(Public Pack)Agenda Document for South Hams Development

SOUTH HAMS DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE - WEDNESDAY, 5TH DECEMBER, 2012

Agenda, Reports and Minutes for the meeting

Agenda No Item

1. Agenda Letter (Pages 1 - 4)

2. Reports

Reports to DM:

a) SI Report - 03_56/1596/12/O (Pages 5 - 8)

Resubmission of outline planning application 03_56/0447/12/O for outline application for mixed use development comprising about 100 dwellings. Up to 5350 sq m of office/light industrial floor space. Up to 60 units of extra care accommodation and associated communal facilities. Up to 350 sqm of floor space for community use. Provision of public open space. Creation of new vehicular and pedestrian/cycle accesses and associated works. Development site between Steamer Quay and Weston Lane, Bridgetown, Totnes

b) 30/2337/12/F (Pages 9 - 24)

Retrospective application for Rail Control Centre - Dartmouth Steam Railway & River Boat Co, Kingswear Signal Box, The Square, Kingswear, Dartmouth, TQ6 0AA.

c) 30/2340/12/LB (Pages 25 - 34)

Retrospective listed building consent application for relocation of railway tracks and bufferstop to accommodate a new Rail Control Centre at Kingswear Station d) 15/1975/12/F (Pages 35 - 46)

Resubmission of planning application 15/0210/12/F for proposed erection of new dwelling - Land adjacent to 14 Broadstone, Dartmouth, TQ6 9NR

e) 37/1864/12/F (Pages 47 - 58)

Retrospective change of use of land to camping and caravan site - Briar Hill Farm, Court Road, Newton Ferrers, Plymouth, PL8 1AR

f) 56/2037/12/F (Pages 59 - 66)

Change of use of ground floor from retail (Class A1) to a mixed use of retail and cafe (Class A3), installation of cooking fume extraction equipment to the rear of the property, the use of the forecourt and rear yard for seating, the insertion of a customer toilet in the rear extension and landscaping of the forecourt – 47 Fore Street, Totnes, TQ9 5NJ

g) 56/2038/12/LB (Pages 67 - 72)

Listed building consent to facilitate a change of use of the ground floor from retail to a mixed use of retail/cafe/takeaway. The works comprise installation of kitchen extraction equipment, reinstatement of an internal and external door, lowering of front boundary wall, insertion of replacement fireplace, re-flooring to provide wooden floorboards – 47 Fore Street, Totnes, TQ9 5NJ

h) 15/2145/12/F (Pages 73 - 76)

Full application for replacement of asbestos roof with natural slate roof - 23,24 & 25 Island House, Lower Street. Dartmouth, Devon. TQ6 9AN

i) 15/2146/12/LB (Pages 77 - 80)

Listed Building Consent for replacement of asbestos roof with natural slate roof - 23,24 & 25 Island House, Lower Street. Dartmouth, Devon. TQ6 9AN

3. Minutes (Pages 81 - 92)

2 To: Chairman & Members of the Development Management Committee Our Ref: CS/KT (Cllrs Barber, Bastone, Brazil, Bruce-Spencer, Cane, Carter, Cooper, Coulson, Cuthbert, Foss, Hannaford, Hawkins, Hicks, Hitchins, Hodgson, Holway, May, Pennington, Rowe, Smerdon, Squire, Steer, Vint, Westacott MBE and Wright).

27 November 2012 Dear Councillor

A meeting of the Development Management Committee will be held in the Council Chamber, Follaton House, Plymouth Road, Totnes, on Wednesday, 5 December 2012 at 10.00 am 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 7 November 2012 (pages 1 to 11);

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:- (a) to appoint the Group for site inspections to be held on Monday, 17 December 2012 (page 12 only); (b) to receive a report of the site inspection held on Monday 19 November 2012

(i) 03_56/1596/12/O Resubmission of outline planning application 03_56/0447/12/O for outline application for mixed use development comprising about 100 dwellings. Up to 5350 sq m of office/light industrial floor space. Up to 60 units of extra care accommodation and associated communal facilities. Up to 350 sqm of floor space for community use. Provision of public open space. Creation of new vehicular and pedestrian/cycle accesses and associated works. Development site between Steamer Quay and Weston Lane, Bridgetown, Totnes (pages 13 to 55);

7a. Planning Applications – Application Numbers: 30/2337/12/F – Kingswear Signal Box, The Square, Kingswear, Dartmouth (pages 56 to 72); 30/2340/12/LB – Kingswear Station. Members are requested to raise any queries they may have with the respective case officer before the meeting (pages 73 to 82).

AGENDA PART TWO – SCHEDULED TO START AT 2.00PM

7b. Planning Applications - Members are requested to raise any queries they may have with the respective case officer before the meeting (pages 83 to 127).

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 Members of the public shall be permitted to record the proceedings of any meeting in sound and pictures and broadcast them whether by electronic means or otherwise, subject to receiving the prior approval of the Chairman of the Committee, in consultation with the Chief Executive (or Monitoring Officer in his/her absence)

********************************** 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 If you or someone you know would like this publication in a different format, such as large print or a language other than English, please call Darryl White on 01803 861247 or by email at: [email protected] The Council Chamber doors will be opened to the public at 9.45 am

ITEM ITEM

REPORT OF THE MEETING OF THE SITE INSPECTION GROUP HELD ON THE AFTERNOON OF MONDAY 19 NOVEMBER 2012

(i) 03_56/1596/12/O – Resubmission of outline planning application 03_56/0447/12/O for outline application for mixed use development comprising about 100 dwellings. Up to 5350 sq m of office/light industrial floor space. Up to 60 units of extra care accommodation and associated communal facilities. Up to 350 sq m of floor space for community use. Provision of public open space. Creation of new vehicular and pedestrian/cycle accesses and associated works. Development site between Steamer Quay and Weston Lane, Bridgetown, Totnes

Present : Cllr D W May (Chairman) Cllr A D Barber Cllr H D Bastone Cllr R J Carter Cllr P K Cuthbert Cllr R J Foss Cllr M Hannaford Cllr M J Hicks Cllr J M Hodgson Cllr T R Holway Cllr J T Pennington Cllr R Rowe Cllr P C Smerdon Cllr R C Steer Cllr R J Vint Cllr J A Westacott Cllr S A E Wright

Also in attendance:

Cllr A S Gorman – South Hams District Council Cllr Jill Tomalin – Totnes Town Council Council A Berry Pomeroy Parish Council Representative Dave Kenyon – Major Projects Manager Ross Kennerley – Natural Environment and Recreation Manager James Kershaw – Environmental Health Officer Graham Swiss – Strategic Planning Officer Brian Hensley – Highways Development Manager, Devon County Council Matthew Barnes – County Highways Officer, Devon County Council Kathryn Trant – Member Services Manager Anna Gribble – Member Services Admin Assistant

The Chairman began the site inspection by introducing himself and the Members, and explaining the site inspection procedure to the members of the public.

Prior to the case officer presentation, the Chairman agreed with a request for the representative from Totnes Town Council to read out the following statement:

Just to reiterate - we are absolutely not opposed to development of this site. We recognise the need for Totnes to take its share of housing development on this site, as per the DPD. What we oppose is this particular proposal on four grounds: • lack of affordable housing • no acceptable Masterplan • access issues, and • the affect on the landscape Obviously, today, you will want to look at the access and landscape issues.

Firstly, Access You will see that • Bridgetown is a mass of small residential roads with parked cars everywhere • it is built on a steep hill - the reality is that families, elderly residents, MOST residents will use their cars most of the time. • We need multiple access points to the site - firstly so that traffic can disperse across the residential roads, and secondly to integrate the site properly into the larger Bridgetown community.

The proposed road • starts at the top of the hill, requiring residents to travel up through the site, and down again through Bridgetown. This is simply not common sense. • it extends across two fields, outside the DPD site, & cuts across a green lane • it has a seriously adverse affect on immediate neighbours, as parts of it will be at first floor window height. • So it will be prominent in the landscape, particularly when lit at night. • and finally, it is a cul de sac, effectively isolating the development from the rest of the community.

So Why is the road there? Many suspect that it is to make future development possible - if so, imagine the impact if still more residents ultimately use that road and junction too!

Were there flaws in the DPD? • The DPD included Parker's Barn for access, and says that access via Culverdale will be needed too. We have been told that it isn't clear when Parker's Barn will become available - so we must ask why is it that staff there been told they must leave in January 2013, just two months away? • The new traffic report says access via Parker's Barn should be encouraged. We need Devon County Council to honour their original position and start discussions with Linden. Local public land should be available for local public good. • Finally, the developers say that the Care home can be evacuated by ambulances using the path down the hill in the event of flooding. If so, logic says a public road can be built in much the same way. This would be transformative for Bridgetown residents.

These are essentially Planning issues, not Highways concerns. We simply want the site to be properly integrated into the existing community, and to minimise its adverse impacts on its immediate neighbours and the wider landscape. Can I please ask that you go back to read the SHDC Statement of Case prepared for the Appeal against non determination, where you will see exactly what we mean, eloquently expressed, and in greater detail?

Moving on to the landscape.... you will see today and from the photos you have been sent, just how prominent this site is, how the town nestles in the hills around, and how much the proposals start to compromise that at the top of the site. In particular, you will see just how inappropriate the road would be right on the edge of Bridgetown, forming an unsightly barrier between town and countryside.

We are confident you will see why we have consistently called for building to be confined to the lower part of the site! Central Totnes is a good example of low rise, relatively high density development, and higher density levels can be achieved successfully here too.

BUT, if you approve the current proposal, this cannot happen. A single access road at the top of the site will result in development trailing up the hill and damaging the views from the Castle, from Sharpham and from all over town. This is why we feel that layout issues have to be considered now.

So, to sum up. Following this visit, we hope you will ask yourself three questions..... 1. Do you agree with us that there is no merit to the proposed new road? 2. The DPD was supported by local people, yourselves and the Inspector on the basis of multiple access points via Parkers Barn, Culverdale and Steamer Quay. You have not been asked to approve a variation to the DPD site before now. Do you think (as we do) that the DPD options remain better alternatives? And finally.... 3. Do you share our view that the site is in a highly sensitive position , and the setting of the town needs to be protected by ensuring that development is contained to the lower parts of the site?

If so, we ask you to reject this application, and encourage the Developer once more to put forward a proposal which does conform to the DPD, and which we would all be happy to approve.

The Major Projects Manager then outlined the background to the site inspection, and reminded Members of the key elements of the application. The purpose of this site visit was to get a feeling for the site, the general character and appearance of the area, and the access points, and he then explained where each of the access points were located. He also further explained the issue relating to Parkers Barn. He then advised Members of the different locations that would be visited as part of the site visit.

The Site Inspection Group moved to the position of the first access point, along Steamer Quay Road. The oak tree and hedgerows within and forming the boundaries of the site were pointed out and the Major Projects Manager advised that this would be the site of the extra care facility and the industrial units. He also explained where the footpath access was positioned.

The Site Inspection Group then travelled to Weston Lane via Bridgetown Hill to assess the local road network, road junctions and the main access point for the residential part of the application. Members noted that the route of the road and adjoining pavement had been marked out in the upper field. Members then walked along the Green Lane, which would be retained, and into the field in which the road would be situated. The route of the road was marked to indicate the road levels. Only the road would be in this field, and it was this element of the proposal that was confirmed as being outside of the DPD allocated site.

The Site Inspection Group then travelled into the next field which was part of the application. Again, the oak tree was pointed out as a reference point, and the Major Projects Manager advised Members that the top of the site where they were stood which was the most prominent part of the site was to be kept for orchards, allotments or similar community uses and open space; these upper areas of the site were to be kept free from buildings. The residential part would be lower down with the industrial units and extra care facility at the bottom part of the application site.

The Site Inspection Group then left the site, but on the journey back to Follaton the access points, Culverdale Phase 1 and 2 and Parkers Barn were all identified.

Case Officer: Mr Malcolm Elliott

Application No : 30/2337/12/F Date received: 28 September 2012

Agent/Applicant: Applicant: MTA Architects Paignton and Dartmouth Steam Railway 52 Fore Street Mr A Pooley Brixham Queens Park Station Devon Torbay Road TQ5 8DZ Paignton TQ4 6AF

Site Address: Dartmouth Steam Railway & River Boat Co, Kingswear Signal Box, The Square, Kingswear, Dartmouth, TQ6 0AA

Development: Retrospective application for Rail Control Centre

Scale 1:2500

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. 2012. Scale 1:2500 For internal reference only – no further copies to be made

DC0901MW

Consultations:

• County Highways Authority No highways comment

• South West Water No comments received

• Environmental Health Section

“The Environmental Health dept. wish to make no comment on this application”

• Drainage Engineer No comments received

• Building Control No comments received

• Environment Agency

“We have no objections to the proposal providing development proceeds in accordance with the submitted flood risk assessment.”

“We have no objections based on the FRA and no further action required.”

• Kingswear Parish Council

The Parish Council unanimously recommend objection (see main body of report for full response)

• English Heritage

“English Heritage does not wish to intervene in this case. We do not consider that the new building materially affects or harms the significance of the listed station……. In our view what has been built does not materially affect or harm the special interest of the listed structures or the setting of the station.”

• South Devon AONB Unit

“The addition of this structure does not in my view create a harmful impact on the character or qualities of the AONB and I do not raise any objection to it” - AONB Manager.

• Natural Environment and Recreation Team

“Given the scale, form and location, this building does not create a harmful impact upon the wider landscape character or qualities of the AONB. No objection is raised.”

DC0901MW Kingswear designated Conservation Area and an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The Railway Station which was built in 1864 maintains a grade II listed status.

The Proposal: This application seeks to regularise development that has taken place on the site and seeks (retrospective) Planning Permission for the erection of a Rail Control Centre to accommodate administration staff associated with the running of the railway. The building is a detached two storey structure comprising a natural slate pitched roof and painted horizontal timber cladding to the walling. The building has been designed in an architectural style similar to the signal box that historically served the railway. The building is approx 16.6m x 3.3m with a height of 7.8m.

Material Planning Considerations

Design Impact on Listed Building and its Setting Impact on Conservation Area Impact on AONB Flood Zone related issues Impact on neighbouring residential amenity Kingswear Development Boundary

Planning History

30/2982/11/LB – LBC application for lobby to guardroom toilet at Kingswear Station – Conditionally Approved Jan 2012.

30/1776/11/PREMIN – A pre-application enquiry was submitted by the Agents to discuss the merits of the preferred design and heritage statement. This enquiry was not concluded.

30/1835/10/PREMIN – A pre-application enquiry was submitted for proposed office accommodation at Kingswear Station. Informal Officer advice has previously been given in respect of the current application site. Initial support for a building was not forthcoming on the basis that a more suitable site for a single storey building may be available. Such advice is offered on an informal basis and will not prejudice any future decision members may care to take.

30/0519/10/LB – LBC for new admin/storage building. Following advice from Officers that the application would not be supported due “to the damaging impact on both the listed station and adjacent listed hotel and the wider conservation area” the application was withdrawn. At the time Officers felt that the rather utilitarian aesthetic offered by the proposed building would sit uncomfortably adjacent to the listed Station. Officers also felt that the sitting of the building was inappropriate due to the harmful impact that it would have on the important listed Royal Dart Hotel. The proposed building would have blocked out an important public vista of the historic hotel subsequently offering a detrimental impact on both hotel and the wider conservation area in which it sits. During the life of the application the LPA received four letters of objection relating to the development. The objections centred around; impact on listed building (due to location) and inappropriate design.

It is stressed that this previous application relates to a building different in both architectural style and in a different location within the site than the building that is the subject of the current application.

DC0901MW

30/1648/09/LB – LBC for refurbishment of ticket office and café and new canopy over bridge to Ferry Pontoon – Conditionally Approved Jan 2010.

Planning Policy

Devon County Structure Plan

ST1: Sustainable Development: Seeks to ensure that sustainable development objectives are achieved by conserving resources through, amongst other things, the efficient use of land and energy conservation, protecting environmental assets (including landscape and the built and historic environment) and ensuring that development proposals are well designed.

ST5: Development Priority – states that development in local centres and towns should be strictly controlled.

C03: Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty – development must support the conservation or enhancement of AONBs or foster their social and economic well-being provided that such development is compatible with their conservation.

CO6: Quality of New Development: The identity, distinctive character and features of existing settlements should be conserved and enhanced.

CO7: Historic Settlements and Buildings: The quality of Devon’s historic environment should be conserved and enhanced.

SHDC LDF Core Strategy

CS1: Location of Development – permits in principle development within development boundaries. Elsewhere, development will be strictly controlled and only permitted where it can be delivered sustainably and in response to a demonstrable local need.

