ground and first floor levels with a separate entrance to each from the frontage of the building.

The proposed conversion would include a number of external alterations to facilitate the sub-division including: - The removal of one first floor window to the north-west (rear) elevation; - Alterations to the fenestration to the south-east (front) elevation to result in a more consistent window design for each dwelling; - The addition of one new window to the first floor front elevation to serve a landing area; - Alterations to the size of window openings to the ground and first floor to the south-west elevation.

The submitted proposed site plan includes the addition of two parking spaces for each dwelling to be located north-east side of the dwellings with an extension to the existing parking area. In addition, a separate front and rear amenity space would be provided for each dwelling.

Consultee representations:

Buckland Brewer Parish/Town Council: This application was discussed by Buckland Brewer Parish Council at its meeting on 14th August 2019. It objects to the application. It is concerned about the joint access arrangement with the adjacent property, the poor visibility onto Barton Road and the increase in traffic flow, especially its impact at the narrow part of the road between Barcott and the vicarage wall which is already a dangerous corner.

The Council has asked the District Councillors to call-in the application.

Devon County Council (Highways): Initial response: Standing advice applies.

Follow-up Response dated 12th September 2019: The proposed development is accessed by a private drive onto Barton Road. The route between this access to Buckland Brewer is the most likely route to be taken by those in Barton Court, or at least they have the option to take this route to access the wider highway network. Barton Road is a typical Devon lane, which is narrow, has high hedges either side and there is generally poor forward visibility. Where the existing access enters Barton Road is subject to a 20 mph speed limit. Observed traffic volumes were extremely light and traffic speeds were compliant with the posted limit; speed of traffic was largely reduced by the highway environment.

Visibility measurements were taken at the junction. Given the classification of the road, the low traffic flows and the speed of traffic, I am satisfied that an 'x' axis measurement of 2 metres is acceptable. As the road is effectively reduced to a single vehicle width, I am satisfied to take the visibility splay measurement to the centre of carriageway. For a speed limit of 20 mph, I would expect sight lines of

Page 173 23 metres to be achievable. I am satisfied that these are acceptable, although visibility to the right (for an emerging vehicle) could be improved further with better maintenance of the adjacent verge.

I note concerns relating to traffic movements on Barton Road, between Barton Court and the village. This is approximately 200 metres. Although I appreciate this lane does narrow and often prevents two-way vehicle movements, there are opportunities to pass between these points; I was able to allow another vehicle to pass when I conducted my site visit with little difficulty. Therefore, I do not believe that the predicted trip generation from this single proposal would lead to the cumulative impact of the development to be 'severe'.

Notwithstanding the two above paragraphs, I note the potential existing use of the site and the trip rates that this is likely to generate. Although I appreciate that there would be an overall increase between a single seven bed dwelling and three smaller dwellings, I do not believe the overall potential increase would be significant. Indeed, if the proposal for the adjacent Barton Court planning application 1/0669/2019/FUL is granted, there is likely to be an overall potential reduction.

As a result, I do not believe that there are satisfactory grounds to raise highway objections on the proposed development and that this meets the tests of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

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

Representations:

Number of neighbours consulted: 1 Number of letters of support: 0 Number of representations received: 2 Number of neutral representations: 0 Number of objection letters: 2

Objections raised can be summarised as follows: - Proposed increased traffic to shared access; - Impact of development on adjacent narrow road; - Adverse impact on highway safety; - Cumulative highway impact with previously approved development sites in the village; - Property only occupied intermittently to date with few vehicle movements; - Poor state of adjacent highway.

Policy Context:

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan 2011-2031:

DM08 (Biodiversity and Geodiversity); ST07 (Spatial Development Strategy for Northern Devon's Rural Area); DM01 (Amenity Considerations); DM04 (Design Principles); DM05 (Highways); DM06 (Parking Provision);

Government Guidance:

NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework); NPPG (National Planning Practice Guidance); NERC (Natural Environment & Rural Communities); WACA (Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981);

Page 174 Planning Considerations

Main Planning Considerations: 1. Principle of Development 2. Impact on Character and Appearance 3. Impact on Residential Amenities 4. Access and Parking 5. Drainage 6. Ecology.

1. Principle of Development Paragraph 2 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that planning law (namely Section 38(6) of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and Section 70(2) of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990) requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF must be taken into account in the preparation of local and neighbourhood plans and is a material consideration in planning decisions.

The NPPF sets out national policy in relation to rural housing and notes, at paragraph 78, that to promote sustainable development in rural area, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. Further, paragraph 79 notes that planning policies and decisions should avoid the development of isolated homes in the countryside apart from in specific circumstances, including: 'd) the development would involve the subdivision of an existing residential dwelling'.

The application site is located outside of the settlement boundary for Buckland Brewer as identified on the Proposals Maps to the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan. Buckland Brewer itself is identified as a Local Centre within the Local Plan and these are intended to be the primary focus for development in the rural area. Due to the location of the application site outside of the designated settlement boundary, the provisions of part (4) of Policy ST07 are relevant in the consideration of this application, which states: 'In the Countryside, beyond Local Centres, Villages and Rural Settlements, development will be limited to that which is enabled to meet local economic and social needs, rural building reuse and development which is necessarily restricted to a Countryside location'.

The provisions of paragraph 79 of the NPPF in relation to the sub-division of existing dwellings were introduced in the NPPF published in July 2018 which post-dated the examination of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan. The provisions of paragraph 79 are a material consideration in the determination of this application, as the Local Plan is silent on the specific matter of the sub-division of dwellings in the open countryside.

Paragraph 79 makes clear that planning decisions should avoid the development of isolated homes in the countryside, unless one of the specific criteria, including the sub-division of existing dwellings, applies. There is case law and a large number of appeal decisions which provide guidance in the consideration of the term 'isolated homes'. Perhaps of most relevance is the judgement of the Court of Appeal in March 2018 in the case of Braintree v SSCLG. Within this judgement Lindblom LJ provides an explanation of the term 'isolated' within the context of paragraph 79 (paragraph 55 of the former NPPF) stating that it assists in differentiating between the development of housing within a settlement and new dwellings that would be 'isolated' in the sense of being separate or remote from a settlement. He further states that within this context 'isolated homes in the countryside' simply relates to a dwelling that is physically separate or remote from a settlement.

The application site is located outside of the settlement of Buckland Brewer at a distance of over 180 metres from the boundary of the settlement as indicated on the Proposals Map. The application site is located in close proximity to neighbouring buildings within Barton Court as well as neighbouring agricultural buildings to the opposite side of Barton Road and to the south-west neighbouring Swallow Cottage and The Barton.

Page 175

Whilst it is noted that the relationship of a dwelling to a settlement is key in determining whether it is isolated or not, the term settlement can relate to both designated and undesignated settlements within a Local Plan and does not need to contain specific services or facilities to be considered as a settlement. This point has also been established in case law. The collection of surrounding buildings to the application site would not however be defined as a settlement, due to their number and siting in relation to one another. Therefore the provisions of paragraph 79 of the NPPF are considered to be relevant in the consideration of this application, with the dwellings being 'isolated homes in the countryside' as is the requirement.

The existing dwelling would be sub-divided to create three separate dwellings in accordance with the provisions of part (d) of paragraph 79 of the NPPF. As a result, the principle of the proposed development is considered to be acceptable.

