Cholland@Eastdevon.Gov.Uk To

Home , Awliscombe, Chardstock, Clyst St Mary, Dunkeswell, Feniton, Littleham

Date: 25 November 2011 Contact number: 01395 517543 E-mail: [email protected]

To: Members of the Development Management Committee Ward Members (Agenda & Ward applications only) East Devon District Council Knowle For information: Sidmouth Devon Head of Economy EX10 8HL Interim Development Manager DX 48705 Sidmouth Senior Solicitor Tel: 01395 516551 Planning Policy Manager Fax: 01395 517507 www.eastdevon.gov.uk Dear Sir/Madam, Development Management Committee Tuesday 6 December 2011 at 2.00 pm

The above meeting will be held in the Council Chamber, Knowle, Sidmouth, to consider the matters detailed on the agenda below. Ward Members are reminded that they are entitled to speak on any application within their own Ward but are not permitted to vote.

Yours faithfully,

MARK WILLIAMS Chief Executive

Members of the public are welcome to attend and speak at this meeting. If you wish to speak on a particular application, simply enter your name on the sheets located near the entrance to the Council Chamber, in the corresponding section which indicates whether you are a supporter or objector. There is no requirement or facility to record the details of the speaker before the day of the meeting.

. The relevant Officer will introduce and outline the item to be discussed. The public will then be able to speak on that matter only. . All individual contributions will be limited to a period of 3 minutes – where there is an interested group of objectors or supporters, a spokesperson should be appointed to speak on behalf of the group. Extra papers and/or handouts cannot be circulated at the meeting. There is a timing clock to assist you. . Speakers should restrict their comments to planning considerations only. . The Chairman has the right and discretion to control questions and irrelevant points being raised to avoid disruption, repetition and to make best use of the meeting time. . Speakers are asked not to come to the microphone if their points have already been covered. . After the public speaking period has finished the consideration of reports will begin and the public will take no further part in the meeting. . All attendees at the meeting are asked to offer all speakers the courtesy of listening to others’ points of view, even if they do not agree with it. . The Chairman will not tolerate any interruptions from the public and is entitled to exclude people from the meeting if the business of the committee cannot be carried out effectively

Mark Williams, Chief Executive Denise Lyon, Deputy Chief Executive and Monitoring Officer Richard Cohen, Deputy Chief Executive 1

Councillors and members of the public are reminded to switch off mobile phones during the meeting. If this is not practical due to particular circumstances, please advise the Chairman in advance of the meeting. A G E N D A Page/s 1 To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Development Management 5 – 33 Committee held on 15 November 2011 and the Special Development Management Committee held on 18 November 2011. 34 - 36 2 To receive any apologies for absence. 3 To receive any declarations of interests relating to items on the agenda. 4 To consider any items which in the opinion of the Chairman, should be dealt with as matters of urgency because of special circumstances. (Note: such circumstances need to be recorded in the minutes; any Member wishing to raise a matter under this item is requested to notify the Chief Executive in advance of the meeting). 5 To agree any items to be dealt with after the public (including the press) have been excluded. There are no items which the Officers recommend should be dealt with in this way. 6 Planning Appeal Statistics Interim 37 - 39 Development Manager Part A Matters for Decision 7 Dunkeswell Conservation Area Principal 40 - 79 Conservation Officer 8 Exmouth Masterplan Interim 80 - 111 Development Manager 9 Neighbourhood Planning Regulations Head of Economy 112 - 118 To consider the matters to be determined by the Interim Development Management Committee (For this Development agenda, these are listed in District Ward order): Manager District Ward Ref. Location 10 Clyst Valley 11/1878/FUL Kenniford Farm, Clyst St Mary 119 - 124 11 Exmouth Halsdon 11/2084/FUL The Maldens, Marley Road 125 -135 12 Exmouth Littleham 11/2014/FUL Tumby Lawn, Maer Lane 136 - 148 13 Exmouth 11/2271/VAR McDonalds, Salterton Road 149 – 154 Withycombe Raleigh 14 Feniton and 11/2245/MOUT Land West of Ottery Road, Feniton 155 - 180 Buckerell 15 Ottery St Mary Rural 10/2375/MOUT Greytops, Cooper Court, West Hill 181- 202 16 Ottery St Mary Rural 11/1886/MFUL West Hayes, West Hill Road 203 - 220 17 Seaton 11/1967/OUT Land South of Bramble Hill, 221 - 234 Seaton Down Hill

Protective Marking: UNCLASSIFIED 2

District Ward Ref. Location 18 Sidmouth Town 11/2143/FUL 106 High Street 235 - 241 19 Whimple 11/2239/FUL Northcotts Farm, London Road, 242 - 247 Strete Raleigh

Members please note: Plans and all supporting documentation for each application can be viewed via Planning Online by viewing: http://planning.eastdevon.gov.uk/online-applications Plans will also be displayed electronically at the meeting in the Council Chamber. This presentation can be viewed online with this agenda.

The Chairman requests that wherever possible and in order to prevent unnecessary site inspections, Members should familiarise themselves with application sites in their locality where such sites are visible from the public highway and other public vantage points.

Would those Members who sit on the Planning Inspections Committee please retain their planning application report papers for use on any subsequent site visits.

 You must declare the nature of any personal or prejudicial interests in an item whenever it becomes apparent that you have an interest in the business being considered.  Where you have a personal interest because the business relates to or is likely to affect a body of which you are a member or manager as an EDDC nominee or appointee, then you need only disclose that interest when (and if ) you speak on the item. The same rule applies if you have a personal interest in relation to a body exercising functions of a public nature.  Make sure you say the reason for your interest as this has to be included in the minutes.  If your interest is prejudicial you must leave the room unless you have obtained a dispensation from the Council’s Standards Committee or where Para 12(2) of the Code can be applied. Para 12(2) allows a Member with a prejudicial interest to stay for the purpose of making representations, answering questions or giving evidence relating to the business but only at meetings where the public are also allowed to make representations. If you do remain, you must not exercise decision-making functions or seek to improperly influence the decision; you must leave the meeting room once you have made your representation.  You also need to declare when you are subject to the party whip before the matter is discussed.

Protective Marking: UNCLASSIFIED 3

Getting to the Meeting – for the benefit of visitors

The entrance to the Council Offices is located on Station Road, Sidmouth. Parking is limited during normal working hours but normally easily available for evening meetings.

The following bus service stops outside the Council Offices on Station Road: From Exmouth, Budleigh, Otterton and Newton Poppleford – 157

The following buses all terminate at the Triangle in Sidmouth. From the Triangle, walk up Station Road until you reach the Council Offices (approximately ½ mile). From Exeter – 52A, 52B From Honiton – 52B From Seaton – 52A From Ottery St Mary – 379, 387 Please check your local timetable for times. © Crown Copyright. All Rights Reserved. 100023746.2010

The Committee Suite has a separate entrance to the main building, located at the end of the visitor and Councillor car park. The rooms are at ground level and easily accessible; there is also a toilet for disabled users. The doors to the civic suite (meeting rooms) will be opened ¼ hour before the start time of the meeting. Councillors are reminded to bring their key fobs if they wish to access the area prior to that time. A hearing loop system will be in operation in the Council Chamber.

For a copy of this agenda in large print, please contact the Democratic Services Team on 01395 517546

Protective Marking: UNCLASSIFIED 4 EAST DEVON DISTRICT COUNCIL Minutes of a Meeting of the Development Management Committee held at the Council Chamber, Knowle, Sidmouth, on Tuesday 15 November 2011

Present: Councillors: Mark Williamson (Chairman) Helen Parr (Vice Chairman) Derek Button Geoff Chamberlain Alan Dent Vivien Duval Steer Mike Howe Ben Ingham Stephanie Jones David Key Geoffrey Pook Ken Potter Phil Twiss Peter Sullivan Ward Councillors: Members: David Atkins Peter Bowden Maddie Chapman Iain Chubb Marin Gammel Sheila Kerridge Frances Newth Chris Wale Tom Wright Also Present: Councillors: Peter Halse Graham Troman Andrew Moulding Honorary Alderman Tony Reed Officers: Ed Freeman, Interim Development Manager Christopher Holland, Democratic Services Officer Duncan Moores, Senior Solicitor Hannah Whitfield, Democratic Services Support Officer Apologies: Councillors: Steve Gazzard Pat Graham Steve Hall Tony Howard Eileen Wragg Steve Wragg

The meeting commenced at 2.00 pm and ended at 7.20 pm

Protective Marking: UNCLASSIFIED

5 Development Management Committee 15 November 2011

*34 Chairman’s Welcome

The Chairman welcomed to the meeting, Duncan Moores who would be providing legal advice and support to the Committee while the Council’s legal team were engaged in other legal business.

*35 Minutes

The minutes of the meeting of the Development Management Committee held on Tuesday 18 October 2011 were agreed and signed as a true record.

*36 Local Development Framework Panel notes

The notes of the meetings of the Local Development Framework Panel held on Tuesday 4, 11, 18 and 25 October and 1 November 2011 were noted.

*37 Planning Appeal Statistics

The Committee received and noted the report of the Interim Development Manager setting out appeals recently lodged and recent appeal decisions notified.

*38 Applications for Planning Permission and matters for determination

RESOLVED: 1) that the applications before the Committee be determined as set out in Schedule 6 – 2011/2012 (attached). 2) that the Head of Economy establishes a working group to be led by the Deputy Leader of the Council to meet with all interested parties from the community and organisations with a statutory interest in the site, with a view to finding a suitable outcome as a matter of urgency.

The following declarations of interest were made during consideration of the applications:

Councillor/ Ref. / Site Type of interest Nature of interest Officer (action taken) Councillor 10/17/11/MFUL Personal Member lived Derek Button Kindom House (remained in nearby application chamber to speak site and vote) Councillor 11/1293/MOUT Personal Member was Mike Howe Land NW (remained in acquainted with Courtlands Cross, chamber to speak the applicant. Courtlands Lane, and vote) Lympstone

6 Development Management Committee 15 November 2011

*38 Applications for Planning Permission and matters for determination (cont’d)

Councillor 11/1879/FUL Personal Member had Mike Howe Lyme Bay Windery, (remained in formerly traded Seaton Junction chamber to speak with applicant and vote)

Chairman ...... Date ......

EAST DEVON DISTRICT COUNCIL

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

HELD ON Tuesday 15 November 2011

SCHEDULE NUMBER 6 – 2011/2012

APPLICATIONS DETERMINED BY THE COMMITTEE

Protective Marking: UNCLASSIFIED

8 Development Management Committee, 15 November 2011 Yarty (CHARDSTOCK) 11/1897/FUL

Applicant: Jameson Homes Ltd

Location: Land Adjacent To Trelawney House (Cookes Field) Chardstock

Proposal: Construction of 4no. dwellings including alterations to access

RESOLVED: APPROVED subject to the submission of amended plans relocating the window to bedroom 3 of Unit 4 to the rear elevation and the following conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission and shall be carried out as approved. (Reason - To comply with section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed at the end of this decision notice. (Reason - For the avoidance of doubt.)

3. No development shall take place until samples of the external materials to be used on the dwellings and garages hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. (Reason - In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure that the materials are sympathetic to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area in accordance with Policies CO6 (Quality of New Development) and CO7 (Historic Settlements and Buildings) of the Devon Structure Plan and Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and EN11 (Preservation and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

4. No development shall commence until a sample panel of a minimum 1 sq.m. of stonework has been constructed for inspection by, and a detailed mortar specification has been submitted to, the Local Planning Authority and these details have been approved in writing. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Reason - In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure that the stonework is sympathetic to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area in accordance with Policies CO6 (Quality of New Development) and CO7 (Historic Settlements and Buildings) of the Devon Structure Plan and Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and EN11 (Preservation and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

5. No development shall commence until detailed drawings of the new joinery at 1:2 or 1:5 scale including sections, mouldings, profiles and paint colour have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Protective Marking: UNCLASSIFIED 9 Development Management Committee, 15 November 2011 (Reason - In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure that the joinery details are sympathetic to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area in accordance with Policies CO6 (Quality of New Development) and CO7 (Historic Settlements and Buildings) of the Devon Structure Plan and Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and EN11 (Preservation and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

6. No development shall take place until a landscaping scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; such a scheme to include the planting of trees, hedges, shrubs, herbaceous plants and areas to be grassed (species, sizes and planting densities) and full details of any proposed walls, fences and other boundary treatments. The landscaping scheme shall be carried out in the first planting season after commencement of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall be maintained for a period of 5 years. Any trees or other plants which die during this period shall be replaced during the next planting season with specimens of the same size and species unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Reason - In the interests of visual amenity and the character and appearance of the Conservation Area in accordance with Policies CO6 (Quality of New Development) and CO7 (Historic Settlements and Buildings) of the Devon Structure Plan and Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness), D4 (Landscape Requirements) and EN11 (Preservation and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

7. No development shall commence until a detailed schedule and specification of works to the front boundary wall, including a method statement and details of mortar for repointing has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. A sample area of repointing shall be prepared on site for inspection. (Reason - In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure the wall is retained/rebuilt in the interests of the character and appearance of the Conservation Area in accordance with Policies CO6 (Quality of New Development) and CO7 (Historic Settlements and Buildings) of the Devon Structure Plan and Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and EN11 (Preservation and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

8. No development shall commence until details of the new rainwater goods including profiles, materials and finishes have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Reason - In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure that the materials are sympathetic to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area in accordance with Policies CO6 (Quality of New Development) and CO7 (Historic Settlements and Buildings) of the Devon Structure Plan and Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and EN11 (Preservation and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

Protective Marking: UNCLASSIFIED 10 Development Management Committee, 15 November 2011

9. No part of the development hereby approved shall be brought into its intended use until the improved access, parking facilities, visibility splays, turning area, parking spaces, garages / hardstanding and access drainage have been provided and maintained in accordance with application drawing no. 2094/07/A, and retained for that purpose at all times and there shall be no obstruction within the visibility splays greater than 600 mm in height. (Reason - To ensure that adequate facilities are available for the traffic attracted to the site in accordance with Policies TR4 (Parking Strategy, Standards and Proposals) and TR10 (Strategic Road Network) of the Devon Structure Plan and Policies TA7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) and TA9 (Parking Provision in New Development) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

10. The garages and car parking spaces shown on the approved plans shall be kept available for the parking of cars at all times. (Reason - To ensure that adequate garaging/parking provision remains available at all times in the interests of road safety and the amenity of future occupiers and to accord with Policies CO6 (Quality of New Development), TR4 (Parking Strategy, Standards and Proposals) and TR10 (Strategic Road Network) of the Devon Structure Plan and Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness), TA7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) and TA9 (Parking Provision in New Development) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

11. No development shall commence until a detailed specification for the provision to be made for foul water drainage and the disposal of sewage from the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved details. (Reason - To ensure adequate foul drainage provision and to accord with Planning Policy Statement 23)

12. No development shall commence until a detailed scheme for surface water drainage, including full percolation tests, all capacity calculations and the design and construction of the drainage system, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No individual dwelling shall be occupied until the approved drainage is fully installed and the approved drainage shall be fully maintained at all times. (Reason - To address the potential flood risks of the development and to accord with Planning Policy Statement 25)

13. All new windows and doors indicated on the approved plans shall be made of timber only and notwithstanding the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no other materials shall be used without the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. (Reason - In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure that the materials are sympathetic to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area in accordance with Policies CO6 (Quality of New Development) and CO7 (Historic Settlements and Buildings) of the Devon Structure Plan and Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and EN11 (Preservation and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

Protective Marking: UNCLASSIFIED 11 Development Management Committee, 15 November 2011

14. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no fences, gates or walls shall be erected within the curtilage of any dwellinghouse forward of any wall of that dwellinghouse which fronts onto a road. (Reason - In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure that the materials are sympathetic to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area in accordance with Policies CO6 (Quality of New Development) and CO7 (Historic Settlements and Buildings) of the Devon Structure Plan and Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and EN11 (Preservation and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

15. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 as amended (or any order revoking and re- enacting that Order with or without modification), no windows/dormer windows other than those expressly authorised by this permission shall be constructed. (Reason - To protect the privacy of adjoining occupiers in accordance with Policy CO6 (Quality of New Development) of the Devon Structure Plan and Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

16. Before the dwellings hereby permitted are first occupied all first floor windows in the side elevation shall have been glazed with obscure glass and the obscure glazing of these windows shall thereafter be retained at all times. (Reason - To protect the privacy of adjoining occupiers in accordance with Policy CO6 (Quality of New Development) of the Devon Structure Plan and Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

17. No construction or demolition works associated with the development hereby permitted shall take place outside the hours of 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday, and 8am to 1pm on Saturdays. No works shall be carried out on Sundays or Public Holidays. (Reason: To protect the amenities of local residents from noise and dust and to accord with Policy CO16 (Noise Pollution) of the Devon Structure Plan and Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and EN15 (Control of Pollution) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

18. Dust suppression measures shall be employed as required during construction. (Reason: To protect the amenities of local residents from smoke nuisance and to Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and EN15 (Control of Pollution) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

NOTE FOR APPLICANT

1. IN GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT, THE FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION:

The proposal complies with the following Devon Structure Plan 2001-2016 Policies and the adopted East Devon Local Plan 1995-2011 Policies:

Devon Structure Plan Policies ST5 (Development Priority 2001 to 2016)

ST18 (Affordable Housing)

Protective Marking: UNCLASSIFIED 12 Development Management Committee, 15 November 2011

ST18A (Mix and Type of Housing)

CO3 (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty)

CO6 (Quality of New Development)

CO7 (Historic Settlements and Buildings)

CO13 (Protecting Water Resources and Flood Defence)

CO16 (Noise Pollution)

TR4 (Parking Strategy, Standards and Proposals)

TR10 (Strategic Road Network)

East Devon Local Plan Policies S4 (Development Within Built-up Area Boundaries)

D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness)

D4 (Landscape Requirements)

EN1 (Developments Affecting Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty)

EN11 (Preservation and Enhancement of Conservation Areas)

EN15 (Control of Pollution)

TA7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access)

TA9 (Parking Provision in New Development)

2. The proposal does not adversely affect the privacy or amenity of neighbouring properties.

3. The design and external appearance of the proposal does not harm the visual amenity of the site and surrounding area.

4. The proposal does not harm the character and appearance of the conservation area.

5. The proposal does not harm the setting of a listed building within close proximity to the site.

6. The proposal does not harm the natural beauty of the landscape designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

7. The proposal makes adequate provision for the disposal of foul/surface water in the interest of flood/pollution prevention.

8. The proposal does not cause a significant flood risk.

Protective Marking: UNCLASSIFIED 13 Development Management Committee, 15 November 2011 9. The access to serve the proposal does not prejudice highway safety.

10. The density of the development is at the highest level possible compatible with the area.

11. Note to applicant:

The Highways Authority have recommended that the rumble strip shown across the access road at the site boundary be deleted to facilitate access by wheelchairs, prams and pushchairs.

Approved Plans

C11245/C220 C Details 24.08.11

01 A Floor Plans 24.08.11

02 A Proposed Elevation 24.08.11

03 A Floor Plans 24.08.11

04 A Proposed Elevation 24.08.11

07 A Site Plan 24.08.11

08 A Sections 24.08.11

L1 Location Plan 24.08.11

Amended Drawings for Unit 3 to be added once received.