CS7: Design – requires development proposals to include and promote good design that respects local distinctiveness, respects the character of the site and its surroundings in order to protect and enhance the built and natural environments.

CS9: Landscape and Historic Environment – states that the quality, character, diversity and local distinctiveness of the natural and historic environment will be conserved and enhanced.

SHDC LDF Development Plan Document

DP1: High Quality Design: All development will display high quality design which, in particular, respects and responds to the South Hams character in terms of its settlement and landscape.

DP2: Landscape Character: Development proposals will need to demonstrate how they conserve and/or enhance the South Hams landscape character, including coastal areas, estuaries, river valleys, undulating uplands and other landscapes.

DC0901MW DP3: Residential Amenity: Development will be permitted provided it does not have an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of occupiers of nearby properties. Unacceptable impacts will be judged against the level of amenity generally accepted within the locality and could result from: loss of privacy and overlooking; overbearing and dominant impact; loss of daylight or sunlight; noise or disturbance; odours or fumes.

DP6: Historic Environment: Development will preserve or enhance the quality of the historic environment. The design, siting, bulk, height, materials, colours and visual emphasis of proposed new development should take into account local context and in particular the character and appearance of the historic building and environment.

South Hams Local Plan

SHDC1: Development Boundaries: Permits development where it is compatible with the character of the site and its surroundings and where there would be no significant adverse effects in relation to traffic and parking, road safety, drainage, the landscape, wildlife and historic interests or local amenity.

National Planning Policy Framework

Section 7 – Requiring good design

Para 60: Planning policies and decisions should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes and they should not stifle innovation, originality or initiative through unsubstantiated requirements to conform to certain development forms or styles. It is, however, proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness.

Para 61: Although visual appearance and the architecture of individual buildings are very important factors, securing high quality and inclusive design goes beyond aesthetic considerations. Therefore, planning policies and decisions should address the connections between people and places and the integration of new development into the natural, built and historic environment.

Para 66: Applicants will be expected to work closely with those directly affected by their proposals to evolve designs that take account of the views of the community. Proposals that can demonstrate this in developing the design of the new development should be looked on more favourably.

Section 11 – Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

Para 115: Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. The conservation of wildlife and cultural heritage are important considerations in all these areas, and should be given great weight in National Parks and the Broads.

Section 12 – Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

DC0901MW expertise. They should take this assessment into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal.

Para 131: In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of: • the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; • the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and • the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.

Para 132: When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional.

Para 134: Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.

Representations

At the time of writing 15 letters of representation have been received raising objection to the application. The representations received can be viewed in full on the application file or on the Council’s website, the issues raised are summarised as follows:

Unauthorised works

• No permission was sought to remove track from the site of a listed building on two separate occasions. Parts of the listed Kingswear Station building were destroyed by the construction of the building. • Application should be rejected and action taken to have building removed. • No site in Britain is safe from unscrupulous developers if such insensitive despoiling is allowed to take place. If sanctions are not applied to those who do not abide by planning rules it makes a mockery of the whole process. • Building does not benefit from permitted development rights and planning permission is therefore required. No regard has been given to relevant planning legislation, impact on the local environment or the Conservation Area.

Lack of consultation

DC0901MW • No attempt was made to inform residents of the intention to construct the building, which has been carried out without reference to the views and feelings of the local community in Kingswear. • Amazed that such a building was approved in such secrecy. • Development occurred in AONB without any consultation. The site is also within a Conservation Area and a listed building. • Consultation should have been arranged by SHDC with the Dartmouth Steam Railway and River Boat Company at the start of the process.

Siting

• The building could have been sited elsewhere on Railway Company land. Original signal box at the other end of the station. Railway Company claims development has been positioned to monitor passenger movement between the train and ferry – this could be done via CCTV and it would make more sense to have visual monitoring of the level crossing at the other end of station. • The building is unnecessary and unsuited in its current position, and has given the station areas now resemble a ‘theme park’. • The building could have been sited where the original signal box was located where it could have made no significant impact on visual amenity or character of the area.

Use/Size

• The signal box has nothing to do with “controlling the railway”. It appears to be an admin block and store and could have been a single storey building. Need for a building of size constructed questioned given that railway operated well before its construction. • Railway Company gave an undertaking that the building was for railway purposes only. The Railway Company operates the passenger ferry, on the tickets for which it states “Dartmouth River Boats The Signal Box Kingswear”. The building is described on the local plan and Geotechnical Investigation as a rail/marine control centre. Has the Company applied for a change of use? • Building appears to be mostly used as offices and storage for riverboat operations and therefore has no relevance or benefit to the management of the railway. • Multi-storey office block is of an inappropriate size in a particularly prominent position, and is out of scale and sympathy with the existing railway buildings. • The original signal box was much smaller than new building.

Design

• The building is an unsympathetic representation of a railway company signal box. • The materials used in the construction of the building are out of character with the existing station. The overall concept of the building is considered incongruous in what is an environmentally sensitive area.

Visual impact

• The building obscures public views of the river from Fore Street including the finish line of the Dartmouth Royal Regatta and other waterbourne and land-based events. A

DC0901MW part of local heritage has been destroyed. The building has also destroyed the area by its size and incongruity with its surroundings. • Development is out of character with listed station. • Office block fails to pass the enhancement test on a Conservation Area. • Development does not preserve or enhance the character of the AONB or listed building, and is harmful to the character of the AONB and Conservation Area. Building also fails to reflect the heritage and tradition associated with the former Great Western Railway Paddington to Kingswear main line train service.

Amenity

• Development detracts from public amenity of the village, visitors walking from the bus stop to the ferry have their view of Dartmouth and the River Dart obstructed. This is not acceptable in a Conservation Area. • Impact on private views

Other

• Impact on private property value. • No Impact Assessment/Environmental Impact Assessment has been undertaken. • Length of track removed is double that required. Residents are concerned that this is in preparation for another unannounced building. Claims that that work has been carried out on health and safety grounds should be investigated before final decisions made. • Concerns regarding SHDC’s refusal to exercise its statutory responsibility to uphold established policies regarding listed buildings, Conservation Areas and the AONB. Concerns regarding failure to conform with regulations. • Is it now more appropriate for SHDC to refer the matter to the Planning Inspectorate? • The DSR & RB Co have consistently failed to take into account the heritage and tradition of the railway, and is not seemingly motivated by the cause of railway heritage despite being a member of the Railway Heritage Association. • Need to confirm piling was to the recommended depth of 14m.

Kingswear Action on Rail and Riverboat Development (KARRD) consider the application should be refused as the development is contrary to SHDC policies for the maintenance, preservation and enhancement of the character and appearance of a listed building within a Conservation Area and the AONB. Specifically in relation to this planning application they consider that:

• Development is unnecessary on this particular site and the argument that the building is required to watch over the trains is not credible. • Due to EIA regulations 1999 planning permission for the development is required as it does not benefit from permitted development rights. The development is Schedule 2 development within the meaning of the 1999 EIA regulations and has a significant effect on the environment due to its size and location. • Any office development could have been built in a more suitable location given the size of the applicant’s land holding. • The report from SHDC legal officers to the Scrutiny Panel was wrongly based on an understanding the new office block was to replace the old signal box, which was on another site.

DC0901MW • A previous application (30/0519/10/LB) was withdrawn after officers indicated support would not be forthcoming due to the damaging impact on both the listed station and adjacent listed hotel and the wider conservation area. The present development is likewise not in keeping with the location and should be refused. • The development has been carried out in a “Sensitive Area” as defined by Section 87(1) of the NPAC Act 1949 and the Secretary of State. Development is inappropriate given the location within a Conservation Area, where development should “preserve or enhance” the character of the area. • The production of a retrospective negative screening opinion cannot retrospectively authorise this development. Kingswear Parish Council, KAARD and other organisations within the parish have demanded a full Environmental Impact Assessment since September 2011. “ SHDC continue to reject this demand despite being advised by Counsel that they were in error by not undertaking a screening opinion. KAARD believes such an EIA will establish the case for planning refusal, and that SHDC’s failure to carry out a full EIA further demonstrates lack of objectivity on the part of officers .” • SHDC legal officer reported to the Scrutiny Committee on 7 June 2012 that building fell within Class 10 of Schedule 2 of the EIA regulations, and as a negative screening opinion was not issued the building does not benefit from permitted development rights. The legal officer also reported that should the development wish to ensure the development is lawful they should apply for a Certificate of Lawfulness for a Proposed Use or Development, but no such certificate was sought or obtained by the applicant.

KARRD also submitted a number of historic and recent photographs in support of their comments. Their comments were supported by other objectors.

The Dartmouth and Kingswear Society support the objections of Kingswear Parish Council and KARRD, also noting that in the case officer report for the original application for the new building (ref. 30/0519/10/LB) the reason for withdrawal stated that officer support for the application would not be forthcoming due to the damaging impact on the listed station, adjacent listed hotel and wider conservation area. The statement is highlighted in the case officer report as filed on the website and therefore must have been considered highly significant. “Consequently it is extraordinary that the Head of Service concluded then that PP was not required and that the development represented PD under the Act. This decision was clearly unsupportable and wrong, as has now been proved by the current requirement to submit retrospective Planning Applications – and this Society objects to both .”

Kingswear Parish Council Comment

Kingswear Parish Council has objected to both this application and Listed Building Consent application ref: 30/2340/12/LB. Concerns raised within the objection are summarised as follows:

DC0901MW • There are numerous objections to the building by members of the public and community organisations such as Kingswear Action on Rail Boat Development (KARRD) • A full Environmental Impact Assessment should be carried out • The most sensible course of action would be for the application to be Called In by the Secretary of State. • The main issue is the impact of the building on Kingswear Conservation Area. • The location and construction of the building goes against the stated aims of the Conservation Area Appraisal. • The office block is of an inappropriate size, in a particularly prominent position, out of scale and sympathy with existing railway buildings and does not enhance or preserve the character of the AONB or a listed building • The office building does not solely deal with the running of the railway; it is also for running the Riverboat Company.

Analysis

Screening Opinion & Environmental Impact Assessment

The Legal view : The building was erected with the Council’s knowledge. The Council has agreed that Permitted Development Rights did apply to this development. Following a complaint Counsel’s Opinion was sought. The content of the Brief to Counsel was agreed with KARRD. Following the receipt of Counsel’s Opinion (reported to the CPR Scrutiny Panel June 2012) it was accepted by the Council that before the Railway Company could rely on Permitted Development rights available to it under Part 17 General Permitted Development Order 1995 a ‘Screening Opinion’ should have been undertaken to determine whether the development was likely to have a significant impact on the Environment.

Counsel’s advice to SHDC was that in the absence of this Screening Opinion the Permitted Development rights should not be relied on.

For this reason the Railway Company were invited to make an application so that the development could be assessed on its merits.

A Screening Opinion has been carried out in relation to this application and whilst this has concluded that an EIA is not required the Council would be open to challenge to rely on the negative screening opinion as authorising the development for which consent is now sought.

This application should therefore be treated as any other retrospective application and be determined on its planning merits in accordance with Council’s Adopted Planning Policies.

Counsel did not state that an EIA was necessary in order to determine the application.

Background Information:

DC0901MW before the railway was extended from Torre to Paignton and a further five years before the line was completed to Kingswear, passing through Churtson. The line finally opened to traffic on 16 th August 1864 under the South Devon Railway management which in 1876 was absorbed into the Great Western Railway. In the past it was a busy station serving both Kingswear and Dartmouth. Although Dartmouth had a station (now the Station Café) it never had a railway and passengers were taken between Kingswear and Dartmouth by ferry. The Royal Dart Hotel is located between Kingswear Station and the ferry slipway and used to provide accommodation for passengers arriving by rail waiting to set sail around the world.

In 1972 the section of railway from Paignton to Kingswear was sold and became the Dartmouth and Paignton Steam Railway. The railway is now primarily a tourist attraction, with steam locomotives running between Paignton, Goodrington, Churston and Kingswear. This heritage railway is run by Dart Valley Railway PLC.

(Extract from submitted Design & Access Statement Oct 2012)

The listed Station: The Station and associated structures were constructed circa 1864. The Station building comprises a painted horizontally boarded timber framed structure sat on a rendered plinth. The Station building which is rectangular in form embraces a hipped slate roof with rendered chimney stacks on the ridge. The Station building comprises, entrance ticket office, waiting rooms, small café area and offices. Adjacent to the Station building lays the long platform with canopy over extending to the north east. Behind the Station front embracing both part platform and principal tracks sits a train shed over. The train shed, extended platform with canopy and the station building itself are covered by the grade II listing. This building is listed under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as amended for its special architectural or historic interest. It was first listed on 21 st May 1985.

The Old Signal Box: Archival evidence (historic photographs) informs that there was a signal box on the site associated with Kingswear Railway Station. Information contained within the submitted ‘Design & Access Statement’ makes reference to the historic signal box stating that it was constructed in 1894 at the far end of the platform towards Paignton. This signal box was reputedly demolished in 1968 and replaced with an electronic signalling system. Officers feel that it is reasonable to state that the new Rail Control Centre (to which this application relates) has been constructed in an architectural style that pays reverence to the previous historic signal box.

The Rail Control Centre: The building is a detached two storey structure comprising a natural slate pitched roof and painted horizontal timber cladding to the walling. The building has been designed in an architectural style similar to the signal box that historically served the railway. The building is approx 16.6m x 3.3m with a height of 7.8m. The building occupies a position to the northwest of the principal Station on a piece of land previously occupied by a length of siding track. (Refer also to 30/2340/12/LB). To the south lie the principal railway tracks and platform beyond (approx 14m to the south) with Station adjacent. The existing car park is to the immediate west (approx 8m in distance) with land associated with the Marina (and boat storage facilities) immediately adjacent to the north. The external appearance of the building is similar in appearance to that of the old historic signal box situated on the Station site (albeit in a different location) while internally the new building is fitted out as contemporary office accommodation fully compliant with Building Regulations.

DC0901MW

Planning Policy

The building is located within the town development boundary and as such there is no objection in principle to new development taking place. However the sensitivity of the site’s position is reflected in the additional policy constraints imposed by the designation of the Conservation Area, its setting in relation to listed buildings and the site’s wider landscape setting within the AONB. The analysis below expands on these considerations.

It is clear that there have been previous discussions with Officers regarding the erection of a rail control centre at Kingswear Station. It is important that each planning application is considered on its individual merits. Officers have given careful consideration to the planning issues relevant to the development and all representations received.

Design

The principle for the erection of the new Rail Control Centre is to provide accommodation for administrative staff associated with the running of the railway. The applicant states that in order to accommodate the required number of staff and due to the requirement that the building should be located close to Station (for operational reasons) a two storey building was required. The building has been designed to reflect the previous signal box that existed on the site (albeit located in a different location further down the tracks to the north east). The building embraces a natural slate pitched roof and painted horizontal timber cladding to its external walls (the north west elevation is rendered to match). The Architects have endeavoured to pay homage to traditional GWR signal boxes with particular reference to the old historic signal box that existed previously on the site.

Officers feel that the resulting aesthetic presents an appropriate architectural response given the context of the site i.e. an operational railway. The scale of the building is deemed to sit comfortably against not only the immediate buildings associated with the railway but also in the context of the surrounding built form rising above the development and the adjacent established development along the quayside.

Impact on the Listed Building and its Setting

The Local Planning Authority has sought comment from English Heritage in order to aid in the transparency of the decision-making process and to seek opinion from the Government’s advisors on matters relating to the historic built environment.

Please note: The following comment refers to both the erection of the new rail control centre (the subject of this application) and the removal of the track as covered under the separate Listed Building Consent application, reference 30/2340/12/LB.

The English Heritage comment is as follows:

“English Heritage does not wish to intervene in this case. We do not consider that the new building materially affects or harms the significance of the listed station.

DC0901MW On the issue of curtilage: In our view, sidings are ancillary to a rail network for rolling stock, and not to a railway station whose primary purpose is to facilitate the embarkation and disembarkation of railway passengers and not to store rolling stock. For that reason, we do not consider that the siding in question was part of the curtilage of the listed station.

To clarify: although the sidings fulfil many of the factors necessary for them to be considered as structure within the curtilage of the listed station and therefore potentially subject to the provisions and protective measures set out in the 1990 Act, they do not fulfil the final requirement that they are ancillary in nature to the listed structure. This means that we agree that listed building consent would not be required for any works/demolition to the same.

Nevertheless, an application for retrospective listed building consent and planning permission has been made. In our view what has been built does not materially affect or harm the special interest of the listed structures or the setting of the station . That being so, we do not wish to intervene.

Officers are aware that when assessing the merits of this application, special regard must be given to the desirability of preserving the listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. Officers are of the view that due to its architectural composition, its scale and location within the Railway development, the building as built does not offer a harmful impact on the listed building’s special interest or its setting.

