(Public Pack)Agenda Document for South Hams Development

Home , Marldon

SOUTH HAMS DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE - WEDNESDAY, 18TH MARCH, 2015

Agenda, Reports and Minutes for the meeting

Agenda No Item

1. Agenda Letter (Pages 1 - 2)

2. Reports

Reports to DM:

a) SI Report (Pages 3 - 6)

b) 56/0056/15/CU (Pages 7 - 12)

Change of use from retail (A1) to cafe (A3) - 74 Fore Street, Totnes TQ9 5RU

c) 58/3121/14/RM (Pages 13 - 18)

Approval of reserved matters of details on appearance, landscaping, layout and scale in relation to plots 16 and 37 (revised proposal following reserved matters approval 58/1267/14/RM) - Development Site at SX528492, Leyford Close, Wembury

d) 34/2590/14/F (Pages 19 - 24)

Conversion of agricultural building to use as tea room (A3 class) - Marldon Christmas Tree Farm The North Pole, Westerland, Marldon, Paignton, TQ3 1RR

e) 15/1820/14/F (Pages 25 - 30)

Extension and change of use from B8 use to C3 to create residential dwelling and garage - 2 Coles Court, Dartmouth, TQ6 9BW f) 15/0373/15/VAR (Pages 31 - 38)

Variation of condition 2 (approved drawings) for planning approval 15/1697/14/DC (reduction in size of new build and update in roof profile) - Dartmouth Community Leisure Centre, Wessex Way, Dartmouth, TQ6 0J

g) Planning Appeals Update (Pages 39 - 40)

3. Minutes (Pages 41 - 50)

2 To: Chairman & Members of the Development Management Committee Our Ref: CS/KT (Cllrs Bastone, Brazil, Cuthbert, Foss, Hitchins, Hodgson, Holway, Pearce, Pennington, Squire, Steer and Wright).

7 April 2015 Dear Councillor

A meeting of the Development Management Committee will be held in the Council Chamber, Follaton House, Plymouth Road, Totnes, on Wednesday, 15 April 2015 at 2.00pm, when your attendance is requested.

Yours sincerely

Kathryn Trant Member Services Manager

FOR ANY QUERIES ON THIS AGENDA, PLEASE CONTACT KATHRYN TRANT THE MEMBER SERVICES MANAGER ON DIRECT LINE 01803 861185

AGENDA

1. Minutes - to approve as a correct record and authorise the Chairman to sign the minutes of the meetings of the Committee held on 18 March 2015 (pages 1 to 10);

2. Urgent Business - brought forward at the discretion of the Chairman;

3. Division of Agenda - to consider whether the discussion of any item of business is likely to lead to the disclosure of exempt information;

4. Declarations of Interest - Members are invited to declare any personal or disclosable pecuniary interests, including the nature and extent of such interests they may have in any items to be considered at this meeting;

5. Public Participation - The Chairman to advise the Committee on any requests received from members of the public to address the meeting; 6. Site Inspections – there were no site inspections deferred from the previous meeting.

7. Planning Applications - Members are requested to raise any queries they may have with the respective case officer before the meeting (pages 11 to 45);

8. Planning Appeals Update – (page 46).

Members of the public may wish to note that the Council's meeting rooms are accessible by wheelchairs and have a loop induction hearing system

********************************** An optional lunch will be available for Members of the Committee in the Cary Room at 1.00 pm **********************************

During the preparation of reports contained in this Agenda, the Officers have had recourse to the following documents:-

Devon County Structure Plan and relevant Local Plans South Hams Local Plan Relevant Government Circulars and Advice Relevant Appeal decisions Human Rights Act 1998 Where other information has been used, the relevant sources are quoted within the individual report. Planning case officer’s recommendations include reference to conditions and reasons for refusal by code. Please note that 'NS' refers to a non-standard condition or reason for refusal and for details of these, contact the appropriate case officer.

MEMBERS ARE REQUESTED TO SIGN THE ATTENDANCE REGISTER THIS AGENDA HAS BEEN PRINTED ON ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY PAPER The Council Chamber doors will be opened to the public from 1.45 pm

REPORT OF THE SITE INSPECTION GROUP HELD ON MONDAY, 9 MARCH 2015

(i) 37/2600/14/F : Erection of dwelling with ancillary studio and garage to replace existing garage/ancillary living accommodation – The Cottage, 97 Court Road, Newton Ferrers, Plymouth PL8 1DE

Present: Cllr P K Cuthbert Cllr R Foss Cllr J A Pearce Cllr J T Pennington Cllr J W Squire Cllr R C Steer (Chairman) Cllr S A E Wright

Cllr K J Baldry (neighbouring Ward Member (the local Ward Member had declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest on this application)

Also in attendance: Cllr Alison Ansell – Newton and Noss Parish Council Matt Jones – Planning Case Officer Darryl White – Democratic Services Manager

Following the introductions, the Group viewed the proposals from numerous vantage points within the property and curtilage of No. 99 Court Road. In asking the Group to gauge the impact of the proposals upon No. 99 Court Road, the Planning Case Officer, with the aid of the plans and drawings, set out the detail of the application. In so doing, the Group noted that the site was located within the Development Boundary and the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). In addition, the site was also located within the land designated under saved policy MP12, which sought to retain the low density and landscape character of this part of the village.

Moreover, the Planning Case Officer also made reference to the levels of proposed screening, which were considered to be adequate and planning policy DP3 stated that: ‘Unacceptable impacts would be judged against the level of amenity generally accepted within the locality’. In this context, mutual overlooking was a long established characteristic in Newton Ferrers and No. 99 was already overlooked by other neighbouring properties.

At this point, the Group proceeded to walk down a private footpath belonging to the owner of ‘Highlands’ and viewed the proposals from the driveway of this property.

The Planning Case Officer also requested that Members note the potential impact upon the neighbouring properties of ‘The Shielings’ and ‘Woongarra’ and back up from the river.

In conclusion, it was the view of the Planning Case Officer that these were acceptable and his recommendation was therefore that this application should be conditionally approved.

The Parish Council (PC) representative cited eight different reasons why the PC had recommended refusal of this application. These reasons were: visual impact, loss of privacy, access, traffic and highway safety, overbearing impact on adjoining properties, cumulative impact, overdevelopment and the wish to support the objections raised by neighbouring residents.

The neighbouring Ward Member echoed the comments of the PC representative and wished to reinforce the detrimental impact upon the AONB of this application and its prominence when viewing the site from both the river and the adjoining private footpath. Finally, the Member also made the point that the massing of this proposed dwelling would constitute overdevelopment in what was currently a garden area.

Before concluding the inspection, the Group accepted an offer from the owner of ‘Sunset’ and also proceeded to view the application site from the front of this property.

The Chairman then concluded the site inspection and Members felt that the inspection had been particularly worthwhile.

REPORT OF THE SITE INSPECTION GROUP HELD ON MONDAY, 9 MARCH 2015

(ii) 07/2599/14/F : Part retrospective change of use of existing agricultural building for the storage and repair and maintenance of agricultural and commercial vehicles. Erection of extension for the storage of vehicles and materials and the creation of a compound to accommodate the parking of vehicles in association with the use of the existing and proposed buildings – Land adj. to Wembury Road, Polston Park, Plymstock PL9 0DD

Present: Cllr P K Cuthbert Cllr R Foss Cllr J A Pearce Cllr J T Pennington Cllr J W Squire (local Ward Member) Cllr R C Steer (Chairman) Cllr S A E Wright

Cllr B F Cane (local Ward Member)

Also in attendance: Clare Stewart – Planning Case Officer Darryl White – Democratic Services Manager Cllr Michael Wills – Brixton Parish Council

Following the introductions, the Planning Case Officer set out the detail of the application. Since the application would be subject to a full presentation at the next Development Management Committee meeting, the Planning Case Officer provided a brief summary of the main issues arising from this application. In so doing, the Group noted that the application was partly retrospective and sought to regularise the use of the existing building for the storage, repair and maintenance of agricultural and commercial vehicles. In addition, the proposal also sought approval for a relatively small extension to the west elevation and other proposals which would lead to the site being tidied up.

The Group proceeded to walk the application site and the Planning Case Officer highlighted that there was ongoing enforcement action related to the site and gave an assurance that the remainder of the field would be retained as agricultural use.

When she conducted her presentation at the next Committee meeting, the Group requested that the Planning Case Officer clarify the use of the barn at the time when the original application was conditionally approved in 2007.

The Parish Council (PC) representative made reference to the secluded location of this site and the PC had no problem whatsoever with this planning application.

A local Ward Member also spoke in support of the proposals and highlighted that this application reflected the wish of the applicants to diversify. As a consequence, eight jobs were now reliant upon this application being conditionally approved. Furthermore, the site was not located within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and was not visible from the highway. As a consequence, the Member felt the Highways Authority recommendations on this application were questionable at best. In acknowledging that mistakes had been made on this site in the past, the Member also felt that this application would now tidy up this site.