Protective Marking: UNCLASSIFIED 14 Development Management Committee, 15 November 2011

Woodbury And Lympstone 11/1293/MOUT (LYMPSTONE)

Applicant: Strategic Land Partnerships

Location: Land NW Of Courtlands Cross Courtlands Lane

Proposal: Outline application including access arrangements and layout for mixed use development comprising residential development of 154 dwellings, business units, doctors surgery, shop/cafe, crèche/nursery, community facilities together with associated open space and infrastructure

RESOLVED: that had the Local Planning Authority been in a position to determine the application, it would have been REFUSED for the following reasons:

On the basis of the information available to the Local Planning Authority as at 27th September 2011, the application would have been refused on the following grounds:

1. The proposal involves a large scale mixed use development located within the open countryside, outside of the built-up area boundaries of any settlement, wherein new development is permitted only where it would be in accordance with a specific Local Plan policy that explicitly permits such development and where it would not harm the distinctive landscape, amenity and environmental qualities of the area in which it is located. In the opinion of the local planning authority the development does not accord with a specific Local Plan policy and by reason of its siting and scale would harm the distinctive landscape, amenity, sustainability and environmental qualities of the area, including the consequential loss of grade 1 agricultural land north of Exmouth and southeast of the village of Lympstone, contrary to the provisions of Policy ST1 (Sustainable Development), Policy CO1 (Landscape Character and Local Distinctiveness) and Policy CO4 (Areas of Great Landscape Value) of the Devon Structure Plan 2001-2016 and Policy S5 of the adopted East Devon Local Plan 1995 - 2011 ( Countryside Protection), Policy EN2 (Areas of Great Landscape Value) and Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and guidance contained in PPS 1 Delivering Sustainable Development and PPS7 Sustainable Development in Rural Areas.

2. In addition to reason 1 above, the application site lies within a Green Wedge as defined in the adopted East Devon District Local Plan wherein development will not be permitted if it would add to existing sporadic or isolated development or damage the individual identity of a settlement or could lead to or encourage settlement coalescence. In the opinion of the local planning authority the proposed development in this case would not only represent a sporadic form of development but would also lead to the undesirable coalescence between the outer outskirts of Exmouth and the village of Lympstone, threatening the individual identity of that village, contrary to the provisions of Policy S6 (Green Wedges) and Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the adopted East Devon Local Plan 1995 - 2011 and the aims and objectives of the Lympstone Village Plan.

Protective Marking: UNCLASSIFIED 15 Development Management Committee, 15 November 2011

3. The proposed development would be likely to result in a material increase in the volume and a material change in character of traffic using Summer Lane and Courtlands Lane, which are both narrow lanes without adequate footways or passing facilities with consequent risk of additional danger to all users of the road and interference with the free flow of traffic contrary to Policy TR10 of the Devon County Structure Plan and TA7 of the adopted East Devon District Local Plan

4. The applicant has failed to adequately address and cater for the demand that the proposed dwellings would place on recreational facilities to serve the development through the lack of the detailed provision of formal and informal playing space within the submitted layout. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy RE3 (Open Space Provision in New Housing Developments) of the adopted East Devon Local Plan 1995 - 2001 and PPG 17 (Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation).

5. The proposed development by virtue of the scale and form of development and its siting would significantly erode the semi-rural setting of the grade II listed building known as Courtlands House and its boundary curtilage wall. The development would create a suburban setting that is inappropriate to the historic parkland estate setting of the house. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy C07 (Historic Settlements and Buildings) of the Devon Structure Plan 2001-2016 and Policies EN9 (Extension, Alteration or Change of use of Buildings of Special Architectural and Historic Interest) of the adopted East Devon Local Plan 1995-2011 and advice contained within PPS 5 (Planning for the Historic Environment).

6. Inadequate information has been submitted to satisfy the Local Planning Authority that the proposal is acceptable in terms of impact on biodiversity and protected species in the area. The site is adjacent to the Exe Estuary SPA site and East Devon Pebblebed Heaths SAC/SPA. There is also data from the RSPB confirming the presence of Cirl buntings (A UK BAP priority species) in the area. Inadequate information has been submitted to enable the Local Planning Authority to carry out an Appropriate Assessment (Habitat Direction) and fully consider the impact of the proposed development on these sites of international importance. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy CO9 (Biodiversity and East Science Diversity) and Policy CO10 (Protection of Nature Conservation Sites and Species) of the Devon County Structure Plan 2001 - 2016 and Policies EN4 (Nationally Important Sites - including Sites of Special Scientific Interest), Policy EN5 (Protection of Local Nature Reserves, County Wildlife Sites and County Geological Sites) and Policy EN6 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) of the adopted East Devon Local Plan 1995 - 2011 and advice contained within PPS9 (Biodiversity and Geological Conservation)

Protective Marking: UNCLASSIFIED 16 Development Management Committee, 15 November 2011

Woodbury And Lympstone 11/1902/FUL & 11/1903/LBC (LYMPSTONE)

Applicant: Mr A Wadhams

Location: Figgins Church Road

Proposal: Installation of solar pv panels to roof of outbuilding

RESOLVED: APPROVED with delegated authority being given to the Head of Economy to impose appropriate conditions.

Members resolved contrary to the Officers’ recommendation as they considered that the proposal would not be detrimental to the listed building, conservation area and the streetscene.

Whimple (WHIMPLE) 11/1943/COU

Applicant: Willow View Park

Location: Willow View Park Whimple

Proposal: Erection of 13 additional park homes and garages

RESOLVED: APPROVED with delegated authority being given to the Head of Economy to impose appropriate conditions and negotiate an appropriate financial contribution towards sports facilities in the locality to be incorporated into a Section 106 agreement or unilateral undertaking.

Members resolved contrary to the Officers’ recommendation as they considered that the proposed development would be sustainable by virtue of the on-site facilities and nearby bus routes and that the development would provide much needed affordable by design housing to meet the needs of retired persons.

Protective Marking: UNCLASSIFIED 17 Development Management Committee, 15 November 2011

Sidmouth Town (SIDMOUTH) 10/1653/MFUL

Applicant: Blue Cedar Homes

Location: Parsons Bros Builders Ltd Foundry Yard

Proposal: Erection of 12 no. residential dwellings with associated parking, car ports, garages and landscaping, alterations to site access and relocation of Environment Agency equipment.

RESOLVED: APPROVED subject to the completion of a satisfactory legal agreement and the following conditions:

2. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no works within Schedule 2 Part 1 Classes A, B, C, D, E or F for the enlargement, improvement or other alterations to the dwellings hereby permitted, or the erection or alteration of structures or hard surfaced areas within the curtilages of the dwellings hereby permitted, shall be undertaken. (Reason - To secure an appropriate degree of control over future development within the site, in accordance with Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the East Devon Local Plan 1995 -2011.

3. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no works within Schedule 2 Part 2 Class A for the erection, construction, maintenance, improvement or alteration of a gate, fence wall or other means of enclosure shall be undertaken. (Reason - To secure an appropriate degree of control over future development within the site in accordance with Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the East Devon Local Plan 1995 -2011.

4. Before development is commenced, a schedule of materials and finishes, and, where so required by the Local Planning Authority, samples of such materials and finishes, to be used for the external walls and roofs of the proposed development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. (Reason - To ensure that the materials are sympathetic to the character and appearance of the area.)

Protective Marking: UNCLASSIFIED 18 Development Management Committee, 15 November 2011

5. No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the boundary wall, and details of the iron railings fronting Mill Street have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. (Reason - To ensure that the materials are sympathetic to the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the East Devon Local Plan 1995 -2011.

6. During the demolition and construction phases, no works of demolition or construction shall take place other than within the hours Monday to Friday 0800 to 1800 hours, Saturday 0800 to 1300 hours and not at all on Sundays or Bank Holidays unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Reason - To ensure that the development does not damage the amenity of the occupiers of the adjoining residential properties).

7. No development shall take place until a landscaping scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; such a scheme to include the planting of trees, hedges, shrubs, herbaceous plants and areas to be grassed. The scheme shall also give details of any proposed walls, fences and other boundary treatment. The landscaping scheme shall be carried out prior to the occupation of the first dwelling unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall be maintained for a period of 5 years. Any trees or other plants which die during this period shall be replaced during the next planting season with specimens of the same size and species unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Reason - In the interests of amenity and to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the area.)

8. The landscaping scheme (subject to any variation agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out in the first planting season after commencement of the development unless a phasing or other period is agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall be maintained for a period of 5 years. Any trees or other plants which die during this period shall be replaced during the next planting season with specimens of the same size and species unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

9. No development shall commence until a right of way diversion order has been confirmed in writing and the occupation of any dwelling shall not take place until the diverted public right of way has been constructed in strict accordance with details which have been submitted to and agreed with the Local Planning Authority. The right of way along this footpath shall be kept clear of any obstruction in perpetuity. (Reason – In the interest of public amenity and in accordance with Policy TA7 (Footpaths, Bridleways and Cycleways)

10. The first floor window on the south elevation of units 6 and 7 illustrated on drawing no. A7 of the approved plans, shall be obscurely glazed and fixed shut unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, and retained as such in perpetuity. (Reason - To protect the privacy of the neighbouring properties and in accordance with Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the East Devon Local Plan 1995 -2011).

Protective Marking: UNCLASSIFIED 19 Development Management Committee, 15 November 2011 11. Prior to the commencement of any development on the site, details of the proposed mitigation measures to ensure the protection of the slow worms on the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and be undertaken in accordance with the Environmental (Ecological) Impact Assessment and Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey. (Reason - In the interests of the appearance of the development and in accordance with Policy CO10 (Protection of Nature Conservation Sites and Species) of the Devon Structure Plan 2001 - 2016, and Policy EN6 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) of the East Devon Local Plan 1995 -2011).

12. The former gaol wall located at the entrance of the site shall be retained in situ and shall be protected during the whole period of construction to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any proposed remedial or restoration works required shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed scheme of works. (Reason - To safeguard the architectural and historic character of the wall in accordance with Policy CO7 (Historic Settlements and Buildings) of the Devon Structure Plan 2001 - 2016 and EN9 (Extension, Alteration or Change of Use of Buildings of Special Architectural and Historic Interest) of the East Devon Local Plan 1995 -2011.)

13. The mitigation and enhancement measures during construction shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the findings and methodology of the Ground Investigation & Environmental Assessment Report undertaken by Ruddlesden Geotechnical Ltd and dated September 2009. (Reason - To protect controlled waters and in accordance with Policy EN16 (Contaminated Land) of the East Devon Local Plan 1995 -2011)

14. If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the Local Planning Authority for, an amendment to the remediation strategy detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with. (Reason - To protect controlled waters and in accordance with Policy CO13 (Protecting Water Resources and Flood Defence) of the Devon Structure Plan 2001 - 2016, and Policy EN17 (Maintenance of Water Quality and Quantity) of the East Devon Local Plan 1995 -2011.

15. No process shall be carried on nor machinery installed which could not be carried on or installed in any residential area without detriment to the amenity of that area by reason of noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, soot, ash, dust or grit, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Reason - To ensure that the development does not damage the amenity of occupiers of adjoining residential properties, in accordance with national and local planning policy and guidance, as set out in PPS 23 - Planning and Pollution Control, and policy D1 of the East Devon Local Plan 1995 - 2011.)

16. No waste or other materials shall be burnt upon the land within the application site. (Reason - To ensure that the development does not damage the amenity of occupiers of adjoining residential properties, in accordance with national and local planning policy and guidance, as set out in PPS 23 - Planning and Pollution Control, and policy D1 of the East Devon Local Plan 1995 - 2011.)

Protective Marking: UNCLASSIFIED 20 Development Management Committee, 15 November 2011

17. No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Planning Authority.' The development shall be carried out at all times in strict accordance with the approved scheme, or such other details as may be subsequently agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Reason - To ensure that an appropriate record is made of archaeological evidence that may be affected by the development in accordance with Policy CO8 (Archaeology) of the Devon Structure Plan 2001 - 2016 and EN8 (Proposals Affecting Sites Which May Potentially be of Archaeological and Historic Interest) of East Devon Local Plan 1995 -2011).

18. The existing southernmost access to Mill Street shall be effectively and permanently closed and the kerbs reinstated to full height before the occupation of any of the premises hereby approved in accordance with details which shall previously have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. (Reason - To prevent the use of a substandard access and to minimise the number of accesses on to the public highway and in accordance with Policy TA7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) of the East Devon Local Plan 1995 -2011)

19. No part of the development hereby approved shall be brought into its intended use until the access, car, cycle and mobility scooter parking facilities and turning area have been provided and maintained in accordance with details that shall have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority and retained for that purpose at all times. (Reason - To ensure that adequate facilities are available for the traffic attracted to the site and in accordance with Policy TA9 (Parking Provision in New Development) of the East Devon Local Plan 1995 -2011)

20. No development shall start until a Method of Construction Statement, to include details of: (a) parking for vehicles of site personnel, operatives and visitors (b) loading and unloading of plant and materials (c) storage of plant and materials (d) programme of works (including measures for traffic management) (e) routeing of vehicles to and from the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Only the approved details shall be implemented during the construction period. (Reason - To ensure that satisfactory on-site facilities are available throughout the construction period and in the interest of highway safety )

21. Prior to the first erection of the entrance gates hereby permitted, a daylight sensor shall be fitted to the gates and fully operational which ensures that the gates remain open during daylight hours. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the equipment shall be maintained such that the daylight opening restriction is retained in perpetuity. (Reason - To maintain an open attractive and welcoming environment for the area and in accordance with Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the adopted East Devon Local Plan.)

Protective Marking: UNCLASSIFIED 21 Development Management Committee, 15 November 2011

NOTE FOR APPLICANT

1. IN GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT, THE FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION:

The proposal complies with the following Devon Structure Plan 2001-2016 Policies and the adopted East Devon Local Plan 1995-2011 Policies:

Devon Structure Plan Policies ST1 (Sustainable Development) ST4 (Infrastructure Provision) ST18 (Affordable Housing) ST18A (Mix and Type of Housing) CO9 (Biodiversity and Earth Science Diversity) CO10 (Protection of Nature Conservation Sites and Species) CO11 (Conserving Energy Resources) CO13 (Protecting Water Resources and Flood Defence) WM1 (Waste Management) TR2 (Co-ordinating Land Use/Travel Planning) TR4 (Parking Strategy, Standards and Proposals) TR5 (Hierarchy of Modes) TR6 (Network Integration) TR7 (Walking and Cycling) TR9 (Public Transport)

East Devon Local Plan Policies S4 (Development Within Built-up Area Boundaries) S7 (Infrastructure Related to New Development) D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) D2 (Sustainable Construction) D4 (Landscape Requirements) EN6 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) EN8 (Proposals Affecting Sites Which May be of Archaeological Importance) H1 (Residential Land Provision) H2 (Residential Land Allocation) H3 (Range and Mix of New Housing Development) H4 (Affordable Housing) RE3 (Open Space Provision in New Housing Developments) TA1 (Accessibility of New Development) TA3 (Transport Assessments /Travel Plans) TA4 (Footpaths, Bridleways and Cycleways) TA7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) 2. The proposal does not adversely affect the privacy or amenity of neighbouring properties.

3. The design and external appearance of the proposal does not harm the visual amenity of the site and surrounding area.

Approved Plans

SWW General 13.08.10 Correspondence Protective Marking: UNCLASSIFIED 22 Development Management Committee, 15 November 2011

SANDS General 13.08.10 Correspondence

EIA General 13.08.10 Correspondence

EA General 13.08.10 Correspondence

ENVIRONMENT General 13.08.10 AL Correspondence ASSESSMENT

A2 Amended Plans 11.04.11

A4 Amended Plans 18.11.10

A1 Amended Plans 18.11.10

A3 Amended Plans 18.11.10

A5 Amended Plans 18.11.10

A7 Amended Plans 18.11.10

A6 Amended Plans 18.11.10

S1 Amended Plans 18.11.10

A8 Amended Plans 18.11.10

A9 Amended Plans 18.11.10

A10 Amended Plans 18.11.10

T1 Amended Plans 18.11.10

Sidmouth Rural (SIDMOUTH) 11/0904/FUL

Applicant: Mr P Griew & Others

Location: Base Of Cliff To East Of Pennington Point Sidmouth

Proposal: Construction of 240m long rock revetment to provide coastal protection

RESOLVED: the application was WITHDRAWN from the agenda.

Protective Marking: UNCLASSIFIED 23 Development Management Committee, 15 November 2011

Ottery St Mary Rural (OTTERY ST MARY) 11/1912/FUL

Applicant: Mrs Esther Knight

Location: Coombelake Cottage, Coombelake

Proposal: Change of use and alterations to outbuilding to provide holiday accommodation.

RESOLVED: APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed at the end of this decision notice. (Reason - For the avoidance of doubt.)

3. The holiday accommodation to be created via the conversion works hereby permitted shall only be occupied for holiday purposes under the supervision and control of the owners or occupiers of Coombelake Cottage, Coombelake, and shall at no time be occupied as a person’s sole or main place of residence. A register (including names and main home addresses) of all occupiers of the holiday unit shall be collated and maintained by the owners or occupiers of Coombelake Cottage, and this information shall be available at all reasonable times on request by the Local Planning Authority. (Reason: - To ensure that the holiday accommodation hereby permitted may not be used as a separate dwelling in an open countryside location, where new development is restricted in accordance Policy S5 (Countryside Protection) of the East Devon Local Plan).

4. The development hereby permitted shall, at all times, adhere to any conclusions and mitigation methods detailed in the 'Ecological Survey', which published by Acorn Ecology Ltd on 6th September 2011. (Reason - To maintain and enhance the ecological status of Coombelake Cottage and its curtilage, and to comply with policy EN6 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) of the East Devon Local Plan).

5. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No.2) (England) Order 2008 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no windows, doors, rooflights or other openings, other than those shown on the plans hereby permitted, shall be constructed. (Reason - To protect the privacy of adjoining occupiers, and to comply with policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the East Devon Local Plan).

Protective Marking: UNCLASSIFIED 24 Development Management Committee, 15 November 2011

NOTE FOR APPLICANT

1. IN GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT, THE FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION:

The proposal complies with the following Devon Structure Plan 2001-2016 Policies and the adopted East Devon Local Plan 1995-2011 Policies:

Devon Structure Plan Policies

CO1 (Landscape Character and Local Distinctiveness)

CO6 (Quality of New Development)

TO3 (Tourism Development in Rural Areas)

East Devon Local Plan Policies

S5 (Countryside Protection)

D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness)

D10 (Re-Use of Rural Buildings Outside Settlements)

TO1 (Proposals for Holiday or Overnight Accommodation and Associated Facilities)

EN6 (Wildlife Habitats and Features)

2. The proposal does not adversely affect the privacy or amenity of neighbouring properties.

3. The design and external appearance of the proposal does not harm the visual amenity of the site and surrounding area.

4. The proposal does no harm to wildlife interest.

5. The access to serve the proposal does not prejudice highway safety.

INFORMATIVE:

Notwithstanding the details contained within the 'Ecological Survey', submitted with the application, should any evidence of a protected species be found during the works hereby approved, the applicant is advised to contact Natural England for advice and to seek any licences which may be required.

Approved Plans

Bat and Owl Survey 12.09.11

P01 Combined Plans 30.08.11

Protective Marking: UNCLASSIFIED 25 Development Management Committee, 15 November 2011

Ottery St Mary Rural (OTTERY ST MARY) 11/1886/MFUL

Applicant: Paul Hunt Investments Ltd

Location: West Hayes West Hill Road

Proposal: Construction of 15 dwellings (including 10 affordable) together with associated access (off Eastfield) and landscaping.

RESOLVED: the application was WITHDRAWN from the agenda

Newbridges (SHUTE) 11/1879/FUL

Applicant: Lyme Bay Cider Company - Mr N Howard

Location: The Lyme Bay Winery Seaton Junction

Proposal: Change of use of land, construction of industrial building for winery and storage/warehousing, associated works including car parking and alterations to access.