2. Impact on Character and Appearance: Policy DM04 of the Local Plan notes that development proposals should be appropriate and sympathetic to their setting in terms of scale, density, massing, height, layout appearance, fenestration, materials and their relationship to buildings and landscape features in the local neighbourhood.

There is an existing hedgebank to the rear of the wider application site which is within the applicant's ownership although there is no defined boundary to the rear of the amenity spaces proposed to the new dwellings. The existing dwelling is set down in relation to the open lawned area and hedgerow to the rear. To the west, south-west and north-west of the application site are open agricultural fields, however due to the existing surrounding hedgerows and changes in level only limited views of the application site and wider Barton Court site can be gained from the public highway.

As noted above, the proposed conversion into three separate dwellings would be largely internal, with external alterations limited to amendments to the fenestration and entrance doors. The resulting impact on the character of the surrounding area from the actual conversion works would therefore be minimal.

The proposed development would also result in the sub-division of the existing frontage of the dwelling to provide three separate entrances with low level stone walls to separate these areas. To the rear, it is proposed to sub-divide the existing garden into three separate areas, making use of the existing planted, terraced and lawned areas with a 1.5 metre high close boarded fence between these areas. An existing stone retaining wall is located along the rear boundary of the proposed garden areas and it is understood that this would be retained as part of the development. Due to the height of the retaining wall, this is considered to provide an acceptable rear boundary enclosure.

The proposed low level stone walls to the frontage of the site would be in keeping with the character of the existing dwelling provided that the materials closely match the stonework to the elevations of the existing dwelling. This could be ensured via a condition as part of any permission granted. The proposed alterations to the frontage of the dwelling are considered to be in keeping with the character of the existing and surrounding buildings.

The proposed close boarded timber fence to the common boundaries between the proposed dwellings would result in the creation of three separate private amenity spaces and the height of the fence is unlikely to be able to be viewed within the wider surrounding landscape due to the change in levels and the existing hedgerow as a boundary to the wider site within the applicant's ownership.

Taking into consideration the nature and scale of the proposed amendments and their setting, the proposed development is not considered to result in an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the existing or surrounding buildings or the surrounding landscape. The proposed development is considered to be in keeping with the provisions of Policy DM04 of the Local Plan.

Page 176 3. Impact on Residential Amenities: Policy DM01 of the Local Plan states that development proposals will be supported where they would not significantly harm the amenities of neighbouring or future occupants.

The nearest neighbouring residential properties are Bramble Cottage and Meadow Sweet which are attached to the application site to the south. These are both in separate residential use and are understood to have previously been used as holiday accommodation. The application site is located approximately 15 metres from the adjacent pool/spa/gym facility which is also proposed to be converted into residential use. Due to the relationship of the proposed dwellings to those proposed in the existing pool/spa/gym building, a harmful impact on the amenities of future residents is not considered to result.

The proposed site plan confirms that close boarded timber fencing would be sited on the common boundary between the three dwellings to ensure that a useable and private amenity space is provided to the rear of each of the three new dwellings.

The proposed entrance to unit one and its associated frontage would be located in close proximity to neighbouring Meadow Sweet. The proposed development would result in the use of the nearest rooms to neighbouring Meadow Sweet being a study and kitchen on the ground floor and two bedrooms to the first floor. An amended site plan and additional photographs have been provided to confirm the garden space to each of the proposed new Unit 1 and the existing property at Meadow Sweet. The proposed amended site plan confirms that the habitable room windows to the proposed Unit 1 would have a view over their garden space, with an existing timber fence sub-dividing this area from that of the neighbouring dwelling and the adjacent oil tank. The additional details and photographs clarifying the relationship of the three units to one another and the boundary treatments, are considered to confirm that no adverse impact on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers would result.

The proposed development is considered to be in keeping with the provisions of Policy DM01 of the Local Plan and would not result in a harmful impact on the residential amenities of existing and future occupants.

4. Access and Parking: Policy DM05 of the Local Plan states that all development must ensure safe and well designed vehicular access and egress, adequate parking and layouts which consider the needs of all highway users including cyclists and pedestrians. Policy DM06 relates more specifically to car parking provision stating that development proposals will be expected to provide an appropriate scale and range of parking provision to meet anticipated needs.

The proposed dwellings would be accessed via the existing entrance to Barton Court, which also serves the neighbouring dwellings. Two parking spaces are proposed within the site for each of the dwellings together with adequate turning space.

The County Council provided initial comments in relation to the proposed development raising no objections and making reference to standing advice. Further comments have subsequently been provided by the Highways Officer in response to representations received. These comments note that the proposed development would be accessed by a private drive onto Barton Road and this route back to the village of Buckland Brewer is most likely to be used by future occupants. The Highways Officer notes that Barton Road is a typical Devon land which is narrow, with high hedges on either side and generally has poor forward visibility. The existing access enters Barton Road within a 20mph speed limit and as part of a site visit, the observed speeds were compliant with this posted limit with traffic volumes extremely light. The Highways Officer has also commented on the visibility splay for vehicles exiting the site onto Barton Road noting that the visibility is acceptable given the speed limit and nature of the road.

In relation to concerns raised by local residents in relation to the traffic movements along Barton Road, the Highways Officer does not consider that the predicted trip generation from the proposed development would lead to the cumulative impact of the development being 'severe' as is the test in

Page 177 the NPPF. In addition, the potential existing use of the site is commented on and the potential increase in the number of vehicles related to the proposal would not result in a significant potential increase, with the loss of the pool/spa/gym facility which was previously used by local residents as members potentially resulting in a reduction in the number of vehicle movements.

The Highways Officer therefore would raise no objection to the proposed development in terms of the parking and access arrangements.

The proposed development is considered to be in keeping with the provisions of Policies DM05 and DM06 of the Local Plan.

5. Drainage: The submitted application form confirms that both the foul and surface water drainage from the development will be via the existing treatment plant on site.

The nature of the proposed development as a conversion would not result in an increased surface water run-off compared to the existing situation. As a result, there is no objection to the proposed surface water treatment arrangements.

A completed Foul Drainage Assessment and supporting statement have been submitted in support of the development. This confirms that there is a sewage treatment system in place for the whole of Barton Court and notes that the existing dwelling includes the same number of bed spaces as the proposed development. The supporting statement confirms that the sewage treatment system is sufficient to cater for the three proposed dwellings. Taking into consideration the existing use of the building and the nature of the proposed development as a conversion providing three 3-bed dwellings, the drainage arrangements are considered to be acceptable for the proposed development.

6. Ecology: Local Planning Authorities have a statutory duty to ensure that the impact of development on wildlife is fully considered during the determination of a planning application under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (Habitats Regulations 2010). This is further reinforced within the adopted North Devon and Torridge Local Plan through Policy DM08 which states that development proposals should conserve and, where possible, enhance biodiversity interests.

A completed Wildlife Trigger List has been submitted in support of the proposed development which notes that the site area would exceed 0.1 hectares taking into consideration the wider Barton Court site. An Ecology Statement has been submitted in support of the application which confirms that the development would be largely internal alterations and would not result in works to the roofslope. The proposed development is not therefore considered to result in a harmful impact on protected species or their habitats.

Conclusion: The proposed sub-division of the existing dwellings is considered to be acceptable in this location and taking into account the specific circumstances of the existing building. The proposed development would not result in a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, the amenities of neighbouring occupiers or protected species. It is considered that suitable provision is being made for drainage, access and parking.