Impact on AONB

The South Devon AONB Unit Manager comments that; “The building is set against the built backdrop of the station and village and is also set within the context of developed quaysides and marinas along this busy river frontage. Because of this, the addition of this structure does not in my view create a harmful impact on the character or qualities of the AONB and I do not raise any objection to it.”

The Natural Environment and Recreation Team comment that; “The building is within the riverside town of Kingswear, close to the waterfront and clearly within the context of an established built environment i.e. the steam railway, quayside and marina, with the remainder of the town rising up the valleyside. Given the scale, form and location, this building does not create a harmful impact upon the wider landscape character or qualities of the AONB.”

Impact on Conservation Area

Further to assessment on site Officers have considered the impact of the new development on the Kingswear Conservation Area. Particular attention has been paid to views into the Conservation Area from across the River at Dartmouth and from inside of the Conservation Area looking out across the river. Consideration has been given to the impact on views from Fore Street and Higher Street on the Kingswear side. These views are indicated in the Draft Kingswear Conservation Area Appraisal as distant views making a positive contribution to the conservation area. It is clear that the new building does have some impact, partially blocking views of the river and embankment from the stretch of Fore Street between Kingswear Hall and 6 Fore Street.

DC0901MW Officers point out that the viewpoints highlighted within the appraisal document should be read as an indication of the existence of a view that is almost continuous as you walk down Fore Street, from the Banjo at the top down to the Station itself at the bottom. The Rail Control Centre development has undeniably broken some of that continuity however Officers feel that this break offers a localised impact when judged against the wider context of the views afforded throughout passage from the top of Fore Street to the bottom.

With regards the building’s size and architectural composition and subsequent impact on the special architectural or historic interest on the Kingswear Conservation Area, Officers conclude that the Rail Control Centre sits comfortably within it’s Railway Station location and as such is not incongruous with its immediate site or surroundings, therefore offering a neutral impact on the surrounding Conservation Area.

Due to it’s scale and material make-up, when viewed from across the river at Dartmouth, the building is deemed to offer a neutral impact on the special architectural and historic characteristics of the Kingswear Conservation Area.

Flood Risk

A Flood Risk Assessment has been submitted as an integral part of this application. The Environment Agency having considered the details raises no objection to the proposal providing that the development proceeds in accordance with the submitted flood risk assessment. Additional comment from the EA (dated 21/11/12) confirmed that they raise no objection based on the submitted FRA and no further action is required.

Neighbour Impact

Officers have given due regard to the potential impact of this development on the surrounding residential amenity in accordance with adopted development policies. It is considered that the Rail Control Centre offers an acceptable relationship with regards neighbouring developments and dwellings situated along Fore Street.

Conclusion

Officers are aware of the strength of local feeling regarding the merits of the proposed development and acknowledge third party representations accordingly. Overall the proposed Rail Control Centre building is considered to represent a building that’s purpose is to aid in the operation of the ‘Paignton & Dartmouth Steam Railway’. Officers accept that (as built) the building offers an impact on public views out of the Conservation Area, but conclude that such impact is localised and will not result in overriding harm to the Conservation Area and its special characteristics. It is felt that the scale, location and architectural composition of the building renders a structure that will not offer a detrimental impact on the listed building, its setting or the wider landscape setting of the AONB. As such Officers recommend that the application be approved.

Considerations under Human Rights Act

DC0901MW and the reasoning behind such objections. However, in the individual circumstances of this case, and having full regard to the objectives of the Development Plan Policies and Government Planning Guidance, as well as considering all relevant consultation responses, it is not considered that these objections should override the applicant’s reasonable expectations under the Convention.

Recommendation: Conditional Approval

Reason(s) for approval:

This application has been determined in accordance with Section 66 of the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 in respect of planning applications which affect a listed building or its setting which requires that special regard shall be had to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interests which it possesses. It has also been determined in accordance with Section 72 of the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 in respect of planning applications which affect Conservation Areas which requires that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of Conservation Areas. This application has been determined in accordance with approved Development Plan Policies; relevant Government planning policy guidance; and approved in the absence of any other overriding material considerations and having given due weight to all other matters raised in this application including technical and other representations received. The relevant Policies are Devon County Structure Plan ST1, ST5, CO3, CO6, CO7; South Hams LDF Core Strategy CS1, CS7, CS9; Development Plan Policies DP1, DP2, DP3, DP6, South Hams Local Plan SHDC1 and the relevant parts of the NPPF.

Special regard has been given to the representations about the scale of the development, its siting, its design and subsequent impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area, the listed building and its setting and the wider landscape setting of the AONB. After careful consideration of each of these issues they were not considered to be overriding because the impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area is localised and will not erode the area's special interest. The scale, location and appearance of the building is acceptable given its setting within the railway station and as such it will not offer a detrimental impact on the listed building, its setting or the wider landscape setting of the AONB.

Subject to the following conditions

NHO5 – Accord with Plans

DC0901MW

Case Officer: Mr Malcolm Elliott

Application No : 30/2340/12/LB Date received: 28 September 2012

Agent/Applicant: Applicant: MTA Architects Paignton and Dartmouth Steam Railway 52 Fore Street Mr A Pooley Brixham Queens Park Station Devon Torbay Road TQ5 8DZ Paignton TQ4 6AF

Site Address: Kingswear Station, The Square, Kingswear, Dartmouth, TQ6 0AA

Development: Retrospective listed building consent application for relocation of railway tracks and bufferstop to accommodate a new Rail Control Centre at Kingswear Station

Scale 1:2500

DC0901MW

Consultations:

• County Highways Authority No highways comment

• South West Water No comments received

• Environment Agency No comments received

• Environmental Health Section No comments received

• Drainage Engineer No comments received

• Building Control No comments received

• Kingswear Parish Council Objection

• English Heritage “We agree that listed building consent would not be required for any works/demolition to the same” (The Sidings)….. ”In our view what has been built does not materially affect or harm the special interest of the listed structures or the setting of the station” (see main body of the report for detailed comment)

Site Description: The application site, Kingswear Railway Station is located at the bottom of Fore Street (the main thoroughfare through the settlement of Kingswear) adjacent to the Royal Dart Hotel and the lower ferry slipway. The tracks which are the subject of this application falls within the Kingswear development boundary, the site also sits within the Kingswear designated Conservation Area and an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The Railway Station which was built in 1864 maintains a grade II listed status.

The Proposal: This application seeks to regularise development that has taken place on the site and seeks Listed Building Consent for the removal of railway tracks and relocation of the bufferstop to accommodate a new Rail Control Centre at Kingswear Station. Track removal has occurred on two separate occasions. Initially a length of track approximately 17m in length was removed to allow for the construction of the foundations for the new building. Officers understand that construction commenced on-site in July 2011. Following the completion of the construction of the building a second length of track was removed approximately 14m in length for cited health and safety reasons. Officers understand that this second case of removal occurred during August 2012.

Material Planning Considerations: Preserving the listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

Planning History

30/2982/11/LB – LBC application for lobby to guardroom toilet at Kingswear Station – Conditionally Approved Jan 2012.

30/1776/11/PREMIN – A pre-application enquiry was submitted by the Agents to discuss the merits of the preferred design and heritage statement. This enquiry was not concluded.

DC0901MW

30/1648/09/LB – LBC for refurbishment of ticket office and café and new canopy over bridge to Ferry Pontoon – Conditionally Approved Jan 2010.

. Planning Policy

Devon County Structure Plan

CO7: Historic Settlements and Buildings: The quality of Devon’s historic environment should be conserved and enhanced.

SHDC LDF Core Strategy

CS9: Landscape and Historic Environment – states that the quality, character, diversity and local distinctiveness of the natural and historic environment will be conserved and enhanced.

SHDC LDF Development Plan Document

National Planning Policy Framework

Section 12 – Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

DC0901MW

Para 129: Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. They should take this assessment into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal.

Representations:

13 letters of representation have been received at the time of writing raising objections to the application, which can be viewed in full on the application file. Most of the representations are stated as relating to both this listed building consent application and the associated planning application for the construction of the rail control centre building (ref. 30/2337/12/F), however many of the issues raised are planning matters associated with the new building which are not relevant to this application. Concerns relating to the removal of the historic fabric (tracks and bufferstop) which are the subject of this application are summarised as follows:

• No permission was sought to remove track from the site of a listed building on two separate occasions. • Removal of tracks has affected the character of a building of historic interest and resulted in alterations to an object in the curtilage of a listed building. Grounds given for track removal are health and safety, but there is no evidence of this being the case. • Removal of tracks does not preserve or enhance the character of the listed building, and has been carried out without reference to the listed status of Kingswear Railway Station.

DC0901MW The Kingswear Action on Rail and Riverboat Development (KARRD) raised the following objections in respected of this listed building consent application:

• Views of local bodies in respect of the affect of the track removal on the character of a building of historic interest must be taken into account. • Both instances of track removal (in July 2011 and August 2012) require their own planning applications. • Grounds given for track removal are health and safety, but there is no evidence of this being the case. • Dartmouth & Kingswear Society, Kingswear Historians and KARRD are seeking reinstatement of two lengths of track in order to preserve the nature and character of the listed building and its curtilage.

Kingswear Parish Council Comment

Kingswear Parish Council has objected to both this application and planning application ref: 30/2337/12/F ‘Retrospective application for Rail Control Centre’. Concerns raised within the objection are summarised as follows:

• The proposed development neither conserves nor enhances the Conservation Area, or its setting. • The loss of unique view is of great concern. Most of Kingswear’s listed buildings are concentrated in the centre of the village. This view has been severely diminished by the office building • Past applications illustrate that a precedent has been set where alterations have been made to retain an important public view • There are numerous objections to the building by members of the public and community organisations such as Kingswear Action on Rail Boat Development (KARRD) • A full Environmental Impact Assessment should be carried out • The most sensible course of action would be for the application to be Called In by the Secretary of State. • The main issue is the impact of the building on Kingswear Conservation Area. • The location and construction of the building goes against the stated aims of the Conservation Area Appraisal. • The office block is of an inappropriate size, in a particularly prominent position, out of scale and sympathy with existing railway buildings and does not enhance or preserve the character of the AONB or a listed building • The office building does not solely deal with the running of the railway; it is also for running the Riverboat Company.

Although the comments made by Kingswear Parish Council are noted and presented here for thoroughness, it must also be acknowledged that this application specifically relates to ‘retrospective Listed Building Consent for relocation of railway tracks and bufferstop to accommodate a new Rail Control Centre at Kingswear Station’. Elements of the Parish consultation response which refer to this listed building application are as follows:

• The proposed development neither conserves nor enhances the Conservation Area, or its setting.

DC0901MW • A full Environmental Impact Assessment should be carried out • The most sensible course of action would be for the application to be Called In by the Secretary of State. • The main issue is the impact of the building on Kingswear Conservation Area.

Analysis

Background Information:

A brief history of the Station : Kingswear Station is the southern terminus of the Paignton and Dartmouth Steam Railway, connecting with the mainline railway at Queen’s Park Station in Paignton. It is the end of the Torquay branch line from Newton Abbot which was engineered by Isambard Kingdom Brunel as part of the then South Devon Railway. The first section of the Torquay line was opened in 1848, which ran to Torre station, it was another eleven years before the railway was extended from Torre to Paignton and a further five years before the line was completed to Kingswear, passing through Churtson. The line finally opened to traffic on 16 th August 1864 under the South Devon Railway management which in 1876 was absorbed into the Great Western Railway. In the past it was a busy station serving both Kingswear and Dartmouth. Although Dartmouth had a station (now the Station Café) it never had a railway and passengers were taken between Kingswear and Dartmouth by ferry. The Royal Dart Hotel is located between Kingswear Station and the ferry slipway and used to provide accommodation for passengers arriving by rail waiting to set sail around the world.

(extract from submitted Design & Access Statement Oct 2012)

The listed Station: The Station and associated structures were constructed circa 1864. The Station building comprises a painted horizontally boarded timber framed structure sat on a rendered plinth. The Station building which is rectangular in form embraces a hipped slate roof with rendered chimney stacks on the ridge. The Station building comprises, entrance ticket office, waiting rooms, small café area and offices. Adjacent to the Station building lies the long platform with canopy over extending to the north east. Behind the Station front embracing both part platform and principal tracks sits a train shed over. The train shed, extended platform with canopy and the station building itself are covered by the grade II listing. This building is listed under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as amended for its special architectural or historic interest. It was first listed on 21 st May 1985.

The Siding Track: The section(s) of track that have been removed and which this application relates, represents a siding track which runs parallel and outside of the two principal railway tracks which run into the main station platform. A ‘siding’ is a low-speed track section distinct from the main through line. Sidings often have lighter rails, meant for lower speed or less

DC0901MW heavy traffic and are commonly used to store stationary rolling stock, especially for loading and unloading. The siding at Kingswear Station is comprehensive in length extending beyond the long platform to the north east. Archival evidence informs us that this siding used to extend further to the south west terminating at a point within an additional goods store/shed. At some point during the 20 th century the goods store/shed was demolished and the siding truncated. The space created by the removal of the old train shed and shortened siding is now occupied by the asphalt car park. Prior to the construction of the Rail Control Centre a further length of siding was removed to facilitate the construction of the foundations for the building. Officers understand that this initial amount of track removal equated to approximately 17m in length. Further to the Rail Control Centre being completed a further section of siding track was removed, approximately 14m in length for health and safety reasons as cited by the applicant.

Planning Policy

Section 7 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 provides in part as follows: “Subject to the following provisions of this Act, no person shall execute or cause to be executed any works for the demolition of a listed building or for its alteration or extension in any manner which would affect its character as a building of special architectural or historic interest, unless the works are authorised.”

When assessing the merits of the proposed development the questions that the LPA need to first consider are three-fold:

Firstly, is the siding track by virtue of section 1(5) of the Act to be treated as being part of the listed building – that is, effectively, whether or not it is listed at all? (Is it within the curtilage?)

Secondly, even if it is concluded that the siding track is to be treated as part of the listed structure, do the works proposed affect the character of the building (The Station) as one of special architectural or historic interest?

Thirdly, if the works are deemed to affect the special interest of the listed building or its setting, do they do so in a harmful manner?

In their response to the first question English Heritage conclude:

“we do not consider that the siding in question was part of the curtilage of the listed station.”

……….”This means that we agree that listed building consent would not be required for any works/demolition to the same.”

With regards the matter of ‘affect’ on the listed building English Heritage acknowledges that the applicant has submitted a listed building consent application for the track removal and therefore offers the following comment:

“Nevertheless, an application for retrospective listed building consent and planning permission has been made. In our view what has been built does not materially affect or harm the special interest of the listed structures or the setting of the station”.

DC0901MW

Officers feel that (notwithstanding English Heritage’s views) there may well be continued debate as to whether or not the sidings (that are the subject of this application) are within the ‘curtilage’ or not of the listed building. However nevertheless Officers welcome this application as submitted and view the application as an opportunity to properly assess and debate the merits of the scheme.

Section 16 (2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 provides in part as follows:

“In considering whether to grant listed building consent for any works the local planning authority or the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.”

Officers note English Heritage’s views on the affect on the listed building and also are aware of Counsel’s Opinion on the question of whether the act of removing the track affected the listed building’s special interest:

“In my view, given the limited track which was removed and its location on the outer limit of the station, I consider that to be unlikely, but that is ultimately a matter for the authority”. (30 th March 2012)

Officers accept that Counsel’s Opinion was offered prior to the ‘second’ act of track removal where a further 14m of track was removed for apparent health and safety reasons.

English Heritage Comment

Please note: The following comment refers to both the removal of the track (the subject of this LBC application) and the erection of the new rail control centre as covered under the separate planning application, reference 30/2337/12/F.

The English Heritage comment is as follows:

“English Heritage does not wish to intervene in this case. We do not consider that the new building materially affects or harms the significance of the listed station.

On the issue of curtilage: In our view, sidings are ancillary to a rail network for rolling stock, and not to a railway station whose primary purpose is to facilitate the embarkation and disembarkation of railway passengers and not to store rolling stock. For that reason, we do not consider that the siding in question was part of the curtilage of the listed station.

DC0901MW agree that listed building consent would not be required for any works/demolition to the same .

Impact on the Listed Building and it’s Setting

The amount of siding track that has been removed has been undertaken in two distinct phases. A first length of approximately 17m was removed to facilitate the construction of the Rail Control Centre and a further section of approximately 14m was removed, justified on health and safety grounds after the building had been built. Both sections of track removal as covered by this current application are to be assessed in exactly the same manner i.e. Did the said removal materially affect the listed building or its setting and if so was the affect harmful to the listed building’s special architectural or historic interest?