RESOLVED: APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

2. No part of the development hereby approved shall be brought into its intended use until the access, parking facilities, commercial vehicle loading/unloading area, visibility splays, turning area and access drainage have been provided and maintained in accordance with details that shall have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority and retained for that purpose at all times (Reason - To ensure that adequate facilities are available for the traffic attracted to the site in accordance with Policies TA7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) and TA9 (Parking Provision in new Development) of the East Devon Local Plan and Policies TR4 (Parking Strategy and Standards and Proposals) and TR7 (Walking and Cycling) of the Devon Structure Plan)

3. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the submitted wildlife survey, including timing of works unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Reason- in the interests of the protection of protected species in accordance with Policy EN6 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) of the East Devon Local Plan, Policy CO10 (Protection of Nature Conservation) of the Devon Structure Plan and Government Guidance PPS9 Biodiversity and Conservation)

Protective Marking: UNCLASSIFIED 26 Development Management Committee, 15 November 2011

4. No development shall take place until details of the specification and means of operation of all external lighting on the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The lighting schedule shall be implemented and operated in strict accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Reason – for landscape and biodiversity reasons, and to prevent unacceptable light pollution disturbance to the occupiers of nearby residential properties, in accordance with national and local planning policy and guidance as set out in Planning Policy Statement 1 (Delivering Sustainable Development), Planning Policy Statement 7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas), Planning Policy Statement 9 (Biodiversity and Geological Conservation), Planning Policy Statement 23 (Planning and Pollution Control), policies CO1 (Landscape Character and Local Distinctiveness), CO3 (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty), CO6 (Quality of new Development) and CO9 (Biodiversity and Earth Science Diversity) of the Devon Structure Plan 2001 - 2016, and policies S5 (Countryside Protection), D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness), D4 (Landscape Requirements) and EN1 (Development in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) of the East Devon Local Plan).

5. No development shall take place until a landscaping scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; such a scheme to include the planting of trees, hedges, shrubs, herbaceous plants and areas to be grassed. The scheme shall also give details of any proposed walls, fences and other boundary treatment. The landscaping scheme shall be carried out in the first planting season after commencement of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall be maintained for a period of 5 years. Any trees or other plants which die during this period shall be replaced during the next planting season with specimens of the same size and species unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Reason - In the interests of amenity and to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policy CO6 (Quality of New Development) of the Devon Structure Plan and Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and D4 (Landscape Requirements) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

6. No development shall take place until details of the surfacing of the access, parking areas, service delivery areas and footpath have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall accord with the agreed details, and shall be maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. (Reason – in the interests of the appearance of the site located within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty in accordance with Policy EN1 (Development Affecting Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) of the East Devon Local Plan and Policy C03 (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) of the Devon Structure Plan)

7. The building hereby permitted shall be used for B2 or B8 purposes only as set out in Use Classes (Amendment) Order 2005 and for no other purpose. (Reason - In order to define the permission)

Protective Marking: UNCLASSIFIED 27 Development Management Committee, 15 November 2011 Reasons for Approval

1. Although contrary to the requirements of policy S5 (Countryside Protection) and policy EN1 (Developments Affecting Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) it is considered that the proposal would have only limited harm on the landscape while its economic benefits would be significant for the local economy such that they would outweigh the landscape impact. 2. The proposal complies with policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness), TA7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access), TA9 (Parking Provision in New Development), EN6 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) and D4 (Landscape Requirements) of the East Devon Local Plan. 3. The proposal does not adversely affect the privacy or amenity of neighbouring properties. 4. The proposal does not harm the natural beauty of the landscape designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. 5. The design and external appearance of the proposal does not harm the visual amenity of the site and surrounding area. 6. The proposal does not harm or give rise to a perceived threat from important trees on or adjacent to the site.

Honiton St Pauls (HONITON) 11/2230/COU

Applicant: Mr R Quin

Location: Land Adjacent To 4A Northcote Lane Honiton

Proposal: Retrospective application for change of use of amenity land to garden, erection of boundary fence and construction of steps.

RESOLVED: APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed at the end of this decision notice. (Reason - For the avoidance of doubt.)

3. Within one month of the granting of permission a landscaping scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; such a scheme shall provide for the planting of climbing plants between the front face of the fence and the back edge of the pavement along the eastern boundary of the site. The landscaping scheme shall be carried out in the first planting season following its written approval unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall be maintained for a period of 5 years.

Protective Marking: UNCLASSIFIED 28 Development Management Committee, 15 November 2011 Any plants which die during this period shall be replaced during the next planting season with specimens of the same size and species unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Reason - In the interests of amenity and to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policy CO6 (Quality of New Development) of the Devon Structure Plan and Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and D4 (Landscape Requirements) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

NOTE FOR APPLICANT

1. IN GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT, THE FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION:

The proposal complies with the following Devon Structure Plan 2001-2016 Policies and the adopted East Devon Local Plan 1995-2011 Policies:

Devon Structure Plan Policies CO6 (Quality of New Development)

East Devon Local Plan Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness)

D4 (Landscape Requirements)

S4 (Development Within Built-up Area Boundaries)

2. The proposal does not adversely affect the privacy or amenity of neighbouring properties.

3. The design and external appearance of the proposal, with additional landscaping would not harm the visual amenity of the site and surrounding area.

Approved Plans

L1 Location Plan 06.10.11

S1 Site Plan 06.10.11

A Plan Proposed 06.10.11

1 & 2 Photos 06.10.11

Protective Marking: UNCLASSIFIED 29 Development Management Committee, 15 November 2011

Exmouth Town (EXMOUTH) 11/1910/FUL

Applicant: Mr Yilmaz Rifat

Location: The Master Fryer 14 Rolle Street

Proposal: Alterations to shop front to include new serving hatch

RESOLVED: APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed at the end of this decision notice. (Reason - For the avoidance of doubt.)

NOTE FOR APPLICANT

1. IN GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT, THE FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION:

The proposal complies with the following Devon Structure Plan 2001-2016 Policies and the adopted East Devon Local Plan 1995-2011 Policies:

Devon Structure Plan Policies CO6 (Quality of New Development)

East Devon Local Plan Policies S4 (Development Within Built-up Area Boundaries)

D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness)

2. The proposal does not adversely affect the privacy or amenity of neighbouring properties.

3. The design and external appearance of the proposal does not harm the visual amenity of the site and surrounding area.

Approved Plans

D065-11-102 Combined Plans 14.09.11

DO65-11-101 Plan Existing 31.08.11

Protective Marking: UNCLASSIFIED 30 Development Management Committee, 15 November 2011 Exmouth Brixington (EXMOUTH) 11/1929/FUL

Applicant: Mr D Buckland

Location: 70 Fraser Road Exmouth

Proposal: Construction of single storey extension

RESOLVED: APPROVED

NOTE FOR APPLICANT

1. IN GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT, THE FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION:

The proposal complies with the following Devon Structure Plan 2001-2016 Policies and the adopted East Devon Local Plan 1995-2011 Policies:

Devon Structure Plan Policies CO6 (Quality of New Development)

East Devon Local Plan Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness)

S4 (Development Within Built-up Area Boundaries)

2. The design and external appearance of the proposal does not harm the visual amenity of the site and surrounding area.

3. The proposal does not adversely affect the privacy or amenity of neighbouring properties.

Approved Plans

1 Combined Plans 16.09.11

2 Combined Plans 16.09.11

3 Existing Elevation 16.09.11

4 Sections 16.09.11

Protective Marking: UNCLASSIFIED 31 Development Management Committee, 15 November 2011

Budleigh Salterton (EAST BUDLEIGH) 11/1531/COU

Applicant: Pooh Cottage Holiday Park

Location: Pooh Cottage Holiday Site Bear Lane

Proposal: Change of use of land to caravan storage area for up to 47 caravans

RESOLVED: REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development by reason of its nature and use represents unsuitable and inappropriate development in the countryside that is designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The development fails to:

respect the distinctive qualities of the area that contribute to its visual appeal and amenity quality; enhance or conserve the character of the area; and demonstrate that it is in the National interest and that there are no other alternative sites available elsewhere.

As such the development is considered contrary to Regulations in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000; guidance in PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development), PPS4 (Planning for Sustainable Economic Development) and PPS7 (Sustainable development in Rural Areas), Policies C01 (Landscape Character and Local Distinctiveness) and C03 (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty), of the Devon Structure Plan and Policies S5 (Countryside Protection), and EN1 (Development affecting Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) of the adopted East Devon Local Plan

2. The proposed development would be likely to result in an increase in the number of vehicle movements, particularly towing vehicles using Bear Lane, a narrow road with limited passing facilities and no footways which will further prejudice highway safety and lead to additional interference and conflict with other highway users along the length of Bear Lane and its junction with B3178 including users of the National Cycle Network, contrary to Policy T06 (Long Distance Recreational Footpaths and Cycle Routes) of the Devon County Structure Plan and Policy TA7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) of the adopted East Devon Local Plan.

Protective Marking: UNCLASSIFIED 32 Development Management Committee, 15 November 2011

Broadclyst (BROADCLYST) 10/1711/MFUL

Applicant: Ashcom Developments Ltd

Location: Kingdom House Broadclyst

Proposal: Demolition of existing bungalow and former outbuildings, works and construction of 13 no. residential dwellings with associated works including new pedestrian access to School Lane

RESOLVED: INSPECT

Resons: to consider the proposal in its context to determine if it constitutes overdevelopment of the site and to consider the impact on car parking problems in the area

Protective Marking: UNCLASSIFIED 33 EAST DEVON DISTRICT COUNCIL Minutes of a Special Meeting of the Development Management Committee held at the Council Chamber, Knowle, Sidmouth, on Friday 18 November 2011

Present: Councillors: Mark Williamson (Chairman) Helen Parr (Vice Chairman) Derek Button Geoff Chamberlain Alan Dent Vivien Duval Steer Mike Howe Stephanie Jones David Key Ken Potter Phil Twiss Peter Sullivan Steve Wragg Also Present: Councillors: Mike Allen David Atkins Ray Bloxham Peter Bowden Graham Brown Paul Diviani Martin Gammel Roger Giles Graham Godbeer Andrew Moulding John O’Leary Philip Skinner Claire Wright Tim Wood Officers: Neil Blackmore, Landscape Architect Matt Dickins, Planning Policy Manager Ed Freeman, Interim Development Manager Christopher Holland, Democratic Services Officer Kate Little, Head of Economy Rachel Pocock, Legal and Democratic Services Corporate Manager Hannah Whitfield, Assistant Democratic Services Officer Apologies: Councillors: Steve Gazzard Tony Howard Ben Ingham Geoffrey Pook

The meeting commenced at 9.00 am and ended at 4.00 pm

*39 Chairman’s Welcome Protective Marking: UNCLASSIFIED

34 Special Meeting of the Development Management Committee 18 November 2011

The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting, commenting that the purpose of the meeting was to approve the draft Local Plan for public review and not to undo the excellent work already carried out by the Local Development Framework Panel over the lengthy period during which they had been meeting.

*41 Public Speaking Three Members of the public commented on the draft Local Plan prior to the later debate between Members. The Chairman thanked the speakers and asked that their written notes be handed to the Clerk, to be considered as part of the consultation process.

*40 Declarations of interest The following declarations of interest were made during the meeting:

Councillor/ Type of interest Nature of interest Officer (action taken) Councillor Personal Member was Chairman of Cloakham Andrew (Remained in Lawns Sports Centre, Axminster Moulding Chamber to speak)

Councillor Personal Member’s brother was tenant farmer of Philip Skinner (Remained in Maer/Green Farm, Exmouth Chamber to speak)

Councillor Mike Personal Member was a Honiton Town Councillor Allen (Remained in Chamber to speak)

Councillor Personal Member was a Governor of King’s School Roger Giles (Remained in and an Ottery St Mary Town Councillor. Chamber to speak)

Councillor Personal Member lived in a Conservation Area and Derek Button (Remained in Listed Building. Chamber to speak)

Councillor Personal Member had previous carried out Phil Twiss (Remained in research on woodchip renewable energy Chamber to speak) sources.

Councillor Personal Member owned a local shop and was a Mike Howe (Remained in Sub Post Master Chamber to speak)

35 Special Meeting of the Development Management Committee 18 November 2011

*40 New East Devon Local Plan – 2006 to 2026 Members considered the report of the Planning Policy Manager who presented a summary of the work of the Local Plan Panel. It was noted that the Panel had met on a weekly basis to agree a new Local Plan for review/consultation. The proposed new Local Plan would set out strategic and local policies to guide, manage and regulate development in East Devon to 2026. The plan would also set out how the Council proposed to help local communities produce neighbourhood plans. The papers circulated to the committee set out the proposed consultation draft of the new Local Plan and approval was sought for public review.

Members considered the timetable of the plan process and noted that after the review the next proposed stages would include: 1. Amending the plan in respect of comments received; 2. Making the plan available (‘deposited’) for six weeks to allow for formal public representations to be made; 3. Submitting (sending) the plan to Government (along with representations received in respect to item 2) in readiness for examination.

During the lengthy debate which was taken chapter by chapter, Ward Members and other Members of the Council had the opportunity to comment on the draft plan before it was debated by the Committee.

During the meeting, comments made by Members regarding readability issues including minor typographical alterations were noted down by the Clerk and other Officers as suggested and directed by the Committee.

RESOLVED: 1) that the new Consultation Draft East Devon Local Plan be approved for public review from 1 December 2011 to 31 January 2012. (Councillor Derek Button requested that his vote against this resolution be recorded) 2) that the recommended changes detailed in the report addendum, be incorporated into the Plan. 3) that delegated authority be given to the Head of Economy, in consultation with the Chairman of Development Management Committee (and prior to consultation starting), to: a) make minor factual and punctuation/typing changes to the document (including in respect of plain English review); b) insert references in the document to sources of evidence; c) add additional text on feedback received from the Preferred Approach document (2010/11) consultation and; d) make changes to text resulting from the debate of the Special Meeting of the Development Management Committee held on 18 November 2011.

Chairman ...... Date ......

EAST DEVON DISTRICT COUNCIL LIST OF PLANNING APPEALS DECIDED

Ref: 10/2278/OUT Appeal Ref: 11/00026/REF Appellant: Mr D Rodway Appeal Site: 3 Ashley Brake West Hill Ottery St Mary EX11 1TW Proposal: Construction of detached single storey dwelling Decision: Appeal Allowed Date: 20.10.2011 (with conditions) Procedure: Written representations Remarks: Officer recommendation to approve, Committee refusal. Amenity reasons overruled (DSP Policy CO6 and EDLP Policies DI & S4). The Inspector concluded that it would be possible to design and site a bungalow without compromising the qualities of the existing environment or the low density character of the area. He acknowledged that the proposal would alter the outlook from neighbouring dwellings, however, considered that the proposed dwelling could be sited and designed to avoid any overbearing effect or significant loss of light for nearby residents. BVPI 204: Yes Planning APP/U1105/A/11/2154081/NWF Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 05/1791/MOUT Appeal Ref: 11/00041/NONDET Appellant: Wainhomes (SW) HoldingsLtd Appeal Site: Land Opposite The Oriental Promise Honiton Road Rockbeare Exeter Devon Proposal: Outline planning application for upt o 55 dwellings Decision: Appeal Withdrawn Date: 24.10.2011 Procedure: Remarks: BVPI 204: Planning APP/U1105/A/11/2157540/NWF Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 10/0761/MOUT Appeal Ref: 11/00031/REF Appellant: Blue Cedar Homes Appeal Site: Land North Of Eastfield West Hill Ottery St Mary Proposal: Outline application (seeking determination of means of access only) for the erection of 50 dwellings of which 20 to be age restricted dwellings and 30 to be for general needs housing, together with associated open space and necessary infrastructure, the change of use of part of the site to educational use and provision of a new building for educational purposes Decision: Appeal Dismissed Date: 15.11.2011 Procedure: Public Inquiry Remarks: Officer recommendation to refuse, Committee refusal. Sustainability and policy reasons upheld. (DSP Policies ST5 & ST16 and EDLP Policies S3 & S5). BVPI 204: Yes Planning APP/U1105/A/11/2155312/NWF Inspectorate Ref:

EAST DEVON DISTRICT COUNCIL LIST OF PLANNING APPEALS LODGED

Ref: 11/1709/FUL Date Received 24.10.2011 Appellant: Mr & Mrs W Thomas Appeal Site: Boundary Oaks 11 Village Way Aylesbeare Exeter EX5 2FD Proposal: Construction of first floor extension Planning APP/U1105/D/11/2163402 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 11/0907/FUL Date Received 28.10.2011 Appellant: Mr Russ Palmer Appeal Site: High View Honiton EX14 9TJ Proposal: Subdivision of existing property to form 2 no. dwelling units. Planning APP/U1105/A/11/2163604/NWF Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 10/2375/MOUT Date Received 31.10.2011 Appellant: Mr N Hardy Appeal Site: Land Adjacent Greytops Cooper Court West Hill Road West Hill Proposal: Outline consent for residential development of 22 retirement apartments and 16 dwellings with land for public use plus surgery and coffee house. All matters reserves except for access. Planning APP/U1105/A/11/2163832/NWF Inspectorate Ref:

39 Agenda Item 7

Development Management Committee 6th December 2011 SMG/C5

Dunkeswell Conservation Area.

Summary Under Section 69 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (background paper A) Local Planning Authorities have a duty to review their conservation areas from time to time to consider whether further designation of conservation areas is called for. Following a public consultation on a proposed conservation area at Dunkeswell the boundary has been substantially amended by omitting the airfield and the proposed conservation area now only includes the historic village.

Recommendation It is recommended that the proposed conservation area is endorsed for adoption together with the Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan once the full statutory process has been completed.

a) Reasons for Recommendation A periodic review of conservation area designation is a statutory requirement of the Local Authority. Planning Policy and Guidance has changed since many of the conservation areas were originally designated during the early 1970’s with views on the criteria for designation constantly changing. Following consultation, the Parish Council now supports the designation of a conservation area covering the historic village. The Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan identifies the character and significance of the defined area and outlines the ways in which a new conservation area would be managed. b) Alternative Options Since there is sufficient support for the designation of a new conservation area there does not appear to be any alternative options apart from deciding against designation which would be contrary to the principal aims of this exercise. c) Risk Considerations There are no risks to the Council. d) Policy and Budgetary Considerations

Policy considerations:

40 Section 69 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states that ‘Every local planning authority shall from time to time determine which parts of their area are areas of special architectural or historic interest the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance, and shall designate those areas as conservation areas. It shall be the duty of a local planning authority from time to time to review the past exercise of functions under this section and to determine whether any parts or any further parts of this should be designated as conservation areas; and, if they so determine, they shall designate those parts accordingly.’

Budgetary considerations:

A newly designated conservation area would result in a very marginal increase in the number of planning applications for works that would otherwise be considered as Permitted Development. e) Date for Review of Decision The Conservation Area Appraisal would be reviewed every five years.

1 Main Body of the Report

1.1 Conservation Areas are ‘areas of special architectural or historic interest the character of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance’. East Devon currently has 33 conservation areas. Conservation Area Appraisals are documents which identify the common vernacular styles and building materials and finishes, significant views within the conservation area and areas where the character has been lost. They provide important guidance and support in determining planning applications in conservation areas and supplement planning appeal statements.

1.2 Following the endorsement of the Development Management Committee in November 2009 to carry out a public consultation exercise on the proposed conservation area the proposals were published in the local press and all residents and businesses in the originally proposed boundary were written to with an outline of the proposals. The initial boundary endorsed by Committee included the World War II airfield which now includes two substantial business parks. The initial response came from business owners on the airfield and significant concerns were expressed over the onerous implications relating to planning permissions required for development that presently would be permitted development. The overriding concern was one of the effects upon business in a time of economic difficulty.