Human rights

Consideration has been given to the Human Rights Act 1998.

Page 178 Conclusion

It is therefore considered that subject to the compliance with the attached conditions and taking into account all other material planning considerations, including the development plan the proposal would be acceptable.

Recommendation

GRANT subject to the following conditions

1 The development to which this permission relates must be begun no later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted.

Reason: The time limit condition is imposed in order to comply with the time requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed in the Plans Schedule.

Reason: To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

3 Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015, (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) no development of the types described in Part 1 ; of Schedule 2, other than that hereby permitted shall be carried out without the further grant of planning permission.

Reason: In the interest of the residential amenities of neighbouring occupiers and the character of the existing building and surrounding landscape.

4 Before the development hereby permitted is brought into use, the vehicular access, parking and manoeuvring facilities indicated on the approved plans shall be provided surfaced and drained and shall, thereafter, be permanently set aside and reserved for such purposes.

Reason: To ensure that adequate facilities are available for the traffic attracted to the site.

5 The proposed materials to be used to the low stone walls to sub-divide the frontage of the property shall closely match the existing stonework to the dwellinghouses, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of the existing building and surrounding buildings.

Plans Schedule

Reference Received

19 114 08A 12.07.2019

19 114 05A 12.07.2019

19 114 07C 20.09.2019

Statement of Engagement

The National Planning Policy Framework (paragraphs 38) requires local planning authorities to work positively and proactively with applicants to achieve sustainable development. Throughout the

Page 179 application process guidance has been given to the applicants and all outstanding issues have been identified.

In this instance the Council required additional information following the consultation process. The need for additional information was addressed with the applicant and submitted for further consideration.

The Council has therefore demonstrated a positive and proactive manner in seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to the planning application.

Page 180 Agenda Item 11i

Committee Report – 7th November 2019

© ApplicationCrown copyright Number: and database 1/0617/2019/FULrights 2012 Ordnance Survey 100022736

Registration date: 23 August 2019

Expiry date: 18 October 2019

Applicant: Miss. Rachel Norman

Case Officer: Debbie Fuller

Site Address: 4 Devonshire Park, Bideford, Devon, EX39 5HZ

Proposal: Retrospective application for the erection of decking.

Recommendation: Grant

© Crown copyright and database rights 2019 Ordnance Survey 100022736

Page 181

Reason for referral:

The application has been called in to Plans Committee by Cllr Brenton.

The reasons for Cllr Brenton’s call in are: - Too close to no 6 Devonshire Park; - Too large a scale of decking for this estate.

Relevant History:

No relevant history.

Site Description & Proposal

Site Description '4 Devonshire Park' is a two storey detached dwelling within a predominantly residential area, and within the settlement boundary of 'Bideford.' The neighbouring properties are number 2 to the south east (to the right when facing the front of the property), and number 6 to the north west (to the left when facing the front of the property). The property is within the Bideford Critical Drainage Area (CDA). The owner of the property is Westward Housing. There is amenity space to the rear (north) and a detached garage with flat roof to the west.

Proposed Development The application seeks retrospective planning permission for the erection of decking to the rear of the property. The decking measures 2.5 metres above ground level, (including a retaining wall and balustrade), 4.7 metres in depth (at its greatest extent) from the garage (western side), 3 metres in depth (eastern side), and 7.6 metres in width (across the garden). A balustrade measuring 90cms in height surrounds all four sides, and the only access onto the decking is through a gate on the north side.

The materials used are wooden posts and decking boards.

Consultee representations:

Bideford Parish/Town Council: RESOLVED: That the application is approved.

Representations:

Number of neighbours consulted: 12 Number of letters of support: 0 Number of representations received: 1 Number of neutral representations: 0 Number of objection letters: 1

Two letters of objection have been received from the neighbour at number 6 who has concerns about the following:-

The decking is too close / leans against her house, she can no longer access it (for pointing brick work / clearing ivy) and is above damp course; Builders say it is wrong; The residents are using the space underneath to backfill their rubble; Noise from loud music, and, Character and appearance.

Page 182

Policy Context:

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan 2011-2031: ST04 (Improving the Quality of Development); ST06 (Spatial Development Strategy for Northern Devon's Strategic and Main Centres); ST03 (Adapting to Climate Change and Strengthening Resilience); DM01 (Amenity Considerations); DM02 (Environmental Protection); DM04 (Design Principles); DM08 (Biodiversity and Geodiversity); DM08A (Landscape and Seascape Character); DM25 (Residential Extensions & Ancillary Development)

Government Guidance: NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework); NPPG (National Planning Practice Guidance); NERC (Natural Environment & Rural Communities) and WACA (Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981).

Planning Considerations

The main considerations are the principle of the development, the impact upon the character of the area, residential amenity, flooding and drainage and ecology.

Principle of development The proposal relates to site in Bideford, a 'Strategic Centre' in Policy ST06 of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan 2011-2031 (NDTLP). Policy DM25 supports development ancillary to a residential dwelling subject to its form, scale, setting and design respecting existing development, its context, setting and surroundings and there being no significant adverse impact on the amenity of the occupants of neighbouring properties. The principle of decking within the curtilage of a residential dwelling is considered an acceptable form of development subject to other Policy considerations as discussed below.

Character and appearance The Local Plan has policies which are relevant - Policy DM04: Design Principles and Policy ST04: 'Improving the Quality of Development' aims to achieve high quality inclusive and sustainable design.

Policy DM04 seeks to guide overall scale, density, massing, height, landscape, layout, materials access and appearance of development. The policy requires development to be appropriate and sympathetic to setting in terms of scale, density, massing, height, layout appearance, fenestration, materials and relationship to buildings and landscape features in the local neighbourhood. Policy ST04 states 'design will be based on a clear process that analyses and responds to the characteristics of the site, its wider context and the surrounding area taking full account of the principles of design found in DM04.'

The NPPF, (specifically Part 12), attaches great importance to the design of the built environment and states that developments are sympathetic to local character, including the surrounding built environment, and permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions.

Local Plan policy DM08A, expects development to be of an appropriate scale, mass and design that respects landscape character of both designated and undesignated landscapes. The application site is not within a designated landscape.

Only a small part of the decking can be seen from the street through a path to the side of the dwelling. Given the minimal public views of the decking, and the overall appearance of the timber decking, it is considered there is no detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

Residential amenity Policy DM01 of the NDTLP seek to ensure the protection of the amenities of the neighbouring occupiers of the site, as well as future occupiers of the development. Policies DM04: 'Design principles' and Policy DM25 also consider amenity.

Page 183

When standing on the decking it is not possible to overlook either of the neighbouring properties. The scale is such that the structure is not considered to be overbearing. Therefore it is not considered to result in a harmful impact on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers.

There is adequate amenity space remaining for the occupants.

It is considered that the design, location and appearance of the decking are such that there is no significant adverse impact on the amenities of occupiers of the dwellings, including neighbouring dwellings, in terms of dominance, overshadowing, and/or loss of daylight or sunlight.

The decking is adjacent to the side elevation of number 6 dwellinghouse. However, it is not attached as there is a gap between the decking and the wall.

Development in close proximity to a boundary may require a party wall agreement under the Party Wall Act; however this is a civil issue outside the consideration of the planning system.