Having been invited to address the Group, the other local Ward Member advised that he would save his comments until the application was presented to the next Committee meeting.

PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT

Case Officer: Mrs Clare Stewart Parish: Totnes

Application No: 56/0056/15/CU

Agent/Applicant: Applicant: Mr D Birch Mr D Birch 18 Belmont 18 Belmont Teignmouth Road Teignmouth Road Torquay Torquay TQ1 4EA TQ1 4EA

Site Address: 74 Fore Street, Totnes TQ9 5RU

Development: Change of use from retail (A1) to cafe (A3)

Scale 1:1250

This map is reproduced from the Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (c) Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. South Hams District Council 100022628. 2015. Scale 1:1250 For internal reference only – no further copies to be made

Reason item is being put before Committee

The Ward Members share the concerns raised by third parties concerning the number of A3 premises in the immediate vicinity.

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Conditions

1. Time limit 2. Accord with plans

Key issues for consideration:

The principle issue is the loss of A1 retail within the Central Shopping Area and replacement with A3 (cafe) use. it is considered the proposal would not undermine the vitality and viability of the Central Shopping Area, and concerns raised by third parties do not constitute grounds for refusal in this case.

Site Description:

Totnes is a market town with a variety of shops and services being provided. A Central Shopping Area has been defined which starts at the bottom of Totnes town centre around The Plains area and works its way up Fore Street, High Street and finishes around the Rotherfold area. The initial part of Station Road accessed at the top of Fore Street is part of the Central Shopping Area as well. The unit subject of this application is located on the south side of Fore Street to the east of the junction with South Street. It is currently in use as a charity shop (Use Class A1).

74 Fore Street is a Grade II listed building which is located within the Totnes Conservation Area.

The Proposal:

The application seeks to change the current use of the ground floor of the premises from A1 (retail) to A3 (cafe) use. The application states that the business would operate as a ‘tea room’ with limited cooking facilities (electric toaster, sandwich toaster and microwave oven) with no requirement to install ventilation.

Consultations:

 County Highways Authority – No highways related issues

 Totnes Town Council – Objection on the grounds that the premises should remain as retail site, that there are already 7 or 8 other cafes in close proximity and in a small area, and that in order to support the vitality of the town it was important to retain a mix of tenure. Also, request that SHDC provides guidelines on a reasonable mix of A1/A3 density.

Representations:

10 letters of objection have been received which are available to view in full on the Council’s website. Concerns raised summarised as follows:

 Too many cafes in Totnes already. Totnes is full of cafes and charity shops, need diversification on the high street.  Impact on existing cafe traders, including cafe opposite site.  Negative impact on tourism  Proposed operator is not local  Traffic delays during works to change use  Concern about scale of business increasing once planning permission granted

Relevant Planning History

 56/0057/15/AD, Advertisement consent for fascia signage, 74 Fore Street, Totnes – under consideration

 56/0269/12/LB, Listed building consent for advertisement for oval shop sign with charity name, number and motto, 74 Fore Street, Totnes – conditional approval

 56/0268/12/AD, Advertisement consent for oval shop sign with charity name, number and motto, 74 Fore Street, Totnes – conditional approval

 56/2330/10/LB, Listed building application to demolish modern internal partitions and provide new internal layout. Form new double doorway in original partition, 74 Fore Street, Totnes – conditional approval

 56/2329/10/F, RE-ADVERTISEMENT Change of use from veterinary practice to two retail units (with ancillary facilities) and one office, 74 Fore Street, Totnes – conditional approval

ANALYSIS

Principle of Development/Sustainability:

Local policy seeks to protect the vitality and viability of the Central Shopping Area. It is not the role of the planning system to control competition between providers of various services and goods. The Central Shopping Area contains mainly A1 uses with a mix of other A2, A3, A4, A5 and other uses. The proposed change of use is not considered have a detrimental impact upon the vitality and viability of the town centre or make a significant impact upon the ratio of use classes. A map of the current use classes within the Totnes Central Shopping Area will be presented at the Development Management Committee meeting. In addition it is not considered the proposal detracts from the appearance of the immediate locality adversely impact on amenity. As such it is considered the proposal accords with Policy SHDC23. Section 2 (Ensuring the vitality of town centres) of the National Planning Policy Framework is also of relevance. Paragraph 23 consists of 10 keys points which are repeated in full in the policy section of this report. The proposed change of use is considered compliant with the NPPF.

Objection has been raised to the fact that the Applicant is not from the Totnes area. Planning permissions run with the land and therefore it is the use of a site which is a material consideration rather than the individual business

Neighbour Amenity:

The application is for change of use only and does not include any proposals for external extracts etc. The proposed hours of opening are 9am – 5pm Monday to Sunday including Bank Holidays which is fairly typical for this type of use (and similar to the current A1 retail use), and is not considered to present a significant risk of disturbance to local residents. Any complaints regarding odour nuisance would be investigated by the Council’s Environmental Health team as required.

Highways/Access:

Concern has been expressed in representation regarding traffic impacts whilst the change of use works are carried out. No structural changes to the building are proposed, and any delivery vehicles would need to obey the traffic regulations on Fore Street.

Devon County Highways have made no specific comments.

Heritage:

No alterations to the building fabric are proposed as part of this application. The proposed change of use would not result in harm to the appearance or setting of the host listed building or the wider Conservation Area given the town centre location.

Other Matters:

Concern has been expressed that the operator could install additional equipment at a later date without consent. Any subsequent proposals for external extracts/flues (which may be required under separate legislation) would be considered through separate planning and listed building consent applications if required.

There is confusion in some of the letters of objection which state that the Costa Coffee application was refused. This application was approved but the operator chose not utilise the consent.

In response to the request from Totnes Town Council for further guidance on a reasonable mix of A1/A3 density, the Local Plan is currently under review.

A separate application for new signage associated with the proposed use is under consideration (56/0057/15/AD).

The Planning Balance:

It is considered that the vitality and viability of the Central Shopping Area would not be undermined by the proposal, and it would not result in an oversupply of A3 uses. The proposal complies with the relevant policies and the NPPF, and the application is therefore recommended for approval.

This application has been considered in accordance with Section 38 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and with Sections 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

Planning Policy

National Planning Policy Framework In particular, paragraph 23 advises:

Planning policies should be positive, promote competitive town centre environments and set out policies for the management and growth of centres over the plan period. In drawing up Local Plans, local planning authorities should:

●recognise town centres as the heart of their communities and pursue policies to support their viability and vitality;

●define a network and hierarchy of centres that is resilient to anticipated future economic changes;

●define the extent of town centres and primary shopping areas, based on a clear definition of primary and secondary frontages in designated centres, and set policies that make clear which uses will be permitted in such locations;

●promote competitive town centres that provide customer choice and a diverse retail offer and which reflect the individuality of town centres;

●retain and enhance existing markets and, where appropriate, re-introduce or create new ones, ensuring that markets remain attractive and competitive;

● allocate a range of suitable sites to meet the scale and type of retail, leisure, commercial, office, tourism, cultural, community and residential development needed in town centres. It is important that needs for retail, leisure, office and other main town centre uses are met in full and are not compromised by limited site availability. Local planning authorities should therefore undertake an assessment of the need to expand town centres to ensure a sufficient supply of suitable sites;

● allocate appropriate edge of centre sites for main town centre uses that are well connected to the town centre where suitable and viable town centre sites are not available. If sufficient edge of centre sites cannot be identified, set policies for meeting the identified needs in other accessible locations that are well connected to the town centre;

●set policies for the consideration of proposals for main town centre uses which cannot be accommodated in or adjacent to town centres;

●recognise that residential development can play an important role in ensuring the vitality of centres and set out policies to encourage residential development on appropriate sites; and

● where town centres are in decline, local planning authorities should plan positively for their future to encourage economic activity.

South Hams LDF Core Strategy CS1 Location of Development CS9 Landscape and Historic Environment

Development Policies DPD DP1 High Quality Design DP3 Residential Amenity DP6 Historic Environment DP7 Transport, Access & Parking

South Hams Local Plan SHDC 1 Development Boundaries SHDC 23 Shopping in Towns

Considerations under Human Rights Act 1998 and Equalities Act 2010 The provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 and Equalities Act 2010 have been taken into account in reaching the recommendation contained in this report.

PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT

Case Officer: Mr Alex Sebbinger Parish: Wembury

Application No: 58/3121/14/RM

Agent/Applicant: Applicant: Mr Adrian Fox Taylor Wimpey Exeter Origin3 Limited c/o agent Tyndall House 17 Whiteladies Road Clifton Bristol BS8 1PB

Site Address: Development Site at SX528492, Leyford Close, Wembury

Development: Approval of reserved matters of details on appearance, landscaping, layout and scale in relation to plots 16 and 37 (revised proposal following reserved matters approval 58/1267/14/RM)

Scale 1:2500

Reason item is being put before Committee: This application is before this Committee at the request of Councillor J. Squire.