1.3 Following the initial response a meeting of those concerned took place in April 2010 with Parish Councillors and Ward Members. It was communicated that the additional planning controls would be limited to the felling and lopping of trees, the demolition of buildings and some advertisements as the area is already designated as an AONB, and as such is designated as Article 1(5) land which imposes very similar planning restrictions as conservation area status. The recommendation from the meeting was to extend the period of consultation for a further three months and for the additional planning restrictions as the result of a conservation area designation to be made much clearer. This was communicated back to the residents and businesses via letter and the consultation period was then extended until the end of September 2010. The subsequent representations expressed similar concerns and there was a general lack of support for the designation of a conservation area to include the airfield. However as there were no representations raising issues of a possible designation of the historic

41 village it was considered that this would be a way forward that would allay local concerns while providing the recognition and protection that conservation area status offers.

1.4 The Parish Council has since then spent time discussing a revised proposal to designate a conservation area covering the village only. Following further technical queries being answered there is now support for the proposals. The Conservation Area Appraisal (document A) and Management Plans (document B) have been revised to omit references and proposals for the airfield.

1.5 Once the conservation area and supporting documents have been endorsed the proposals will need to be advertised in the local press and London Gazette before the conservation area can be adopted.

Legal Implications There are no legal observations.

Financial Implications There are no financial implications contained within the report.

Background Papers

 A: Dunkeswell Conservation Area Appraisal

 B: Dunkeswell Conservation Area Management Plan.

 These were submitted before to Committee in November 2009 but in their original draft form including references and proposals for the airfield.

Stephen Guy 1541 Development Management Principal Conservation Officer 6th December 2011

Dunkeswell Conservation Area Appraisal

43 Dunkeswell Conservation Area Appraisal

A cluster of farm buildings, cottages and church make up the village centre of Dunkeswell.

Introduction. Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Sections 69-74 of the principal Act contains 1.1 The Planning (Listed Buildings and policies on conservation area designation and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 defines a the levels of control upon various types of conservation area as ‘an area of special development. With regard to management architectural or historic interest the character plans, section 71 of the Act places a duty on or appearance of which it is desirable to local planning authorities to formulate and preserve or enhance’. There currently over publish proposals for the preservation and 9000 conservation areas in England and enhancement of conservation areas. Wales and these designations aim to preserve and enhance the character and 1.3 Planning Policy Statement 5 gives a full appearance of historic settlements. A statement of Government policies relating to Conservation Area Appraisal is an conservation areas in the main Act. Policies assessment of the character of the area and HE2 and HE3 of this document elaborate on identifies the most significant aspects of its conservation area policies and also landscape, architecture and historical complements guidance contained in other importance. It characterises the various Planning Policy Guidance Notes. PPS5 components of its evolution and development, together with the accompanying English form, architecture and landscape setting. The Heritage Practice Guide are the policy Conservation Area Appraisal will inform a documents most often referred to and gives Management Plan which will outline weight to planning decisions. As conservation proposals for short and long term strategies areas are very often centred around the for the preservation and more particularly the historic core of a settlement there is usually enhancement of the area. varying degrees of archaeological potential when developing a site. 1.2 Planning Policy for Conservation Areas is contained within The Planning (Listed

Page 1

44 Dunkeswell Conservation Area Appraisal

1.3 Policy EN11 and EN12 of the East Devon the plateau of the Blackdown Hills. The Local Plan 1995-2011 supported by village is quite cohesive in its vernacular paragraphs 4.79-4.84 outlines local policy in architecture and forms a tight-knit urban regard to proposals for the demolition of grain. The prominence of the roofscape buildings and proposals for development and when viewed from the west is a particular advertisements in conservation areas. character feature.

1.4 The Devon Structure Plan is due to be replaced by the Regional Spacial Strategy for the South West 2006-2026. The Devon Structure Plan adopted by Devon County Council in 2004 contains similar policies for the designation, management and development control within conservation areas.

1.5 In addition to generic and local policies for conservation areas more specific guidance will be offered by development briefs prepared for individual sites in East Devon. Development briefs will also be supported by the East Devon Design Guide and Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD’s) which will form part of the Local Development Framework (LDF). These documents will take Development Plan policies and guidance and apply them in a specific and transparent manner to development within East Devon.

Definition and Summary of Special Interest.

2.1 The character and special interest of any conservation area is defined by the aspects of the layout, situation, topography, spaces and buildings that make the settlement and area The prominent roofscape of Dunkeswell village is a significant aspect of its character. locally distinct and set apart.

2.2 In the case of Dunkeswell the character is Location and Setting. defined by the dense historic village centre. This appraisal will examine the character of 3.1 Location: Dunkeswell is located in a the area and will define those aspects which sparsely populated area of East Devon make it special and give it an individual immediately south of the Somerset border. identity. The airfield, situated west of the village is elevated on a plateau in the Blackdown Hills 2.3 The special interest of the historic village is while the historic village is situated on the partially defined by its topographical situation western slopes of a valley running within a tight wooded valley surrounding by northwards towards Hemyok in Somerset.

Page 2

45 Dunkeswell Conservation Area Appraisal

3.2 Plan Form: The historic village is no larger Historic Development and Archaeology. than a large hamlet with a dense concentration of vernacular buildings south 4.1 Origins and historic development of the of the church. The setting of the village is area: There are significant concentrations rural with farmland on the lower valley of prehistoric evidence within the Blackdown bottom to the east. The buildings are Hills area and within the heart of grouped centrally around Connett’s Farm Dunkeswell village is a Bronze Age barrow with the rebuilt church set separately to the which is designated as a Scheduled Ancient north. Properties and associated agricultural Monument (shown on Map 1). The barrow buildings are set either against or slightly mound stands about 2 metres high with a set back from the narrow lanes that serve diameter of 31 metres. There is a partly the village. infilled trench 2 metres wide and 10 metres long on the south east side of the mound. 3.3 Landscape setting: The village is situated This implies that there was probably a within a nationally important Area of Bronze Age settlement in the vicinity and the Outstanding Natural Beauty landscape. The sheltered valley with a spring line along the area was designated in 1991 and forms an contour of the village centre may well have easily recognisable block of flat-topped been the location of an earlier settlement. plateau with a north facing scarp and The origins of the existing village are spring-lined valleys running predominantly probably 12th century as the rebuilt 1860’s north to south. The landscape setting of church contains a Norman font. Dunkeswell village encompasses the very best of this distinct landscape and presents 4.2 Worthy of note are the remains of a stark contrast in topography and Dunkeswell Abbey two miles north of the landscape character. village and conservation area which was founded in 1201 by William Briwere as a 3.4 The landscape setting allows views into and Cistercian monastery. The abbey was closed out of the conservation area, particularly in in 1539 and was mostly demolished, though the case of the historic village. The southern a section remained in domestic use until the approach to the village drops down past 19th century. In 1842 a church was built Percy Farm and offers views towards the over part of the site and some surviving historic centre with the church tower visible sections of monastery include the partial end over the trees and roof tops. The most wall of the cellarer's range and parts of a significant view point of the village is from gatehouse. The vast majority of the the junction of the main road and the lane vernacular buildings in the conservation area descending towards Connett’s Farm. Views are 17th and 18th century although from within the conservation area are also Connett’s Farm is late medieval. The village important in defining the character of the has developed around the church with a area and its sense of place. From within the relatively dense core of buildings to the historic core of the village views to the south and a more dispersed distribution of wooded slopes of the valley give a sense of cottages further up the valley on the lower enclosure. These, together with other land in the valley bottom. significant views into, out of and within the conservation area are identified on Map 2. 4.3 Later Victorian and twentieth century development is predominantly on the periphery of the village.

Page 3

46 Dunkeswell Conservation Area Appraisal

4.4 The historic core of the village should be other structures in the area including walls, considered to have archaeological potential outuildings and street furniture contribute to as the origins of the human settlement the most visual aspect of the area’s clearly date back to the Bronze age. The character. They are what makes the place church is a relatively modern rebuild of at special and most recognisable from other least one earlier church and the immediate settlements and conservation areas. area surrounding the church may well be Dunkeswell is very disctinct in its archaeological significant. The archaeology predominance of vernacular buildings within of the conservation area is fundamental to the historic village. help understand the sense of place of the area and the context from which the area 5.2 The conservation area has clear character evolved. zones. Dunkeswell can be considered as having two separate character zones; the historic core of the settlement around the church and the more fragmented development following the thoroughfare from the southern approach.

5.3 Within the historic core of the village there are fifeteen individually listed building, all grade II apart from Connett’s Farm which is grade II*. Apart from St Nicholas’s Church all the properties on the statutory list are C16-C18 domestic properties of vernacular proportions and construction. They all follow a similar layout of a single room depth of about 5m and between 2-4 rooms wide. Roofs are generally thatched over steeply- pitched and fully gabled roofs. Full and half- hipped roofs are more or less absent from the conservation area apart from a couple of exceptions.

5.4 The roofscape is a particular character A prominent view over Connett’s Farm from the main road with the wooded slopes rising to east feature of the village and displays a mix of beyond. thatch, corrugated iron and some slate. The roofs are prominent from views above the village and are considered important in Character Analysis. terms of their simplicity, variation in levels and vernacular detailing. While the church is 5.1 The quality of the buildings and their a relatively new addition to the village it is contribution to the area very much define the clearly a landmark structure within the character and appearance of the centre of the settlement and views from conservation area. They are what makes the close by and further away are important in historic environment locally distinct through defining the character of the area and the architectural styles, form, proportions and hierarchy of building structures. The variety materials. Views of principal buildings and of roof claddings is included on map 4.

Page 4

47 Dunkeswell Conservation Area Appraisal

5.5 The character area of the conservation area between Corner Cottage to Autumn Cottage is less coherent in that this where the village had expanded with more modern development. The historic buildings in this area are of the same overriding character as those within the village centre and tend to be situated parallel to the highway. While The Old Forge and Autumn cottage are the only listed buildings south of the group including Corner Cottage there are other historic buildings that contribute positively to the character of the area are identified on Map 1 as being key buildings. These include The Royal Oak Inn, Carpenter’s Cottage, The Old Rectory and Garden Cottage. The Springfield development of post-war semis The Church of St Nicholas was rebuilt in 1865-8 is clearly of its time but respects the and the tower rebuilt again in 1953. The former proportions and massing of more traditional church was most probably medieval although the properties while incorporating modern Norman font suggests an even ancient building. The site is therefore considered to be of archaeo- building materials and finishes. This logical potential. character area is more dispersed with substantial spaces between buildings which together with more prominent tree groups and spaces to the road frontage are considered an important aspect of the character and distinctiveness of the urban grain. Proposals for infill development will likely have a significant impact upon the character of the conservation area.

Page 5

48 Dunkeswell Conservation Area Appraisal

Contribution of green spaces, trees and biodiversity value.

6.1 The conservation area and its setting is defined by its rural context and abundance of trees, hedgerows and surrounding fields. There are significant tree groups throughout the conservation area with the historic village being framed by wooded belts against the skyline. These are predominantly deciduous groups and therefore the character offered changes throughout the year depending upon the degree of tree cover. The village has smaller groups of trees with some individual specimens along the main road and in the vicinity of the church yard. There are currently three areas of trees offered statutory protection by Tree Preservation Orders, two north of the main road junction and Manley’s Lane and an area of woodland A mix of roadside farm buildings and thatched vernacular cottages make Dunkeswell village quite distinct. to the rear of the Royal Oak Inn.

The centre of the historic village has a characterful and prominent roofscape. The church tower creates a focal landmark and is visible more or less throughout the village. The Royal Oak Inn is a key building within the conservation area and should be considered as a non-designated heritage asset

Page 6

49 Dunkeswell Conservation Area Appraisal

6.2 Domestic green spaces and gardens to the The extent in intrusion and detracting front and side of properties are an important features. character feature within the village. What is most evident is that these are not overly 7.1 While the village has seen relatively manicured and are appropriately significant recent development along the landscaped in their rural context rather than main road the overall character has not being overly suburban. One public open been marred or compromised. green space to the north of the church is important in the recreation that it offers and 7.2 The character of the historic village is the views out of the conservation area. sensitive to change and even minor Again, trees form a significant aspect of the unsympathetic alterations to buildings or enclosure to the space and frame the additions to street furniture and signage can skyline both to the east and west. have a significant impact. The most apparent intrusion are the overhead telephone cables 6.3 Hedges and Devon banks found within the and telegraph poles. These blight most conservation area have great ecological historic rural villages but in the case of diversity as well as providing enclosure to Dunkeswell the prominent views from the lanes that pass through the village. A elevated positions are compromised by the greater variety of species tends to indicate a telegraph wires. more ancient hedgerow .

Prominent telegraph poles and wires throughout the village.

An important public green space north of the church framed by individual and groups of trees.

Page 7

50 Dunkeswell Conservation Area Appraisal

7.3 There are some rather incongruous means gardens. of enclosure throughout the conservation area which are inconsistent with the 7.5 As the pressure to conserve energy and predominance of stone walling and native to invest into microgeneration will inevitably hedges. Sections of close-boarded fencing continue careful thought should be given to are suburban in character and not how technologies such as solar and voltaic appropriate in the context of a historic village. panels, and domestic wind turbines are The safety railings and chain-link fencing accommodated in the historic environment. around the park north of the church are also While current and future government inconsistent with the character and guidance will promote their use this should appearance of the village and could be be considered in a well-conceived manner. substituted with simple cast or wrought iron The planning system will provide control in railings and native planting. many cases, but in some circumstances the onus will be upon the home or business owner to take into account the impact upon the character and appearance of the conservation area. The Management Plan will look at ways in which this can achieved.

General condition and pressures for change.

8.1 The general condition of buildings and structures within the conservation area are good. However there are some exceptions to this and there are historically important buildings that are becoming at risk from decay. The Council has powers to ensure that vacant listed buildings considered at risk are made structurally sound and weather tight. The future management of these buildings will be outlined in the Management Plan.

8.2 Within the historic village there are a number of agricultural buildings that show Poorly executed railings and means of enclosure to signs of deterioration and there are a number the entrance to the public park. of temporary roofs in corrugated iron which are not necessarily detrimental as they add 7.4 There are several satellite dishes that have to the character and variety of the roofscape. been installed on prominent elevations of However care must be taken that any historic buildings. While these can be temporary roofs function well and do not controlled in some cases by the planning allow unnecessary water penetration into system there are alternative solutions by important historic buildings. locating them on less prominent elevations or even mounting them on poles in rear 8.3 In terms of pressure for change within the

Page 8

51 Dunkeswell Conservation Area Appraisal

The village is quite sensitive to area status would have an adverse significant changes and infill impact upon business due to the addi- development could have a profound tional controls imposed by conserva- impact upon the loss of important tion area status. This view was ech- spaces and views into and out of the oed by the Parish Council and on the conservation area. Great care in basis of discussions at public meet- considering further proposals for new ings held at the aerodrome and village buildings must be taken in order to hall the boundary of the proposed preserve the local distinctiveness that conservation area was subsequently makes Dunkeswell individual and altered to omit the airfield and keep special. the boundary tight around the historic village. 8.4 Managing change in the conservation area will be one of the principle 9.4 There were no representations from aspects of the Management Plan and those residents living within the village will further highlight the pressures and and therefore with the support of the propose ways to manage and lessen Parish Council the conclusion was to the impact of change. designate a new conservation area around the old village.

Community Involvement. 9.5 The Management Plan does highlight areas where the character of the 9.1 A full public consultation exercise conservation area could be enhanced. took place on the proposal to As there are no present streams of designate a conservation area in funding allocated for such projects Dunkeswell. The originally proposed any feasible enhancement works will boundary included a far more need to be explored and discussed by extensive coverage including the the local community as part of the historic WWII airfield. ongoing management of the conservation area. 9.2 Approaches had been made by English Heritage to consider conservation area status for the airfield, as historically this airfield played a pivotal role in the Battle of Britain and many of the original associated airfield buildings remain including the operations rooms and control tower which are grade II listed. The airfield now also includes two areas of important employment use with business parks to the east and north of the airfield.

9.3 During the consultation period the consensus from those with interests in these areas was that conservation

Page 9

52 Dunkeswell Conservation Area Appraisal

Page 10

53 Dunkeswell Conservation Area Appraisal

1948 Aerial Photo of Dunkeswell Map Tile: ST1407NW Full Reference: ST1411 0764 East Devon District Council - © Crown copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey 100023746. INTERNAL USE ONLY not permitted to copy, sub-license, distribute or sell this data to third parties in anyway

Page 11

54 Map 1 Historic Building Character

Proposed Conservation Area Boundary Listed Buildings GRADE

I II II* © Crown copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey 100023746 Other Key Buildings 55 Map 2 Important Features

kj kj kj kj kj kj kj kj kj kj !¯

kj kj kj ¯ !¯ kj kj kj kj kj kj kj kjkj !¯ ¯

kjkj kjkjkj kjkj kjkj kjkj

kj kj

kj ¯ Viewpoint Open

kj !¯Viewpoint Enclosed Pedestrian Links kj Main Tree Groups/Individual Trees Unspoilt Frontages - Line Important Building Groups Significant Landmark Open Space Restricted Proposed Conservation Area Boundary

56 Map 3 Detracting Features

. . d d d d d .

. . d d d

Post 1945 development

.Unsightly features or area requiring enhancement

dLocation of overhead power lines © Crown copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey 100023746 Proposed Conservation Area Boundary

57 Map 4 Building Materials - Roofs

Proposed Conservation Area Boundary Roof Materials Artificial slate Bitumen covered 'tunerised' slate Bridgwater Pantiles Metal roofs and corrugated asbestos Corrugated Iron Natural Slate Thatch Plain Tiles © Crown copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey 100023746

58 Dunkeswell Conservation Area Management Plan

59 Dunkeswell Conservation Area Management Plan

Dunkeswell Conservation Area

Management Plan

Adopted 2011

1. Introduction 2. Enhancement of the Public Realm 3. Design in Dunkeswell Conservation Area 4. Article 4(2) Directions 5. Buildings at Risk and the Repair of Historic Buildings 6. Management and Protection of Trees and Green Spaces 7. Summary

Appendices A. Conservation Area Policy and Guidance B. Resources C. Decision Making and Procedures D. Monitoring Change in Conservation Areas. E. Enforcement Strategies.

KATE LITTLE HEAD OF PLANNING AND COUNTRYSIDE SERVICES EAST DEVON DISTRICT COUNCIL KNOWLE SIDMOUTH DEVON EX10 8HL

E-mail [email protected] Telephone 01395 571541

Page 1

60 Dunkeswell Conservation Area Management Plan

1.0 Introduction

1.1 A Conservation Area Character Appraisal provides the basis for developing management proposals for a conservation area. There is a requirement under Section 71 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 of all local authorities to review their conservation areas and publish proposals for their preservation and enhancement.

1.2 The Management Plan outlines the policies and guidance to be applied to conservation areas both generic and local. Guidance produced in terms of local policy and guidance, in the form of development briefs for example, may be linked to the Local Development Framework in order to carry weight in planning decisions.

1.3 Proposals will take the form of mid to long term strategies and include the setting of objectives arising from the Conservation Area Appraisal. All aspects of control within conservation areas will be addressed, from monitoring change to formulating strategies for decision making, buildings at risk, Article 4 directions, trees, biodiversity and the public realm.

1.4 The management plan will need to be realistic, bearing in mind the resources likely to be available and will need to be updated on a 5 year cycle, in-line with the review of the Conservation Area Appraisal. The plan will define priorities for the conservation area while recognising limitations of planning controls and resources.

Page 2

61 Dunkeswell Conservation Area Management Plan

2.0 Enhancement Within the Public Realm.

2.1 The character and appearance of public spaces, rights of way and commercial centres in conservation areas are paramount in defining a sense of place and local distinctiveness. Where character is eroded through either neglect or unsympathetic alteration solutions should be sought to enhance the public realm of the conservation area. Dunkeswell’s character remain relatively untainted when compared with other conservation areas and the public realm contributes far less to the overall character of the area than in larger village and town conservation areas.