Likewise, informal discussions with Building Control has highlighted that they have no control over the structure, but do not consider that the decking will create damp issues because water can drain through. The maintenance of the wall and the builder’s rubble is outside the scope of planning legislation.

The decking is not considered to give rise to additional noise over and above that which could arise from the potential use of the existing garden.

Given the above, the development accords with Policies DM01 and DM04 of the Local Plan, which seek to maintain amenity to the locality, with special regard to neighbours and future occupiers.

Flooding and drainage Policy ST03 requires that development should be designed to adopt effective water management whilst Policy DM04 establishes that water management must be addressed by development.

The site is not located in a Critical Drainage Area. The decking allows water to drain through it to permeable ground beneath.

Taking account of the above, it is considered that the proposal accords with Policies ST03 and DM04.

Ecology Local Planning Authorities have a statutory duty to ensure that the impact of development on wildlife is fully considered during the determination of a planning application under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (Habitats Regulations 2010). This is further reinforced by Policy DM08 of the NDTLP.

The need for a wildlife survey has not been triggered. Therefore, no further survey work is required.

Conclusion It is considered that the above assessment demonstrates that the principle of development is acceptable. In addition, the development satisfies the relevant development management policies. It is therefore concluded that the development accords with the development plan and other material considerations and it is recommended that planning permission be granted with conditions attached.

Human rights

Consideration has been given to the Human Rights Act 1998.

Page 184

Conclusion

It is therefore considered that subject to the compliance with the attached conditions and taking into account all other material planning considerations, including the development plan the proposal would be acceptable.

Recommendation

GRANT subject to the following conditions:-

1 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed in the Plans Schedule.

Reason: To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

Plans Schedule

Reference Received

Location Plan 05.08.2019

SOUTH, EAST AND WEST 22.10.2019 ELEVATIONS

NORTH ELEVATION 22.10.2019

Floor Plan 05.08.2019

Page 185 Agenda Item 11j

Committee Report – 7th November 2019

© ApplicationCrown copyright Number: and database 1/0711/2019/FULrights 2012 Ordnance Survey 100022736

Registration date: 8 August 2019

Expiry date: 3 October 2019

Applicant: Atlantic Bay Fish And Chips

Agent: OCR Architecture

Case Officer: Debbie Fuller

Site Address: Atlantic Bay Fish & Chips, Golf Links Road, Westward Ho!, Bideford, Devon, EX39 1LH

Proposal: Removal of existing roof and replacement to create loft conversion, and rearrangement of extraction flue on rear elevation.

Recommendation: Refuse

© Crown copyright and database rights 2019 Ordnance Survey 100022736

Page 186

Reason for referral:

The application has been called in to Plans Committee by Cllr Laws.

The reasons for Cllr Laws call in are that:-

The ground floor of the property was granted planning permission and the works carried out to a very high standard and the street scene much improved, (reference to Policy DM04). The owners now wish to improve their living accommodation above in the same contemporary style given the variety of different roof profiles including the wave roofs of the nearby flats one with a roof garden and many with flat roofs around the green. I cannot see any good reason to refuse, I think their contemporary design proposal will only further complement the works they have already carried out.

Relevant History:

Application No. Description Status Closed

1/0035/1977 HOT FOOD PREMISES, PER 23.02.1977 THE SHOP 1/1456/1977 ALTERATIONS TO PER 19.12.1977 PREMISES 1/0255/1981 PRIZE BINGO PER 28.04.1981 ESTABLISHMENT 1/0087/1983 AMUSEMENT ARCADE TO PER 06.05.1983 TAKE IN EXISTING SHOP ADJOINING WITH RESTAURANT OVER AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING FLAT

1/0137/1991 SINGLE STOREY PER 07.03.1991 EXTENSION TO PREPARATION ROOM

1/0554/1996 SINGLE STOREY REAR PER 30.05.1996 EXTENSION TO PREPARATION ROOM

1/1979/1996 GROUND FLOOR WC PER 05.02.1997 EXTENSION, CONVERSION OF 1ST FLOOR STORE ROOMS TO LIVING ACCOMMODATION AND EXTERNAL STAIRCASE

1/0735/2010/FUL Erection of awning PER 05.10.2010

1/0092/2010/DIS Discharge of condition 3 of XPE 03.03.2011 planning permission 1/0735/2010/FUL for the erection of awning

1/0102/2019/FUL Alteration to existing frontage, PER 29.04.2019 replacement retractable canopy with sliding glass panels to form enclosed external seating area.

1/0103/2019/ADV Advertisement consent for 2 x PER 29.04.2019

Page 187 replacement fascia signs.

Site Description & Proposal

Site Description The building is located in Westward Ho! Area of the district outside of any special designations. It forms part of a terraced row with a restaurant to the north and restaurant/café sited to the south. The premises face west at the front on to Golf Links Road. The application site and other properties in the terraced row benefit from a patio/outside area to the front.

Proposed Development The proposal is to convert and alter the roof and extend to the rear. The submitted plans show a curved roof form at the rear, with removal of pitched roof, and replacement with a terrace at the front.

The first floor (above the restaurant) is the living area for the occupants, (living, bedroom, kitchen and bathroom). The purpose of converting the roof is to provide additional living accommodation for the employees of the fish and chip business.

Consultee representations:

Northam Parish/Town Council: It was resolved to comment that while Members did not have any issue with the proposal on the front elevation, they felt that the design at the rear needs improvement. They feel that the block needs to be broken up, perhaps with the addition of windows and the use of a different colour so that it is more in keeping with the surrounding properties.

Environmental Protection: In relation to the above application, the Environmental Protection Team has no objections.

Representations:

Number of neighbours consulted: 6 Number of letters of support: 1 Number of representations received: 1 Number of neutral representations: 0 Number of objection letters: 0

One representation has been received, in support of the proposal. The reason being that the proposed development 'will only benefit the applicants and help them to have a better home life after a hard days work.'

Policy Context:

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan 2011-2031: ST06 (Spatial Development Strategy for Northern Devon's Strategic and Main Centres); DM04 (Design Principles); ST04 (Improving the Quality of Development); DM08A (Landscape and Seascape Character); DM08 (Biodiversity and Geodiversity); DM01 (Amenity Considerations) and ST14 (Enhancing Environmental Assets).

Government Guidance: NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework); NPPG (National Planning Practice Guidance); NERC (Natural Environment & Rural Communities) and WACA (Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981).

Planning Considerations

Main planning considerations 1. Principle of development 2. Character and appearance

Page 188 3. Residential amenity 4. Biodiversity

Principle of development Policy ST06 of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan 2011-2031 (NDTLP) supports the principle of development within development boundaries of Main Centres. Westward Ho! is a 'Main Centre' in the NDTLP and ST06 allows for appropriate levels of growth that will increase the town's capacity to increase self containment.

Policy ST04 seeks to improve the quality of development to ensure development will achieve high quality inclusive and sustainable design to support the creation of successful, vibrant places. ST04 continues that design should be based on a clear process that analyses and responds to the characteristics of the site, its wider context and the surrounding area.

It is considered that the principle of the proposed development is acceptable, although there are concerns in relation to the acceptability of the design of the proposal as discussed below.

Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area The Local Plan has policies which are relevant - Policy DM04: Design Principles and Policy ST04: 'Improving the Quality of Development' aims to achieve high quality inclusive and sustainable design.