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Conditions

Reiteration of outline and previous reserved matters conditions In accordance with plans Samples of materials.

Key issues for consideration:

The main issues with this application relate to the final form and details of how the development takes place, specifically this alteration to two plots. The matter of principle has been agreed with the grant of outline planning permission and the overall layout, design and appearance of the scheme as a whole has been agreed with the grant of Reserved Matters. It is for this application to assess the proposed revised design/layout and scale of the plots 16 and 37and any associated impacts that might arise.

Site Description:

Wembury lies within the rural South Hams close to the River Yealm surrounded by the South Devon coastal countryside. Although geographically close to Plymouth it is part of the South Hams both in terms of its village character and the community feeling that exists. The village has a good range of community facilities, including a primary school, post office/stores, village hall and public house.

The application site is on the eastern edge of the built up area of Wembury and consists of horse grazed pasture. The shape of the site is that of a back-to-front “L” and has an area of 1.5 ha. The southern part of the site is generally level; the northern part of the site falls gently to the north. The site lies adjoining but outside the development boundary of the village. It is located within the countryside, within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the undeveloped coast.

To the north of the site is the village recreation ground. Hedgerows and lines of trees form the majority of the site’s boundary with a traditional Devon hedge forming part of the southern and eastern boundaries. To the east of the site is an agricultural field. Wembury House, a Listed Building, is set to the southeast. A public right of way (Brownhill Lane) runs along the southern boundary of the site. To the west of the site is part of the carriageway of a southern arm of Leyford Close. Leyford Close leads onto Mewstone Avenue further to the west.

The Proposal:

This application is for revisions to the approved plots 16 and 37 as part of the reserved matters for the development of 40 dwellings on this site.

Consultations:

 County Highways Authority – No comments

 English Heritage – Do not wish to offer any comments.

 Parish Council – Objection – The changes to the housing type does not appear to change the overlooking and overbearing nature of the new dwelling to the existing adjacent bungalows. There appears to be some confusion about this application. It was understood that additional drawings would be issued as the original ones issued appear inaccurate.

Representations:

Five letters of objection making the following points, in no particular order:

 Properties too close  Loss of privacy  Overlooking  Overbearing impact  Our Human Rights are being ignored.

Relevant Planning History

58/0176/13/O – Outline planning application for residential development comprising up to 48 dwellings, highway access and other incidental development. Granted planning permission on 6/5/2014

58/1267/14/RM - Application for approval of reserved matters (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) following outline approval 58/0176/13/O for residential development comprising 40 dwellings, highway access and other incidental development Granted planning permission on 10/10/2014

ANALYSIS

Principle of Development/Sustainability:

The principle of development of this site has been established both by the grant of outline consent, and through the issue of reserved matters approval for the layout and details of the 40 houses, approved in October.

This application seeks to amend two of the plots as part of the Reserved Matters approval for the 40 units, and in principle, no issues can reasonably be raised at this stage, subject to complying with all other relevant development control policies.

Design/Landscape:

The proposal seeks to replace the house type “Bawden” with a “Woodbury” design. The overall scale of the buildings, and their siting, is identical in relation to the previous approval of Reserved Matters. The height and scale of the buildings, however, are reduced, with the proposed house type being of a 1.5 storey appearance, with first floor accommodation set within the roof space. The height of the buildings is reduced by approximately 0.8 metres from that of the previous approval.

Given the similarity in siting from the previous decision, and the fact that the proposals are of a lesser height, it would be difficult to sustain an objection based upon the design or layout of the building. The aesthetic appearance remains comparable to that of the approved development, and is considered acceptable.

Neighbour Amenity:

Concern has been raised that the proposals would give rise to loss of privacy and be un- neighbourly. As the siting of the building, and indeed the internal layouts and orientations remain the same as per the previously approved reserved matters details, it is considered that it would be exceedingly difficult to sustain a refusal of what is ostensibly an identical dwelling, except for the reduction in its height.

The reduction in height of the buildings would give an improvement to the relationship of the development to existing neighbouring properties as a result of this reduction in height. Given the previous approval, it would not be possible or indeed reasonable to object to this application in terms of impact on neighbouring amenity.

Other Matters:

No other issues arise which were not already considered at the stage of determining the previous application for Reserved Matters.

Conclusion:

The application is considered to be acceptable and is recommended for APPROVAL.

Planning Policy

National Planning Policy Framework

Presumption in favour of sustainable development Section 1 – Building a strong, competitive economy Section 3 – Supporting a prosperous rural economy Section 4 – Promoting sustainable transport Section 6 – Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes Section 7 – Requiring good design Section 8 – Promoting healthy communities Section 11 – Conserving and enhancing the natural environment Section 12 – Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

South Hams LDF Core Strategy CS1 Location of Development CS2 Housing Provision CS6 Affordable Housing CS7 Design CS8 Infrastructure Provision CS9 Landscape and Historic Environment CS10 Nature Conservation CS11 Climate Change

Development Policies DPD DP1 High Quality Design DP2 Landscape Character DP3 Residential Amenity DP4 Sustainable Construction DP5 Conservation and Wildlife DP6 Historic Environment DP7 Transport, Access & Parking DP8 Open Space, Sport and Recreation DP9 Local facilities DP11Housing Mix and Tenure DP15 Development in the Countryside

Affordable Housing DPD AH4 Mix, Size, Type and Tenure

South Hams Local Plan SHDC 1 Development Boundaries

PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT

Case Officer: Mr. Alex Sebbinger Parish: Marldon

Application No: 34/2590/14/F

Agent/Applicant: Applicant: Mr Michael G Roberts Ms S Lynes Preliminary Planning Professionals Marldon Christmas Tree Farm 30 Nelson Place The North Pole Newton Abbot Marldon Devon Paignton TQ12 2JH TQ3 1RR

Site Address: Marldon Christmas Tree Farm The North Pole, Westerland, Marldon, Paignton, TQ3 1RR

Development: Conversion of timber office and amenity/WC building to use as tea room (A3 class)

Scale 1:5000

Reason item is being put before Committee: This application is before Committee at the request of Councillor T. Pennington who considers the highway impacts of the proposals have implication for the Marldon road network.

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Conditions:

1. Time Limit for commencement 2. In accordance with plans 3. Details of sewage disposal to be submitted 4. Percolation tests and trial holes to be agreed 5. The use shall not be open for customers outside of the months of November or December.

Key issues for consideration: The key issues associated with the determination of this application centre on the principle of the change of use from agriculture/forestry office/amenity building to tea room (Class A3) given its outside of settlement countryside location and any impacts on highway safety and the amenity of nearby residential properties and/or land users.

Site Description:

The application site is Marldon Christmas Tree Farm. The application site and its surroundings fall outside the development boundary and for the purpose of planning is situated within the countryside, as depicted on the Local Plan Proposals Map. The application lies on the south western edge of the village of Marldon and west of the A380 dual-carriageway.

The application site land level is higher than road level and comprises tree planting areas, hardstand parking areas and a circulatory road system. There is an existing timber building on site approved as a replacement in 2007 (ref: 34/0846/07) which is used as office and WC facilities, in association with the Christmas tree growing and ancillary sale activities which take place on site. At the time of site inspection, foundations had been laid for an extension to the timber office building; extensions to this building were permitted under reference 34/1682/14/F.

Access is from Totnes Road. This consists of a vehicular access with metal gates set back 14 metres from the highway, and a 1.5 metre high stone wall on either side of the access incorporating two permanent signs advertising the Christmas tree farm.

The Proposal:

Change of use of part of the timber office/amenity building on site to use as a tea room (Class A3).

The applicant has submitted a supporting statement which sets out a case for rural diversification of the existing business. This has been expanding on in a number of emails with the Officer.

Consultations:

County Highways Authority – No objections.

Town/Parish Council – has raised no objection.

South Hams Environmental Health – Views awaited.

South Hams Drainage Engineers – Views awaited.

Representations: Three letters of objection/concern have been received from The White Cottage, Fathing Cross and Thistleame. The objections can be summarised as being:

1. Traffic impacts – obstruction of the highway, increased movements on narrow lanes The applicant’s website claims that last year, 9000 people visited the site in one day to attend the Christmas Market. 2. Pollution/omissions from queuing cars 3. Ability of the development to achieve adequate foul and surface water disposal. 4. The applicants website indicates the restaurant is already open for business 5. Impact on neighbouring properties – increased noise and disturbance, odours and fumes from the kitchen area. Endure disturbance during Christmas Market periods which the proposal would exacerbate all year round. 6. Principle of the development – few people source Christmas Trees all year round. The site is not a garden centre as referred to in supporting documentation. The proposal is wholly unconnected with forestry or agriculture and should be resisted in this location. 7. Impact upon the rural and tranquil character of the countryside. 8. The use is intensifying on site and it is likely future applications for housing may come forward.