2.2 A degree of creativity is needed with regard to resources, both financially and administratively (please refer to appendix B). Partnerships will need to be formed to initiate projects and to ensure match funding when this is appropriate. While enhancement projects are now often seen as a means of regenerating an area many conservation areas are not considered eligible for such funding. English Heritage ’Partnership Schemes in Conservation Areas’ for example need to have exceptional measurable results and comply with regional and local government historic environment strategies. It is not considered that Dunkeswell would necessarily attract such funding and therefore alternative initiatives and funding bodies would need to be sourced as the Council does not currently have a budget for enhancement work specifically within conservation areas.

2.3 The Dunkeswell Conservation Area Appraisal outlines some aspects of the built environment that contribute to the compromise of its overriding character and appearance:

The prominence of overhead power lines in prominent locations. This is an issue within most conservation areas and the onus is upon utility companies to consider the relocation of cabling underground as and when services are renewed.

Page 3

62 Dunkeswell Conservation Area Management Plan

Prominent power and telephone lines immediately south of the church.

Means of enclosure in the public realm. The historic centre of the village is more sensitive to change than the airfield and the Conservation Area Appraisal identifies that some of the more modern additions to street furniture are inappropriate within their setting. There are two areas where modern railings have been constructed from concrete/wooden posts and bulky tubular steel rails. The yellow painted barrier at the entrance to the public recreation area and chain-link fence are equally as incongruous and should be considered for replacement subject to funding opportunities. Where railings are needed these should be simple solid-section metal construction with a curved section handrail. Metal fences could be substituted with native hedges or even willow hurdles on a temporary basis.

Page 4

63 Dunkeswell Conservation Area Management Plan

The entrance to the recreation area north of the church provides an opportunity for enhancement of the public realm with more appropriate means of enclosure.

Temporary roofs and claddings on agricultural buildings. While the Appraisal recognises the character contributed by the common use of corrugated iron roofs in the conservation area there is also concern over the longer term condition of these buildings. Metal roofs have been in common use in rural areas for over 150 years but their life is relatively short and the best long-term solution is a return to the original material which was probably a mix of thatch and slate. There could be opportunities for Countryside Stewardship funding from English Nature. They offer grants for the repair and renovation of historic agricultural buildings still in use.

Various stone and cob agricultural buildings temporarily clad in corrugated iron.

Page 5

64 Dunkeswell Conservation Area Management Plan

3.0 Design in Dunkeswell Conservation Area.

3.1 Design is expressed through many means and as Dunkeswell’s character is founded upon the local vernacular tradition there are many common traits that help define a consistency in the architecture of the conservation area. There is not the diversity and design fashions found in many of East Devon’s larger conservation areas, and as a result there are some broad principles that can be applied to the deign of new buildings and additions to existing buildings in the conservation area.

3.2 In terms of urban grain or the layout of buildings within the conservation area there are three distinct character areas that are identified in the appraisal. This includes a distinction in the density of buildings, the position and orientation of buildings in relation to thoroughfares and the proportions of the building footprint or figure ground.

The strong identity of the conservation area is created by the proportions, massing and situation of individual and groups of buildings. This is key design criteria when considering proposals for development.

Page 6

65 Dunkeswell Conservation Area Management Plan

Where the principle of development is accepted these three criteria should be adhered to. For example new buildings or extensions within the village centre should be coherent with the dense urban grain and not creating substantial building separation, be orientated either tight against the rear of the highway or perpendicular to it, and probably most importantly to restrict the footprint depth to the common average of 5m for two storey buildings and 3m for single storey. This will provide the correct building proportions and massing when the correct footprint is extruded.

3.3 New development must make every effort to follow the proportions, design and construction of traditional fenestration. New openings in existing buildings and windows in new development should follow the pattern of two and three light side-opening casements, fitting flush with the frame and constructed in painted timber rather then PVCu or stained wood. Where double-glazing is required in unlisted buildings the sealed units should fitted without heavy timber beading or over-sized glazing bars. Modern off-the-peg units particularly with asymmetrical layouts and top-hung fanlights should be avoided.

3.4 Contemporary design in the historic environment can add vibrancy and variety while respecting the form and character of surrounding traditional architecture. It is often considered that a first class contemporary approach incorporating good quality materials and finishes that will stand the test of time is a more honest contribution to the growth and evolution of a historic settlement. There are limited circumstances where this can be successful and certainly in the case of Dunkeswell village the character is overwhelmingly defined by the vernacular tradition there would be few cases where any markedly contemporary design approach would be appropriate.

3.5 With regard to building materials there is a prominence of rendered and un- rendered rubble walls with limited patches of exposed cob. Rubble construction is relatively well coursed and bedded in a course lime mortar. Render is roughcast on the whole with later work on some properties in a

Page 7

66 Dunkeswell Conservation Area Management Plan

smoother stucco-type finish. Render colour finishes are generally white and this is best achieved with a natural limewash rather than a harsh proprietary masonry paint. Roofs are either thatched in the Devon tradition without ridge decoration with a preference for locally grown wheat reed as opposed to imported water reed. Some roofs are clad in natural slates fixed with nails while there is a strong tradition for corrugated iron on outbuildings and agricultural buildings. Design in the village should incorporate this distinct palette of materials and make a meaningful effort to source these locally and adhere to local construction traditions and detailing. Artificial slates and concrete tiles should be avoided particularly as the roofscape throughout the village is a prominent character feature. Repairs to existing boundary walls and new sections should use matching materials and constructed with the appropriate level of masonry skill. Poorly constructed stone walls can be just as detrimental as other inappropriate means of enclosure. Most types of fencing are suburban in appearance and should be resisted although there may be some situations where traditional hazel or willow hurdles may be appropriate.

The conservation area demonstrates a very distinct palette of building materials, and proposed development and repairs should be conceived with this in mind. Page 8

67 Dunkeswell Conservation Area Management Plan

3.7 Sustainable design within the conservation area will be actively encouraged. This will form a significant part of future government policy in the historic environment and this is a key agenda of the Council. This may vary from the retention and conversion of existing buildings rather than demolition to promoting the use of locally sourced building materials. High levels of thermal insulation can be applied to traditional forms of design and measures such as grey water recycling and taking greater advantage of solar gain can help reduce the impact of buildings on the environment. Domestic energy generation through solar panels and wind turbines may be acceptable in non- obtrusive locations within the conservation area. English Heritage has published recent guidance on microgeneration in the historic environment which can be viewed via www.english-heritage.org.uk. Solar panels for example can be mounted on frames in rear gardens and enclosed with hurdles or planting. New development may need to be designed to stringent sustainability codes and care must be taken to reach the required level of insulation while not compromising the aesthetic of the building.

3.8 While it would be expected that replacement windows in listed buildings would be an exact facsimile of the historic unit Part L of the Building Regulations requires replacement windows in unlisted buildings in conservation areas to demonstrate compliance with the current prescribed level of thermal insulation. This usually requires either primary or secondary double glazing. Further guidance is contained in an East Devon District Council publication: ’Building Control/ Conservation Policy Guide’. The design of such windows will need to follow the pattern and construction of the original window as much as possible and although low maintenance materials may be considered in certain cases the presumption for replacement windows would be painted timber.

Page 9

68 Dunkeswell Conservation Area Management Plan

4.0 Article 4(2) Directions.

4.1 When the local authority has made a clear assessment of the special character of a conservation area through the Conservation Area Appraisal the local authority is able to serve a Direction under Article 4(2) removing certain permitted development rights outside the categories outlined in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order) 1995 (GPO). Article 4(2) directions enable the local authority to withdraw permitted development rights for a prescribed range of development affecting the external appearance of dwelling houses such as windows, doors, roof claddings and front elevations.

4.2 With regard to the character and appearance of Dunkeswell there is no significant perceived threat from alterations to buildings, particularly the installation of PVCu windows. This may be an overriding issue in other conservation areas but as this is not a current problem in Dunkeswell it is not considered that an Article 4(2) is required at the present time. When the conservation area is reviewed in five years time the opportunity for serving an Article 4(2) direction can be considered.

5.0 Buildings at Risk at the Repair of Historic Buildings

5.1 Planning Policy Guidance Note 15, para. 7.2 recommends that local planning authorities monitor the state of repair of listed buildings and other historic buildings within conservation areas. Poorly maintained or dangerous buildings are often detrimental to the character and appearance of a conservation area. The condition of listed buildings are monitored through the Buildings at Risk survey. The local authority holds a register of buildings considered to be at risk from further deterioration, damage and occasionally collapse. Grade I and II* listed buildings are also included on the national register published by English Heritage and such buildings may be eligible for English Heritage grant funding.

Page 10

69 Dunkeswell Conservation Area Management Plan

5.2 The strategy for dealing with buildings at risk within the conservation area is based upon protocol advice given in the English Heritage publication; ’Stopping the Rot’. This outlines the procedure for serving Urgent Works and Repairs Notices to ensure that a building is made weather tight or repaired appropriately. Should these measures be deemed ineffective the local authority is able to consider serving a Compulsory Purchase Order although this is a last resort. Although this procedure relates mainly to listed buildings the Secretary of State following consultation with English Heritage can serve Urgent Works and Repairs Notices on unlisted buildings in conservation areas that contribute positively to their character.

5.3 Buildings on the national register are monitored annually. Entries on the local register will be subject to investigation although solutions may not always be found. This is most common in cases of listed chest tombs in serious decay when the family cannot be contacted. It is anticipated that current entries on the list are monitored every 5 years and additional buildings that have fallen into disrepair are added to the register as and when these are identified. Action taken to ensure that buildings on the register are suitably repaired will be ongoing.

5.4 There are no entries on the local Buildings at Risk Register within the conservation area although it should be noted that the Operations and office annex, Crew briefing room, Watch office, fire tender shelter, floodlight trailer and tractor on the nearby airfield are presently at risk although future uses for these important structures are being discussed.

Page 11

70 Dunkeswell Conservation Area Management Plan

6.0 Management and Protection of Trees and Green Spaces.

6.1 Green spaces whether these are village greens, playing fields, parks or public gardens are intrinsic to the character and appearance of any conservation area. They form the framework and breathing spaces between buildings and local townscape. Many such spaces are offered additional statutory protection through local planning policies but nonetheless pressures for change and development can exist and their importance needs full recognition. Green spaces are identified in the Conservation Area Appraisal together with an appraisal of their significance and contribution to the character of the conservation area. Relevant local plan policies for green spaces in Dunkeswell include policies RE1 and RE4 (Recreation Area and Allotment) which covers the small park to the north of the church. Proposals for the enhancement of this particular space is outlined in section 2.3 of this document.

6.2 Map 2 in the Conservation Area Appraisal identifies important green spaces within the conservation area. These include the agricultural land where the barrow is located and the land to the north of the church. It is their open aspect and the views that they afford that is most significant to the character of the conservation area, so there are no onerous management issues that need to be addressed.

6.3 Trees are often very much part of the visual structure of a town or village. In many cases their scale dominates surrounding buildings and spaces. Their retention and appropriate management therefore needs to be kept a high priority. The designation of conservation areas offers such protection to trees and woodland with a requirement for notice to be given to the local authority for felling, topping and lopping. This provides opportunity for the designation of Tree Preservation Orders (TPO’s) on individual specimens or larger groups of trees. It is important that development which proposes to remove trees due to their condition or safety are replaced to help maintain the screening or amenity of the site. Page 12

71 Dunkeswell Conservation Area Management Plan

6.4 Dunkeswell has prominent and important tree groups as highlighted in the Conservation Area Appraisal. The setting of the conservation area is defined by significant tree belts and woodland, often on higher ground creating visual impact on the skyline. Within the village there are three areas of tree preservation orders and these are offered statutory protection with regards to their management. There are other groups, most notably along the roadside above the village to the west. These contribute to the amenity of the area and offer a belt of screening and backdrop to the historic village. There are also several individual specimens throughout the village and in many cases these are non-indigenous conifers. In such cases removal may benefit the character and amenity of the area, although there it may often be appropriate for replacement trees to be planted as part of a planning condition.

7.0 Summary

7.1 The management of the conservation area requires a multi-facetted approach. The erosion of character is almost always incremental and the removal of small building details or the addition of inappropriate extensions will have a marked effect over a longer period of time. It is therefore important to manage, monitor and enforce seemingly insignificant changes.

7.2 While mechanisms are in place for monitoring and managing change the greatest pressure will be upon resources available to provide comprehensive policing and financial means to contribute to the enhancement of the public realm.

7.3 The strengths of Dunkeswell’s conservation area are reinforced by a strong architectural identity and a very distinctive topography providing a dramatic natural canvas upon which the village and airfield is set. Weaknesses are defined by poor boundary treatments and prominent power and telephone cables. The conservation area appraisal and management plan together with

Page 13

72 Dunkeswell Conservation Area Management Plan

future Supplementary Planning Documents must given due weight in planning decisions and the appeal process.

Appendices.

A. Conservation Area Policy and Guidance

A.1 Planning Policy for Conservation Areas is contained within The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Sections 69-74 of the principal Act contains policies on conservation area designation and the levels of control upon various types of development. With regard to management plans, section 71 of the Act places a duty on local planning authorities to formulate and publish proposals for the preservation and enhancement of conservation areas.

A.2 Planning Policy Statement 5 gives a full statement of Government policies relating to conservation areas in the main Act. Policies HE2 and HE3 elaborate on conservation area policies and these are augmented in the English Heritage Practice Guide. PPS5 is the policy guidance most often referred to and gives weight to planning decisions. PPS5 also provides guidance for the consideration and controls over all types of archaeology whether this be above or below ground. As conservation areas are very often centred around the historic core of a settlement there is usually varying degree of archaeological potential when developing a site.

A.3 Policy EN11 and EN12 of the East Devon Local Plan 1995-2011 supported by paragraphs 4.79-4.84 outlines local policy in regard to proposals for the demolition of buildings and proposals for development and advertisements in conservation areas. The Devon Structure Plan is due to be replaced by the Regional Spatial Strategy for the South West 2006-2026.

Page 14

73 Dunkeswell Conservation Area Management Plan

A.4 The Devon Structure Plan adopted by Devon County Council in 2004 contains similar policies for the designation, management and development control within conservation areas.

A.5 In addition to generic and local policies for conservation areas more specific guidance will be offered by development briefs prepared for individual sites in East Devon. Development briefs will also be supported by the East Devon Design Guide and Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD’s) which will form part of the Local Development Framework (LDF). These documents will take Development Plan policies and guidance and apply them in a specific and transparent manner to development within East Devon.

A.6 Development briefs for individual sites within conservation areas are invaluable tools in defining design and development constraints and opportunities. In respect to the historic environment they will provide a character appraisal of the site and set out appropriate levels of massing and density, positioning and an appropriate palette of materials and finishes. Where there are opportunities for the enhancement of the conservation area through the restoration of historic assets on the site, or improvements to infrastructure and the public realm, legal agreements may be recommended.

A.7 Conservation Area Appraisals together with Area Action Plans (AAP’s) will be used to provide the planning framework for areas within the district where significant change and conservation is required². These may include areas where regeneration, partially through the conservation and restoration of heritage assets is needed. In many cases where there is pressure for change AAP’s will set out the policies and proposals for action based upon the outcome of the conservation area appraisal. This may involve the identification of sub-areas where Article 4(2) directions can be applied to control specific controls over development.

²Planning Policy Statement 12: Local Development Frameworks, paragraph 2.17 Page 15

74 Dunkeswell Conservation Area Management Plan

B Resources.

B.1 With regard to regeneration and enhancement funding for projects within conservation areas the key is to consider as widely as possible the range of outcomes that can be secured for the area, and to consider whether they can be matched with public sources of funding. English Heritage and the Heritage Lottery Fund are the two main sources of direct funding for the repair and conservation of historic buildings and sites. Compared with the HLF, funding from English Heritage is much more restricted in scale and is targeted primarily at the most important elements of the historic environment. There are other smaller but significant sources such as the Architectural Heritage Fund³.

B.3 At a local level partnerships with building trusts, Devon County Council, local amenity societies and voluntary groups can be sources for funding and identifying aspects of conservation areas in need of preservation and in some cases, enhancement.

B.4 Resources in terms of administration of enhancement projects and seeking funding is presently very limited and it is therefore unlikely that any significant projects would be embarked upon in the foreseeable future.

C Decision Making and Procedures.

C.1 Procedures to ensure consistent decision making need to be included within policies and guidance for conservation areas. In terms of development management policies for conservation areas these will provide a generic framework for acceptability in controlling erosion of the character and appearance of conservation areas.

³www.helm.org.uk Page 16

75 Dunkeswell Conservation Area Management Plan

C.2 Monitoring planning appeal decisions by the Planning Inspectorate is a good mechanism in the decision making process. While some decisions are quite site specific there are general trends that emerge from time to time relating to certain types of development within conservation areas (for example replacement windows in flats above shops in conservation areas).

C.3 Benchmarking the quality of design within the district is a valuable way to maintain good decision making and to improve the quality of the built environment in more general terms. The promotion of good design and the recognition of award winning developments could be a mechanism for helping Members and planning officers to understand more fully the attributes of good design. The Design Review Panel has been set up to scrutinise design within the district on a quarterly basis and conclusions are reported to Members and officers. The Design Review Panel aims to measure the level of success of recent planning decisions and looks at the control of detail particularly through planning conditions. Within conservation areas development proposals must demonstrate that the character and appearance of the area is either preserved or enhanced. It is therefore important to help define through policy, guidance and monitoring how these standards and levels of decision making are measured and maintained.

C.4 With regard to conservation area reviews greater emphasis needs to be given to community involvement. The local authority will devise a strategy for public consultation when conservation area appraisals, boundaries and management plans are reviewed. In addition to those directly affected by the changes proposed by the review groups such as parish councils, amenity groups and residents’ associations will need to be involved in discussing the main issues. The degree of consultation will vary according to the size, complexity and proposed revisions within each conservation area. However, the following strategy will be adopted for the basic consultation process:

Page 17

76 Dunkeswell Conservation Area Management Plan

Town/Parish councils, resident and amenity groups consulted directly following Committee approval of proposals for consultation. Residents and businesses within the proposed extensions consulted directly. Copies of the Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan will be made available on the EDDC website and at local libraries or village halls for residents living within the existing conservation area. Press releases outlining the proposed documents and any changes. Exhibitions or surgeries for those affected where proposals will have a marked impact upon the area. Feedback will be via questionnaires which will be distributed or made available locally or on-line. Re-consultation with key groups once any significant amendments or further major proposals have been made. Following approval by Committee the Appraisal and Management Plan together with any boundary amendments will be published.

D Monitoring Change in Conservation Areas.

D.1 Conservation area appraisals are not seen as static documents but help monitor change in conservation areas. The ongoing review of conservation area appraisals is subject of a heritage Best Value Performance Indicator (BV219). This requires a review of conservation area appraisals, conservation area boundaries and management plans every 5 years. In many cases there will be few changes within this period but it will provide a primary mechanism for monitoring the incremental changes often apparent within larger conservation areas in particular.

D.2 As part of the Local Development Framework process local authorise are required to prepare an annual monitoring report assessing the progress of

Page 18

77 Dunkeswell Conservation Area Management Plan

implementation of policies including those for conservation areas. This process will also monitor the effectiveness of Supplementary Planning Documents.

D.3 The local authority holds an ever increasing photographic record of all conservation areas including recent and historic aerial photographs. Maintaining and constantly updating this database is a primary resource in monitoring change and can provide evidence for enforcement.

E Enforcement Strategies.

E.1 One of the primary concerns for the local authority with respect to the historic environment is the extent and occurrence of unauthorised works to listed buildings and un-listed buildings in conservation areas. In many cases it is a criminal offence to carry out works of alteration to a listed building or the demolition of either a listed building or an un-listed building within a conservation area.