Policy DM04 seeks to guide overall scale, density, massing, height, landscape, layout, materials access and appearance of development. The policy requires development to be appropriate and sympathetic to setting in terms of scale, density, massing, height, layout appearance, fenestration, materials and relationship to buildings and landscape features in the local neighbourhood.

The NPPF, (specifically Part 12), attaches great importance to the design of the built environment and states that developments are sympathetic to local character, including the surrounding built environment, and permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions.

Local Plan policy DM08A, expects development to be of an appropriate scale, mass and design that respects landscape character of both designated and undesignated landscapes.

The application site does not benefit from any statutory protection such as Conservation Area or Listed Building status, but it is one in a terrace which is considered to retain a traditional character. It is considered that this terrace has character in its current form, with a step down from north to south and an unbroken roof plane. It is considered that a change to the roof would significantly alter the traditional character of the building/terrace in what is a prominent location. Two pre-application enquiries have been made and responded to, and both of the responses were that the Local Planning Authority would not be able to support such a proposal.

It is noted that the 'Design and Access Statement,' states that 'The roof form has been developed as per fig 3.09 but taking specific note of the established context in Westward Ho! Fig 3.08 and 3.10 highlight the wide range of roof forms within the town, and in particular how the buildings to the sea front have a more contemporary approach than the main body of residential buildings behind. Nautilus apartments (fig 3.08) and Morans (fig 3.08) both utilise a curved / wave form roof, with a copper and an aluminium standing seam roof cover respectively, and as such it is proposed that the scheme continues this form and pallet of materials.'

However, the roof is highly visible from public views, especially at the front and side. The building is one in a terrace, and it is considered that these are read separately to Moran’s' and the apartments. From public views from the north, the side elevation will appear bulky, out of scale with the building and inappropriate in appearance given the character of the terrace.

The design of the proposed alterations to the roof are not supported by your Officers, as it is considered that the traditional character of the existing roofscape of this terrace is worthy of retention given its prominent location near the centre of Westward Ho! Whilst it is accepted that there is

Page 189 contemporary architecture in near proximity, this provides more significance to the retention of the traditional form of the terrace roofscape in its current form.

The pre-application response stated 'As a suggested way forward, it is likely that some form of enlargement of appropriate scale at the rear of the building would be supported, given the alterations that have been made to the rear of the adjacent building. A sensitively designed extension at the rear should therefore be considered.'

However, the rear extension as proposed is still above the existing ridge line. Revised plans have been submitted in response to Northam Town Council's consultation response as 'they felt that the design at the rear needs improvement. They feel that the block needs to be broken up, perhaps with the addition of windows and the use of a different colour so that it is more in keeping with the surrounding properties.' However, the revised design indicates the rear extension still above the ridge line, which, it is considered, will still have a detrimental impact on the front of the property and the street scene.

Taking account of the above, it is considered that the proposed alterations to the roof would detract from the character and appearance of the area, with the result that the proposal conflicts with the relevant policies referred to above.

Residential Amenity Policy DM01 of the NDTLP seeks to ensure the protection of the amenities of the neighbouring occupiers of the site, as well as future occupiers of the development. Policy DM04: 'Design principles' has a principle regarding amenity.

The proposed balcony does not overlook any neighbouring properties, and the windows shown on the rear extension will not harm privacy of neighbouring properties. It is considered that the design, location and appearance of the development are such that there is no significant adverse impact on the amenities of occupiers of the dwellings in terms of dominance, overshadowing, and/or loss of daylight or sunlight and the proposal accords with Policies DM01 and DM04 of the Local Plan.

Biodiversity Policies ST14 and DM08 of the Local Plan require that development ensures the protection and enhancement of biodiversity. The proposal triggers the need for a Wildlife Report because it involves works to the roof. The submitted Ecological Assessment Report, (dated July 2019), by Brookside Ecology, states that 'The building is assessed as having 'Negligible suitability for roosting bats' as it is very well sealed providing no access for bats or birds. No evidence of there presence was found within roof voids or elsewhere. The assessment concludes there would be negligible additional risk of impact on protected and notable species and habitats by the proposals.' Therefore, no further survey work is required.

Conclusion The conversion of the roof with its associated alterations in the manner proposed is not supported as there are concerns in respect of the impact of the proposal on the host building and character and appearance of the area. As such, the recommendation is to refuse the application.

Human rights

Consideration has been given to the Human Rights Act 1998.

Recommendation

REFUSE for the following reason:-

1 The proposed alterations to the roof would not be sympathetic to the setting in terms of scale, massing, design and appearance, and have a detrimental effect on the visual character of the surrounding area. The host building is part of a traditional terrace of unbroken roof planes in a

Page 190 prominent central location. This terrace of buildings retains their own traditional character, which are read separately to more contemporary architecture adjacent the site and is considered worthy of retention in its traditional form. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to Policies DM04: 'Design Principles,' ST04: 'Improving the Quality of Development' and 'DM08A: Landscape and Seascape Character,' of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan (NDTLP), the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG).

Plans Schedule

Reference Received

1812_P_001 03 08.08.2019

1812_P_102 02 08.08.2019

1812_P_103 02 17.10.2019

1812_P_104 03 17.10.2019

1812_P_105 03 17.10.2019

1812_P_106 02 08.08.2019

Statement of Engagement

In accordance with paragraphs 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in dealing with this application, the Council has worked with the applicant in the following and positive and proactive manner. The LPA have made available detailed advice in the form of our statutory policies in the Development Plan, Supplementary Planning Documents, Planning Briefs and other informal written guidance, as well as offering a full pre-application advice service, in order to ensure that the applicant has been given every opportunity to submit an application which is likely to be considered favourably. In such ways the Council has demonstrated a positive and proactive manner in seeking solution to problems arising in relation to the planning application.

The applicant entered into pre-application discussions where key issues were identified. The documents submitted have failed to address the issues raised at a pre-application stage. Further discussion was had in a face to face meeting, but these issues have not been adequately addressed.

Page 191 Agenda Item 12

Torridge District Council

Planning Decisions

Between 19th September 2019 and 24th October 2019

List of Applications

Application Officer Proposal and Address Applicant Decision/Date No:

Permitted

1/1171/2018/ Sarah Conversion of the Old Stables into Mr & Mrs G PER FUL Chappel residential accommodation (Building Jones 18.10.2019 l 3) (Amended red edge) - Building 3 Berry Farm, Petrockstowe, Okehampton.

1/1172/2018/ Sarah Conversion of the Old Stables into Mr & Mrs G PER LBC Chappel residential accommodation (Building Jones 18.10.2019 l 3) (Amended Red edge) - Building 3 Berry Farm, Petrockstowe, Okehampton.

1/1177/2018/ Sarah Conversion of building to residential Mr & Mrs G. PER FUL Chappel accommodation with associated Jones 09.10.2019 l access and parking, including part- demolition of adjoining building (Building 4) - Building 4 Berry Farm, Petrockstowe, Okehampton.

1/1178/2018/ Sarah Conversion of building to residential Mr & Mrs G. PER LBC Chappel accommodation with associated Jones 09.10.2019 l access and parking, including part- demolition of adjoining building (Building 4) - Building 4 Berry Farm, Petrockstowe, Okehampton.

1/1240/2018/ Sarah Conversion of agricultural building to Mr & Mrs G PER FUL Chappel residential with associated works Jones 20.09.2019 l and parking (Building 5) - Building 5 Berry Farm, Petrockstowe, Okehampton.