Documentary evidence (OS Map 1888-1915) confirms that the siding track was present before 1 st July 1948. The same documentary evidence informs that as built (circa 1864) the siding continued along its length to a point some way further towards the south-west end of the site towards an additional goods/train shed where it terminated.

At some point in the 20 th century (unknown but prior to the date of listing 21/05/1985) the additional goods/train shed was removed presumably redundant and the surrounding area subsequently turned into a car park.

Officers can therefore conclude that the siding in its original form has long since been truncated and the end destination for the siding track (goods/train shed) had been demolished prior to the date of listing. The recent termination point (of the siding) complete with buffer end that was in existence prior to the erection of the Rail Control Centre would indeed therefore appear to be a truncated arbitrary point rather than a notable historic one.

Officers feel that this latest further truncation (albeit in two phases) to which this application seeks consent would not further impinge on the legibility of the remaining track as a siding and nor will it compromise its integrity in offering a railway function for rolling stock.

Officers having assessed the impacts of the development as outlined in this application have no reason to reach a different conclusion than that offered by both English Heritage and Counsel.

Conclusion: Officers are aware of the strength of local feeling regarding the merits of the proposed development and acknowledge third party representations accordingly. It is noted however that this application solely seeks listed building consent for the removal of railway tracks (sidings). Whilst acknowledging representations made, Officers conclude that the development to which this application relates does not materially harm the listed Station’s special architectural or historic interest or its setting and as such recommend that the application be approved.

DC0901MW

Considerations under Human Rights Act

Due regard has been given to the provision of the European Convention on Human Rights and in particular to the rights under Article 1 of the First Protocol, namely the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions, and Article 8, the right to respect for private and family life . In arriving at this recommendation, due regard has been given to all objections received and the reasoning behind such objections. However, in the individual circumstances of this case, and having full regard to the objectives of the Development Plan Policies and Government Planning Guidance, as well as considering all relevant consultation responses, it is not considered that these objections should override the applicant’s reasonable expectations under the Convention.

Recommendation: Conditional Approval

Reason(s) for Approval

This application has been determined in accordance with Sections 16, 17 and 18 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 which require inter alia that in respect of works requiring listed building consent that special regard shall be had to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interests which it possesses and provide powers to impose appropriate conditions in relation to the proposed works. This application has been determined in accordance with approved Development Plan Policies; relevant Government planning policy guidance; and approved in the absence of any other overriding material considerations and having given due weight to all other matters raised in this application including technical and other representations received. The relevant Policies are Devon County Structure Plan CO7, SHDC LDF CS9, SHDC LDF DPD DP6 and the relevant parts of the NPPF. Special regard has been given to the representations about the impact on the listed building and its special interest but these were not considered to be overriding because the removal of the two sections of track does not materially harm the listed Station's special architectural or historic interest or its setting.

Subject to the following conditions(s):

NH05 – Accord with plans

DC0901MW

Case Officer: Mr Edward Brown

Application No : 15/1975/12/F Date received: 17 August 2012

Agent/Applicant: Applicant: Robbie Gilmour Mr S Webster BBH Chartered Architects (Dartmouth) Ltd 14 Broadstone 9 Duke Street Dartmouth Dartmouth TQ6 9NR TQ6 9PY

Site Address: Land adjacent to 14 Broadstone, Dartmouth, TQ6 9NR

Development: Resubmission of planning application 15/0210/12/F for proposed erection of new dwelling

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. 2012. Scale 1:1250 For internal reference only – no further copies to be made

DC0901MW

Consultations:

• County Highways Authority – have previously visited the site and read the Planning Inspectors comments on a similar site with no parking at School Steps. No objection raised as the application site and appeal site fall within the same policy area.

• South West Water – no objections in terms of sewer capacity. As a rule SWW does not accept surface water into the combined sewer network. However, when there are no alternatives such as disposal to a soak away or we can offer connection to a separate surface water sewer (there are none available here) we will make an exception for small proposals such as this and allow a combined discharge.

• Environment Agency – standing advice (no objection).

• Environmental Health Section – suggest conditions for unsuspected contamination and a gas proof membrane.

• Drainage Engineer – surface water will need to be disposed of on site. If this can not be achieved permission will be required from SWW.

• Building Control - the rain water should discharge to a soak away. Where this is not practicable then consideration can be given to discharging the rainwater to the sewer. This is subject to SWW being satisfied that the existing system has sufficient capacity.

• Town Council – recommend refusal on the grounds that the proposed development is un- neighbourly, makes no provision for car parking, represents overdevelopment of the site, impinges on adjacent listed buildings and is detrimental to the character of a conservation area. It is also felt that the proposed excavations may be unsafe with serious implication for neighbouring properties. The Town Council requests that one of the ward members view the proposal.

• Landscape Officer – no wildlife survey required

The Proposal

The application site has an area of approximately 155 square metres and is situated adjacent to the rear garden of 14 Broadstone. The site occupies approximately half of the current garden space attached to number 14. The other half of the garden will be retained by number 14. There is an existing pedestrian access point to the south corner of the site, off Browns Hill Steps. There is also a secondary pedestrian access point to the northern corner of the site from Clarence Hill.

The topography of the site is such that there is a significant change of level (approximately 11.5m) as the site slopes/steps down from the boundary adjacent to Clarence Hill at the top to the boundary to Browns hill Steps at the bottom. Further to this, the site is enclosed on two sides by terraced properties.

The existing garden to number 14 is made up of a number of terraced lawns at different levels, set apart by natural stone retaining walls and connected by a series of steps and paths. There are a range of shrubs and plants throughout the site. The site is set within the

DC0901MW Development Boundary for Dartmouth. It is also within the Towns Conservation Area with Listed Buildings nearby.

The proposal is for a detached dwelling making revisions to a previous application (ref: 15/0210/12/F) which was refused. The currently proposed dwelling has one bedroom and has two levels of accommodation under a natural slate pitched roof. The elevations are rendered. The footprint for the dwelling measures approximately 12m by 14.5m.

The height of the current scheme has been reduced by approximately 1.4m in comparison to the previous scheme. The previous pair of dormers have been omitted resulting in a dwelling over two levels instead of three. The height of the eaves is 1m below the level to the neighbouring garden to the north being position approximately 1 m away. The ridge height is 1.4m higher than the level of the adjacent northern garden and 3.9m in distance due to the pitch of the roof falling away from the terrace.

The proposed dwelling is located close to the northern boundary of the site (approximately 1m). The northern boundary is a tall stone retaining wall in excess of 3m in height.

Material Planning Considerations

Design Conservation Area Setting of Listed buildings Highways Drainage Wildlife Neighbour impact AONB Human rights

Planning History

Prior to the submission of this application a pre-application enquiry was submitted for the proposed dwelling (15/1762/11/PREMIN). The ridge and eaves heights were reduced with some design alterations. Following the changes Officer support was provided.

The resulting application (15/0210/12/F) was recommended for approval by the case officer but was refused at Development Management Committee (25/06/12).

The refusal reason was:

The proposed dwelling by virtue of its height and scale is considered an overdevelopment of the site which would result in the loss of a green space. Such an overdevelopment will result in an un-neighbourly impact upon surrounding residential properties and gardens as a result of the build and during its construction phase due to restricted access to the site. As such the development is considered contrary to LDF Core Strategy Policy CS7; Development Policies DP1, DP3, DP7; Local Plan Policy SHDC1 and relevant Government Guidance.

Following this refusal the applicant has submitted the current scheme which seeks to reduce some impact by way of a reduction in ridge height by approximately 1.4m providing 2 levels of accommodation rather than 3.

DC0901MW Planning Policy

Nation Planning Policy Framework

At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, of which there are three dimensions – an economic role, a social role, and an environmental role. These roles are mutually dependent.

● an economic role – contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation; and by identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure;

● a social role – supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being; and

● an environmental role – contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; and, as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity, use natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy.

LDF Core Strategy

Policy CS1: Location of Development – permits in principle development within development boundaries.

CS7 – Design – requires development proposals to include and promote good design that respects local distinctiveness, respects the character of the site and its surroundings in order to protect and enhance the built and natural environments.

CS9 : Landscape and Historic Environment – states that the quality, character, diversity and local distinctiveness of the natural and historic environment will be conserved and enhanced.

Policy CS10 Nature Conservation requires that International sites and those of Special Scientific Interest will be subject to a high degree of protection. Habitats and features of regional and local importance for nature conservation will be protected and, where possible, enhanced through beneficial management. Appropriate consideration will be given to nationally protected species, with special consideration to European protected species.

LDF Development Policies DPD

DP1: High Quality Design: All development will display high quality design which, in particular, respects and responds to the South Hams character in terms of its settlement and landscape.

DP4: Sustainable Construction: Development should be adaptable, anticipating change in household needs and family structures throughout their lifetime as well as anticipating the impacts of climate change.

DP5: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation: Development will conserve, enhance and/or, restore the biodiversity within the South Hams.

DP7: Transport Access and Parking: Development should: provide priority to pedestrians, cyclists and users of public transport, over the private car. This will be achieved, in part, through the creation of links between new development and existing pedestrian, cyclist and public transport networks; provide for safe, easy and direct movement; have safe and adequate means of access, egress; materially impair highway safety or traffic movement; and not detract or conflict with the transport function of the road.

Devon County Structure Plan

C03 – Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty – development must support the conservation or enhancement of AONBs or foster their social and economic well-being provided that such development is compatible with their conservation.

CO6 Quality of New Development: The identity, distinctive character and features of existing settlements should be conserved and enhanced.

Policy CO7 : Historic Settlements and Buildings: The quality of Devon’s historic environment should be conserved and enhanced.

Policy CO10 Protection of Nature Conservation Sites & Species states that development likely to have an adverse effect on specially protected species should only be permitted where appropriate measures are taken to secure their protection

Policy TR5 – in co-ordinating land use and transportation planning and the management of traffic demand all development should make provision for and promote the safe use of the most sustainable and environmentally acceptable modes of travel, having regard to the following hierarchy: 1. Walking; 2. Cycling; 3. Public Transport; 4. Private Vehicles. All significant development proposals should be accompanied by a Transport Assessment indicating, as part of a sequential approach, how the potential for the most sustainable modes in the hierarchy has been fully realised in meeting overall travel needs.

DC0901MW

South Hams Local Plan

Policy SHDC1 : Development Boundaries : Permits development where it is compatible with the character of the site and its surroundings and where there would be no significant adverse effects in relation to traffic and parking, road safety, drainage, the landscape, wildlife and historic interests or local amenity.

Policy DP5: The Environment in Dartmouth : Development should not significantly alter the density of buildings, damage the landscape and character, or increase number of vehicles in the Policy Area around South Town and About town and around Mount Boone and Ridge Hill.

Representations

At the time of writing this report 14 letters of objections had been received together with the Town Councils objection. All the representations can be found on the Councils website. In summary the following concerns have been raised:

• Overdevelopment • Loss of green space • Un-neighbourly impact during build phase and once built • No parking provision (will exacerbate existing parking problems) • Private right of way from Clarence Hill is for pedestrian access only • Any proposal to use the private car park off Clarence Hill above the application site will be resisted • Detrimental impact upon the Conservation Area and neighbouring Listed Buildings • Flooding caused by a hidden pipe being damaged during development at a neighbouring site which will not be tolerated again • A construction & traffic plan will not work (would also like to see such a plan) • Concerns over stability of 18 Browns Hill & stone retaining wall on the rear/north boundary • Inaccuracies with drawing number 3073.05B • Flooding problem in area – no soak away and no sustainable drainage system provided for. Drainage to go into existing drainage system which is believed to have inadequate capacity • Concerns that somebody could fall into the rear yard of 18 Browns Hill • Wildlife impact • No demand for new houses within this part of town • Is not providing affordable housing

Analysis

Background History

This resulted in planning application ref: 15/0210/12/F being submitted. This application was recommended for approval by the case officer but was refused at Development Management Committee (25/06/12).

DC0901MW

Planning Policy

The application site falls within the development boundary of Dartmouth. Within development boundaries proposals will be permitted where this is compatible with the character of the site and its surroundings, and where there would be no significant adverse effects in relation to traffic and parking, road safety, drainage, the landscape, wildlife and historic interest or local amenity.

In relation to comments regarding overdevelopment the proposals and how they fit within the site have been carefully considered. The site does not require any new access. There is an existing pedestrian access from the bottom of the site (Browns Hill Steps) with a secondary access from the top (Clarence Hill) where an existing private pedestrian right of way exists.

Adjacent to the site there is a garden area to the east which is retained to serve 14 Broadstone. The original form of the building has been influenced by the tall and narrow buildings around it. The current proposed 1 bedroom property which is reduced in height but has the same footprint as the previous dwelling is not considered to be an overdevelopment of the site.

Affordable Housing

Concerns have been raised that the proposed dwelling will not be affordable. The proposal constitutes a net increase of one residential unit. As such policy does not require the residential unit to be affordable. With regards to whether there is market demand for the dwelling, this is not a material planning consideration.

The applicant is willing to enter into a legal agreement to ensure that the property is not used as a holiday home/second home, but as a permanent residence. This is not a policy requirement.

Design/Landscape Considerations

Concerns regarding the impact upon the Conservation Area and setting of Listed Buildings have been received. Also it has previously been stated by third parties that the site is within the grounds of a Listed Building and that the steps are Listed in their own right.

The Senior Conservation and Design Officer have visited the site and offer the following comments:

1. Effect on Conservation Area Owing to the enclosed character of the site and the dense grain of buildings in this historic part of Dartmouth, the construction of the proposed new house on this site is considered to preserve the architectural and historic character of the conservation area subject to certain design details. Visually, it will add to an already busy roofscape but will not have a significant impact otherwise.

2. Effect on setting a listed building

DC0901MW 6 Browns Hill and Mount Galpine in Clarence Hill are both listed. The site immediately abuts the former, containing a small courtyard at the lowest level that would have originally belonged to it, and is alleged to have formed part of the garden of the latter. However, it is not considered to form part of the curtilage of either, owing to the length of time lapsed since the connection is likely to have been severed and also to the dense urban context where historic curtilage necessarily has to be defined more tightly. The openings from number 6 on to the space have clearly been blocked since before the 1970s when the house was listed. This means that we would not require listed building consent for alterations or demolition of any structures within or bounding the site. However, the lower flights of steps with their stone treads and the retaining walls with their associated arches would count as heritage assets and should be preserved in situ.

3. Design The design of the proposed building is broadly acceptable. I do have some concerns about the detailing of the roof as this is the feature that will be most visible in the conservation area. As drawn, the eaves and bargeboards are too deep and revised details should be requested. I also have some reservations about the arrangement of rooflights on the rear elevation. It might be better if they were not arranged symmetrically (they don’t need to be, judging from the interior layout).

The revised scheme has an altered lower (by 1.4m) roof structure which omits a pair of dormer windows and roof lights from the previous scheme. The lower eaves will not be visable from public vantage points but in the interest of good design will be conditioned for details of this element of the build. Drawings have been provided which show 4 metres from a 5.5 metre run of the bottom flight of steps being retained.

As far as the AONB is concerned due to the site being well screened from public vantage points together with it being located within an urban area, it is considered that there is no adverse landscape impact.

Sustainable Development

The proposed dwelling will be subject to a condition seeking the applicant to achieve a code level 4 buildings unless otherwise agreed in writing with this Authority.

Neighbour Impact

Objections have been received from third parties that the dwelling will have an un- neighbourly impact upon the garden to the north and surrounding residential dwellings.

It is acknowledged that there will be an impact upon the garden to the north and surrounding properties. It is important to point out that with the reduction in height of 1.4m and the omission of a pair of dormer windows the neighbour impact in terms of dominance and privacy has been reduced when compared to the previous scheme. There is no longer a second floor level of accommodation within the revised scheme. The neighbour impact is considered acceptable.

The garden to the north sits at a higher level than the majority of the proposed dwelling. The proposed eaves are approximately 1 metre away from the terrace garden and 1m below the level of the garden. It is appreciated that the view from the garden will be partially screened as a result of a natural slate roof blocking it but a private view is not a material planning consideration. The roof has a ridge height of 1.1 metres above the level of the garden with

DC0901MW the ridge being 3.9 m from the closest edge of the garden terrace. The pitch of the roof falls away from the garden as it increases in height.

The character of this part of historic Dartmouth is one of tall buildings side by side. The proposed side gable elevation is adjacent to the end gable elevation of a taller neighbouring terrace. Neither of the said gables have any windows. Both gables sit within similar front and rear building lines which means that the proposed siting of the dwelling will have little impact in terms of overshadowing and dominance upon the terrace to the west.

In the other direction, being east, the application site provides a garden which adjoins another series of garden areas providing some distance before the next dwelling.