E.2 Enforcement strategies within conservation areas will be informed to an extent by monitoring change through regular reviews. Unauthorised works become evident on regular basis through site inspections or by complaints made to the local authority. Enforcement cases within conservation areas are managed by the enforcement team with advice and support given by conservation officers.

E.3 It is important that enforcement strategies offer an appropriate level of consistency although each case will dealt with on an individual basis. For example enforcement action taken against the installation of unauthorised replacement windows cannot be independent of a similar breach at a neighbouring property. It may therefore be appropriate to approach certain enforcement issues en masse rather than taking piecemeal action. This approach would also send out a strong message locally.

Page 19

78 Dunkeswell Conservation Area Management Plan

E.4 The nature of enforcement action within conservation areas and the time scales imposed for compliance with enforcement notices will be informed by guidance provided in Planning Policy Guidance note 15. As the type of action may vary from non-compliance with a planning condition to prosecution for irreversible alterations to a listed building the strategy will need to be adapted to individual cases. With regard to time scales for compliance there needs to be a balance made between an appropriate degree of leniency and ensuring that the period of visual detriment is kept to a minimum. In many cases unauthorised works can encourage similar breaches on nearby properties. The cumulative impact of such works can be quite detrimental to the character and appearance of a conservation area and will put additional pressure upon resources needed to take appropriate enforcement action. Where unauthorised works such as unlawful fences or satellite dishes can be easily removed a compliance period of 28 days may be deemed appropriate. However, where the works involve more significant alterations such as replacing unauthorised windows the compliance period given would be a maximum of 5 years in line with Council policy.

E.5 The key to limiting the extent of unauthorised works in conservation areas is by making information readily available, education and community involvement. Many amenity groups, parish and town councils are instrumental in monitoring change in conservation areas and this is often the most effective means for policing unauthorised works. The consultation process for conservation area appraisals and management plans will also raise awareness of conservation area controls. Additional guidance has also been produced by the local authority with regard to conservation area designation and the implications of the Building Regulations upon historic buildings in conservation areas. It is anticipated that its distribution will raise awareness and help limit the need for enforcement action.

Page 20

79 Agenda Item

Development Management Committee 6th December 2011

Exmouth Town Centre and Seafront Masterplan

Summary In June a report was brought to the Development Management Committee regarding consultation on “The Exmouth Town Centre and Seafront Masterplan”. Members endorsed the proposed consultation exercise which has now been completed. The number of responses received to the consultation was good and the comments were generally positive. The document has however been amended to address a number of comments made by consultees, residents groups and individual residents. The changes are summarised in the attached table of amendments, however the main changes relate to:

The deletion of proposals for camping on The Maer Changes to references to slipway access at Orcombe Point in light of planning permission having been granted by Devon County Council for public realm enhancements that would restrict access to the slipway. Changes to proposals for enhancements to slipway access at the Imperial Recreation Ground in light of a subsequent study that suggests that this is not viable. Changes to the text with reference to proposals for a new supermarket in relation to flooding issues in light of emerging information from the Environment Agency. Reduced proposals for public art Updating of retail floorspace and housing figures in light of further research carried out as part of the Local Plan Review

It is considered that subject to the changes detailed in this report the Masterplan will provide a framework for the regeneration of the town and should be endorsed by Members.

Recommendation It is recommended that the Exmouth Town Centre and Seafront Masterplan is endorsed for decision making purposes.

a) Reasons for Recommendation Exmouth is the largest town in East Devon and its future as a thriving town and tourist resort depends on its regeneration. The Masterplan if adopted would provide a template for the regeneration of the town in the future and give the regeneration project a clear focus and direction of travel. b) Alternative Options An alternative option would be to consult on the Masterplan at a later date, however this would be likely to clash with the main summer holidays or lead to further delays in

80 the production of a document which has been in process for many months already and would be likely to lead to frustration from those groups and stakeholders who have taken part in the process so far. c) Risk Considerations There are no risks to the Council. d) Policy and Budgetary Considerations Policy considerations: Local Policies LEX5 and LEX6 of the Local Plan in relationship to the redevelopment of the Imperial Road car park/Bus Station/Estuary Car park site and the redevelopment of the London Inn car park and adjoining land have helped to inform the masterplan. While it may be possible to adopt the document as a Supplementary Planning Document linked to these policies of the Local Plan the document is about the future development of the town and with this in mind it is more important that it is endorsed by the Council now with a view to its future adoption as part of the Revised Local Plan.

Budgetary considerations: The cost of the production of the masterplan and the consultation exercise has already been budgeted for when the consultants LDA Design were appointed. Clearly the implementatation of the masterplan could have budgetary implications however decisions on the future of individual council owned sites and the land deals associated with their development will be brought to Members seperately.

Background

Exmouth is the largest town in East Devon and one of 13 places in the County with a recognised regeneration priority. The only other town in East Devon with regeneration as a priority in Seaton. While the regeneration project has been operating for the last couple of years and has developed a number of projects including The Strand Enhancement it has lacked a clear strategy to guide the regeneration work forward. To this end it was considered that a Masterplan should be undertaken to give a way forward for the regeneration of the town. Development Briefs for the main sites were also considered necessary to provide clarity over the most appropriate uses for each location with a view to enhancing the town centre offer.

A report was taken to the Executive Board Meeting of 2nd September 2009 where Members resolved:

“That, subject to confirmation of match funding from Devon County Council, consultants be appointed to produce a development brief for Exmouth Town Centre redevelopment sites, comprising: London Inn Car Park, Union Street, the former gas holder site, and the Royal Avenue estuary area including the bus station, sports centre, Imperial Recreation Ground area and Camperdown. The required funding to be found from the Local Authority Business Grant Initiative.”

81 Following Member‟s resolution Exeter based LDA Design were appointed to produce a Masterplan for the town centre and seafront areas and development briefs for the specific sites mentioned above. The Masterplan would provide an overarching strategy for the town centre and seafront while the development briefs would provide clear guidance on the uses that are best suited for each site, the form that they should take and test the commercial viability of these uses providing a clear strategy for their delivery.

Since LDA Design were appointed in early 2010 they have undertaken extensive consultation with the community and community groups in Exmouth holding various workshops and events around the town last year. These events comprised:

An introductory workshop with councillors

3 community workshops during March and May with key stakeholders, representatives from community groups and local residents to establish the vision, aims and objectives for the town and to test emerging proposals

2 workshops with landowners and leaseholders for the two key sites to discuss issues and test ideas

2 workshops with the Exmouth Regeneration Programme Board

A workshop with key stakeholders, representatives from community groups and local residents to discuss the Seafront and its future

A workshop with representatives from community groups, Devon County Council and East Devon District Council to discuss transport, movement and parking issues along the Seafront

A workshop with the Chamber of Commerce and local businesses within Exmouth

A picture competition for local school children to encourage them to consider what are the best and worst things about Exmouth and what they would most like to see.

These sessions led to the preperation of a “Vision for Exmouth in 2035” to highlight what the end result of the regeneration project should be. The vision is:

“Exmouth‟s success is built on its dynamic response to a truly inspirational natural setting. The town has embraced its environment: protecting it, enhancing it and getting the most out of it. The quality of the town now reflects the quality of the estuary and coast, and the natural environment provides increasing possibilities for water-based sport and other recreational pursuits; environmental, creative and marine/leisure-focused employment; recreational shopping; education, cultural pastimes and sustainable, low carbon living. The internationally recognised environment represents a stunning backdrop to all facets of life in the town, making it a highly desireable place to live life”.

In order to achieve this vision 6 key objectives have been established. These are:

1. We want to protect and maximise benefit from the natural setting 2. We want to strengthen the local economy 3. We want to enhance and capitalise on the qualities of the built environment 4. We want to ensure quality of life for the local community 5. We want to promote low carbon, sustainable living 6. We want to broaden Exmouth‟s appeal to visitors and investors

82 The vision and objectives have been published through the Exmouth Masterplan web site which can be found at www.exmouthmasterplan.co.uk. The web site and social networking site - twitter have been used throughout the process to enable people to have their input into the process as well as the above mentioned sessions.

The Masterplan

Following the above mentioned consultation process the next stage of the process was to formulate the masterplan based on the thoughts of the consultants - LDA Design and the input that the various members of the community and stakeholders have had throughout the consultation process. A final consultation draft of the Masterplan was produced and reported to Development Management Committee in June 2011. Members endorsed the draft document for consultation.

The Consultation Process

A 12 week consultation exercise has been undertaken by EDDC to encourage people to comment on LDA Designs draft Masterplan incorporating the following main events:

A 2 part launch event, firstly with Town and District Councillors with a further session later the same day with the various stakeholders and community representatives who have attended the various workshops. A manned public exhibition in the two days following the launch between 2pm and 8pm Exhibition boards displayed in a prominent vacant town centre shop window throughout the consultation period (when not needed for public exhibition) A public exhibition in Magnolia Centre on two Saturdays from 10am to 4pm, with staff on hand to answer queries Distribution of 3,500 flyers, 50 posters throughout town and two newspaper adverts advertising the public exhibitions and the Exmouth Masterplan website as places to view the Masterplan and comment on it Banners and placards throughout the town at prominent sites advertising the Exmouth Masterplan website Events held with Exmouth Community College Information was sent to all Exmouth residents on EDDCs Speak Now residents panel Letters or e-mails sent out with links to the consultation to all relevant members of the EDDC Local Plan stakeholder database of 350 organisations, businesses and groups Bulk copies of the questionnaire and summary were given out to various businesses and organisations in the town for them to distribute to their customers A presentation to Exmouth Chamber of Commerce and other businesses within the town

The Responses

The following responses were received:

There were 507 responses to the formal questionnaire, 189 online and 318 paper based questionnaires. 27 written or e-mailed responses were received from residents 13 stakeholders/ partners responded by letter, report or e-mail 4 Exmouth residents associations responded by letter, report or e-mail The views of 800 Exmouth Community College students were gathered

Attached to this report as Appendix 1 is a summary document detailing the responses received to the document.

The Amendments

In light of the comments received a number of amendments have been made to the Masterplan to reflect concerns expressed by the various groups. Appendix 2 to this report is a table detailing these changes in full and the reasons for each amenment.

Conclusion

The intention is that the document will ultimately form a Supplementary Planning Document as part of the Revised Local Plan and will help to guide development within the town centre and seafront of Exmouth. In the meantime Members are asked to endorse the Masterplan for decision making purposes so that it can be used as a material consideration when considering planning applications for development on the sites covered by the Masterplan and also sites elsewhere within the town centre and seafront where the proposals may affect the masterplan. ------

Background Papers

Exmouth Town Centre and Seafront Masterplan

Ed Freeman ext 2719 Development Management Committee Interim Development Manager 6th December 2011

Appendix 1: Exmouth Masterplan – Summary of Responses

Methodology The formal questionnaire responses were input into Excel and analysed using SPSS. Comments were also received by e-mail, report and letter.

Response Rate There were 507 responses to the formal questionnaire, 189 online and 318 paper based questionnaires. 27 written or e-mailed responses were received from residents 13 stakeholders/ partners responded by letter, report or e-mail 4 Exmouth residents associations responded by letter, report or e-mail The views of 800 Exmouth Community College students were gathered

Results

Responses Page Formal questionnaire 2 Exmouth Community College 8 Stakeholders, partners and community 10 associations Some feedback on consultation results 12

85 Exmouth Masterplan Results

There were 507 responses to the formal questionnaire, 189 online and 318 paper based questionnaires.

Do you agree or disagree with the aims? % agree % disagree spondents Number re of 1. To protect and maximise the benefit from the 95 5 482 natural setting 2. To strengthen the local economy 95 6 473 3. To enhance and capitalise on the qualities of 90 10 467 the built environment 4. To ensure quality of life for the local 97 3 479 community 5. To promote low carbon, sustainable living 92 9 468 6. To broaden Exmouth‟s appeal to visitors and 91 9 470 investors

If you do not agree with any of the aims, please write how you would improve them. 135 people commented. Verbatem examples to illustrate some of the most common comments: These 6 "aims" are 'motherhood and apple pie!' Surely no-one would disagree with them. It is the detail/time scale/ cost of meeting these aims which is the real issue. All these points and the way they are worded are a bit too black and white. Few sane people are likely to disagree with any of them per se! It's not so much what, as how these things are done. Make Exmouth a nice place for locals and it will automatically be attracting for visitors. It seems you want to destroy natural settings not benefit them. Whilst not disagreeing with the aim to broaden the town's appeal to investors, it is essential that investment is appropriate for our location and environment. New development should be allowed either on the seafront or the estuary site Low carbon promotion is an excuse for taxation and surcharges. No wind farms

Do you agree or disagree with the Big Principles? % agree % disagree Number respondents of A. Transforming the estuaryside 67 33 461 B. Regenerating the London Inn/ Post Office 88 12 467 Depot area C. Establishing a stronger pedestrian link 86 14 468 between the town centre and the estuary D. Regeneration of Camperdown Creek 80 20 457 E. Establishing a Blue Ribbon (a consistent 86 14 471 footpath/ cycleway around the estuary and seafront) F. Introducing Waterfront Gems along the Blue 70 30 442 Ribbon footpath/ cycleway G. Reinforce the area between Elizabeth Hall and 73 27 456 the Maer as an exciting new focus for leisure, recreation and entertainment H. Creating a series of focal points or places 79 21 452

86 (focused on areas of activity around teh waterfront and the town centre) I. Improving and bringing greater activity to the 85 16 453 pedestrian links between the town centre and all waterside assets

If you do not agree with any of the Big Principles, please write how you would improve them: 222 people commented. Verbatem examples to illustrate some of the most common comments A. The estuary should not be 'transformed' by building large development such as a supermarket which will be an eyesore create traffic problems and spoil what is a 'Site of Special Scientific Interest'. A. Not agree to major superstore on estuary. The estuary is the wrong place for a supermarket - this is a beautiful area and will be spoilt. E. Present cycleway on sea front is dangerous and destructive to pedestrians particularly (move cycle path to opposite side) G-this is a joke how many years have we been waiting for the bowling alley to be finished. G- Elizabeth Hall should be retained as our historic building BUT with the right bits restored and/or re-developed internally F- Waterside gems - waste of money.

Do you agree or disagree that the following % agree % should be the priority regeneration projects? disagree Number respondents of 1. Transforming the estuaryside by creating a 57 43 473 mixed use area including foodstore, niche retail, residential, employment, community facilities, a transport interchange and road improvements 2. Regenerating the London Inn/ Post Office 83 17 470 Depot area by creating new town centre shopping streets, mixed use developments and multi-storey car park 3. Regenerating Elizabeth Hall site by creating a 70 30 450 landmark development that will attract visitors to the town centre and seafront, help to strengthen Exmouth as a destination and raise the town‟s profile

I can see from the comments given that many people saw this question as an opportunity to object or support the projects themselves rather than agree or disagree whether they should be priority projects.

If you do not agree with any of the priority regeneration projects, please write which projects you feel should be priority projects and why: 252 people commented. Verbatem examples to illustrate some of the most common comments: Foodstore should not be built, not needed and will create 'eyesore' to present attractive estuaryside. I do not believe that a foodstore should be built on the estuary side. This will create extra traffic on the A376 which is already massively overloaded with no solution to improve traffic management. The town centre is adequatly served by existing food stores. Locate supermarkets on industrial estates out of town. Exmouth needs to promote itself as the watersport capital of East Devon, not become swamped in an uninteresting expansion of retail outlets. Development should be done on the existing sites.

87 This town has lots of empty shops - surely we don't need to build more! 1) Why must all proposals include residential development? In order to win the support and confidence and trust of Exmouth residents you must keep out of the pockets of the developers – we have seen too much of what they are capable of already We do not need another food store- super store now that Tesco is expanding and Lidl is opening. What about helping all the local traders who are struggling at the moment. Elizabeth Hall is heavily utilised by local clubs to raise money for their designated charities and allows for fairground facilities- this site is unique and would need to be retained for this purpose. Prefer the Elizabeth Hall to stay- it has character and enhances the front. no multi storey car park, magnolia centre looks terrible and needs redeveloping I do not see the need for a multi story car park. These places never improve an area.

Which FIVE of the following development opportunity projects and other % of projects would you most like to see happen? respondents

Magnolia Centre Enhancement- improvements to the pedestrian streets and 48 spaces and reducing clutter. Enhancement of buildings. Orcombe Point Hub- improving the welcome for visitors to Orcombe Point and 39 creating a clear gateway to the World Heritage Site. Creation of a new high quality public space at the end of Queen‟s Drive. The Blue Ribbon and Waterfront Gems; creating of a consistent footpath/ 35 cycleway around the estuary and beautiful and iconic buildings and landmarks along the route Revitalising the Parade- creating a high quality shopping street linking Chapel 35 Street/ New London Inn to the estuaryside. The Maer- continue to protect and manage The Maer so it can keep being used 33 for recreation and habitat conservation. Camperdown Creek Regeneration; a focus for Exmouth‟s creative, marine, 32 engineering and leisure based industries Pierhead and Mamhead- create a place to stroll, fish, view the estuary and the 30 sea, and use the ferry, cruises or water taxi. Town Centre and Waterside Management and Maintenance- establish a long 29 term plan and resources to make sure the town centre and waterfront stays clean, safe and of high quality. Exmouth Splash- creating a vibrant, colourful and active recreation/ leisure zone 28 for all ages focused on watersports and play, with supporting tourist accommodation. Victoria Way Regeneration; creating a colourful and attractive mix of light 17 industrial woprkshops, distinctive and quirky in character on Langerwehe Way Imperial Recreation Ground- enhance it to become an integral part of the wider 16 proposed Estuaryside Park, whilst ensuring events can still happen there. Enhancements to Mamhead Slipway- improvements to the slipway, parking and 16 other infrastructure to improve access to the water. The Promenade- improve the Esplanade and Queen‟s Drive to make the whole 16 seafront promenade look consistent, including street furniture, lighting, trees and other materials. The Littleham Valley Link- extend the cycle and footpath route along the 16 Littleham Valley to connect the seafront to Budleigh Salterton. Redevelopment/ refurbishment of the Pavilion- take the theatre and facilities into 15 the 21st century, with a contemporary external appearance that positively contributes to the character of the seafront. Relocation of the Library to more suitable accommodation within the town 15 centre. Re-use of the old coalyard- relocate existing boat storage to a location with 13 better access to the water. Find an alternative use for this site which respects the estuary.

88 Foxholes Hub and car park- creating a more pedestrian focused, beachside, 13 relaxed environment at the eastern end of the beach. Imperial Recreation Ground Slipway- Improvements to the slipway, parking and 11 other infrastructure to improve access to the water, The Beach Gardens- keep them largely as they are whilst bringing more life and 11 activity to them Chapel Hill Enhancements- work to reduce the dominance of Chapel Hill 8 Roundabout to improve pedestrian links between the town centre and the seafront and improve access to Manor Gardens. Signage Project- Improved traffic signage for appropriate car parking, to try and 8 get those visiting the seafront to visit the town centre, and direct traffic heading to Exeter from the beach to travel along Salterton Road. Imperial Road/ Alexandra Terrace- improvements such as planting to make this 7 green street act as a wildlife corridor and make it the major way to get to the seafront. Connecting to the Colony- create footpath links across the flood protection bank 6 that edges Marine Way to link the Colony to the Estuaryside. The Maer Car Park- one of two possible approaches; retain the car park to 5 support regeneration of the seafront or redevelopment of part or all of the site for housing.

If you think that there are any potential town centre or seafront projects that we have missed, please write them: 216 people commented. Verbatem examples to illustrate some of the most common comments: More entertainment for younger residents of Exmouth Get the bowling alley finished. Water sports our greatest attraction is being over looked. Exmouth has such good natural facilities for water sports and dont feel like this is promoted or space used enough. We could be fore runners in improving water sport champions of the future so easy acess facilities would encourage young people to take part in these sports. Exmouth has the potential to be the best in the UK and recognised more widely in EU as an outstanding centre for watersports. I feel this is not given the importance it deserves in the proposals and comes back to what does Exmouth really want to be - an upmarket seaside resort or something of rather faded glory with tacky seaside shops and take-away shops. Possibly demolish the entire Magnolia centre and redevelop it! The current TIC is not in a good place.