Relevant Planning History:

34/1682/14/F - Side extension and creation of shelter to front - Conditional Approval

34/0846/07/F – Replacement of existing barn building with new barn - Conditional Approval

ANALYSIS

Principle of Development/Sustainability:

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 repeats the duty imposed under S54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and requires that decisions must be made in accordance with relevant Development Plan Documents unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

‘Policy DP15’ on ‘Development in the Countryside’ from the ‘Development Policies DPD’ 2010 clearly outlines the scope for development in the countryside. Specifically, it is only permissive of new developments that require a countryside location or supporting the essential needs of agriculture or forestry interests, or needs of a settlement which cannot be met within development boundaries.

Other DPD policies, including DPD Policy DP16, would support the reuse of existing buildings in the countryside, giving priority to commercial uses and DPD Policy DP12 is permissive of proposals that would promote tourism (subject to criteria).

The Adopted Core Strategy contains policies which encourage Tourism into the area (CS12) and promote rural diversification (CS13).

The NPPF (2012) encourages LPA’s to support a prosperous rural economy. Para 28:

Planning policies should support economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable new development. To promote a strong rural economy, local and neighbourhood plans should:

● support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, both through conversion of existing buildings and well designed new buildings;

● promote the development and diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural businesses;

● support sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments that benefit businesses in rural areas, communities and visitors, and which respect the character of the countryside. This should include supporting the provision and expansion of tourist and visitor facilities in appropriate locations where identified needs are not met by existing facilities in rural service centres; And

● promote the retention and development of local services and community facilities in villages, such as local shops, meeting places, sports venues, cultural buildings, public houses and places of worship

There are also government publications such as, Guidance: Diversifying a farming business (7 September 2012) which provides guidance on diversifying farming business.

The site lies outside the recognised development boundary limits where it is remote from other services and facilities with limited ability to access the site safely by foot due to the lack of footpaths and thus the location is considered to be unsuitable. However, without prejudice to the comments below on highway impacts, it is considered that on balance a tea room here could be considered as appropriate rural diversification in respect to the existing business, providing the applicant with an all year income stream and supporting local tourism. There is no evidence that the tea room would harm the vitality or viability of the village centre.

Officers therefore conclude that the principle of the use is acceptable, subject to other Development Plan policies criteria and NPPF (2012) objectives being met.

Design/Landscape/Visual impact:

The application site is located on raised land with the subject building being at the western side of the site, adjacent to Fathings Lane and opposite three detached properties. Due to the topography of the site in relation to surrounding land, coupled with banking, hedging and on-site tree planting, the subject building is largely obscured from public views at Totnes Road and Moorview to the north. The building is slightly visible at some vantage points from Farthing Lane due to gaps in hedging.

No external alterations are proposed. However, public visitation and associated traffic and may increase as a result of the development making the building and activity more obvious. It is considered that any harm could be mitigated by a landscape condition requiring the existing boundary hedge to be further enhanced.

Officers therefore conclude that there are no negative visual/landscape impacts associated with the proposal.

Neighbour Amenity:

There are residential properties located at Fathings Lane and Totnes Road, close to the existing building to be converted to a tea Room and the sites main road access. While traffic movements close to existing properties may increase disturbance, these properties are set back and already affected by existing background noise related to the roads proximity and therefore the impact is considered to be within reasonable limits in respect to the level of amenity expected in this area. Similarly, the proposed tea room building by virtue of its size (~83sqm) distance from existing properties and the existing/enhanced soft boundaries to the site, would not cause significant harm to residential amenity and is acceptable in the context of Policy DP3 of the Development Policies DPD

Highways/Access:

The development proposal is situated off a ‘C’ classification road between Marldon and Totnes.

The Highway Authority originally objected to the application for the following reasons:

1.The proposed development is likely to generate an increase in pedestrian traffic on a highway lacking adequate footways with consequent additional danger to all users of the road contrary to paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2. The location of the proposed development is likely to create the need for additional travel by private vehicles due to its location and the lack of suitable access to alternative means of travel contrary to paragraph 14, 29, 32 and 34 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Since being provided with evidence from the applicant that cites the outline approval for the Moorview development (in close proximity to this site), to which the Highway Authority raised no objection, as well as pointing out that Footpath 18 which is in close proximity to this site the Highway Authority has lifted their objection.

Highway Officers responded stating that Footpath 18 could be used for pedestrian traffic to enter and exit the application site, which therefore overcame both the objections based upon safety, and most fundamentally on sustainability.

It is considered that in the light of this stance by the Highway Authority, that refusal on either sustainability or safety grounds would be very difficult to substantiate on appeal.

Conclusion

The application is considered to be acceptable and is recommended for APPROVAL.

This application has been considered in accordance with Section 38 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and the National Planning Policy Framework (2012)

Planning Policy NPPF (2012)

South Hams LDF Core Strategy CS1 Location of Development CS7 Design CS9 Landscape and Historic Environment CS10 Nature Conservation

Development Policies DPD DP1 High Quality Design DP2 Landscape Character DP3 Residential Amenity DP7 Transport, Access & Parking DP15 Development in the Countryside

PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT

Case Officer: Mrs Clare Stewart Parish: Dartmouth

Application No: 15/1820/14/F

Agent/Applicant: Applicant: Mr Geoff Sellick Mr & Mrs R Webb Driftwood Quay Warfleet Dartmouth TQ6 9BZ

Site Address: 2 Coles Court, Dartmouth, TQ6 9BW

Development: Extension and change of use from B8 use to C3 to create residential dwelling and garage

Scale 1:1250

Reason item is being put before Committee

Ward Member is concerned about reasons for refusal

Recommendation: Refusal

Reasons for refusal:

1. The site is located in an area at risk from flooding, and it has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the development complies with the Sequential and Exception Tests. The proposal is therefore contrary to Section 10 National Planning Policy Framework.

2. It has not been demonstrated that the proposal would be safe from flood risk over its lifetime, because there would be internal flooding of the ground floor of the building and there is no safe access or exit route. The proposal is therefore contrary to Section 10 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Key issues for consideration:

Design, heritage, highways, residential amenity, flood risk.

Site Description:

The site is situated within the centre of Dartmouth, in full view of vehicles queuing for the Lower Ferry to Kingswear. The site is currently occupied by a single storey garage building, and is predominantly surrounded by residential properties.

The site is located within the Dartmouth Development Boundary, Conservation Area and the South Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. There are a number of listed buildings to the south of the site.

The Proposal:

Consent is sought for change of use and extension to provide a single residential unit. A parking area would be retained at ground floor with storage and a WC behind, with a first floor level created to provide a bedroom, bathroom and open plan kitchen/living space. A small terrace area would also be provided looking onto Coles Court. The first floor level of accommodation would be set back behind the terrace with a curved roof above. The garage doors would be constructed in timber and flanked with stone piers. External walls would be cedar clad under a grey single ply membrane roof, with high level windows on the side elevations.

Consultations:

 County Highways Authority – No objection

 Environment Agency – Objection – “it has not been demonstrated that the proposal will be safe over its lifetime because there will be internal flooding of the ground floor of the building and there is no safe access or exit route. As advised previously, if you have not already done so, your Authority will also need to be content that the flood risk Sequential Test (and the first part of the Exception Test if applicable) has been satisfied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Failure of the Sequential Test or either part of the Exception Test (if applicable) is sufficient justification to refuse a planning application.”

 Environmental Health Section – No objection subject to unsuspected contaminated land condition to be placed on any permission granted

 Dartmouth Town Council – Recommend approval

Representations:

No letters of representation from third parties have been received.

Relevant Planning History

 15/1695/83/4, Change of use from storage of boats to storage and light maintenance of boats, Coles Court, behind 24 South Embankment, Dartmouth – refusal

 15/0686/83/4, Change of use from storage of cars to storage and maintenance of boats or storage of boats only, Coles Court, Behind 24, South Embankment, Dartmouth – conditional approval

ANALYSIS

Principle of Development/Sustainability:

The site is located within the Dartmouth Development Boundary, and the principle of residential development is therefore acceptable subject to other material planning considerations as detailed below.

Design/Landscape/Heritage:

On balance the proposed design is considered acceptable. The existing building does not make a significant positive contribution to the local street scene. The design seeks to response to the constraints of the site particularly the proximity to neighbouring dwellings. The curved roof form would reduce the perceived mass of the building as extended, and the proposed external finishes (notably the timber garage door and cedar cladding) are considered appropriate given the location of the site within the Conservation Area. The first floor element of the building would be set back from the Coles Court Road frontage, and the provision of a terrace at this level would not be out of keeping with the character of the area given other examples within the locality. Overall the development would offer an improvement to the appearance of the existing building and would not detract from the appearance of the street scene or the setting of the wider Conservation Area. The proposal would not result in harm to the setting of nearby listed buildings given its scale and design and the existing arrangement. The scale and location of development proposed within the centre of Dartmouth mean that there would be no significant impact on the AONB.