To the south the nearest dwelling is 6 Browns Hill Steps which is a Listed Building. The northern hip/end faces the south elevation of the proposed dwelling. The hip/end that belongs to the neighbouring property being number 6 is blank. There are no windows in the neighbour’s elevation that could be affected.

The yards to the rear of Browns Hill steps and Broadstone at the corner to the south east of the application site will certainly see the proposed dwelling which will sit in front of the 3m plus high stone retaining wall. There will be no direct overlooking due to the orientation of windows with the nearest corner of the proposed dwelling being 3.2m from the retaining wall serving the neighbouring yard.

Ecology/Biodiversity

Comments have been made regarding wildlife in the application site which currently serves as a domestic garden for number 14 Broadstone. The domestic garden has little wildlife value. The Landscape Officer has been consulted and advices that no wildlife survey is required.

Highway Matters

The Highway Engineer has given due regard to an allowed appeal decision for a similar proposal at 2 School Steps when considering the application site. The School Steps proposal (ref: 15/1712/10/F), for a 2 bedroomed dwelling, had no on site parking and also falls within the same policy area. One of the refusal reasons covered highway considerations similar to the objections raised to the current application. The Planning Inspectors comments on parking, traffic and highway safety dated 04/04/11 are as follows:

The high density of development in Dartmouth, together with the landforms and narrow roads, mean that parking is at a premium, with restricted parking and waiting on all roads within easy waling distance of the appeal site. The site is located very close to the facilities and services of the town centre, and to the bus services which connect Dartmouth with neighbouring towns. I consider that such a location is suitable for a ‘zero parking’ development. The prospective occupiers of the dwelling would be adequately served by the existing ‘Park and Ride’ service and by any car sharing schemes that might operate. Visitors to the dwelling not using public transport or the ‘Park and Ride’ service would compete for parking spaces with other visitors to the town, but I consider that the number of such trips generated by the proposed dwelling would not be so great as to cause material harm by reason of additional congestion or hazard to other highway users.

DC0901MW Whilst each application must be considered on its own merits this appeal decision is a material consideration, particularly bearing in mind the similarities between the appeal proposal and this current application. The Case Officer and Highway Engineer have given appropriate weight to the Inspectors comments which the agent and applicant are also aware of. The Highway Engineer raises no objection.

The Inspector attached a condition for a construction management plan. Comments have been received to suggest that such a condition would not be appropriate and that such details should have been provided prior to determination. The agent has not provided such details and considers that a condition for a construction management plan should be attached to any consent. Having considered the Inspectors condition, it is felt acceptable to attach a condition for a construction management plan.

Drainage

Concerns regarding flooding and the capacity of the main drains/sewerage system have been raised. The comments of SWW, the Building Control Officer and the Drainage Engineer have been set out at the beginning of this report.

South West Water has raised no objections in terms of sewer capacity. As a rule, SWW does not accept surface water into the combined sewer network. However, when there are no alternatives such as disposal to a soakaway (there are none available here) SWW can offer connection to a separate surface water sewer. SWW will make an exception for small scale proposals such as this scheme and allow a combined discharge.

It is anticipated that surface water run off will be drained into the main system. This main system has capacity for the proposed 1 bed roomed dwelling as confirmed by SWW.

In response to the damage to a pipe as a result of building works this is a civil matter between the interested parties.

Other Considerations

Concerns regarding the stability of the land have also been brought to the case officer’s attention. It is suggested that a condition is attached to any consent requiring structural calculations in order to carry out the development in an appropriate manner.

The NPPF at paragraph 120 advices:

To prevent unacceptable risks from pollution and land instability, planning policies and decisions should ensure that new development is appropriate for its location. The effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, the natural environment or general amenity, and the potential sensitivity of the area or proposed development to adverse effects from pollution, should be taken into account. Where a site is affected by contamination or land stability issues, responsibility for securing a safe development rests with the developer and/or landowner.

In relation to inaccuracies on drawing 3073.05B this drawing does not form part of the current application. Drawing number 3073.05E forms part of the current application and is considered to be accurate in terms of the proposed scheme.

DC0901MW Comments have been received regarding the loss of a green space. Subject to material considerations including traffic and parking, road safety, drainage, the landscape, wildlife and historic interests or local amenity the dwelling can be supported.

The neighbour at 18 Browns Hill is concerned that somebody could fall into the rear yard serving this property. A condition requiring boundary treatments would ensure a barrier is erected.

Finally, in relation to any disruption from building works, it is suggested that a condition requiring details of the means of transport of construction materials, and the proposed frequency of deliveries of such materials to the site could adequately control the development.

Conclusion

The Development Committee comments during the determination of the previous scheme have been considered in relation to this current amended scheme. Whilst the current scheme does not address how the dwelling is to be built, weight has been given to the Planning Inspectors comments and a condition for a construction management plan is still considered acceptable.

In terms of height and scale, the current scheme reduces both. Previous dormer windows have been omitted with the resulting 1 bed roomed dwelling having two levels of accommodation instead of three. This provides a more neighbourly scheme which will barely be visible from public vantage points. The reduced building volume is not considered to constitute an overdevelopment of the site.

Considerations under Human Rights Act Due regard has been given to the provision of the European Convention on Human Rights and in particular to the rights under Article 1 of the First Protocol, namely the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions, and Article 8, the right to respect for private and family life. In arriving at a recommendation the rights of the applicants have been balanced against the objections raised by third parties. However, having due regard to objectives of Development Plan Policies and Central Government Guidance and relevant consultation replies, it is not considered that these concerns would override the applicant’s reasonable expectations under the Convention.

Recommendation:

Conditional approval

Reason(s) for approval:

DC0901MW Policies DP1, DP2, DP3, DP4, DP6, DP7; Structure Plan C03, C06, C07, TR5; Local Plan SHDC1, DP5.Special regard has been given to the representations about overdevelopment, un-neighbourly impact, no parking provision, impact upon the Conservation Area and Listed Buildings, sewerage capacity, wildlife and affordable housing but these were not considered to be overriding because the site can accommodate modest development, the privacy and dominance will not be significantly exacerbated, the highway engineer has raised no objections, the conservation officer has raised no objections, SWW raise no objections, the landscape officer does not consider there is a need for a wildlife survey and policy does not require any affordable housing.

Subject to the following condition(s): 1. Time 3 years 2. Accord with approved plans 3. Un-suspected contamination 4. Code level 4 5. Boundary details 6. Gas proof membrane 7. Natural Slate sample 8. Eaves and verge details 9. Render details 10. Stonework details 11. Joinery details 12. Structural details 13. Removal of permitted development rights 14. Landscaping scheme

INFORMATIVES

1. None

DC0901MW

Case Officer: Debbie Crowther

Application No : 37/1864/12/F Date received: 24 July 2012

Agent/Applicant: Applicant: Steven Bottomley Mr S Mcready Steven Bottomley Ltd Briar Hill Farm Windhover Court Road Barracks Hill Newton Ferrers Totnes Plymouth Devon PL8 1AR TQ9 6DG

Site Address: Briar Hill Farm, Court Road, Newton Ferrers, Plymouth, PL8 1AR

Development: Retrospective change of use of land to camping and caravan site

Scale 1:2500

DC0901MW Consultations: • County Highways Authority No objection • South West Water No comments • Environment Agency No comments • Environmental Health Section No comments • Drainage Engineer No comments • Building Control No comments • Newton and Noss Parish Council Objection

Site Description and the Proposal

The application site is a parcel of land sited at the northern side of an established camping and caravan site at Briar Hill Farm in Newton Ferrers.

The land is outside the development boundary for Newton Ferrers and as such is located in the open countryside. The land lies within the South Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the undeveloped coast.

This application seeks retrospective planning permission for the use of land as an extension to the existing camping and caravan use.

Material Planning Considerations Planning policy Planning history Sustainability of the development Visual Impact & Impact on landscape character Benefits to the Local Economy Provision of tourist facilities Highways, additional traffic

Planning History 37/0386/12/CLE Lawful development certificate for existing use for camping and caravan use of the land. Refused 25 June 2012. The Local Planning Authority were not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the land, subject to Certificate of Lawfulness Application 37/0386/12/CLE and described in the application as Area 1 and shown outlined in red on Plan SM/LDC/A1 has been used for in excess of the last ten years for camping and caravanning.

In relation to land immediately to the south of the application site - WB/6410 in 1960 planning permission was granted for use of the site as a caravan and camping site. Prior to the 1960 application the site had been used as a caravan and camping site for at least 15 years.

Planning Policy Devon County Structure Plan ST1 Sustainable Development In planning for the future of Devon, Local Planning Authorities and other agencies should ensure that sustainable development objectives are achieved by: 1) conserving resources - through the efficient use of land, waste minimisation, conservation of mineral resources, energy conservation and the use of renewable resources, and the effective management of water;

DC0901MW 2) protecting environmental assets – including landscape, the natural, built and historic environment - and ensuring that development proposals are well designed and sympathetic to Devon’s distinctive character; 3) meeting the needs of the community, including housing, employment, social and cultural needs, in terms of their range and scale - provided for in locations most accessible to those who need to use them;

ST5 Development Priority 2001 to 2016 In the open countryside, development should be strictly controlled.

ST16 Local Centres and Rural Areas Within the rural areas, Local Plans should identify certain villages as Local Centres, which can complement the role of the Area Centres by acting as a focus for essential facilities within rural communities - including affordable housing, small scale employment and other local services. These Local Centres should therefore: 1) be accessible to the community they serve and well related to public transport and the highway network; and 2) be defined to ensure that the local needs of all rural areas can be met, taking into account their location relative to other designated Centres, including those in adjoining Districts. Outside of the Local Centres, there may be scope for small scale development which supports the need for local regeneration where it recognises landscape and accessibility constraints and overall spatial strategy.

CO1 Landscape Character and Local Distinctiveness Policies and proposals within each part of Devon should be informed by and be sympathetic to its landscape character and quality.

CO3 Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty In designated Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the conservation and enhancement of their natural beauty will be given priority over other considerations. Within these areas, development will only be provided for where it would support their conservation or enhancement or would foster their social and economic well-being provided that such development is compatible with their conservation.

CO5 Coastal Preservation Area Within the Coastal Preservation Area, development, other than that of a minor nature, will not be provided for except where it is required: for the benefit of the community at large, in connection with public access for informal recreation, or for the purposes of agriculture or forestry and only when such development cannot reasonably be accommodated outside the protected areas. Such development will only be provided for when it would not detract from the unspoilt character and appearance of the coastal area.

CO6 Quality of New Development The identity, distinctive character and features of existing settlements, urban and rural areas should be conserved and enhanced. In planning for new development the Local Planning Authority should maintain and improve the quality of Devon’s environment by requiring attention to good design and layout that respects the character of the site and its surroundings.

TR1 Devon Travel Strategy The movement of people and goods within and through Devon will be planned and provided for through an integrated approach to travel which will support the overall development

DC0901MW Strategy - meeting the social and economic needs of all sectors of the community in a way which improves safety, reduces the need to travel and its environmental impact and minimises the use of resources. In doing so the strategic priorities will be to: 1) promote the co-ordination of land use and travel planning; 2) manage travel demand; 3) promote sustainable travel and modal choice; 4) develop more effective and integrated transport and freight networks; 5) identify an integrated approach to transport investment in each part of Devon; and 6) minimise the impact of transport on the environment.

TR5 Hierarchy of Modes In co-ordinating land use and transportation planning and the management of traffic demand all development should make provision for and promote the safe use of the most sustainable and environmentally acceptable modes of travel, having regard to the following hierarchy: 1) Walking; 2) Cycling; 3) Public Transport; 4) Private Vehicles.

TO3 Tourist Development in Rural Areas Outside the settlements referred to in Policies TO1 and TO2, the following types of tourist development will be acceptable: 1. within Local Centres and villages, small scale hotels and guest houses, including extensions and conversions, and small scale self-catering accommodation, where it would be in keeping with the scale and character of the settlement; 2. accommodation in existing farm and country houses, including the conversion to ancillary serviced accommodation and self-catering units of adjacent buildings which are in close proximity to the main dwelling; 3. accommodation and/or facilities directly related to existing recreational development, which would be compatible in scale and character to that development and the surrounding area; 4. improvements to holiday and touring parks, at an appropriate scale, which would result in environmental gain and/or improved facilities; 5. visitor attractions / activities related to, and sympathetic with, Devon’s natural or historic heritage; and 6. development permitted by Policy TO4 (Touring Parks & Camping Sites).

South Hams Local Development Framework Core Strategy

CS1 Location of Development permits in principle development within development boundaries. Elsewhere, development will be strictly controlled and only permitted where it can be delivered sustainably and in response to a demonstrable local need.

CS7 Design Development proposals must include and promote good design which respects local distinctiveness, respects the character of the site and its surroundings in order to protect and enhance the built and natural environments, creates safer places and deters crime.

CS9 Landscape and Historic Environment In designated Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty their conservation and enhancement will be given great weight. The quality, character, diversity and local distinctiveness of the natural and historic environment will be conserved and enhanced. Within identified landscape character areas

DC0901MW development will conserve, enhance and, where appropriate, restore landscape character. Specific landscape, wildlife and historic features which contribute to local character will be conserved and enhanced.

CS12 Tourism New tourism and leisure facilities, including associated accommodation, should be provided in locations which accord with the following sequential approach, using previously developed land or buildings wherever possible: i. in the designated Town Centre Zones, without undermining their primary function as a hub for local residents, ii. in Area and Local Centres iii. within the development boundaries of settlements iv. outside but adjacent to settlement boundaries of settlements v. elsewhere

Development Policies DPD

DP1 High Quality Design 1. All development will display high quality design which, in particular, respects and responds to the South Hams character in terms of its settlements and landscape. New development should: a. be based on a good understanding of the context of the site, and contribute positively to its setting by enhancing the local character, taking account of the layout, scale, appearance, existing materials and built and natural features of the surrounding area;

DP2 Landscape Character 1. Development proposals will need to demonstrate how they conserve and / or enhance the South Hams landscape character, including coastal areas, estuaries, river valleys, undulating uplands and other landscapes, by: a. reflecting the needs and issues set out in identified landscape character areas; b. ensuring its location, siting, layout, scale and design conserves and/or enhances what is special and locally distinctive about the landscape character (including its historic, biodiversity and cultural character); c. retaining, integrating and enhancing distinctive features such as trees, ancient woodlands, field boundaries, walls, hedgerows, watercourses and river valleys; d. avoiding unsympathetic intrusion in the wider landscape, such as detrimental impact on the character of skylines or views from public vantage points and light pollution; and e. respecting the unspoilt nature and tranquillity of the area.

DP3 Residential Amenity 1. Development will be permitted provided it does not have an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of occupiers of nearby properties. 2. Unacceptable impacts will be judged against the level of amenity generally accepted within the locality and could result from: a. loss of privacy and overlooking; b. overbearing and dominant impact; c. loss of daylight or sunlight; d. noise or disturbance; e. odours or fumes.

DP12 Tourism and Leisure

DC0901MW 1. Proposals for tourism and leisure development, and tourist accommodation, will be permitted where they: a. are located in sustainable and accessible locations; b. do not undermine the vitality or viability of nearby settlements; c. provide a high quality attraction or accommodation; and d. encourage an extended tourist season. 2. In addition, in the countryside proposals will only be permitted where they: a. demonstrate they require a rural location and cannot be accommodated elsewhere, or be associated with the expansion of an existing facility; and b. support the objectives of rural regeneration.

DP13 Holiday Caravan, Camping and Chalet Sites 1. Within AONBs and the undeveloped coast, proposals for new and extensions to existing caravan, camping and chalet sites will not be permitted. Alterations to existing sites should only be permitted where all the following criteria are met: a. they would meet a demonstrable need; b. they would be of an appropriate scale in relation to their setting and would not diminish local amenity; c. they are sited to be visually unobtrusive and can be assimilated so as to conserve and enhance the surrounding landscape; d. the road network and the site’s access can safely accommodate any traffic generated; and e. net environmental improvements to the site as a whole will result. 2. Outside the AONBs and the undeveloped coast, proposals for new caravan, camping and chalet sites, and extensions or alterations to existing sites will be permitted where the criteria (a – e), above, are met.

DP15 Development in the Countryside 1. Within the countryside, development will be permitted where it requires a countryside location and: a. supports the essential needs of agriculture or forestry interests; or b. meets the essential, small scale, and exceptional local development needs of a settlement which cannot be met within development boundaries. 2. All development in the countryside should: a. make use of suitable existing buildings or previously developed land before proposing new buildings or development of greenfield land; b. be well related to an existing farmstead or group of buildings, or be located close to an established settlement; and c. be complementary to and not prejudice any viable agricultural operations on a farm and other existing viable uses.