Do you disagree with any of the proposals in the draft Masterplan? 63% disagree with proposals in the draft Masterplan

If you do, please write the proposal(s) you disagree with and why you disagree with them: 235 people commented. Verbatem examples to illustrate some of the most common comments: No to extra foodstore - keep local shops and look after them e.g butchers greengrocers etc Estuaryside Transformation- disagree with spoiling the area with large shops and retail sites. Would spoil the edge of the estuary. Disagree with the establishment of a superstore. Any further superstore should be situated in an area where traffic can come from all directions. Not as currently envisaged coming and going along the same already overcrowded road. Building of flats along seafront on Elizabeth Hall site which no doubt will be unaffordable for local people. The Elizabeth Hall should be left as it is-just a little internal redecoration. I disagree with losing the rugby club as many locals including youngsters use this facility which is in a safe area. However, the proposed new site for rugby (old uni site) is in a poorly lit area away from town and public transport Exmouth Splash' - this comes at the cost of losing the wonderful play areas there now.

89 Over commercialisation of natural areas. Maer car park should not be sold and build upon.

Please write any further comments you may have on the draft Exmouth Town Centre and Seafront Masterplan: 232 people commented. Verbatem examples to illustrate some of the most common comments: Exmouth Town is dying and definitely needs regeneration. Very comprehensive plan but needs prioritising. Well done. A lot of hard work has obviously gone into the future vision of Exmouth. As a newish resident I find it exciting for the future and can only improve our quality of life in Exmouth. It is important that project are started within a reasonable time frame to prevent the harmful cynicism about such things All these things might be alright in your dreams but where will you get the money for this lot Give a completion date for the bowling alley please been waiting too many years for this now Where is the money coming from to fund these plans? Will greedy property developers yet again be allowed to have their way regardless of public opinion?

In what capacity are you completing this % of questionnaire? respondents Please tick all that apply

Resident of Exmouth 90 Visitor to Exmouth on a holiday 1 Visitor to Exmouth for shopping/ leisure etc 5 Person that works in Exmouth 15 Representative of a business based in 8 Exmouth District or Town Councillor 2 Person studying in Exmouth 1 Representative of a voluntary/ community 7 group Representative of an organisation 4 Other 6

What is your gender? 51% are male, 49% are female

Which age group are you in?

17 and under 18- 29 1% 4%

30- 45 18%

60+ 54% 46- 60 23%

Which of these activities best describes what you are % of

90 doing at present? respondents Employee in full time job (30 hours +) 26 Employee in part time job (under 30 hours a week) 10 Self employed full/ part time 9 On a government supported training programme 0 Full time education at school, college or university 2 Unemployed and available for work 1 Permanently sick/ disabled 3 Wholly retired from work 44 Looking after the home 4 Other 2 Do you have a long standing illness, disability or infirmity? Out of 477 respondents 14% had a long standing illness, disability or infirmity

91 Exmouth Community College The views of 800 students were garnered

Summary of Results:

1. Transforming the Estuaryside- Creating a stunning arrival to Exmouth Town Centre An environment that makes the most of it’s location e.g. foodstore, retail, community facilities, transport, road improvements

The vote question was- Which should we concentrate on more: Making the most of the natural environment- 14 Having more attarctions and built environment- 14

There was a real mix of views but the most common seem to be: There should not be a supermarket on the estuaryside The arrival to Exmouth needs to be improved but this must be done in a natural way- no concrete or bricks The look of the bus depot and train station needs improving to link it all better and improve the appearance More shops in Exmouth need to be suitable for young people More things on the estuaryside that would appeal to young people- recreation and leisure Keep the estuaryside natural There needs to be a general clean up of litter and shabbiness and this needs to be kept clean. Any development needs to be in keeping with the natural estuaryside- unique, niche, independent shops

2. Establishing the Blue Ribbon- A consistent footpath/ cycleway around the estuary and seafront Artwork Small, beautiful buildings

The vote question was- Should the Blue Ribbon investments be more focused on: Tourists and tourism to make the economy better- 6 Benefits for local people- 22

There was some variety of views but the most common seem to be: The footpath/ cycleway is a good idea and is important More, attractive cafes on the beach side, especially long the Blue Ribbon Artwork is not so important, there are much more important things to spend the money on, but if it happens it should be from local artists and maybe include competitions. More activities for young people on/ near the seafront and beach Do not create new buildings but enhance what is already there.

3. The area between Elizabeth Hall and The Maer- Exciting focus for leisure, recreation and entertainment Improve connection to the town centre Exmouth Splash, new leisure zone focused on watersports and play Refurbishment of Exmouth Pavilion

The vote question was- Should Exmouth Splash be: Water based activities- 13 More of a general fun park- 15

There was some variety of views but the most common seem to be:

92 The area between Elizabeth Hall and the Maer would be a good focus for leisure, recreation and entertainment and this is something that Exmouth really needs Finish the bowling alley Some felt the Pavilion is fine the way it is, money could be used in better ways, others felt that proper theatre seating should be installed. Exmouth Splash is a really good idea- needs lot of water slides (look at Quay West) but think about all year round usage Very mixed opinions on the connection to the town centre, some saying it‟s unnecessary to improve it, others saying it needs improving

93 Stakeholders, Partners and Community Associations

On 7 November 2011 Cllr Andrew Moulding and EDDC Officers Ed Freeman, Rob Chalkin, Jamie Buckley and Richard Cohen and DCC Officer Steve Turner spent a day reading through and reporting on the Exmouth Masterplan consultation responses from the formal questionnaire, residents, Exmouth Community College, partners, stakeholders and community groups. As part of this consultation responses from partners, stakeholders and community associations not submitted through the formal questionnaire were summarised.

All comments and submissions were read thoroughly and considered. Below is merely a summary of some discussed points.

Stakeholders and Partners

Sea Scouts People shouldn‟t be walking right through/ past the site. If building is going to be replaced as a Waterfront Gem then it needs to be practical and affordable. Would co-locate but each would need own building.

Exmouth Fun Park Welcomes the Masterplan Objects to moving the road due to a lack of funding and the length of time this will take. Document needs more of a focus on family holiday markets. The town should embrace and improve what it already has. Do not put a car park on the Fun Park site Remove the reference to a created attraction and replace it with the upgrade and enhancement of the Fun Park to deliver a major family seafront destination.

Exmouth Chamber of Commerce There is a need for more parking

Environment Agency Need to consider risk of flooding for sites. Rugby Club site is at higher risk of flooding than bus depot. Concerned about „flooding‟ and „climate change‟ being lumped together. No reference to different types of flooding or current flood maps. Maer not suitable for seasonal camping. There is a reference to Marine Way/ Colony is not a flood protection bung but it is a noise bung.

Eagle Investments Would prefer the supermarket on the London Inn site. Concerned about car parking.

English Heritage Not really affected.

Sport England Concerned about the loss of playing pitches.

Devon County Council The cycle route does not stop at the railway station as stated. Making the cycle route cross the railway line is unviable. Need to provide renewable energy and sewage for new developments. Concerned about flood defences and sensitivity analysis. Bus and train ticket sales need to be included in any transport interchange.

94 Orcombe Point slipway is referred to as „kept open‟. Work going on there could close it.

RSPB Concerned about harm to wildlife and pebblebed heaths No tall buildings should be developed. Should provide alternative open spaces for people to use away from pebblebed heaths. Would be happy to work with EDDC on interpretation. Concerned about footpath/ cycleway.

Signet Planning The Rugby Club site is poor for a supermarket, it is technically out of town.

Community Associations

Exmouth Community Association Highly supportive of transport interchange. Concerned about the proposed new road layout at the end of Marine Way and into Station Way- the road couldn‟t cope with proposed changes. Need to see evidence of need of a supermarket and this needs to answer concerns about size, type, access, car parking and views. No extra buildings on the seaward side of the seafront. Do not demolish Elizabeth Hall. Could keep the Hall and build around it. Keen on the quality of design. Want clarification of London Inn site- could cause traffic congestion. Supportive of Langerwehe Way proposals.

Exmouth Residents Association Grassy areas of public realm should be maintained. Older quality buildings should be retained. No seaward developments

Quay Residents Association No cyclists or cycle routes around the Quay area. The seafront and slipway developments are a priority. New development will bring about congestion and transport implications. Less businesses on the Quay and more housing.

Civic Society London Inn as an alternative site for a supermarket. Orcombe Point should go ahead quickly. Keen for Camperdown Terrace to be regenerated and Splash to be developed. Want to retain Elizabeth Hall

95 Some feedback on consultation results

Supermarket There is evidence of need of a supermarket in Exmouth in GVA Grimleys report. If supermarkets put in a planning application we have no grounds to refuse them all. This is a chance to get maximum planning gain for the town from a supermarket to help some of the other projects be delivered. Government states we have to look at town centre sites first before considering out of town sites. It is down to the supermarket applicant to make sure it won‟t have a negative impact on car parking, traffic etc. We can specify what size the supermarket will be and to a certain extent what it can sell. We consider the Rugby Club site to be within 300m of the town centre.

Elizabeth Hall Elizabeth Hall is not a listed building. A new community centre will be provided so the function that the Hall provides will remain in the area. We are concious of the value placed on Elizabeth Hall so this will be an iconic replacement. The Maer car park could be a better place to hold the car boot sale.

Transport There is evidence there is no issue in Exmouth for car parking. Proposed developments will all have to take car parking into account and provide for their own needs. The references to making the cycle route cross the railway line will be taken out. The information on the cycle route will be amended to make it clear it does not stop at the railway station.

Young people- Exmouth Community College More provision for shops for young people will be added into the London Inn site proposal. Exmouth Splash will be amended to contain more of a vision for young people. Artwork is not a particular theme in the document but this will be tempered. This will be more in terms of street furniture, buildings so will be artwork with a purpose.

Flooding and wildlife This issue will be updated with the new guidance and wording amended to highlight the issue throughout the document. Climate change and flooding will be separated in the document. The reference to the Maer being used for seasonal camping will be removed. Flood defences and sensitivity analysis will be looked at further down the line with the development briefs, as will harm to wildlife and pebblebed heaths. Will look at adding interpretation in natural areas.

Other We recognise that improvements to the Magnolia Centre are important, we will seek to work withthe lanowners but it is complicated as we don‟t own it.

96 Appendix 2: Exmouth Masterplan: Table of Amendments

Page Original Text Revised Text Reason for and Amendment Para. Ref. P2 Public Exhibition Public Exhibition To document To be Completed following public The consultation on the draft the consultation exhibition masterplan took place from work that was June to September 2011. It undertaken was very well publicised through leaflets, press releases, posters, display boards and banners around the town. The consultation was available online and in the town council offices, town library and various leisure facilities around the town. During the consultation period serveral public exhibitions and Saturday stalls in the Magnolia Centre took place. 318 people submitted paper questionaires and 189 completed the questionaire on-line. Several people and organisations submitted letters and reports. In addition a workshop took place at Exmouth Community College which garnered the views of 800 young people. P4 CLIMATE CHANGE “Climate Change” heading To reflect Flooding deleted and “Flooding” sub- comments from heading changed to a main the heading Environment Agency that climate change and flooding are seperate issues P4 N/A Add new text to end of first To reflect para. under Flooding comments from heading to read “References the to flooding refer to pluvial, Environment fluvial and tidal flooding Agency that the sources”. masterplan does not reflect different forms of flooding

P5 All the land between Exeter Road All the land between Exeter To reflect and the Estuary, the Magnolia Road and the Estuary, the comments that Centre, Parade, Strand and Magnolia Centre, Parade, the definition of residential streets to the Harbour Strand and residential streets flood zone 3a and seafront fall within Flood Zone to the Harbour and seafront was not correct

97 3a - land assessed as having a fall within Flood Zone 3a - high probability of flooding with a 1 land assessed as having a in 200 or greater annual high probability of flooding probability of flooding from the sea with a 1 in 200 or greater in any year. annual probability of flooding from the sea or a river in any year. P5 N/A Carbon Reduction sub- To reflect heading changed to Capitals comments from as a main heading. the Environment Agency that climate change and flooding are seperate issues P5 The Strand is the town centre‟s The Strand is the town To reflect the main public open space and is centre‟s main public open completion of currently undergoing significant space and has undergoing works to The work to enhance the public realm. significant work to enhance Strand the public realm. P9 A Retail Needs Study was A Retail Needs Study was To reflect undertaken by GVA Grimley in undertaken by GVA Grimley additional retail 2008. This requires updating in in 2008 and subsequently assessment accordance with changes to updated in 2011. As part of work government guidance). As part of the Masterplan process, undertaken as the Masterplan process, Savills Savills have also reviewed part of the have reviewed that study and that study and provided retail Local Plan provided the retail advice that advice that underpins the Review. underpins the town centre town centre framework. framework. P9 The GVA Grimley study identifies The GVA Grimley study (as To reflect that capacity exists for an updated in 2011) identifies additional retail additional 24,197 sq ft of that capacity exists for assessment convenience retail floorspace additional convenience retail work within Exmouth. This has been floorspace within Exmouth. undertaken as projected to increase to some This has been projected as part of the 26,000 sq ft by 2012, 28,000 sq ft 19,698 sq ft by 2016, 24,500 Local Plan by 2016 and 32,000 sq ft by 2021. sq ft by 2021 and 29,590 sq Review. The exclusions to the definition of ft by 2026. The exclusions to convenience retail means that this the definition of convenience figure relates predominantly to retail means that this figure food. relates predominantly to food. P9 These projections were made prior Delete text To reflect to permission for the extension to additional retail Tesco (Salterton Road) was assessment granted. On the basis that the work proposed Tesco extension would undertaken as absorb 10,000 sq ft net of the part of the 26,000 sq ft convenience need Local Plan identified (as stated in Tesco‟s Review. Retail Impact Statement), this would leave a balance of : . 15,608 sq ft (1450 sq m) net by 2012 . 21,861 sq ft (2031 sq m) net by 2021. (based on maintaining a constant

98 market share).

P9 . 21,258 sq ft (2,000sq m) . 13,229 sq ft (1,229 sq To reflect net by 2012; m) net by 2016; additional retail assessment . 34,444sq ft (3,200sq m) . 30,183 sq ft (2,804 sq work net by 2016; and m) net by 2021; undertaken as part of the . – . Up to 36,957 53,820 sq ft 49,418 sq ft (4,591 sq Local Plan – (3,400 5,00sq m) net by m) net by 2026. Review. 2021.

P10 The April 2010 East Devon The 2011 East Devon To reflect Strategic Housing Land Availability Strategic Housing Land revised housing Assessment indicates that there is Availability Assessment figures in the a potential supply of „developable‟ indicates that there is a new draft Local land for just 720 homes within and potential supply of Plan. adjoining Exmouth to 2025 (in „developable‟ land for just addition to those with planning 720 homes within and permission yet to be built). The adjoining Exmouth to 2025 LDF Core Strategy Consultation (in addition to those with Document suggests a higher planning permission yet to be figure of around 1850, plus the built). The new Local Plan 970 homes with planning Consultation Document permission by 2026, including suggests a figure of around affordable housing. The document 690 including affordable suggests that development will be housing. The document provided through larger scale suggests that development urban extensions to the north, east will be provided through and south-east of the town, larger scale urban including the completion of Dinan extensions to the north, east Way and improved public and south-east of the town, transport links to Exeter, funded including the completion of through a tariff on development in Dinan Way and improved the town. public transport links to Exeter, funded through a tariff on development in the town. P15 A new vision is needed that A new vision is needed that To reflect addresses these recent trends and addresses these recent revised housing that will promote a more balanced trends and that will promote figures in the and active community. Exmouth a more balanced and active new draft Local also needs to consider again how community. Exmouth also Plan. it relates to Exeter and the wider needs to consider again how world. Exeter, the capital city of it relates to Exeter and the Devon, is a regional focus for wider world. Exeter, the growth with potentially an capital city of Devon, is a additional 15,ooo homes and regional focus for growth. 28,500 new jobs within Exeter‟s Whilst Exmouth must retain „Travel to Work area‟ by 2026. its independence from Whilst Exmouth must retain its Exeter, the City‟s growth independence from Exeter, the offers opportunities for City‟s growth offers opportunities Exmouth, although how this for Exmouth, although how this growth is capitalised on and growth is capitalised on and how how Exmouth sees itself and Exmouth sees itself and promotes promotes itself needs to be itself needs to be clearly defined clearly defined through the through the vision. How Exmouth vision. How Exmouth decides to position and promote decides to position and

99 itself as a tourist and leisure promote itself as a tourist destination is also vitally important and leisure destination is to the future identity and success also vitally important to the of the town. future identity and success of the town.

P21 Locating Comparison Retail - Locating Comparison To reflect There is a need for new Retail - There is capacity concerns that in comparison retail within for new comparison retail light of PPS4 Exmouth. The majority of this within Exmouth. The we should refer additional floorspace should be majority of this additional to capacity rather than located on the London Inn car floorspace could be need and park and Post Office depot site. located on the London Inn comments that It is the only site that has car park and Post Office the London Inn capacity to accommodate the depot site. The site has site is not the required town centre type capacity to accommodate only site where comparison goods floorspace the required town centre comparison (without major demolition and type comparison goods retailing could redevelopment) that also floorspace (without major be provided. complements the existing town demolition and centre and has potential to redevelopment) and also become a fully integrated part complements the existing of the network of town centre town centre and has shopping streets. Other uses in potential to become a fully this area that compromise the integrated part of the ability to deliver comparison retail network of town centre as part of a regenerating town shopping streets. Other should be avoided. uses in this area that In addition to town centre compromise the ability to comparison retail Exmouth should deliver comparison retail as be promoting itself through part of a regenerating town leisure/watersports and outdoor should be avoided. pursuits retail. These uses should In addition to town centre be primarily located on the comparison retail Exmouth estuaryside, harbour and seafront should be promoting itself to gain greatest benefit from, and through leisure/watersports promote, the town‟s natural and outdoor pursuits retail. assets. These uses should be primarily located on the estuaryside, harbour and seafront to gain greatest benefit from, and promote, the town‟s natural assets.

P32 A spacious, sandy, species-rich A spacious, sandy, species- To reflect green space, dunes and beach, rich green space, dunes and comments from this area retains an undeveloped, beach, this area retains an the naturalistic character popular as a undeveloped, naturalistic Environment place to picnic, BBQ, walk, fly a character popular as a place Agency that kite, play games and relax. Careful to picnic, BBQ, walk, fly a The Maer is not management will balance kite, play games and relax. suitable for recreational use with retaining a Careful management will camping due to wildlife-rich environment and balance recreational use with the risk of measures to protect the dunes retaining a wildlife-rich flooding. have retained their integrity. environment and measures Temporary camping in the north of to protect the dunes have the Maer could bring further retained their integrity.