1/1285/2018/ Kristian Conversion of glove factory to 9 no. Mr Steven PER FULM Evely flats, including alterations. - Quennell 09.10.2019 Vaughan Tapscott Glove Factory , Whites Lane, Torrington.

1/0212/2019/ Sarah Conversion of barn to dwelling Mr A Grills PER FUL Boyle (Amended red edge and plans) - 19.09.2019 Barn At Lodge Farm, Monkleigh, Devon. Page 192

1/0254/2019/ Ryan Retrospective construction of Morrisons PER FUL Steppel prefabricated Garden Centre unit in Supermarkets 25.09.2019 existing store car park - Morrisons, Plc Bideford, Devon.

1/0415/2019/ Kristian Variation of condition 5 of planning Mrs Kathy PER FUL Evely approval 1/0088/2012/FUL to allow Murdoch 21.10.2019 cave structure to be used for holiday accommodation (C3) - Ocean Kave, Cornborough Road, Westward Ho!.

1/0443/2019/ Laura Erection of a three-storey extension Whitbread PER FUL Davies to the eastern elevation of the Group PLC 20.09.2019 existing hotel (Use Class C1) including alterations to car park layout, landscaping and associated works - Premier Inn, Atlantic Park Way, Bideford.

1/0445/2019/ Helen Full application for the erection of an Moo Moo PER FULM Smith agricultural building and extension Organic Dairy 20.09.2019 to slurry pit - Babbacombe Dairy, Ltd Abbotsham, Bideford.

1/0456/2019/ Ryan Certificate of Existing Lawful Use for Tania PER CPE Steppel static caravan in garden - Oak Moor Horncastle 03.10.2019 Cottage, Pyworthy, Holsworthy.

1/0520/2019/ Ryan Extension and alteration to dwelling, Miss Stacey PER FUL Steppel and adaptation of an existing 10.10.2019 dwelling to accommodate a disabled user. - Southwood, Little Torrington, Torrington.

1/0531/2019/ Ryan Retrospective conversion of existing Mr Andrew PER FUL Steppel property into two self contained Newby 19.09.2019 units to reflect an existing condition and creation of external balcony and guarding to replace existing - Underwood House, Cranford, Bideford.

1/0533/2019/ Sarah Conversion of existing ancillary Mr Russell PER FUL Boyle store into an annexe - 1 Rose Molyneux 10.10.2019 Cottages, Exeter Road, Winkleigh.

1/0557/2019/ Sarah Retrospective application for the Carrie Rogers PER FUL Boyle alteration of walled entrance and 04.10.2019 erection of sand school - Land Adjacent Woodside, Littleham, Bideford.

1/0558/2019/ Ryan Creation of vehicle access and Ms Nancy Rose PER FUL Steppel driveway to rear of property - 60 09.10.2019 Calf Street, Torrington, Devon. Page 193

1/0572/2019/ Tracey Part retrospective application for the Simon Williams PER FULM Blackmo siting of 22 holiday static caravans, 15.10.2019 re caravan storage and associated infrastructure (access road, parking and hardstanding) - Hedley Wood Caravan Park, Bridgerule, Holsworthy.

1/0589/2019/ Kristian Demolish existing garage to replace Darren Drake PER FUL Evely with annexe and double garage - 47 04.10.2019 Staddon Road, Appledore, Bideford.

1/0591/2019/ Tracey Advertisement consent for 8 x City Plumbing PER ADV Blackmo replacement fascia signs - City Supplies 24.09.2019 re Plumbing, Units 4 To 6, Plantation Court.

1/0608/2019/ Angelo Proposed extension of existing Mr T Gynn PER FUL Massos farmhouse and conversion of 08.10.2019 adjacent outbuilding to provide additional living accommodation - Huntsdown Farm, St Giles On The Heath, Launceston.

1/0622/2019/ Debbie Proposed conversion of existing Mr & Mrs Jon & PER FUL Fuller stables/barn to no.1 dwelling and Teresa Dennis 10.10.2019 associated works - Stables At Grid Reference 241528 105752, Middlecott, Devon.

1/0629/2019/ Kristian Renovations and extension to Mr & Mrs Lynd PER FUL Evely existing dwelling - Homemead, 03.10.2019 Diddywell Road, Northam.

1/0630/2019/ Ryan Proposed replacement garage, Prince Albert PER FUL Steppel parking and log store including Road Ltd 20.09.2019 boundary treatments - Hillside, Chapel Street, Woolsery.

1/0631/2019/ Tracey Construction of an outdoor Bridge Leisure PER FUL Blackmo swimming pool with retractable Parks Ltd 07.10.2019 re raised pool cover, changing huts, plant room extension and associated infrastructure, ancillary to the use of the caravan site - Hedley Wood Caravan Park, Bridgerule, Holsworthy.

1/0640/2019/ Sarah Reinstatement of sash windows, Clinton Devon PER LBC Chappel including demolition internal walling Estates 07.10.2019 l and finishes to internal side of window reveals, replacement of window mechanisms and construction of new splayed timber reveals. - Heanton Satchville, Huish, Okehampton.

Page 194 1/0643/2019/ Angelo Felling of Weeping Ash (T2), Works Mr Pennington PER TRE Massos to Cedar (T3) and Removal of 04.10.2019 Cypress (T4) - Kingsley School, Northdown Road, Bideford.

1/0648/2019/ Tracey Replacement of external windows Mr Jamey PER FUL Blackmo and doors to apartment block Jeffrey 25.09.2019 re numbers 30-48, 63-93 & 119-135 & re-painting of exterior facades - Flats At Morwenna Park Road, Northam, Bideford.

1/0652/2019/ James Two dwellings - Land To The Rear Mr Gary PER FUL Jackson Of 5 Fore Street, Holsworthy, Howlett 27.09.2019 Devon.

1/0654/2019/ Angelo Proposed first floor extension and Dunwell PER FUL Massos balcony - Spindrift, Churchill Way, 21.10.2019 Northam.

1/0663/2019/ Tracey PROPOSED 2NO. LAKESIDE Mr & Mrs PER FUL Blackmo FISHING LODGES Coombes 19.09.2019 re - Stafford Moor Fishery, Dolton, Winkleigh.

1/0667/2019/ Ryan Retrospective application for Mr & Mrs C PER FUL Steppel hardstanding, hardcored track and Knight 24.09.2019 entrance - Land At Grid Reference 242813 100623, Halwill, Devon.

1/0668/2019/ Angelo Proposed Garden room - Brendon Mr & Mrs PER FUL Massos Farm, Halwill, Beaworthy. Jeremy and 22.10.2019 Meriel Ovens

1/0670/2019/ Debbie Proposed garage - Cherry Croft, Mr R Gladwell PER FUH Fuller Chilsworthy, Holsworthy. 23.09.2019

1/0673/2019/ Debbie Part retrospective application for Mr Alan Bryant PER COU Fuller change of use of land for 18 touring 23.09.2019 pitches - Lufflands Caravan Park, Sutcombe, Holsworthy.

1/0675/2019/ Debbie New and replacement signage - Waitrose PER ADV Fuller Waitrose, Holsworthy, Devon. 19.09.2019

1/0681/2019/ Kristian Installation of ground mounted solar Dr Andrew PER FUL Evely panels to supply the pool room at Latham 24.09.2019 Woodland Clinic - Land Adjacent To Venn, Mines Road, East The Water.