National Planning Policy Framework

The presumption in favour of sustainable development

11. Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

12. This National Planning Policy Framework does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. Proposed development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan should be approved, and proposed development that conflicts should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. It is highly desirable that local planning authorities should have an up-to-date plan in place.

DC0901MW

14. At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development , which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking. For decision-taking this means • approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and • where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless: any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.

Core planning principles

17. Within the overarching roles that the planning system ought to play, a set of core land- use planning principles should underpin both plan-making and decision-taking. The 12 principles include that planning should: • always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings; • take account of the different roles and character of different areas, promoting the vitality of our main urban areas, protecting the Green Belts around them, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it; • support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate, taking full account of flood risk and coastal change, and encourage the reuse of existing resources, including conversion of existing buildings, and encourage the use of renewable resources (for example, by the development of renewable energy); contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment and reducing pollution. Allocations of land for development should prefer land of lesser environmental value, where consistent with other policies in this Framework; • encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value;

3. Supporting a prosperous rural economy

28. To promote a strong rural economy, local and neighbour plans should: 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.

34. Plans and decisions should ensure developments that generate significant movement are located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised. However this needs to take account of policies set out elsewhere in this Framework, particularly in rural areas.

4. Promoting sustainable transport

35. Plans should protect and exploit opportunities for the use of sustainable transport modes for the movement of goods or people. Therefore, developments should be located and designed where practical to

DC0901MW • accommodate the efficient delivery of goods and supplies; • give priority to pedestrian and cycle movements, and have access to high quality public transport facilities;

37. Planning policies should aim for a balance of land uses within their area so that people can be encouraged to minimise journey lengths for employment, shopping, leisure, education and other activities.

11. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

115. Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in… Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty.

Determining applications

197. In assessing and determining development proposals, local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

Representations At the time of writing this report three letters of objection to the application have been received.

Concerns raised in the letters of representation can be summarised as: • Address is incorrect • Hedgerows were removed from around the field and vehicular access created without planning permission • Static caravan units can be seen from public and National Trust footpaths and other public and private viewpoints • Development not have regard to the character of the area • Development has taken place on one of the Barton Fields which is of historical importance • No proven need for the development • Detrimental visual impact • No accompanying evidence to support the safe inclusion of extra traffic to the local network • No evidence that any net improvements to the site will result • Application site lies outside the development boundary • Precedent for future similar development • Retrospective nature of the application • The area is not within the licensed caravan/camping site • Location with in the open countryside, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and undeveloped coast • Campsite was expanded into this area around 2004 • Land should be returned to their natural beauty and agricultural use

Newton and Noss Parish Council raise objection to the planning application. The Parish Council support the grounds for refusal outlined in the letters to SHDC from Dr and Mrs Hirst dated 12/9/12 and from Mr Hussell dated 24/8/12.

All letters of representation are available on the Council’s website.

DC0901MW

Analysis

Policy Policies relevant to this application are detailed above. One of the policies to be considered in the determination of this application is Development Policies DPD policy DP13 Holiday Caravan, Camping and Chalet Sites. DP13 states that within AONBs and the undeveloped coast, proposals for new and extensions to existing caravan, camping and chalet sites will not be permitted. The parcel of land to which this application for an extension of an existing camping and caravan site relates is located within the South Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The application has therefore been advertised as a departure to the development plan.

The development proposal needs to be assessed against DP13 and all other relevant planning policies.

Given the existing camping and caravan site that exists at Briar Hill Farm and the fact that this application seeks retrospective planning permission for an extension to the caravan site it is appropriate for the LPA to consider policies related to Tourist Development, amongst others, when assessing this application.

The application site lies outside any settlement development boundary; adopted planning policies strictly control development in the countryside (County Structure Plan ST5 Development Priority, LDF Core Strategy CS1 Location of Development, CS12 Tourism, Development Policies DPD DP12 Tourism and Leisure, DP15 Development in the Countryside). In addition the site lies within the South Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty where priority is given to the conservation and enhancement of the landscape.

The National Planning Policy Framework is a material planning consideration. The document states that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development.

Location of the Development and Sustainability Considerations The proposal seeks retrospective permission for the change of use of land from agriculture to a camping and caravan use. The current owner of Briar Hill Farm purchased the site in 2004 and it was around this time that three static caravan units were sited on the parcel of land subject to this current planning application.

The parcel of land directly adjoins the existing authorised camping and caravan site at Briar Hill Farm. The site is outside but close to the existing development boundary for Newton Ferrers. Given the very close relationship with the existing camping and caravan site and close proximity to the village of Newton Ferrers, it is considered that the three additional static caravan units are sited in a sustainable location. Devon County Highways raise no objection to the development in terms of sustainability.

Visual Impact and Impact on the Character of the Landscape The landscape is designated as Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The NPPF gives great weight to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty.

The three static units that are currently sited on the land in question are physically and visually well related to the rest of the authorised camping and caravan site.

DC0901MW Officers are of the view that the development results in a limited visual impact when viewed in the context of the rest of the camping and caravan site. Within the Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the conservation and enhancement of their natural beauty is given priority over other considerations. The LPA is of the view that the development has negligible impact on the South Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. In this respect it is considered that the development does support the conservation of the landscape. It is recognised that the camping and caravan business has economic benefits to the rural economy and these economic benefits are given some weight in favour of the development.

Summary Officers consider that the development does not result in any significant harm to the character of the South Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Three static caravan units have been sited on the parcel of land for approximately 8 years. By reason of the distance from neighbouring residential development the three caravan units do not result in any significant harm to the amenity of neighbours. Each planning application must be determined on its own planning merits. Whilst the development does not accord with the provisions of one of the Development Plan policies it is considered that in all other respects the development is acceptable and in the absence of any overriding harm either to landscape character or neighbour amenity, the officer recommendation for this application is conditional approval. A condition is recommended to ensure that any caravans sited on the land are restricted to holiday use only.

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Reason(s) for approval:

1. This application has been determined in accordance with Section 38 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which states that planning applications must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. This application has been determined in accordance with approved Development Plan Policies; relevant Government planning policy guidance; and approved in the absence of any other overriding material considerations and having given due weight to all other matters raised in this application including technical and other representations received. The relevant Policies are Devon County Structure Plan ST1, ST5, ST16, CO1, CO3, CO5, CO6, TR1, TO3, South Hams Local Development Framework Core Strategy CS1, CS7, CS9, CS12, Development Policies DPD DP1, DP2, DP3, DP12, DP15. All consultations and representations, and relevant planning history, have been given due consideration and balanced accordingly when formulating this recommendation and conditions.

DC0901MW Subject to the following condition(s):

1. NS Holiday Use

DC0901MW

Case Officer: Mr Edward Brown

Application No : 56/2037/12/F Date received: 13 August 2012

Agent/Applicant: Applicant: Stephen Munday Dr S Hopwood Mr S Munday The Arcturus Clinic Little Cottage Farm 47 Fore Street Plymouth Road Totnes Totnes Devon TQ9 5LH

Site Address: 47 Fore Street, Totnes, Devon

Development: Change of use of ground floor from retail (Class A1) to a mixed use of retail and cafe (Class A3), installation of cooking fume extraction equipment to the rear of the property, the use of the forecourt and rear yard for seating, the insertion of a customer toilet in the rear extension and landscaping of the forecourt

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. 2012. Scale 1:1250 For internal reference only – no further copies to be made

DC0901MW

Consultations:

• County Highways Authority – the Highway Engineer has viewed the details and has no comments

• South West Water – no comments

• Environment Agency – no comments

• Environmental Health Section – no objections

• Drainage Engineer – no comments

• Building Control – no comments

• Parish Council – object (do not support change of use and change of use for seating outside)

The Proposal

This application seeks to change the use of the ground floor of 47 Fore Street from retail (A1) to a mixed use of retail and café/takeaway (A1/A3) together with alterations. These alterations include the installation of kitchen extraction equipment, and the construction of a bin store.

The retail unit is located in the bottom half of the Central Shopping Area in Totnes. The character of the area is one of primarily A1 retail uses but also a number of A2 (Financial & Professional Services), A3 (Restaurants & Cafes), A4 (Drinking Establishments) and A5 (Takeaway) and a low number of other use classes (C3 (dwellings), D1 (non-residential institutions), D2 (assembly and leisure)).

The Central Shopping Area 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.

Totnes is a market town with a variety of shops and services being provided. There are a large number of independent businesses but larger chains do exist within the Central Shopping Area as well (but are lesser in number). There are also a small number of empty units within the Central Shopping Area.

Material Planning Considerations

Central Shopping Area Highways Neighbours Human rights

DC0901MW

Planning History

56/0633/74/6 – conversion of house to 3 flats – approved 12/11/74

56/1708/81/4 – optometrist office, practice and living accommodation – approved 19/01/82

56/0009/82/4 – change of use from three flats to shopping on ground floor, showroom on first floor and workshop on top floor – approved 09/02/82

56/0264/83/3 – alterations to rear elevations to provide alterations to rear elevation to provide new fire door & fire escape – approved 13/04/83

56/2011/89/3 – change of use of part second floor to caretakers flat – approved 16/11/89

56/2011/89/3 – change of use of part of first floor and second floor to caretakers flat - approved 16/11/89

Planning Policy

Devon County Structure Plan

Policy CO7 : Historic Settlements and Buildings: The quality of Devon’s historic environment should be conserved and enhanced.

LDF Core Strategy

CS9 : Landscape and Historic Environment – states that the quality, character, diversity and local distinctiveness of the natural and historic environment will be conserved and enhanced.

LDF Development Policies DPD

DP1: High Quality Design: All development will display high quality design which, in particular, respects and responds to the South Hams character in terms of its settlement and landscape.

DP3: Residential Amenity : Development will be permitted provided it does not have an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of occupiers of nearby properties. Unacceptable impacts will be judged against the level of amenity generally accepted within the locality and could result from: loss of privacy and overlooking; overbearing and dominant impact; loss of daylight or sunlight; noise or disturbance; odours or fumes.

DP7: Transport Access and Parking: Development should: provide priority to pedestrians,

DC0901MW cyclists and users of public transport, over the private car. This will be achieved, in part, through the creation of links between new development and existing pedestrian, cyclist and public transport networks; provide for safe, easy and direct movement; have safe and adequate means of access, egress; materially impair highway safety or traffic movement; and not detract or conflict with the transport function of the road.

South Hams Local Plan

Policy SHDC1 : Development Boundaries: Permits development where it is compatible with the character of the site and its surroundings and where there would be no significant adverse effects in relation to traffic and parking, road safety, drainage, the landscape, wildlife and historic interests or local amenity.

Policy SHDC23: Shopping in Towns – Within the Central Shopping Areas defined at Dartmouth, Ivybridge, Kingsbridge, Modbury, Salcombe and Totnes:

(a) shopping development (Use Class A1) will be permitted. (b) Proposals for non-shopping use, including Use Class A2 (Financial and Professional Services) and A3 (Food and Drink) of ground floor premises will be permitted, providing it would not: (i) undermine the shopping character of the street; (ii) detract from the appearance of the environment; or (iii) adversely affect amenity of the surrounding area through consequent noise, smell, litter, congestion on pavements or disturbance arising from late opening hours.

National Planning Policy Framework

Paragraph 23 advises:

Ensuring the vitality of town centres

DC0901MW 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, reintroduce 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

Representations

At the time of writing this report no letters of representation had been received.

The Town Council has objected.

Analysis

Background History

The ground floor of the building is currently used for A1 purposes.

DC0901MW

Planning Policy

The NPPF seeks to promote new businesses and jobs, and the importance of the plan-led system.

Section 2 (Ensuring the vitality of town centres) from the NPPF is of relevance. From section 2 only paragraph 23 has any bearing upon the current application. Paragraph 23 consists of 10 points which are contained within the planning policy section of this report.

The case officer has previously surveyed the use classes for the whole of the Central Shopping Area looking at the level of A3 uses in comparison to other uses classes and in particular the number of A1 uses during the summer. The majority of the use classes are A1 uses. The proposed A1/A3 unit adding to the existing A3 units would not constitute an over supply.

It is not considered that the mixed A1/A3 use would harm the vitality and viability of the Central Shopping Area. The Central Shopping Area contains mainly A1 uses with a healthy addition of A2, A3, A4, A5 and other uses. The addition of a mixed A1/A3 use is not considered to have a detrimental impact upon the vitality and viability of the town centre or make a significant impact upon the ratio of use classes.

The proposed change of use is considered compliant with the NPPF.

With regards to Local Plan, policy SHDC23: shopping in towns is relevant.

Point 1(b)(i) states applications for non-shopping use including A2 & A3 uses of ground floor premises will be permitted, providing it would not undermine the shopping character of the street.

Within the preamble to this policy paragraph 7.5 reads:

The Council has been concerned by the proliferation of non-shopping uses which have arisen in many town centre premises over recent years. The cumulative effect of such uses is to undermine the shopping character of an area, and the appearance or amenity of a locality can also be adversely affected.

The shopping character refers to A1 uses. Where a non A1 use is sought the shopping character may be undermined. The number of A1 uses out number the non—A1 uses. As such the proposed change of use to a mixed A1/A3 is considered to comply with Local Policy.

Point 1(b) (ii) from the same policy is concerned about the shopping character of the street. Externally there will be little change to the building itself. However, the front and rear outdoor areas are proposed to be used as seating areas. These areas are within the cartilage of the planning unit. The rear area is enclosed by existing stone walls. The front area will be visible within the streetscene. No changes are sought to any boundary features. This modest private seating area adjacent to the footpath will add to the vitality of the area. It is also pointed out that other outdoor seating is provided within the Central Shopping Area.

DC0901MW In terms of the final point from SHDC23 being 1(b)(iii) this is concerned with the amenity of the surrounding area. The Environmental Health Officer has been consulted and raises no objections (see Neighbour Impact section below).

Employment

Part 19 of the application form states that there are 2.5 employees currently. The proposed employee figure increases to 3.5.

Design

There is a linked Listed Building application (56/2038/12/LB) that the Senior Conservation and Planning Officer has commented upon. He raises no objections to the alterations which are modest.

Neighbour Impact

The Councils Environmental Health officer has been consulted as part of the determination of this application.

The officer has considered the information provided by the applicant and having had discussions with them prior to submission he is satisfied that the extraction system should be sufficient to prevent a negative impact on the nearby residential community. This belief was reached when considering the existing street scene with a public house in close proximity to the site and the level of traffic movements in the area which would mask some of the noise. Having viewed the representation by the Town Council the Environmental Health Officer believes it would not be unusual for outside seating areas in urban environments to be used during the times stipulated by the applicant which will be conditioned to further ensure that nearby residential amenity is protected. The hours are: 08:00 - 18:00 Monday - Saturday 10:00 - 16:00 Sundays and Bank Holidays

These hours will be conditioned for the use of the ground floor and outside seating area.

Highway Matters

The highway engineer has viewed the application. He has no comments to make.

Conclusion

The premises currently operate under an A1 use. With the introduction of a mixed A1/A3 use, it is considered that the vitality and viability of the Central Shopping Area will not be undermined. There would not be resulting oversupply of A3 uses. Conditions have been attached to ensure that residential amenity is protected.

Considerations under Human Rights Act

Due regard has been given to the provision of the European Convention on Human Rights and in particular to the rights under Article 1 of the First Protocol, namely the right to the

DC0901MW peaceful enjoyment of possessions, and Article 8, the right to respect for private and family life. In arriving at a recommendation the rights of the applicants have been balanced against the objections raised by the Town Council. However, having due regard to objectives of Development Plan Policies and Central Government Guidance and relevant consultation replies, it is not considered that these concerns would override the applicant’s reasonable expectations under the Convention.

Recommendation:

Conditional approval

Reason(s) for approval:

1. This application has been determined in accordance with Section 38 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which states that planning applications must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. This application has been determined in accordance with approved Development Plan Policies; relevant Government planning policy guidance; and approved in the absence of any other overriding material considerations and having given due weight to all other matters raised in this application including technical and other representations received. The relevant Policies are LDF Core Strategy CS7, CS9; Development Policies DP1, DP3, DP6, DP7; Structure Plan C07; Local Plan SHDC1, SHDC23. Special regard has been given to the representations about use but these were not considered to be overriding because the use of the ground floor and outside areas will be subject to an hours of operation condition and will not have a detrimental visual impact..

Subject to the following condition(s): 1. Time (3 years) 2. Accord with plans 3. Opening hours 4. Extraction system

INFORMATIVES

1. None

DC0901MW

Case Officer: Mr Edward Brown

Application No : 56/2038/12/LB Date received: 13 August 2012

Agent/Applicant: Applicant: Stephen Munday Dr S Hopwood Mr S Munday The Arcturus Clinic Little Cottage Farm 47 Fore Street Plymouth Road Totnes Totnes Devon TQ9 5LH

Site Address: 47 Fore Street, Totnes, Devon

Development: Listed building consent to facilitate a change of use of the ground floor from retail to a mixed use of retail/cafe/takeaway. The works comprise installation of kitchen extraction equipment, reinstatement of an internal and external door, insertion of replacement fireplace, reflooring to provide wooden floorboards.