Neighbour Amenity:

As noted in the submitted Design & Access Statement, the proposed curved roof form would likely have less of an impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties than a high pitched roof. Side windows would be positioned towards the rear of the site and would be high level to minimise overlooking. 1.8m high fencing is proposed on the sides of the terrace. A degree of overlooking between properties is part of the character of the central areas of Dartmouth. Whilst the proposed development would have some impact on views from neighbouring residential properties (which currently look out onto the roof of the existing garage), on balance it is considered that it would not result in significant harm to their amenities such that refusal could be justified on this basis. This would be subject to a condition that the privacy fencing to the terrace be installed prior to use.

Highways/Access:

Devon County Highways have raised no objection to the application, noting that residential use could result in a reduction in the number of vehicle movements from the current B8 use. The submitted plans indicate that the garage doors would be hung to open into the site, and a condition to ensure this would remain the case of recommended.

Flood Risk:

The site is located within Flood Zone 3, defined as having a high probability of flooding. A Flood Risk Assessment was duly submitted with the application.

Sequential/Exception Tests

The Environment Agency has advised that the Local Planning Authority needs to be satisfied that the flood risk Sequential Test has been met. The Sequential Test aims to steer new development to areas with the lowest probability of flooding (NPPF para.101). Residential development is classified as a ‘More Vulnerable’ use within the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG). Table 3 of the NPPG states that the Exception Test is therefore applicable as the site is within Flood Zone 3a. If following application of the Sequential Test, it is not possible for the development to be located in a area with a lower probability of flooding, the Exception Test can be passed if 1) it can be demonstrated that the development provides wider sustainable community benefits that outweigh the flood risk and 2) it can be demonstrated that the development will be safe throughout its lifetime.

The Flood Risk Assessment submitted with the application states that no suitable alternatives sites were found within a 2 mile radius of search. It is not stated why a 2 mile radius was chosen and not a wider search area. The identification of suitable sites for residential development is carried out a strategic level. The Council has a Site Allocations DPD for Dartmouth (adopted in 2011) which identifies sites allocated for development, including residential dwellings (200 in total up to 2016). This is considered to provide an appropriate level of housing for the Dartmouth area, and clearly provides locations for residential development outside areas of flood risk within the area of the application site. It is also likely that other windfall sites in locations outside the flood risk area will come forward within Dartmouth. Whilst it is acknowledged that the Council does not currently have a five year housing land supply, this does not provide sufficient justification for the creation of a single dwelling in a flood zone. Given the above considerations the application proposal does not satisfy the Sequential Test.

With regards to the first part of the Exception Test, it is considered that the provision of one residential unit does not provide a significant sustainable community benefit that outweighs the risk from flooding (particularly as there are sites allocated for housing within Dartmouth).

Failure of the Sequential Test or either part of the Exception Test is sufficient grounds to refuse a planning application.

Flood Risk

Notwithstanding additional information submitted during the life of the application, the Environment Agency has maintained an objection on the grounds that it has not been demonstrated that the proposal will be safe from flooding throughout its lifetime. Whilst the main living accommodation would be located at first floor level, the proposed water entry strategy would mean the occupants of the first floor would be unable to vacate the building. The Environment Agency is not satisfied that the information submitted demonstrates that a safe access/egress route can be provided, and the development should therefore be considered unsafe over its lifetime.

On the basis of the above it is considered that the proposal does not satisfy the second part of the Exception Test and further guidance contained within the NPPF.

Other Matters:

Dartmouth Town Council have recommended approval of the application. No letters of representation from third parties have been received.

The Planning Balance:

Whilst the site is located within the Dartmouth Development Boundary and is considered acceptable in design and conservation terms, objection has been raised by the Environment Agency in respect of flood risk. It is considered that the positive aspects of the proposal are outweighed by the flood risk issues in this case, and as such the application is recommended for refusal.

Planning Policy

National Planning Policy Framework In particular: Section 10. Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change Section 12. Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

South Hams LDF Core Strategy CS1 Location of Development CS7 Design CS9 Landscape and Historic Environment CS11 Climate Change

Development Policies DPD DP1 High Quality Design DP2 Landscape Character DP3 Residential Amenity DP6 Historic Environment DP7 Transport, Access & Parking

South Hams Local Plan SHDC 1 Development Boundaries

PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT

Case Officer: Mr David Kenyon Parish: Dartmouth

Application No: 15/0373/15/VAR

Agent/Applicant: Applicant: Andrew Field Dartmouth & District Indoor Pool Trust The Flavel Flavel Rise Dartmouth TQ6 9ND

Site Address: Dartmouth Community Leisure Centre, Wessex Way, Dartmouth, TQ6 0JL

Development: Variation of condition 2 (approved drawings) for planning approval 15/1697/14/DC (reduction in size of new build and update in roof profile)

Scale 1:1250

This map is reproduced from the Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (c) Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. South Hams District Council 100022628. 2015.Scale 1:1250 For internal reference only – no further copies to be made

Reason item is being put before Committee: This application is placed before the Development Control Committee as the land belongs to South Hams District Council.

Recommendation: Conditional Approval

Conditions: 1. Statutory time limit 2. Accord with plans 3. Pedestrian link between site and adjoining food store. 4. No external lighting without approval. 5. Hard and soft landscape submission and implementation. 6. No mechanical ventilation without prior approval. 7. Removal of permitted development for the erection of enclosures. 8. Unsuspected contamination. 9. No storage of external materials unless agreed with the LPA. 10. External materials. 11. Cycle racks. 12. Provision of parking prior to the building being brought into use. 13. Surface water testing. 14. Construction Management Plan

Key issues for consideration The site is located outside of the Dartmouth Development boundary as defined in the Local Plan and LDF inset maps. The key Development Plan policies seek to protect the character and appearance of the countryside, residential amenity, highway safety as well as protect and enhance landscaping and biodiversity. The proposed works would provide increased public Leisure facilities within the Dartmouth area and the location is sustainable given its proximity to the existing leisure centre and a park and ride to the west. There is also an extant planning permission (ref: 15/0982/13/DC) for the construction of a 25m, 4 lane pool which should be given significant weight as a fall back position. Also, an extant permission for a variation of the building size and design granted permission on 10th December 2014 (ref: 15/1697/14/DC). The proposals would provide an enhancement to the streetscape by providing a nicely detailed leisure building at the sites frontage. The development, subject to conditions, would not harm the character or appearance of the countryside, ecology, residential amenity or land drainage. The proposal complies with the relevant Development Plan Policies and National Planning Policy Framework (2012) guidance.

Financial Implications (Potential New Homes Bonus for major applications):N/A

Site Description: The application site relates to the Dartmouth Community Leisure Centre. The site is located off the A3122 roundabout on the western approach into Dartmouth, between Townstal Road and Wessex Way. On the side same of the road to the east is the Lidl Food Store and to the west is the Dartmouth Park & Ride Car Park. To the north across the A3122 (Townstal Road) lies a covered Reservoir, National Grid substation and residential properties. Opposite the site, to the north is the Sainsbury’s supermarket. The site is roughly an offset square with a northeast to southwest dimension of 60m and a northwest to south west dimension of 50m. The site slopes slightly to the north but overall is generally flat. The site is currently used as a car park area in association with the Leisure Centre, with the main building being located to the south west.

The Proposal: The application is a re-submission of approved application ref 15/1697/14/DC (which itself was a re-submission of approved application ref: 15/0982/13/DC) for the erection of a building to house a new 4-lane indoor public pool and learner pool including changing room accommodation, plus a new reception building which would link the existing sports centre building to the new pool building. The 2013 and 2014 applications have not been implemented but remain extant.

The current application seeks to change the approved design of the 2014 approved scheme. That approved design incorporates a curved roof over the main pool hall at a lower level from the existing Leisure Centre. The reception building consists of a single storey, mono-pitched roof structure which joins the proposed and existing buildings together. The changing area and plant room at either side of the main pool hall each have single storey mono-pitched roofs.

The proposed amendments to the 2014 approval, the subject of this current application, relate mainly to the amalgamation of the pool hall roof and that over the changing area into a single curving roof to replicate more closely the neighbouring leisure centre. Overall footprint and heights and internal layout of the proposed building remain similar to the 2014 approval, and parking provision for the existing sports centre and proposed swimming pool totals 39 spaces as per the previous approval.

A footpath link between Lidl’s supermarket and the site is to be retained.

Consultations:  County Highways Authority – views awaited and will be reported orally at the Committee meeting. (Note: no objection were raised in principle to the 2014 application in principle but DCC wished to have 8 cycle racks erected near the entrance of the building and requested a construction management statement to be prepared).

 Environmental Health Section - views awaited and will be reported orally at the Committee meeting. (Note: recommended conditions for unsuspected contamination condition in response to the 2014 application).

 Drainage Engineer – views awaited and will be reported orally at the Committee meeting. (Note: requested details for the discharge of pool water and recommended a pre- commencement surface water drainage condition in response to the 2014 application).