1/0684/2019/ Sarah Rear and side extensions and Mr Spencer PER FUL Boyle alterations. - Cheseth, Monkleigh, Rogers 01.10.2019 Bideford.

Page 195 1/0691/2019/ Sarah Removal of front garden to create a Mrs Natalie PER FUL Boyle driveway including erection of wall Tweedie 27.09.2019 and gates - 1 Coronation Place, Shebbear, Beaworthy.

1/0692/2019/ Laura Application for reserved matters Mr Christopher PER REM Davies (access, appearance, landscaping, Bond 02.10.2019 layout and scale) pursuant to permission 1/0771/2017/OUT - Land At Grid Reference 232400 114328, Bradworthy, Devon.

1/0695/2019/ Sarah Conversion and change of use of Ms April PER FUL Boyle studio/garage to dwellinghouse - Doubleday 01.10.2019 Monkswillow Studio, Monkleigh, Devon.

1/0696/2019/ Ryan Erection of floodlights and Torridge Side PER FUL Steppel associated Groundworks (Affecting AFC 03.10.2019 a public right of way) - Donnacroft Fields, Hatchmoor Road, Torrington.

1/0698/2019/ Kristian Alterations to property to include a Mr & Mrs M PER FUL Evely single storey extension to east Hookway 24.09.2019 elevation, re-instatement and extension of garage and replacement porch. - Moorland View, High Bickington, Umberleigh.

1/0701/2019/ Sarah Replacement of existing garden Mr & Mrs P PER FUL Boyle room & external stairs with a new Grant 19.09.2019 garden room with sundeck above & access stairs - Sunnymead , Northdown Road, Bideford.

1/0708/2019/ Tracey Prior notification for the change of Mrs Jean PER AGMB Blackmo use of agricultural building to 1no. Huxtable 19.09.2019 re dwellings under Class Q and associated operational development - Barn At Garnacott Farm, Huntshaw, Torrington.

1/0709/2019/ Tracey 8 no. additional storage units to Mr David PER FUL Blackmo existing garages/lock up area Adamson 25.09.2019 re (amended description). - Garages At Grid Reference 245288 127226, Park Lane, Bideford.

1/0710/2019/ Kristian Addition of raised terrace with Mr & Mrs PER FUL Evely glazed balustrade to rear of dwelling Hancock 24.09.2019 and associated works - Feldheim, Pitt Hill, Appledore.

1/0720/2019/ Tracey Erection of replacement timber Ms Louise PER FUL Blackmo frame hay barn - Land At Lydbern Ingleby 09.10.2019 re Fields, Winkleigh, Devon.

Page 196 1/0718/2019/ Kristian Replacement of existing house with Mr Michael Patt PER FUL Evely new dwelling and 2 new dwellings to 15.10.2019 replace redundant agricultural buildings. (revision of previously approved scheme 1/1293/2016/FUL) - Little Hayes, Taddiport, Torrington.

1/0721/2019/ Sarah Proposed extension of existing Mr T Gynn PER LBC Chappel farmhouse to include conversion of 26.09.2019 l adjacent outbuilding to provide additional living accommodation - Huntsdown Farm, St Giles On The Heath, Launceston.

1/0725/2019/ Kristian Change of use of land from Mrs Samantha PER FUL Evely agricultural to residential and Roberts 11.10.2019 creation of vehicle access with security gates and fencing - 58 Calf Street, Torrington, Devon.

1/0728/2019/ Angelo Part-retrospective application for the Mr David PER FUL Massos replacement of garage and store - Sweeney 22.10.2019 81 Atlantic Way, Westward Ho!, Bideford.

1/0729/2019/ Sarah Change of use of the upper floors of Mr & Mrs PER FUL Chappel the building from a B1 (office) use to Osborne 14.10.2019 l sui-generis use as a 7-bed House in Multiple Occupation (HMO). - Higos Insurance Services Ltd, 80 High Street, Bideford.

1/0730/2019/ Sarah Change of use of upper floors of the Mr & Mrs PER LBC Chappel building from a B1 (office) use to Osborne 14.10.2019 l sui-generis use as a 7-bed House in Multiple Occupation (HMO). - Higos Insurance Services Ltd, 80 High Street, Bideford.

1/0734/2019/ Laura Retrospective application for the Mr Steve PER FUL Davies retention and continued use of a Graham 03.10.2019 forest school building in association with Thorne Manor Day Nursery - Thorne Manor Day Nursery Holsworthy Limited, Thorne Manor, Holsworthy.

1/0735/2019/ Debbie Conversion of attached shippon to Mr John Nye PER FUL Fuller additional accommodation - 25.09.2019 Hunscott Cottage, Ashwater, Beaworthy.

1/0738/2019/ Sarah Creation of 1x luxury holiday lodge - Mr Matt Ferry PER FUL Boyle Stibb Hollow Farm, Stibb Cross, 21.10.2019 Torrington.

Page 197

1/0742/2019/ Kristian Replacement dwelling - 69 Mr Christopher PER FUL Evely Richmond Park, Northam, Bideford. Bosher 25.09.2019

1/0743/2019/ Kristian Installation of a 12 panel/4kw solar Mr Steve PER FUL Evely pv system to rear/south facing roof Lawrence 25.09.2019 pitch of annexe within grounds of listed building - Little Worden Farm Annexe, Shebbear, Beaworthy.

1/0744/2019/ Kristian Installation of a 12 panel/4kw solar Mr Steve PER LBC Evely pv system to rear/south facing roof Lawrence 25.09.2019 pitch of annexe within grounds of listed building - Little Worden Farm Annexe, Shebbear, Beaworthy.

1/0746/2019/ Angelo Proposed extension to existing Mr P Westaway PER FUL Massos cover feed building - Yeo Vale 09.10.2019 Farm, Yeo Vale, Bideford.

1/0752/2019/ Angelo Two dwellings - Land At Fairhaven, Mr Peter Furse PER FUL Massos North Road, Hartland. 07.10.2019

1/0755/2019/ Helen Erection of Entrance / Boundary Chichester PER FUL Smith Wall - 1 Pines Close, Westward Ho!, Developments 07.10.2019 Devon. Ltd

1/0022/2019/ Debbie Non-material amendment to Mr Giles Kops PER NMAT Fuller planning permission 14.10.2019 1/0366/2018/FUH (to increase extension by 1m) - Little Potheridge Cottage, Merton, Okehampton.

1/0759/2019/ Angelo Proposed two storey extension - Mr & Mrs Kelly PER FUH Massos Dury Cottage, Ashwater, Beaworthy. 02.10.2019

1/0764/2019/ Debbie Re-submission of planning Mr H Shatwell PER FUH Fuller application 1/0099/2019/FUL for a 25.09.2019 single storey side extension - Hirwaun, Hatchmoor Road, Torrington.

1/0765/2019/ Kristian Variation of Condition 3 of planning Lightsource PER FUL Evely permission 1/1175/2012/FUL to Renewable 09.10.2019 extend the operational time Development restriction from 25 to 40 years - Ltd Knockworthy Farm, Huntshaw, Torrington.