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. 2012. Scale 1:1250 For internal reference only – no further copies to be made

DC0901MW

Consultations:

• County Highways Authority – the Highway Engineer has viewed the details and has no comments

• South West Water – no comments

• Environment Agency – no comments

• Environmental Health Section - no objections

• Drainage Engineer – no comments

• Building Control - no comments

• Parish Council – Objection (do not support change of use and change of use for seating outside – also concern to ensure that the external wall adjoining shady garden is properly protected

• English Heritage – does not consider it necessary to comment

• Senior Conservation and Planning Officer - the application is not contentious in terms of its effect on the listed building (no objections)

The Proposal

Plans to alter the boundary wall adjoining shady garden have been omitted. The agent has confirmed this in writing.

DC0901MW

Material Planning Considerations

Design Historic environment Human rights

Planning History

56/0264/83/7 – Listed Building consent for alterations to rear elevation to provide new fire door & fire escape – approved 13/04/12

56/2013/89/7 – Listed Building consent for alterations – 16/11/89

56/0203/90/7 – Listed Building consent for alterations – 15/03/90

Planning Policy

Devon Structure Plan

Policy CO7: Historic Settlements and Buildings: The quality of Devon’s historic environment should be conserved and enhanced.

South Hams Core Strategy

Policy CS9: Landscape and Historic Environment states that the quality, character, diversity and local distinctiveness of the natural and historic environment will be conserved and enhanced.

South Hams Development Policies Development Management Document

DP1: High Quality Design: All development will display high quality design which, in particular, respects and responds to the South Hams character in terms of its settlement and landscape.

Policy DP6: Historic Environment: Development will preserve or enhance the quality of the historic environment. The design, siting, bulk, height, materials, colours and visual emphasis of proposed new development should take into account local context and in particular the character and appearance of the historic building and environment.

National Planning Policy Framework

The NPPF stresses the importance of the historic environment and identifies historic assets as an irreplaceable resource. Paragraph 129 requires the Local Planning Authority to:

“Identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage assets that may be affected by the proposal…taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. They should take this assessment into account when considering the impact of a proposal on

DC0901MW heritage assets, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal”.

The test for the Local Planning Authority is to assess the potential for ‘substantial harm’ to be caused as a result of the proposed development. Where this is found proposals would usually be resisted.

Paragraph 134 states:

“Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.”

Representations

At the time of writing this report no letters of representation had been received.

The Town Council has objected.

Analysis

Background History

The building is Listed with the ground floor currently used for A1 purposes.

Planning Policy

The building falls within the Conservation Area and as mentioned above is Listed. As such the alterations need to either conserve or enhance the historic area.

Design

As part of the determination of this application the Senior Conservation and Planning Officer has been consulted.

The Officer advices that the application is not contentious in terms of its effect on the listed building and has no objection to it. The office where the kitchen is proposed is modern and its conversion will not harm the character of the building. The form and position of the extractor has been negotiated through pre-application advice and is acceptable, in principle, though details will be required. The other works are basically superficial and reversible. The following two conditions have been suggested:

1. No work shall commence on site until full details of all ducts, flues, rainwater goods, vents and other external attachments have been first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The work shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be retained in that form unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the development and the surrounding area.

DC0901MW 2. Full details of the proposed wooden flooring shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local planning Authority prior to work commencing.

Reason: in order to preserve the architectural and historic character of the listed building.

Conclusion

Works to the Listed Building are considered appropriate. The Town Council does not support the change of use of the building or change of use for the seating area. The change of uses do not have a detrimental impact upon the Historic Environment. The external wall adjoining shady garden that the Town Council raised concerns over relating to alterations to this wall structure no longer forms part of this application. No alterations are proposed to the wall. As such this Listed Building Application is recommended for approval.

Considerations under Human Rights Act

Due regard has been given to the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights , and in particular to the rights under Article 1 of the First Protocol of the applicant(s) with respect to his/her/their right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of the property. Due regard has also been given to the rights, under Article 8, of local residents with respect to their rights for private and family life. In arriving at a recommendation the rights of the applicant(s) have been balanced against the interests, as expressed through the Development Plan and Central Government Guidance.

Recommendation:

Conditional approval

Reason(s) for approval:

1. This application has been determined in accordance with Sections 16, 17 and 18 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 which require inter alia that in respect of works requiring listed building consent that special regard shall be had to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interests which it possesses and provide powers to impose appropriate conditions in relation to the proposed works. This application has been determined in accordance with approved Development Plan Policies; relevant Government planning policy guidance; and approved in the absence of any other overriding material considerations and having given due weight to all other matters raised in this application including technical and other representations received. The relevant Policies are LDF Core Strategy CS9; Development Policy DP6; Structure Plan C07. Special regard has been given to the representations about the change of use to the building, out door seating area and alterations to a boundary wall but these were not considered to be overriding because the changes of use to the ground floor and out door area are not considered to have an detrimental impact upon the historic environment and the scheme no longer proposes any changes to the boundary wall.

DC0901MW Subject to the following condition(s):

1. Time (3 years) 2. Accord with plans 3. Details of all ducts, flues, rainwater goods, vents and other external attachments 4. Details of the proposed wooden flooring

INFORMATIVES

1. None

DC0901MW

Case Officer: Mr Nils White

Application No : 15/2145/12/F Date received: 05 September 2012

Agent/Applicant: Applicant: Mike Bailey Mr Hilary Bastone Bailey Consultancy St Petrox Trust Lands 9 Swan Court 30 Rosemary Gardens Victoria Rd Paignton Dartmouth Devon Devon TQ3 3NP TQ6 9EA

Site Address: 23, 24 & 25 Island House, Lower Street. Dartmouth, Devon. TQ6 9AN

Development: Full application for replacement of asbestos roof with natural slate roof.

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. 2012. Scale 1:1250 For internal reference only – no further copies to be made

DC0901MW

Consultations:

• County Highways Authority No comments received

• South West Water No comments received

• Environment Agency No comments received

• Environmental Health Section No comments received

• Drainage Engineer No comments received

• Building Control No comments received

• Parish Council Recommend approval

Site Description Island House is a large building, dating principally from the 19 th century, located on the west bank of the river Dart at the end of Lower Street, Dartmouth.

The Proposal It is proposed to remove the existing asbestos cement tiles from the roof and replace them with natural slate.

Material Planning Considerations Impact on listed building.

Planning History None relevant

Planning Policy

Adopted LDF Core Strategy – December 2006 CS9 : Landscape and Historic Environment – states that the quality, character, diversity and local distinctiveness of the natural and historic environment will be conserved and enhanced.

South Hams DPD Policy DP6: Historic Environment: Development will preserve or enhance the quality of the historic environment. The design, siting, bulk, height, materials, colours and visual emphasis of proposed new development should take into account local context and in particular the character and appearance of the historic building and environment.

Proposals will be permitted for alterations to, extensions to, or partial demolition of a listed building provided they satisfy criteria within policy DP6.

Devon County Structure Plan

Policy CO7 : Historic Settlements and Buildings: The quality of Devon’s historic environment should be conserved and enhanced.

DC0901MW Representations None received

Analysis This application involves a change in the roof material from asbestos tiles to natural slate on a building which is divided into multiple dwellings. Both listed building consent and planning permission are therefore required for the works.

The impact of the proposed change in roof covering will be entirely positive; the main elevation of the house is very prominent from both Bayards Cove and from the river and is also visible from Newcomen Road. The existing covering has reached the end of its life and is unsightly. This roof would originally have been clad in natural slate and its renewal will make a positive enhancement to the building itself and the character and appearance of the conservation area.

Standard conditions are recommended requiring a slate sample and proscribing the use of hip tiles (which are not traditional in this area).

Considerations under Human Rights Act Due regard has been given to the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights , and in particular to the rights under Article 1 of the First Protocol of the applicant(s) with respect to his/her/their right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of the property. Due regard has also been given to the rights, under Article 8, of local residents with respect to their rights for private and family life. In arriving at a recommendation the rights of the applicant(s) have been balanced against the interests, as expressed through the Development Plan and Central Government Guidance.

Recommendation:

Conditional approval

Reason(s) for approval:

1. This application has been determined in accordance with Section 66 of the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 in respect of planning applications which affect a listed building or its setting which requires that special regard shall be had to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interests which it possesses. This application has been determined in accordance with approved Development Plan Policies; relevant Government planning policy guidance; and approved in the absence of any other overriding material considerations and having given due weight to all other matters raised in this application including technical and other representations received. The relevant Policies are South Hams LDF Core Strategy CS9; DPD policy DP6 and Devon County Structure Plan policy CO7

Subject to the following condition(s):

DC0901MW 1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted.

Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 (as amended).

2. The development hereby approved shall in all respects accord strictly with the site location plan and drawing numbers Island House 01 and Island House BP 01received by the Local Planning Authority on 13th September 2012.

Reason: To ensure that the proposed development is carried out in accordance with the drawings forming part of the application to which this approval relates.

3. The roofs of the buildings shall be clad in natural slates, fixed in the traditional manner with nails rather than slate hooks. Any hips shall be finished with a close mitre, a lead roll, or narrow cement fillet rather than hip tiles. Prior to development commencing, a slate sample and a full roofing specification, together with a sample of the proposed ridge tiles shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the development displays good design practice in respect of the age and character of the development and to allow the Local Planning Authority to assess the details of the scheme to ensure that their character is maintained.

DC0901MW

Case Officer: Mr Nils White

Application No : 15/2146/12/LB Date received: 05 September 2012

Agent/Applicant: Applicant: Mike Bailey Mr Hilary Bastone Bailey Consultancy St Petrox Trust Lands 9 Swan Court 30 Rosemary Gardens Victoria Rd Paignton Dartmouth Devon Devon TQ3 3NP TQ6 9EA

Site Address: 23, 24 & 25 Island House, Lower Street. Dartmouth, Devon. TQ6 9AN

Development: Listed Building Consent for replacement of asbestos roof with natural slate roof.

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. 2012. Scale 1:1250 For internal reference only – no further copies to be made

DC0901MW Consultations:

• County Highways Authority No comments received

• South West Water No comments received

• Environment Agency No comments received

• Environmental Health Section No comments received

• Drainage Engineer No comments received

• Building Control No comments received

• Parish Council Recommend approval

Site Description Island House is a large building, dating principally from the 19 th century, located on the west bank of the river Dart at the end of Lower Street, Dartmouth.

The Proposal It is proposed to remove the existing asbestos cement tiles from the roof and replace them with natural slate.

Material Planning Considerations Impact on listed building.

Planning History None relevant

Planning Policy

Proposals will be permitted for alterations to, extensions to, or partial demolition of a listed building provided they satisfy criteria within policy DP6.

Devon County Structure Plan

Policy CO7 : Historic Settlements and Buildings: The quality of Devon’s historic environment should be conserved and enhanced.

DC0901MW

Representations None received

Standard conditions are recommended requiring a slate sample and proscribing the use of hip tiles (which are not traditional in this area).

Recommendation:

Conditional approval

Reason(s) for approval:

1. This application has been determined in accordance with Sections 16, 17 and 18 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 which requires that, inter alia that in respect of works requiring listed building consent that special regard shall be had to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interests which it possesses and provide powers to impose appropriate conditions in relation to the proposed works. This application has been determined in accordance with approved Development Plan Policies; relevant Government planning policy guidance; and approved in the absence of any other overriding material considerations and having given due weight to all other matters raised in this application including technical and other representations received. The relevant Policies are South Hams LDF Core Strategy CS9; DPD policy DP6 and Devon County Structure Plan policy CO7.

DC0901MW

Subject to the following condition(s):

1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted.

Reason: To comply with Section 18 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act, 1990 (as amended).

2. The development hereby approved shall in all respects accord strictly with the site location plan and drawing number Island House 01 received by the Local Planning Authority on 13th September 2012.

Reason: To ensure that the proposed development is carried out in accordance with the drawings forming part of the application to which this approval relates.

3. The roofs of the buildings shall be clad in natural slates, fixed in the traditional manner with nails rather than slate hooks. Any hips shall be finished with a close mitre, a lead roll or narrow cement fillet rather than hip tiles. Prior to development commencing, a full roofing specification including the types and sizes of natural slates to be used, together with the type, colour and profile of the ridge tiles shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

DC0901MW Dev Management 05.12.12

These minutes have previously been confirmed by the Council and are included for information purposes only

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEEHELD AT FOLLATON HOUSE, TOTNES, ON WEDNESDAY, 5 DECEMBER 2012

Members in attendance * Denotes attendance Ø Denotes apology for absence * Cllr A D Barber * Cllr P W Hitchins (pm only) * Cllr H D Bastone * Cllr J M Hodgson * Cllr J Brazil (am only) * Cllr T R Holway * Cllr C G Bruce-Spencer(am only) * Cllr D W May (Chairman) * Cllr B F Cane * Cllr J T Pennington * Cllr R J Carter * Cllr R Rowe * Cllr S E Cooper (pm only) * Cllr P C Smerdon * Cllr P Coulson * Cllr J W Squire * Cllr P K Cuthbert * Cllr R C Steer (Vice Chairman) * Cllr R J Foss * Cllr R J Vint * Cllr M Hannaford * Cllr J A Westacott MBE * Cllr J D Hawkins * Cllr S A E Wright Ø Cllr M J Hicks

Item No Minute Ref or App. No. Officers in attendance and participating below refers All agenda Major Projects Manager, Solicitor and items Member Services Manager Item 6 DM.37/12 Natural Environment and Recreation Manager, Landscape Officer, Affordable Housing Manager, Strategic Planning Officer, Estates Manager, Highways Development Manager, County Highways Officer Item 7 DM.38/12 Senior Planning Officers

DM.34/12 MINUTES

The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 7 November 2012 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

DM.35/12 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Members and officers were invited to declare any interests in the items of business to be considered during the meeting and the following were made:

- 73 - Dev Management 05.12.12

Cllr Steer declared a personal interest in application 03_56/1596/12/O - Resubmission of outline planning application 03_56/0447/12/O for outline application for mixed use development comprising about 100 dwellings. Up to 5350 sq m of office/light industrial floorspace. Up to 60 units of extra care accommodation and associated communal facilities. Up to 350 sq m of floorspace for community use. Provision of public open space. Creation of new vehicular and pedestrian/cycle accesses and associated works - Development site between Steamer Quay and Weston Lane, Bridgetown, Totnes by virtue of one of the objectors being a distant relative and he remained in the meeting and took part in the vote thereon; Cllr Rowe declared a personal interest in application 03_56/1596/12/O - Resubmission of outline planning application 03_56/0447/12/O for outline application for mixed use development comprising about 100 dwellings. Up to 5350 sq m of office/light industrial floorspace. Up to 60 units of extra care accommodation and associated communal facilities. Up to 350 sq m of floorspace for community use. Provision of public open space. Creation of new vehicular and pedestrian/cycle accesses and associated works - Development site between Steamer Quay and Weston Lane, Bridgetown, Totnes by virtue of being known to a number of the objectors and she remained in the meeting and took part in the debate and vote thereon;

Cllr Smerdon declared a personal interest in applications 30/2337/12/F : Retrospective application for Rail Control Centre – Dartmouth Steam Railway & River Boat Co., Kingswear Signal Box, The Square, Kingswear, Dartmouth; and 30/2340/12/LB: Retrospective listed building consent application for relocation of railway tracks and bufferstop to accommodate a new Rail Control Centre at Kingswear Station by virtue of being a fellow member of the board of Visit South Devon with the speaker in support of the applications and he remained in the meeting and took part in the debate and vote thereon;

Cllr Westacott declared a personal interest in applications 30/2337/12/F : Retrospective application for Rail Control Centre – Dartmouth Steam Railway & River Boat Co., Kingswear Signal Box, The Square, Kingswear, Dartmouth; and 30/2340/12/LB: Retrospective listed building consent application for relocation of railway tracks and bufferstop to accommodate a new Rail Control Centre at Kingswear Station by virtue of having received hospitality associated with the application during her time as Mayor of Totnes and she remained in the meeting and took part in the debate and vote thereon;

Cllr Coulson declared a personal interest in applications 30/2337/12/F : Retrospective application for Rail Control Centre – Dartmouth Steam Railway & River Boat Co., Kingswear Signal Box, The Square, Kingswear, Dartmouth; and 30/2340/12/LB: Retrospective listed building consent application for relocation of railway tracks and bufferstop to accommodate a new Rail Control Centre at Kingswear Station by virtue of previously being neighbours of relatives of the speaker in support of the applications and he remained in the meeting and took part in the debate and vote thereon;

- 74 - Dev Management 05.12.12

Cllrs Bastone and Hawkins both declared a personal interest in applications 30/2337/12/F : Retrospective application for Rail Control Centre – Dartmouth Steam Railway & River Boat Co., Kingswear Signal Box, The Square, Kingswear, Dartmouth; and 30/2340/12/LB: Retrospective listed building consent application for relocation of railway tracks and bufferstop to accommodate a new Rail Control Centre at Kingswear Station by virtue of being the Chair and Vice Chair respectively of the Dartmouth Regatta Committee which received contributions from the applicant. Cllr Hawkins also declared a further personal interest in these two applications by virtue of being a £5 shareholder in the Railway Company. Both Members remained in the meeting and took part in the debate and vote thereon;

Cllr Foss declared a personal interest in the following applications by virtue of being the Chairman of the AONB within which the applications were sited. He remained in the meeting and took part in the debate and vote on each of these applications:-

 03_56/1596/12/O: Resubmission of outline planning application 03_56/0447/12/O for outline application for mixed use development comprising about 100 dwellings. Up to 5350 sq m of office/light industrial floorspace. Up to 60 units of extra care accommodation and associated communal facilities. Up to 350 sq m of floorspace for community use. Provision of public open space. Creation of new vehicular and pedestrian/cycle accesses and associated works - Development site between Steamer Quay and Weston Lane, Bridgetown, Totnes;

 30/2337/12/F : Retrospective application for Rail Control Centre – Dartmouth Steam Railway & River Boat Co., Kingswear Signal Box, The Square, Kingswear, Dartmouth; and 30/2340/12/LB: Retrospective listed building consent application for relocation of railway tracks and bufferstop to accommodate a new Rail Control Centre at Kingswear Station;

 37/1864/12/F: Retrospective change of use of land to camping and caravan site – Briar Hill Farm, Court Road, Newton Ferrers, Plymouth;

 15/2145/12/F: Full application for replacement of asbestos roof with natural slate roof – 23, 24 and 25 Island House, Lower Street, Dartmouth and 15/2145/12/LB: Listed Building Consent for replacement of asbestos roof with natural slate roof – 23, 24 and 25 Island House, Lower Street, Dartmouth.