 Landscape Officer – views awaited and will be reported orally at the Committee meeting. (Note: in response to the 2014 application, satisfied with landscaping concept (previously submitted in 2013) and requested that conditions 4, 5 and 7 of application ref: 15/0982/13/DC be re-imposed).

 Police Architectural Liaison Officer – views awaited and will be reported orally at the Committee meeting. (Note: made comments and observations regarding crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour in response to the 2014 application)

 Dartmouth Town Council – views awaited and will be reported orally at the Committee meeting (Note: recommended approval in response to the 2014 application).

Representations: This application has been advertised in the local newspaper and by means of displaying site notices as per the Council’s usual practise. The advertisement expiry date is 17th March 2015, a day before the Committee meeting. Any representations received from third parties will be reported orally at the Committee meeting.

For information, in response to the 2014 application, the Committee is reminded that one letter of representation was received on behalf of Millward Homes. Application ref: 51/1710/14/O requires a cycle path and footpath provision to Townstal that would include an upgrade of the footway that currently fronts the leisure centre and Lidl to a shared footway/cycleway. It was requested that sufficient width be retained at the front of the site to enable an upgrade of the existing footway to a 3m shared footway/cycle.

At the time, in response, officers advised that the north west boundary to Townstal Road is currently defined by hedging. A landscape condition could ensure the hedging is reduced/re- planted to facilitate the incorporation of the footway/cycle route without harming the visual amenities of the area. There would be no conflict with built development and the location of the proposed footway/cycle footpath. This remains the case with this current application proposal

Relevant Planning History 15/0531/03/DC - erection of community sports centre – approved 28/05/03

15/1547/03/DC – erection of community sports centre - approved 09/09/03

15/1884/09/O – outline application for construction of heated indoor swimming pool with associated works, car parking and landscaping – approved 10/12/09

15/0764/11/PREMIN – pre-application enquiry for construction of a swimming pool with learner pool, changing facilities, car parking and landscaping – officer support provided (10/04/13) without prejudice to any further decision that the Development Management Committee will take.

15/0982/13/DC - Construction of new 25m 4 lane indoor pool, learner pool and changing facilities with associated additional car parking and landscaping (Regulation 3 LPA own development) – Conditional approval – 27/06/2013. Not implemented but remains extant.

15/1697/14/DC - Construction of new 25m 4 lane indoor pool, learner pool and changing facilities with associated additional car parking and landscaping (resubmission of 15/0982/13/DC) (Regulation 3 LPA own development) – Conditional approval – 10/12/2014. Not implemented but remains extant.

ANALYSIS Principle of Development/Sustainability: Background History In 2003 consent was granted for the existing sports centre building (ref: 15/1547/03/DC) and in 2009 outline consent (ref: 15/1884/09/O) for an indoor swimming pool was approved. In 2013 and 2014 full planning permissions were granted for the construction of new 25m 4 lane indoor pool, learner pool and reception and these permissions remains extant. The principle of a pool building is thus considered to be acceptable.

Planning Policy The presence of key local facilities can make an important contribution to the quality of local life through the provision of accessible services.

Policy DP9: Local Facilities states that the provision of new local facilities will be permitted, where they make a contribution to meeting the economic and/or social needs of the community.

The submitted form states that 3 full time and 2 part time jobs will be created. In addition historically the town has had a desire for a heated indoor swimming pool.

The proposals will contribute economically and socially to the needs of the community and this is given great weight in the determination of the application proposals.

Design/Landscape Considerations The design of the pool building and link building complement the existing sports centre building. The proposed building is broken down into distinct elements being the curved pool and changing area element, mono-pitched single storey element and reception area which connects the existing and proposed main building masses.

The proposed pool and changing area element has a subtle curved roof to reflect the design of the existing sports centre building. The fenestration is full height at ground floor with vertical cladding and smaller windows at first floor, to achieve good levels of natural light internally. The elevations to Townstal Road include a mono-pitch single storey element, being rendered under a metal roof.

The building due to its scale will be prominent as people enter and leave the town. As such the design needs to be of a good standard. It is considered that the design is of such a standard being modern in appearance and subordinate in scale to the existing building. The appearance with the curved roof is an element which has been used successfully within the surrounding area.

The site lies on the edge of Dartmouth and is prominent in the entrance to the Town. In terms of the wider landscape setting, the site is surrounding by buildings, and as such there will be a neutral impact upon the landscape.

In response to the 2014 application, the Councils’ Landscape Officer was content with the concept, but suggested a more detailed landscape plan should be conditioned in order to deal with the landscaping more comprehensively. Such a condition was attached to the December 2014 consent. This also enabled space to be retained at the Townstal Road frontage for the provision of a cycle path/footway. There is no reason to believe that his recommendation in response to this current application will be any different, thus a similar condition is recommended to be attached to any consent for this current proposal.

The proposal is considered to accord with Policies CS7 and CS9 of the LDF Core Strategy and Policies DP1 and DP2 of the LDF Development Plan Policies document.

Neighbour Impact The closest neighbouring properties are located on the other side of the main road in a north eastern direction. Due to the distance, it is suggested that there will be no unacceptable impact upon residential amenity. The proposal therefore accords with Policy DP3 of the LDF Development Plan Policies document.

Highway Matters In response to the 2014 application, the Highway Authority raised no objection in principle to that application. It was requested that an eight Sheffield Cycle Racks be installed in a safe viable location near the entrance plus a construction management plan are required by condition. These requests were reflected by conditions attached to the 2014 consent. There is no reason to believe that the Highway Authority’s recommendation in response to this current application will be any different, thus similar conditions are recommended to be attached to any consent for this current proposal.

In addition, as was the case with the 2014 consent, a condition is suggested to retain the provision of a pedestrian link through the application site which links the Food Store (to the east) with the exiting footpath to the west of the site.

The proposal therefore is considered to accord with Policy DP7 of the LDF Development Plan Policies document.

Drainage The concept plan for the proposed drainage strategy will not form part of the approved plans. Previously, the Drainage Engineer has suggested that the drainage details need further consideration and a pre-commencement condition for a full drainage design was attached to the 2014 consent. A similar condition is recommended to be attached to any consent for this current proposal

Environmental Health In response to the previous 2013 and 2014 applications, the Environmental Health section suggested conditions relating to unsuspected contamination and to control details for any air conditioning and mechanical ventilation systems. Such conditions were attached to the previous consents and are similarly recommended as part of any consent for this current proposal.

Obligation under the Crime and Disorder Act, Community Safety and Residential Amenity

Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1988 requires development proposals to adequately address community safety issues.

In response to the 2014 application, the Police Architectural Liaison Officer offered comments and observations regarding crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour. Some of those concerns related to external layout, location of the cycle shelter and landscaping which were addressed by way of condition. Other comments related to internal management which was not directly a planning issue and would be a matter addressed by the applicant (i.e. locker security). Similar circumstances relate to this current proposal.

There is no evidence to substantiate that a well managed facility would harm the amenity of surrounding land users or residents.

Conclusion For the above reasons this application is recommend for conditional approval.

This application has been considered in accordance with Section 38 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and National Policy contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

Planning Policy

National Planning Policy Framework (2012)

South Hams LDF Core Strategy CS7 Design CS9 Landscape and Historic Environment

Development Policies DPD DP1 High Quality Design DP2 Landscape Character DP3 Residential Amenity DP7 Transport, Access & Parking DP9: Local Facilities

SOUTH HAMS DISTRICT COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE Wednesday, 18 March, 2015 PLANNING APPEALS UPDATE (06-Feb-2015 to 06-Mar-2015)

APPLICATION NO : 33_46/2577/14/VAR APPELLANT : C G Fry & Son Ltd PROPOSAL : Retrospective Variation of condition 2 (to amend approved plans) of approval 33_46/1890/11/F for mixed tenure residential development comprising 10 open market and 7 affordable dwellings associated landscaping, access and other works. LOCATION : Land adjacent to Alston Nursery, Alston Gate, Malborough, TQ7 3BT APPEAL STATUS : APPEAL LODGED APPEAL START DATE : 9-Feb-2015 APPEAL DECISION : APPEAL DECISION DATE :

APPLICATION NO : 28/1585/14/F APPELLANT : Mr B Lowe PROPOSAL : Conversion of outbuilding to create residential dwelling and vehicular access LOCATION : Land to rear of 124 Fore Street, Kingsbridge, TQ7 1AW APPEAL STATUS : APPEAL LODGED APPEAL START DATE : 10-Feb-2015 APPEAL DECISION : APPEAL DECISION DATE :

APPLICATION NO : 21/1095/14/AGDPA APPELLANT : Mr R May PROPOSAL : Prior approval of proposed change of use of agricultural building to dwelling house and building operations necessary to convert the building LOCATION : Dwelling site at SX619554, Heavilands Barn, Hunsden Road, Ivybridge PL21 9JR APPEAL STATUS : APPEAL DECIDED APPEAL START DATE : 23-Jul-2014 APPEAL DECISION : Dismissed - (REFUSAL) APPEAL DECISION DATE : 16-Feb-2015