1/0768/2019/ Tracey Rear decking and access paths - 32 Mr & Mrs K PER FUL Blackmo Lane Field Road, Bideford, Devon. Kidd 09.10.2019 re

1/0774/2019/ Laura Variation of condition 1 (plans Mr Marcus PER FUL Davies schedule) of 1/0346/2016/REM Lang 11.10.2019 (amendments to Plot 4) - Land At Chapel Road, Parkham, Devon. Page 198

1/0023/2019/ Sarah Non material amendment to Mr Michael PER NMAT Chappel Planning Permission Scholes 24.09.2019 l 1/0539/2019/FUL - Alteration to approved flue height - Coast View, Hartland, Bideford.

1/0784/2019/ Sarah Alterations to windows and doors, Mr Michael PER LBC Chappel installation of flue and internal Scholes 11.10.2019 l alterations - Coast View, Hartland, Bideford.

1/0024/2019/ Angelo Non material amendment to Mr David PER NMAT Massos application 1/0561/2017/FUL Cholwell 23.09.2019 (Alterations to internal layout and fenestration, and addition of open fronted porch) - Land Adjacent Hawarden, Holsworthy Beacon, Holsworthy.

1/0796/2019/ Ryan Extension to side and rear Mr & Mrs R H PER FUL Steppel (Resubmission of 1/0460/2019/FUL) Guppy 10.10.2019 - increase in footprint of extension and raising of roof pitch - Meadow Farm Cottage, Langtree, Torrington.

1/0792/2019/ Kristian Erection of 1no. dwelling Mr T Boundy PER FUL Evely resubmission persuant to 11.10.2019 applications 1/0205/2018/OUT and 1/1098/2018/REM (addition of gable windows in the south elevation) - The Old Rectory, Weare Giffard, Bideford.

1/0025/2019/ Debbie Non material amendment to Mr Adam PER NMAT Fuller application 1/1097/2018/FUL - Campbell- 25.09.2019 (alteration of roof material) - Pows Garnett Cottage, High Bickington, Umberleigh.

1/0797/2019/ Angelo Extension to dwelling - Bridge Mill, Mr & Mrs A PER FUH Massos Bridgerule, Holsworthy. Beat 22.10.2019

1/0801/2019/ Sarah Alterations and extensions to Mr & Mrs PER FUH Boyle existing dwelling (re-submission of Chong 18.10.2019 planning ref 1/0254/2018/FUL) - Chestnut, Chilla, Beaworthy.

1/0808/2019/ Laura Certificate of existing lawful use for Mr Walter PER CPE Davies the renovation of an agricultural Brown 11.10.2019 storage building - Higher Kingford Farm, Pancrasweek, Holsworthy.

1/0813/2019/ Sarah Removal of limbs to tree within Mr Kenneth PER TCA Boyle conservation area - Greenbank, Squire 09.10.2019 Barlands Way, Dolton.

Page 199 1/0026/2019/ Kristian Non-material amendment to Mr Andrew PER NMAT Evely 1/1058/2018/FUL (change in Mcmurray 20.09.2019 material from render to cladding) - 49 Soloman Drive, Bideford, Devon.

1/0821/2019/ Sarah Fell 1no. Beech, fell 1no. Sycamore Anna Buck PER TRE Boyle and fell 1no. Spruce. - Muddy Boots 10.10.2019 Preschool, Chircombe Lane, Northam.

1/0831/2019/ Kristian Application for reserved matters Orchid PER REM Evely (access, appearance, landscaping, Developments 18.10.2019 layout and scale) pursuant to Ltd permission 1/1293/2018/OUT - Garden Of 10 Rickards Green, Abbotsham, Bideford.

1/0890/2019/ James Non material amendment pursuant Mazzard PER NMAT Jackson to application 1/1296/2018/FUL Investments Ltd 21.10.2019 (Variation of design to rooflights/windows) - Town Farm, North Road, High Bickington.

1/0029/2019/ Sarah Non-material amendment to Mr & Mrs P PER NMAT Boyle planning application Grant 15.10.2019 1/0701/2019/FUL - Substitution of glazed balustrade to sundeck & access stairs with wrought iron balustrade - Sunnymead , Northdown Road, Bideford.

1/0798/2019/ Debbie Prior notification for the change of C/O Agent PERDET AGMB Fuller use of agricultural building to 1no. 21.10.2019 dwelling under Class Q and associated operational development - Agricultural Building At Borough Farm, Bridgerule, Devon.

Refused

1/0163/2019/ Sarah Retrospective application for a Mr Paul Short REF FUL Boyle single dwelling - Annexe, Homestar, 18.10.2019 Golf Links Road.

1/0375/2019/ Tracey The installation of 15 composite Evolution Park REF FULM Blackmo decks for angling and the stationing Homes & 25.09.2019 re of glamping pods together with the Lodges Limited provision of associated paths and drainage and the extension of the existing parking area. - Land At Venn Lakes, Winkleigh, Devon.

1/0478/2019/ Sarah Erection of two storey dwelling - Mrs S Edwards REF FUL Boyle Land Adjacent To 5 Victoria 03.10.2019 Terrace, Bideford, Devon.

1/0593/2019/ Sarah Erection of agricultural machinery Mr G Baker REF FUL Boyle and hay store Pageand hardstanding 200 - 18.10.2019 Land At Grid Reference 242666 100677, Halwill, Devon.

1/0603/2019/ Ryan Conversion of barn for use as a Mr John Ensall REF FUL Steppel holiday let. - Barn At Petrockstowe, 25.09.2019 Devon, .

1/0614/2019/ Tracey Change of use of A1/B1 Mr Gary Copp REF FUL Blackmo workshop/office and extension to 07.10.2019 re create a mixed use C3 supervisory (live/work) dwelling and A1/B1 use - Cherrywood Park Business Centre, Langtree, Devon.

1/0655/2019/ Angelo Part retrospective removal of a Mr Philip Brown REF FUL Massos section of wall at front of property for 10.10.2019 creation of a driveway - 1 Pantable Park, Whimble Hill, Holsworthy.

1/0021/2019/ Debbie Non material amendment to Graham REF NMAT Fuller application 1/0727/2017/FUL Copplestone 16.10.2019 (Changes to plans to incorporate flood lights) - Longlands, Ashwater, Beaworthy.

1/0719/2019/ Tracey Felling of 1 x Acer Tree (T1) Mr Adams REF TRE Blackmo (amended description) 27.09.2019 re - Salterns Lodge, Old Barnstaple Road, Bideford.

1/0749/2019/ Laura Removal of condition 2 of Mr Rufus Wixon REF FUL Davies application 1/0513/2016/AGMB (Bat 04.10.2019 and Bird Nesting) and Informative 01, based on Class Q.2(3) of the GPDO 2015 requiring completion of works within three years - Higher Goodacre Farm, Broadwoodwidger, Lifton.

1/0770/2019/ Kristian Outline application for up to 10 new Mr Graham Yeo REF OUTM Evely dwellings, with all matters reserved 09.10.2019 except for access (re submission of 1/0910/2018/OUTM). - Land To The East Of Galway, Stibb Cross, Devon.

Not Permitted Development

1/0888/2019/ Sarah Agricultural storage barn - Land Mrs Nicola NPD AGR Boyle South East Of Homeland, Brandis Rogers (Five 15.10.2019 Corner, Devon. Field Farm)

1/0953/2019/ Kristian Extension to agricultural building - Mr Peter Willes NPD AGR Evely Beckland Farm, Hartland, Bideford. 21.10.2019

Page 201