Cllr Bastone declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in applications 15/2145/12/F: Full application for replacement of asbestos roof with natural slate roof – 23, 24 and 25 Island House, Lower Street, Dartmouth and 15/2145/12/LB: Listed Building Consent for replacement of asbestos roof with natural slate roof – 23, 24 and 25 Island House, Lower Street, Dartmouth by virtue of being the applicant. He left the meeting for the duration of the debate and vote on these items.

- 75 - Dev Management 05.12.12

DM.36/12 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

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

 30/2337/12/F: Objector – Dr Richard Rawlins: Supporter – Mr Andrew Pooley: Retrospective application for Rail Control Centre – Dartmouth Steam Railway & River Boat Co., Kingswear Signal Box, The Square, Kingswear, Dartmouth;  30/2340/12/LB: Objector – Dr Richard Rawlins: Supporter – Mr Andrew Pooley: Retrospective listed building consent application for relocation of railway tracks and bufferstop to accommodate a new Rail Control Centre at Kingswear Station;  15/1975/12/F: Objector – Mr Leonard Manley: Supporter – Mr Robbie Gilmour: Resubmission of planning application 15/0210/12/F for proposed erection of new dwelling – Land adjacent to 14 Broadstone, Dartmouth;  37/1864/12/F: Supporter – Mr Scott McCready: Retrospective change of use of land to camping and caravan site – Briar Hill Farm, Court Road, Newton Ferrers, Plymouth;  56/2037/12/F: Supporter – Dr Stephen Hopwood: change of use of ground floor from retail (Class A1) to a mixed use of retail and café (Class A3), installation of cooking fume extraction equipment to the rear of the property, the use of the forecourt and rear yard for seating, the insertion of a customer toilet in the rear extension and landscaping of the forecourt – 47 Fore Street, Totnes.

DM.37/12 SITE INSPECTIONS

a) Applications deferred at this meeting

RESOLVED That a Site Inspection Group, comprising the Vice Chairman and four other Members who were present at the meeting, be appointed to consider applications deferred at this meeting for that purpose.

b) Report of the Full Committee Site Inspection held on 19 November, 2012

(i) 03_56/1596/12/O – Resubmission of outline planning application 03_56/0447/12/O for outline application for mixed use development comprising about 100 dwellings. Up to 5350 sq m of office/light industrial floorspace. Up to 60 units of extra care accommodation and associated communal facilities. Up to 350 sq m of floorspace for community use. Provision of public open space. Creation of new vehicular and pedestrian/cycle accesses and associated works - Development site between Steamer Quay and Weston Lane, Bridgetown, Totnes

- 76 - Dev Management 05.12.12

The Case Officer began his update by advising Members of the late letters of representation that had been received, and he provided a summary of the main points contained within each one.

He also advised that the comments that had been made at the site inspection by both Cllr Westacott and a third party had been forwarded to the Environment Agency. He clarified that the Environment Agency had no objection to the application in terms of flooding, and neither did the Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service.

A Local Ward Member reminded Members of the importance of the site, being in an Area of Great Landscape Value and only 500 metres from the AONB. She referred to the DPD which stated that development should take place in line with a masterplan, and no approved masterplan existed for this site. The fields included in the application did not form part of the DPD site. The Parkers Barn site was contained within the DPD but the developer had not approached Devon County Council in relation to purchasing the site. The application would result in a large cul de sac and the perception of a ‘gated community’.

Another Local Ward Member reminded Members that the priority was for affordable homes. In 2009 it was agreed that the site could come forward and the Planning Inspector found the site sound. However, what was submitted included multiple access points, and that was no longer the case. The developer had established the current road into the site before any community consultation had taken place. Traffic from this development would increase congestion on the A385. The DPD identified lack of a lack of adequate affordable homes as an issue for Totnes, but this application would do nothing to address this.

A number of neighbouring Ward Members reiterated their concerns in relation to the traffic levels and the access to the site.

Members then had a full debate on the issues in relation to this application. Points raised included the following:

 The Highways Development Manager outlined the reasons behind their response to the application and added that the proposed road on to Weston Lane did not need to have street lighting. They had looked carefully at the modelling undertaken by the traffic consultants and agreed with the figures they had presented. In response to concerns about further congestion on the A385, the modelling showed that by the time the traffic reached the A385 the numbers would be so small that refusal of the application on those grounds would not be justifiable;  One Member raised concerns both about road safety, particularly around traffic passing the primary school, and air quality. In response, Members were advised that the Environmental Health Officer had been consulted an raised no concerns relating to air quality. Similarly, the County Highways Authority had raised no objections relating to traffic;

- 77 - Dev Management 05.12.12

 A number of Members raised concerns that the application had come forward without a masterplan. The DPD was quoted and the point was made that the application included land that was not included in the DPD site allocation and therefore did not comply with the DPD. In addition, whilst the application could not be refused on grounds to which the County Highways Authority had raised no objection, the DPD required that the Council was entitled to look at access from the point of view of good design, and this proposal was not a good design;  The Strategic Planning Officer outlined the history of the site, and advised Members that the lack of an approved masterplan was not sufficient reason in itself to refuse the application;

 There were further queries about the masterplanning process and the Major Projects Manager confirmed that the purpose of a masterplan was to work in partnership to engage the community and inform the development. Ideally, officers would like a masterplan, and would encourage that process, as an approved masterplan did help the planning process. However, there was a formal application that had been submitted and Members had to decide if the part of the application that was not in the DPD was unacceptable enough to justify refusal. He also reminded Members that there were no landscape or Highway objections to the current proposal;  The Affordable Housing Manager outlined the details of the affordable housing package that the developer was proposing, which included an extra care facility with opportunity for up to 60 units. There was proven commitment for funding of £1.5 million, and a further funding bid was being prepared. Whilst there may be disappointment with the levels of affordable housing (11 units), a viability consultant had confirmed that the levels offered were appropriate;  A number of Members did express their disappointment with the levels of affordable housing. The extra care facility did not address the need for affordable family homes in Totnes. The Affordable Housing Manager confirmed that the Council’s own consultants had agreed with the numbers of affordable units in light of viability of the site;  One Member questioned the level of profit that the developer had quoted for the extra care facility. In response the Affordable Housing Manager advised that this had been in line with the industry standards;  A Local Ward Member concluded the discussion by stating that whilst the Highways Authority had no objection to the proposed access route to the site, it was not ideal, and if the lack of a masterplan was not sufficient reason alone to refuse the application then the Localism agenda was meaningless.

A motion was then PROPOSED and SECONDED to refuse the application. In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 15.5, a recorded vote was then demanded. The voting on the motion was recorded as follows:-

- 78 - Dev Management 05.12.12

For the motion (13):- Cllrs Barber, Bastone, Brazil, Bruce-Spencer, Hannaford, Hodgson, Pennington, Rowe, Smerdon, Squire, Vint, Westacott and Wright.

Against the motion (7):- Cllrs Cane, Carter, Coulson, Cuthbert, Foss, Holway and May.

Abstentions (2):-Cllrs Hawkins and Steer.

Absent (3):- Cllrs S Cooper, Hicks and Hitchins.

The vote to refuse application number 03_56/1596/12O was therefore declared CARRIED. Reasons for refusal

1. Adverse impact on the landscape character of the area, in particular due to the proposed access road from Weston Lane outside the DPD allocation site; 2. Unacceptable design and layout based on the submitted Design & Access Statement and illustrative drawings that have been submitted which indicate how the quantum of development could be provided on the site based on the proposed access link from Weston Lane, as opposed to using “Parkers Barn” fronting the highway “Culverdale” to the north of the application site (“Parkers Barn” being part of the adopted T7 site allocation but excluded from the application site) and other access links into the site promoted during the EIP appeal process prior to the adoption of the Totnes Site Allocation DPD; 3. Unacceptable level of affordable housing provision. 4. The development does not accord with a previously approved Masterplan as required by the Totnes Site Allocations DPD Proposal T7 and the Council’s adopted SPD on Masterplans and Development Briefs.

DM.38/12 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, or were determined by a Chairman’s casting vote) were PROPOSED and SECONDED and on being put to the vote were either CARRIED or LOST:-

- 79 - Dev Management 05.12.12 a) In respect of application 30/2037/12/F: Retrospective application for Rail Control Centre – Dartmouth Steam Railway & River Boat Co., Kingswear Signal Box, The Square, Kingswear, Dartmouth; and 30/2340/12/LB: Retrospective listed building consent application for relocation of railway tracks and bufferstop to accommodate a new Rail Control Centre at Kingswear Station the following motion was PROPOSED and SECONDED and on being put to the vote was declared CARRIED:-

‘That a full committee site inspection be held’. b) In respect of application 15/1975/12/F – Resubmission of planning application 15/0210/12/F for proposed erection of new dwelling – Land adjacent to 14 Broadstone Dartmouth, the Case Officer introduced this application and explained to Members how this proposal differed from the previous application that had been refused. The ridge height and eaves height had been reduced, and the proposed dwelling would be two storey not three storey high. The Case officer also outlined the objections that had been received to the current application, and also the consultation responses to points raised.

During discussion, a number of Members recalled their previous experience of when a site visit was required so they had first hand knowledge of the site. The majority of these Members had concerns about this application as the site was constricted, it constituted overdevelopment and was the only remaining piece of green space in the area and should be kept as such.

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

That the application be REFUSED.

Reasons for refusal

The proposed dwelling by virtue of its scale is considered an overdevelopment of the site which would result in the loss of a green space. Such an overdevelopment will result in an un-neighbourly impact upon surrounding residential properties and gardens as a result of the build and during its construction phase due to restricted access to the site. As such the development is considered contrary to LDF Core Strategy Policy CS7; Development Policies DP1, DP3, DP7; Local Plan Policy SHDC1 and relevant Government Guidance.

(Meeting commenced at 10.00 am and concluded at 3.30pm).

______Chairman

- 80 - Dev Management 05.12.12

APPENDIX A

30/2337/12/F

Retrospective application for Rail Control Centre - Dartmouth Steam Railway & River Boat Co, Kingswear Signal Box, The Square, Kingswear, Dartmouth, TQ6 0AA – Paignton and Dartmouth Steam Railway

Kingswear Parish Council

Parish Council’s Views – Objection

Officer Update – During the discussions at Committee it became apparent that not all the application site was within the applicant’s control and correct certificates and notices had not been completed and served on all interested landowners. This was reported to Members, following a short deferral.

Recommendation – For the applicant to complete Certificate B, with submission to the Council, and to serve appropriate Notice on all interested landowners of the application site, allowing a 21 day period to submit representations. If no objections or no representations are received from the landowners concerned, then delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning, Economy & Community to issue a decision in consultation with the Chairman of the Committee. If objections are received from said landowners, then the application is to be reported back to the next available meeting of the Committee.

Recommended Conditions 1. Accord with plans

Committee Decision – Full committee site inspection.

30/2340/12/LB

Retrospective listed building consent application for relocation of railway tracks and buffer stop to accommodate a new Rail Control Centre at Kingswear Station. Kingswear Station, the Square, Kingswear, Dartmouth, TQ6 0AA. Paignton and Dartmouth Steam Railway

Kingswear Parish Council

Parish Council’s Views – Objection

Officer Update – As for 30/2337/12/F

Recommendation – As for 30/2337/12/F

Recommended Conditions 1. Accord with plans

Committee Decision – Full committee site inspection.

- 81 - Dev Management 05.12.12

15/1975/12/F

Resubmission of planning application 15/0210/12/F for proposed erection of new dwelling - Land adjacent to 14 Broadstone, Dartmouth, TQ6 9NR – Mr S Webster

Dartmouth Town Council

Town Council Views – Recommend refusal

Officer Update - None

Recommendation – Conditional approval

Recommended Conditions 1. Time 3 years 2. Accord with approved plans 3. Un-suspected contamination 4. Code level 4 5. Boundary details 6. Gas proof membrane 7. Natural Slate sample 8. Eaves and verge details 9. Render details 10. Stonework details 11. Joinery details 12. Structural details 13. Removal of permitted development rights 14. Landscaping scheme

Committee Decision – Refusal – Overdevelopment, un-neighbourly impact.

37/1864/12/F

Retrospective change of use of land to camping and caravan site - Briar Hill Farm, Court Road, Newton Ferrers, Plymouth, PL8 1AR – Mr S Mcready Newton & Noss Parish Council

Parish Council Views – Objection

Officer Update - Original Planning Permission for campsite was dated 1961

Recommendation – Conditional approval

Recommended Conditions 1. NS Holiday use

Committee Decision – Conditional approval - 82 - Dev Management 05.12.12

56/2037/12/F

Totnes Town Council

Town Council Views – Object

Officer Update - None

Recommendation – Conditional approval

Recommended Conditions 1. Time (3 years) 2. Accord with plans 3. Opening hours 4. Extraction system

Committee Decision – Conditional approval

56/2038/12/LB

Listed building consent to facilitate a change of use of the ground floor from retail to a mixed use of retail/cafe/takeaway. The works comprise installation of kitchen extraction equipment, reinstatement of an internal and external door, lowering of front boundary wall, insertion of replacement fireplace, reflooring to provide wooden floorboards – 47 Fore Street, Totnes, TQ9 5NJ – Dr S Hopwood

Totnes Town Council

Town Council Views – Objection

Officer Update - None

Recommendation – Conditional approval

Recommended Conditions 1. Time (3 years) 2. Accord with plans 3. Details of all ducts, flues, rainwater goods, vents and other external attachments 4. Details of the proposed wooden flooring

Committee Decision – Conditional approval

- 83 - Dev Management 05.12.12

15/2145/12/F

Full application for replacement of asbestos roof with natural slate roof - 23, 24 & 25 Island House, Lower Street. Dartmouth, Devon. TQ6 9AN – Mr Hilary Bastone

Dartmouth Town Council

Town Council Views – Recommend approval

Officer Update - None

Recommendation – Conditional approval

Recommended Conditions 1. Time 2. Accord with plans 3. Natural slates

Committee Decision – Conditional approval

15/2146/12/LB

Listed Building Consent for replacement of asbestos roof with natural slate roof - 23, 24 & 25 Island House, Lower Street. Dartmouth, Devon. TQ6 9AN – Mr Hilary Bastone Dartmouth Town Council

Town Council Views – Recommend approval

Officer Update - None

Recommendation – Conditional approval

Recommended Conditions 1. Time 2. Accord with plans 3. Natural slates

Committee Decision – Conditional approval

- 84 -