APPLICATION NO : 13/1794/14/AGDPA APPELLANT : Mr M Rutter PROPOSAL : Prior approval of proposed change of use of agricultural building to dwelling house LOCATION : Lambing Barn, Allaleigh, Totnes, TQ9 7DN APPEAL STATUS : APPEAL LODGED APPEAL START DATE : 18-Feb-2015 APPEAL DECISION : APPEAL DECISION DATE :

APPLICATION NO : 57/3054/13/O APPELLANT : Laurie De Mel Properties PROPOSAL : Outline Application (with all matters reserved except appearance and landscaping) for redevelopment of former Woodpecker Inn site to provide 20 low cost live/work units, office hub and associated parking. LOCATION : Development site at SX6935 5891, former Woodpecker Site, South Brent APPEAL STATUS : APPEAL DECIDED APPEAL START DATE : 16-Jul-2014 APPEAL DECISION : Dismissed - (REFUSAL) APPEAL DECISION DATE : 24-Feb-2015 SOUTH HAMS DISTRICT COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE Wednesday, 18 March, 2015 PLANNING APPEALS UPDATE (06-Feb-2015 to 06-Mar-2015)

APPLICATION NO : 15/2960/14/F APPELLANT : Kingscliffe Property Co. PROPOSAL : Householder application for replacement of existing sash windows with PVC replacement sash windows to match existing in design & appearance LOCATION : 2 Smith Street, Dartmouth, TQ6 9QR APPEAL STATUS : APPEAL LODGED APPEAL START DATE : 3-Mar-2015 APPEAL DECISION : APPEAL DECISION DATE : Dev Management 18.03.15

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE HELD AT FOLLATON HOUSE, TOTNES, ON WEDNESDAY, 18 MARCH 2015

Members in attendance * Denotes attendance Ø Denotes apology for absence Ø Cllr H D Bastone * Cllr T R Holway * Cllr J Brazil * Cllr J A Pearce * Cllr P K Cuthbert * Cllr J T Pennington * Cllr R J Foss (Vice Chairman) (am only) * Cllr J W Squire * Cllr P W Hitchins * Cllr R C Steer (Chairman) * Cllr J M Hodgson * Cllr S A E Wright

Other Members in attendance Cllrs Baldry, Cane, Coulson, Hicks and Tucker

Item No Minute Ref or App. No. Officers in attendance and below refers participating All agenda Development Manager, Planning Officers, items Solicitor and Member Services Manager 15/1820/14/F Environment Agency Officers

DM.61/14 MINUTES

The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 18 February 2015 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

DM.62/14 URGENT BUSINESS

The Chairman reminded Members that applications 11/0042/14/F, 11/0043/14/F, 11/0044/14/F and 11/0045/14/F, which all related to the erection of agricultural buildings at SX 707 456, Bantham Cross, Churchstow, Kingsbridge, had been withdrawn from this agenda and would be presented to a later meeting of the Development Management Committee.

DM.63/14 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Members and officers were invited to declare any interests in the items of business to be considered but none were made.

DM.64/14 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

The Chairman proceeded to announce that the following members of the public had registered their wish to speak at the meeting:-

- 69 - Dev Management 18.03.15

 37/2600/14/F: Supporter – Ms Laura Wilkinson: Erection of dwelling with ancillary studio and garage to replace existing garage/ancillary living accommodation – The cottage, 97 Court Road, Newton Ferrers;  07/2599/14/F: Supporter – Mr Alan Staddon: Part retrospective change of use of existing agricultural building for the storage and repair and maintenance of agricultural and commercial vehicles. Erection of extension for the storage of vehicles and materials and the creation of a compound to accommodate the parking of vehicles in association with the use of the existing and proposed buildings – Land adj. to Wembury Road, Polston Park, Plymstock, Plymouth;  56/0056/15/CU: Objector – Mrs Janet Forester: Supporter – Mr David Birch: Change of use from retail (A1) to café (A3) – 74 Fore Street, Totnes;  34/2590/14/F: Supporter – Mrs Pam Wilcox: Conversion of agricultural building to use as tea room (A3 class) – Marldon Christmas Tree Farm, The North Pole, Westerland, Marldon, Paignton;  15/1820/14/F: Supporter – Mr Richard Webb: Extension and change of use from B8 use to C3 to create residential dwelling and garage – 2 Coles Court, Dartmouth.

DM.65/14 SITE INSPECTIONS

Report of the Site Inspection Group held on 9 March 2015 i) 37/2600/14/F: Erection of dwelling with ancillary studio and garage to replace existing garage/ancillary living accommodation – The Cottage, 97 Court Road, Newton Ferrers.

The Case Officer advised the Committee that there were no further updates. The neighbouring Ward Member asked Members to consider that the building would take place on green space within the AONB, would be visible from the other side of the estuary and from the water, would be overbearing and unsuitable and the proposed building up against the footpath would convert the footpath into an alley.

It was then PROPOSED, SECONDED and on being put to the vote declared CARRIED:

“That application 37/2600/14/F be conditionally approved”

ii) 07/2599/14/F: Part retrospective change of use of existing agricultural building for the storage and repair and maintenance of agricultural and commercial vehicles. Erection of extension for the storage of vehicles and materials and the creation of a compound to accommodate the parking of vehicles in association with these of the existing and proposed buildings – Land adj. to Wembury Road, Polston Park, Plymstock.

The Case Officer introduced the application and advised that 11 late letters of support had been received. She went on to outline the detail of the application and used a number of photographs and plans of the site. The enforcement history on the wider site was mentioned. - 70 - Dev Management 18.03.15

The issues to consider were the principle of development, the visual impact and the highway safety. Permission for the agricultural building had been granted in 2007, there was no justification for a move away from agricultural use and no evidence that alternative sites had been considered. In terms of visual impact, there were limited public views and the Highways Authority had objected on the grounds of there being insufficient visibility and it being an unsustainable location. The Case Officer responded to a number of specific queries and then concluded her presentation by confirming that the application was recommended for refusal.

One local Ward Member reminded the Committee that the groundworks business which operated from this site employed 8 local people. In terms of concerns about the access, it would be possible to move it further along the lane to a position of land that was within the same ownership. The site would be tidied up as part of the application and screening could be incorporated. He asked that the Committee support the application.

The other local Ward Member was not unsympathetic to the application but he had different views in respect of the access and supported the Highways Officer view that visibility was an issue and he felt the access on to the road could be dangerous. He asked the Committee to consider if the application should override the planning policies that applied in this case.

One Member quoted a number of policies that supported the application and he proposed conditional approval of the application. The Development Manager gave further advice in respect of the activities on site and whether the repair and storage activities would prejudice the agricultural activity would need to be considered.

A number of Members were minded to support the application, particularly as the application included tidying up of the site. There was a wish to support enterprises. However, there were also concerns about highway safety and introducing a commercial operation into an agricultural area.

Members discussed the matter of disposal of waste and the Case Officer confirmed that statutory regulations would be used to monitor this activity. Members also discussed whether to allow commercial vehicle activity or restrict to agricultural activity. The phrasing of the application was not specific enough for Members to be clear about what should be approved.

Following a lengthy discussion on each of the recommended reasons for refusal, it was then PROPOSED, SECONDED and on being put to the vote declared LOST:

“That application 07/2599/14/F be conditionally approved”

It was then PROPOSED, SECONDED, but subsequently withdrawn: - 71 - Dev Management 18.03.15

“That application 07/2599/14/F be refused, only in respect of recommendation 2 of the presented report that ‘The proposed development would likely result in an increase in the volume of traffic entering and leaving the Class C County Road through an access which does not provide adequate visibility from and of emerging vehicles, contrary to paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework’”

It was then PROPOSED, SECONDED and on being put to the vote declared CARRIED:

“That application 07/2599/14/F be refused in line with the officer recommendation as set out in the presented agenda report”

DM.66/14 PLANNING APPLICATIONS

The Planning Case Officers submitted details of the planning applications as presented in the agenda papers.

During discussion of the planning applications, the following motions (which were in contradiction to the planning officer recommendation in the published agenda report), were PROPOSED and SECONDED and on being put to the vote were either CARRIED or LOST:-

a) In respect of application 15/1820/14/F: Extension and change of use from B8 use to C3 to create residential dwelling and garage – 2 Coles Court, Dartmouth, the Case Officer began the presentation with a map and photographs of the site. The main issue to consider was the flood risk, and a plan of flood zones was produced. In addition, appropriate paragraphs of the NPPF were quoted. The Case Officer concluded that the application should be refused in line with the recommendations contained within the presented report.

The Environment Agency representative outlined the statistics that supported their recommendation for refusal of the application and advised Members that there was a responsibility to take future sea level rises into account when profiling flood risk areas.

A local Ward Member asked that the Committee apply common sense as this particular part of Dartmouth had never previously flooded and the applicant was mitigating the risk by ensuring the living accommodation was on the first floor. He asked that the Committee support the application.

During discussion, some Members felt that the application would improve the site and the design features to mitigate the flood risk were imaginative. Also, any flood would be tidal so there would not be lasting damage and the property was not in an isolated position. However other Members were concerned at potentially voting against the advice of the Environment Agency, a statutory consultee. - 72 - Dev Management 18.03.15

The Development Manager advised that if Members felt that the application provided benefits to the wider community by improving the look of the site within a Conservation Area, and they were minded to approve the application, then conditions could be applied such as the requirement for a site specific flood risk assessment.

Members then concluded the debate by agreeing that authority to approve the application should be delegated to the Development Manager in consultation with the Chairman of the Committee, providing satisfactory confirmation was received from the Emergency Planners that the application was acceptable. The reasons for approval included the benefits to community interest whilst recognising the flood risk.

The following motion was then PROPOSED and SECONDED and on being put to the vote declared CARRIED:-

“That conditional approval of application 15/1820/14/F be delegated to the Development Manager in consultation with the Chairman of Development Management Committee pending further consultation with the Emergency Planners and Environment Agency”.

Conditions: 1. Time Limit 2. Accord with Plans 3. Materials schedule 4. Exclude Permitted Development Rights 5. No living accommodation on ground floor 6. Flood risk mitigation 7. Privacy screen to terrace

DM.67/14 PLANNING APPEALS UPDATE

The Development Manager updated Members on the detail of the recently dismissed appeals. Members also received an update on a recent High Court decision to refuse permission for a Judicial Review of a previous Committee decision to grant planning permission. The Solicitor concluded that the Council was receiving more challenges to decisions but they would be met with a robust defence where possible.

(Meeting commenced at 10.00 am and concluded at 4:05 pm)

______Chairman

- 73 - Dev Management 18.03.15

Voting Analysis for Planning Applications – DM Committee 18 March 2015 Application No: Site Address Vote Councillors who Voted Councillors who Voted No Councillors who Absent Yes Voted Abstain 37/2600/14/F The Cottage, 97 Court To Approve Cllrs Holway, Wright, Pearce, Cllr Hodgson (1) Cllrs Brazil, Cllr Bastone (1) Road, Newton Ferrers Hitchins, Pennington, Squire, Steer, Cuthbert (2) Foss (8) 07/2599/14/F Land adj. Wembury Road, To Approve Cllrs Hitchins, Pennington (2) Cllrs Hodgson, Brazil, Holway, (0) Cllr Bastone (1) Polston Park, Plymouth Wright, Cuthbert, Pearce, Squire, Steer, Foss (9) 07/2599/14/F Land adj. Wembury Road, To Refuse Cllrs Hodgson, Brazil, Holway, Cllr Pennington (1) Cllr Hitchins Cllr Bastone (1) Polston Park, Plymouth Wright, Cuthbert, Pearce, Squire, (1) Steer, Foss (9) 56/0056/15/CU 74 Fore Street, Totnes To Approve Cllrs Brazil, Wright, Cuthbert, Cllr Hodgson (1) (0) Cllrs Bastone, Pearce, Hitchins, Pennington, Foss (2) Squire, Steer, Holway (9) 58/3121/14/RM Dev site at SX528492, To Approve Cllrs Hodgson, Brazil, Wright, Cllr Squire (1) Cllr Cllrs Bastone, Leyford Close, Wembury Cuthbert, Pearce, Hitchins, Steer, Pennington Foss (2) Holway (8) (1) 34/2590/14/F Marldon Christmas Tree Site Cllrs Hodgson, Pennington, Squire Cllrs Brazil, Holway, Wright, Cllrs Cllrs Bastone, Farm, The North Pole, Inspection (3) Cuthbert, Pearce (5) Hitchins, Foss (2) Westerland, Marldon Steer (2) 34/2590/14/F Marldon Christmas Tree To Approve Cllrs Brazil, Holway, Wright, Cllrs Pennington, Squire (2) Cllr Hitchins (1) Cllrs Bastone, Farm, The North Pole, Cuthbert, Pearce, Steer, Hodgson Foss (2) Westerland, Marldon (7) 15/1820/14/F 2 Coles Court, Dartmouth To Approve Cllrs Wright, Cuthbert, Pennington, (0) Cllrs Brazil, Cllrs Bastone, Squire, Hodgson, Holway, Pearce, Steer (2) Foss (2) Hitchins (8)

- 74 - Dev Management 18.03.15

15/0373/15/VAR Dartmouth Community To Approve Cllrs Hitchins, Pearce, Holway, (0) (0) Cllrs Bastone, Leisure Centre, Wessex Brazil, Hodgson, Steer, Wright, Foss (2) Way, Dartmouth Cuthbert, Pennington, Squire (10)

- 75 - Dev Management 18.03.15

APPENDIX A

56/0056/15/CU

Change of use from retail (A1) to cafe (A3) - 74 Fore Street, Totnes TQ9 5RU - Mr D Birch

Totnes Town Council Town Council’s Views – Objection on the grounds that the premises should remain as retail site, that there are already 7 or 8 other cafes in close proximity and in a small area, and that in order to support the vitality of the town it was important to retain a mix of tenure.

Also, request that SHDC provides guidelines on a reasonable mix of A1/A3 density.

Officer Update – None

Recommendation – Conditional approval

Recommended Conditions 1. Time limit 2. Accord with plans

Committee Decision – Conditional approval

58/3121/14/RM Approval of reserved matters of details on appearance, landscaping, layout and scale in relation to plots 16 and 37 (revised proposal following reserved matters approval 58/1267/14/RM) - Development Site at SX528492, Leyford Close, Wembury - Taylor Wimpey Exeter

Wembury Parish Council Parish Council’s Views – Objection – The changes to the housing type does not appear to change the overlooking and overbearing nature of the new dwelling to the existing adjacent bungalows. There appears to be some confusion about this application. It was understood that additional drawings would be issued as the original ones issued appear inaccurate.

Officer Update – Members were advised orally that one additional letter of representation had been received Recommendation – Conditional approval

Recommended Conditions  Reiteration of outline and previous reserved matters conditions  In accordance with plans  Samples of materials.

Committee Decision – Conditional approval

76 Dev Management 18.03.15

34/2590/14/F Conversion of timber office and amenity/WC building to use as tea room (A3 class) - Marldon Christmas Tree Farm The North Pole, Westerland, Marldon, Paignton, TQ3 1RR - Ms S Lynes

Marldon Parish Council

Parish Council Views – No objection.

Officer Update - Members were advised orally that SHDC drainage had commented raising no objections subject to conditions. Members were also advised that recommended condition 5 was an error, as the application was for year-round use. Recommendation was made to remove that condition.

Recommendation – Conditional approval

Recommended Conditions 1. Time Limit for commencement 2. In accordance with plans 3. Details of sewage disposal to be submitted 4. Percolation tests and trial holes to be agreed 5. The use shall not be open for customers outside of the months of November or December.

Committee Decision – Conditional Approval without condition 5

15/1820/14/F Extension and change of use from B8 use to C3 to create residential dwelling and garage - 2 Coles Court, Dartmouth, TQ6 9BW - Mr & Mrs R Webb

Dartmouth Town Council

Town Council Views – Recommend approval

Officer Update - None

Recommendation – Refusal

Committee Decision – Conditional approval delegated to Development Manager pending further consultation with Emergency Planners and Environment Agency.

Conditions 8. Time Limit 9. Accord with Plans 10. Materials schedule 11. Exclude Permitted Development Rights 12. No living accommodation on ground floor 13. Flood risk mitigation 14. Privacy screen to terrace

77 Dev Management 18.03.15

15/0373/15/VAR Variation of condition 2 (approved drawings) for planning approval 15/1697/14/DC (reduction in size of new build and update in roof profile) - Dartmouth Community Leisure Centre, Wessex Way, Dartmouth, TQ6 0JL - Dartmouth & District Indoor Pool Trust

Dartmouth Town Council

Town Council Views – views awaited and will be reported orally at the Committee meeting (Note: recommended approval in response to the 2014 application).

Officer Update - Town Council recommend approval. No objection from other consultees.

Recommendation – Conditional Approval

Recommended Conditions 1. Statutory time limit 2. Accord with plans 3. Pedestrian link between site and adjoining food store. 4. No external lighting without approval. 5. Hard and soft landscape submission and implementation. 6. No mechanical ventilation without prior approval. 7. Removal of permitted development for the erection of enclosures. 8. Unsuspected contamination. 9. No storage of external materials unless agreed with the LPA. 10. External materials. 11. Cycle racks. 12. Provision of parking prior to the building being brought into use. 13. Surface water testing. 14. Construction Management Plan

Committee Decision – Conditional Approval