100 animation and activity to the area. Formal sports are Formal sports are characteristic to characteristic to the the northwest of the area including northwest of the area cricket, bowls, and tennis including cricket, bowls, and providing facilities for the local tennis providing facilities for community and venues for the local community and sporting events. venues for sporting events. P36 . Foxholes - small local hub . Foxholes – a To reflect . Orcombe Point - local hub. pedestrian focused concerns that beachside, relaxed the wording did environment not reflect the . Orcombe Point – a spaces that gateway to the were intended jurassic coast to be created. incorporating interpretation facilities

P37 New proposed landmarks could New proposed landmarks To address include: could include: concerns that . Train Station/southern end . Train any public art of Marine Way - A new Station/southern end be functional landmark, welcoming of Marine Way - A and that people into Exmouth town new landmark, Elizabeth Hall centre when arriving by welcoming people be referred to train, along Marine Way or into Exmouth town as a site rather the Exe Estuary Trail from centre when arriving than in relation the north by train, along Marine to the building . Estuaryside - to help define Way or the Exe that currently and enclose the new Estuary Trail from the occupies it. estuaryside public space north and visible as travelling . Estuaryside - to help southwards along the Exe define and enclose Estuary Trail/new linear the new estuaryside park and from the town public space and centre visible as travelling . Imperial Recreation southwards along the Ground - potential for a Exe Estuary Trail/new landmark sculpture at the linear park and from westerly end of the the town centre Imperial Recreation . Post Office site - new . Post Office site - new landmark and retail landmark and retail anchor anchor at the at the southern end of southern end of Chapel Street Chapel Street . Pier Head - A landmark . Pier Head - A building or structure that landmark building will attract visitors along that will attract the seafront to visit and visitors along the explore the harbour seafront to visit and . Elizabeth Hall - visible explore the harbour along the beach and . Elizabeth Hall Site - Esplanade, highlighting the visible along the route to the town centre beach and and making a statement Esplanade, about Exmouth‟s highlighting the route confidence on arrival at the to the town centre Seafront and making a . Queen‟s Drive/Orcombe statement about Point - Potential for Exmouth‟s

101 landmark building at the confidence on arrival eastern end of Queens at the Seafront Drive. . Queen‟s Drive/Orcombe Point - Potential for landmark building at the eastern end of Queens Drive.

P37 The Waterside Gems The Waterside Gems To reduce In addition there is opportunity for In addition there is excessive use a series of small, beautiful opportunity for a series of of the word landmark buiildings or artworks small, beautiful facilities Landmark. around the waterfront - „Waterfront around the waterfront - Gems‟ which will bring vibrancy, a „Waterfront Gems‟ which will cultural shift and change the bring vibrancy, a cultural shift perceptions of the waterfront, and change the perceptions making a strong statement of the of the waterfront, making a town‟s confidence and vision for strong statement of the the future. town‟s confidence and vision The seafront currently has a for the future. number of small stand-alone The seafront currently has a buildings - kiosks and cafes that number of small stand-alone form hubs of activities. The buildings - kiosks and cafes majority of these buildings, that form hubs of activities. however, are architecturally rather The majority of these non-descript and do not act as buildings, however, are positive landmarks or celebrate architecturally rather non- the seafront. Refurbishment or descript and do not act to redevelopment of these buildings positively celebrate the including the Octagon, Harbour seafront. Refurbishment or View Cafe and Foxholes Kiosk, redevelopment of these could transform them into buildings including the architectural gems. There is also Octagon, Harbour View Cafe the potential for a very small and Foxholes Kiosk, could number of additional waterside transform them into gems at Mamhead, Beach architectural gems. There is Gardens and Orcombe Point for also the potential for a very example. small number of additional waterside gems at Mamhead, Beach Gardens and Orcombe Point for example. P37 Existing Landmarks Existing Landmarks To reduce Exmouth town centre has a small Exmouth town centre has a excessive use number of existing landmarks, small number of existing of the word most noticeably Holy Trinity landmarks, most noticeably Landmark. Church (Rolle Street), All Saints‟ Holy Trinity Church (Rolle Church (Exeter Road), the Clock Street), All Saints‟ Church Tower (esplanade) and new (Exeter Road), the Clock development at the harbour Tower (esplanade) and new (Shelley Beach). The Beacon with development at the harbour it‟s row of distinctive buildings (Shelley Beach). The Beacon overlooking the seafront, is also a with it‟s row of distinctive key landmark and a defining part buildings overlooking the of the character and image of seafront, is a defining part of Exmouth seafront. Key views and the character and image of vistas to these landmarks should Exmouth seafront. Key views be protected or created. and vistas to these

102 landmarks should be protected or created.

P49 Public Art: The integration of Art: The integration of art can To reflect the public art into the town centre, create character and identity, fact that art can estuaryside and seafront can reinforce a sense of place come in many create character and identity, and promote the vision for forms including reinforce a sense of place and the town. This should be as functional promote the vision for the town. considered and fully buildings and Public art should be considered integrated at an early stage street furniture. and fully integrated at an early within regeneration stage within regeneration proposals and not seen as proposals and not seen as an add an add on. on. P52 Existing green space at the Existing green space at the To reflect Imperial Recreation Ground Imperial Recreation Ground removal of should be retained and enhanced, should be retained and landmark whilst maintaining its flexibility for enhanced, whilst maintaining facilities on the events and kite surfing activities. its flexibility for events and Imperial kite surfing activities.There is Recreation opportunity for significant Ground in natural and wildlife favour of interpretation facilities within interpretation the Imperial Recreation facilities. Ground. P55 Carlton Slipway - is currently used Carlton Slipway - is currently Proposal for by windsurfers and small craft. used by windsurfers and “quirky bridge” The disadvantage of this slipway small craft. removed as is that it severs the Beach unviable and Gardens and therefore unnecessary. discourages people to walk along the seaward side of the gardens. Proposals for a quirky bridge could be considered across the slipway that is fun and will attract people to see it. This would need to be designed in such a way as to maintain the function of the slipway and potentially be movable such as a swing bridge or a rolling bridge. P55 Orcombe Point Slipway – provides Orcombe Point: Planning Planning access for jet skis as well as small permission has recently been permission has craft and windsurfers/kite surfers. granted for public realm now been enhancements at the granted for Orcombe Point end of public realm Queens Drive. This will enhancements prohibit access to this at Orcombe slipway for vehicles. Point which will prevent access to the slipway. P57 N/A New paragraph at end of To address existing text to read: concerns raised by the RSPB All projects will need to be that proposals assessed against The should be Conservation of Habitats and subject to an Species Regulations 2010 appropriate and other relevant assessment

103 environmental and ecology under the legislation to fully assess Habitat their impact on the sensitive Regulations. It features of the area as and is considered when a development brief is that inadequate produced or a planning information is application submitted. available on each project to undertale this assessment at the present time but that this should be done as part of any development brief or planning application. P63 K. Foodstore and Residential K. Foodstore and Residential To reflect Through proposed relocation of Through proposed relocation concerns by the Rugby Club to an alternative of the Rugby Club to an Sport England suitable site there is opportunity to alternative suitable site that and others that provide a new foodstore to act as provides improved facilities an alternative an anchor store on the western there is opportunity to site for the side of the town centre. This would provide a new foodstore to Rugby club bring greater footfall to the town act as an anchor store on the should provide centre and provide a wider choice western side of the town at least of convenience retail within the centre. This would bring equivalent if not town. A foodstore development is greater footfall to the town improved also capable of contributing centre and provide a wider facilities over financially to the regeneration of choice of convenience retail the existing the estuaryside and assisting in within the town. A foodstore site. transforming the area in a way that development is also capable no other landuse is able to. The of contributing financially to need and rationale for locating a the regeneration of the foodstore on the estuaryside is estuaryside and assisting in contained within Appendix 2. transforming the area in a way that no other landuse is able to. The need and rationale for locating a foodstore on the estuaryside is contained within Appendix 2. P63 There are a number of issues that There are a number of To reflect need to be investigated and issues that need to be concerns raised addressed prior to taking this investigated and addressed by the opportunity forward including the prior to taking this Environment need to relocate the Rugby Club opportunity forward including Agency that and issues relating to ground the need to relocate the following that contamination and stability. In the Rugby Club and issues the flood event that the foodstore cannot be relating to ground implications of located within Plot K then an contamination and stability. this proposal alternative site for the foodstore on Flooding is a further issue had not been the existing leisure centre/bus that will need to be fully fully explained. depot site may need to be assessed particularly in light considered. This however, would of revised flood maps for the need to ensure that the foodstore area which are currently is well integrated as part of a being prepared for the area.

104 mixed use development, These revisions may lead to reinforces the vision for the the floor level of any estuaryside, respects and makes development on the site the most of the estuary setting, needing to be raised and the does not compromise the ability to implications of this will need create a high quality entrance to to be fully assessed. In the the town centre and reinforces the event that the foodstore links between the town centre and cannot be located within Plot the estuary. K then an alternative site for the foodstore on the existing leisure centre/bus depot site may need to be considered. This however, would need to ensure that the foodstore is well integrated as part of a mixed use development, reinforces the vision for the estuaryside, respects and makes the most of the estuary setting, does not compromise the ability to create a high quality entrance to the town centre and reinforces the links between the town centre and the estuary. P64 The Elizabeth Hall site is owned The Elizabeth Hall site is To make it clear by the Council and has potential owned by the Council and that replacing for change. It is a key site to help has potential for change the existing kickstart and act as a catalyst for including a replacement building is a further regeneration along the building. It is a key site to likely outcome. seafront. It is a stand-alone help kickstart and act as a intervention that has exciting catalyst for further potential to deliver an exceptional, regeneration along the exciting and landmark seafront. It is a stand-alone development that will attract intervention that has exciting visitors to the town and seafront, potential to deliver an help strengthen Exmouth as a exceptional, exciting and destination and raise the town‟s landmark development that profile. will attract visitors to the town and seafront, help strengthen Exmouth as a destination and raise the town‟s profile. P66 There may be opportunity for the There may be an opportunity To address Sea Cadets and Sea Scouts to co- for the Sea Cadets and Sea concerns raised locate into a new purpose built Scouts to co-locate into a that the two facility to meet their needs and new purpose built facility to organisations contribute to the regeneration of meet their respective needs may have the area. and contribute to the different needs regeneration of the area. and both will need to be met. P66 It is recognised that the Magnolia It is recognised that the To address the Centre is dated and rather bland in Magnolia Centre is dated fact that appearance. It does nothing to and rather bland in redevelopment distinguish Exmouth from other appearance. It does nothing of the Magnolia towns to give it a competitive to distinguish Exmouth from Centre is not advantage. It is not considered other towns to give it a within the viable or a priority at the current competitive advantage. The control of the time to comprehensively re- site is privately owned. It is Council.

105 develop this area, however, not considered viable or a improvements to the priority at the current time to pedestrianised streets and spaces comprehensively re-develop with new paving, street furniture, this area, however, lighting and public art would help improvements to the to increase footfall and pedestrianised streets and expenditure by improving the retail spaces with new paving, experience. Enhancement and street furniture, lighting and refurbishment of buildings would public art would help to also help raise the quality of the increase footfall and environment. These expenditure by improving the enhancements along with the retail experience. regeneration of the London Inn Enhancement and area would build confidence in the refurbishment of buildings town among local and external would also help raise the investors, and raise rental values quality of the environment. and investment viability. These enhancements along with the regeneration of the London Inn area would build confidence in the town among local and external investors, and raise rental values and investment viability. P66 Consideration was given to the Consideration was given to To show that potential of improving pedestrian the potential of improving the Council‟s links through the service yard pedestrian links through the are willing to behind the Magnolia Centre that service yard behind the work with other currently links the Parade to Rolle Magnolia Centre that landowners to Street. It was concluded however, currently links the Parade to bring forward that without comprehensive Rolle Street. It was redevelopment redevelopment in this area there is concluded however, that of the Magnolia little scope to enhance the area without comprehensive Centre. and it would remain unattractive redevelopment in this area as a pedestrian route, being at the there is little scope to backs of buildings and within a enhance the area and it service yard. It is therefore not would remain unattractive as considered a priority for a pedestrian route, being at investment as it will bring little the backs of buildings and benefit for its cost. within a service yard. It is hoped that through cooperation between landowners the redevelopment of this area could be brought forward. P68 Orcombe Point Hub.....Access to Delete reference to retaining Planning the slipway should be retained. access to slipway permission has now been granted for public realm enhancements at Orcombe Point which will prevent access to the slipway. P68 To create stepped footpath links To create stepped footpath To address across the flood protection bund links across the highway comments that that edges Marine Way to help link noise bund that edges the bund is not the Colony to the Estuaryside. Marine Way to help link the a flood defence.

106 Proposed crossing points amay Colony to the Estuaryside. include at the end of New North Proposed crossing points Road, Church Road and Hartopp amay include at the end of Road. New Street would form the New North Road, Church primary new link connecting to Road and Hartopp Road. Marine Way and associated with New Street would form the new development fronting Marine primary new link connecting Way (see Project 1E). This would to Marine Way and be in conjunction with new associated with new crossing points on Marine Way development fronting Marine and potential for a new footpath Way (see Project 1E). This along the eastern side of the road. would be in conjunction with new crossing points on The bund is currently part of Marine Way and potential for Exmouth‟s flood defence and this a new footpath along the role would need to be retained. eastern side of the road. The role of the bund could however be reviewed in light of any new flood defences on the estuaryside and if it is no longer needed this opens opportunities for more substantial links to be made between the Colony and Marine Way.

P68 The park is exposed to the The park is exposed to the To reflect the elements and therefore areas of elements and therefore deletion of a shelter should be created to make areas of shelter should be landmark on the space more usable through created to make the space the Imperial the year. Opportunities to achieve more usable through the Recreation this in innovative and exciting year. Opportunities to Ground in ways through collaboration with achieve this in innovative favour of artists could be considered. This and exciting ways through intepretation needs to be balanced with collaboration with artists facilities. retaining the generally open, could be considered. There flexible nature of this park. is also opportunity for significant natural and wilflife interpretation facilities within the Imperial Recreation Ground to celebrate the Exe Estuary. Both of these proposals need to be balanced with retaining the generally open, flexible nature of this park. P68 As part of raising awareness of the Delete text To address Park consideration could be given concerns to the creation of a landmark regarding the sculpture at the westerly end of impact of a the Imperial Recreation Ground, of landmark sufficient height to be visible when sculpture and arriving into the town by train and the viability of along the axis between the town such a project. centre and the estuary. Elegant Further and contemporary, its purpose research into would be to attract attention and water access encourage people to explore and suggests that visit the recreation ground as well enhancement as being a piece of art that may of the Imperial

107 become an iconic image of Recreation Exmouth. Feasibility of this would ground slipway need to carefully considered to would be ensure that it did not constrain kite environmentally surfing both on the recreation harmful and ground or the estuary. unviable.

Enhancement to the slipway and integration of adequate parking and infrastructure (see Project 13) should enhance the Imperial Recreation Ground as one of the towns main gateways into the water - making this area an active and important part of Exmouth‟s vision. P69 Initial proposals to enhance this Initial proposals to enhance Further slipway may include: this slipway may include: research has . maintaining and enhancing . maintaining and already been parking for cars and trailers enhancing parking for undertaken. to facilitate use of the cars and trailers to slipway; facilitate use of the . improving vehicular access slipway; to the slipway from . improving vehicular Camperdown Creek and access to the slipway associated boat storage; from Camperdown . undertaking assessment Creek and associated work to establish the best boat storage; way of improving the . ensuring good slipway and allowing connections to access to the water during proposed lower tides; Watersports facilities. . ensuring good connections to proposed Watersports facilities. P69 The biggest issue facing this The biggest issue facing this To explain why slipway is water depth which slipway is water depth which improvements reduces the time the slipway is reduces the time the slipway to this slipway usable. The open channel further is usable. The open channel are not viable. out over the sand flats (approx. further out over the sand flats 100m away) would appear to (approx. 100m away) would remain navigable during most tidal appear to remain navigable states, however this is generally during most tidal states, inaccessible for medium to large however this is generally sized craft on trailers due to the inaccessible for medium to soft sand. large sized craft on trailers due to the soft sand. These issues combined with the environmental and ecological sensitivities of the Exe estuary and the cost implications of improvements make enhancement of this slipway unviable. P69 Proposals to improve access to Delete text Further the water from the Imperial research into Recreation Ground should water access therefore be considered. Options suggests that include: enhancement

108 . additional flexible slipway of the Imperial surface. This would stretch Recreation from the bottom of the ground slipway existing slip, outwards to would be the adjacent navigable environmentally channel; harmful and . to create a new slipway unviable. from Imperial Recreation Ground southwestwards to the navigable channel - allowing access at all tides. This option would be very expensive to achieve and may conflict with nature conservation objectives. Although not considered viable at the present time these proposals should be further explored if funding can be secured. In the meantime other proposals within the estuaryside site should not compromise the ability to achieve this potential long term aim. In order to further assess the viability of proposed improvement works to the slipway, and to develop a business case in order to inform any funding applications, additional investigative work will be required. P69 As with the Imperial Recreation Further work is required to To reflect Ground slipway, further work is assess the viability and revised required to assess the viability of environmental impact of proposals for proposed improvements works to proposed improvements Imperial the slipway, and to develop a works to the slipway, and to Recreation business case in order to inform develop a business case in ground and any funding applications. order to inform any funding need to assess applications. environmental impact. P70 As well as the As well as the To address redevelopment/refurbishment of redevelopment/refurbishment concerns that The Octagon and Harbour View of The Octagon and Harbour there would be Cafe into „Waterside Gems‟ there View Cafe into „Waterside an excessive is potential for artwork and an Gems‟ there is potential for amount of additional small and beautiful an additional small and public art which „Waterfront Gem‟ with active uses beautiful „Waterfront Gem‟ would be to encourage greater animation with active uses to unachievable. and use of the Gardens. encourage greater animation and use of the Gardens. P70 Potential opportunity for temporary Delete text To reflect camping (in the northern area) comments from the Environment Agency that The Maer is not suitable for camping due to

109 the risk of flooding.

P70 An alternative option could be to An alternative option could To reflect that establish a new leisure be to establish a new leisure the LDF is now cycle/footpath route along the cycle/footpath route along to be referred to Littleham Valley adjacent to the the Littleham Valley adjacent as the Local brook. This would be a dedicated to the brook. This would be a Plan. route, be more attractive and dedicated route, be more higher profile as a leisure route attractive and higher profile and help open up access to the as a leisure route and help countryside for both residents and open up access to the visitors. This option however countryside for both would be expensive to achieve residents and visitors. This and would involve cooperation of option however would be landowners. This option may expensive to achieve and become more viable and desirable would involve cooperation of if the LDF option to focus housing landowners. This option may growth within the Littleham Valley become more viable and is taken forward. desirable if the Local Plan option to focus housing growth within the Littleham Valley is taken forward. P79 3. Retention of the distinctive treed 3. Retention of the distinctive Plain English and green backdrop to green backdrop to correction development from Alexandra development from Alexandra Terrace eastwards to the Maer Terrace eastwards to the Maer P81 To deliver an exceptional, exciting To deliver an exceptional, To emphasise and landmark development that exciting and landmark the point that strengthens the link between development that the intention is Exmouth town centre and strengthens the link between to generate seafront, generates activity, adds Exmouth town centre and new activities at to the seafront offer and makes a seafront, generates new the site rather positive contribution to the town‟s activites which add to the than just enable cultural richness. It should help seafront offer and make a improvements strengthen Exmouth as a positive contribution to the for the existing destination and differentiate it from town‟s cultural richness. It activities. other places. This is a key site to should help strengthen help stimulate further investment Exmouth as a destination in the seafront, particularly in the and differentiate it from other „Beach Hub‟. places. This is a key site to help stimulate further investment in the seafront, particularly in the „Beach Hub‟. P83 Potential Uses: Potential Uses: To reinforce . All uses focused around . All uses focused that this project play, leisure, recreation around play, leisure, will meet the and having fun recreation and having needs of young . Waterbased childrens play fun people not just area . Waterbased play children in . All weather activities and area for children and order to attractions young people address . Potential Watersports Hub . All weather activities concerns from - providing shared facility and attractions students at for watersports clubs and . Potential Watersports Exmouth associations. A new Hub - providing a Community slipway might be required shared facility for College.

110 . Potential for a major watersports clubs and attraction to the north of associations. A new the Esplanade - a slipway might be waterpark, an aquarium... required . Food and drink . Potential for a major . Tourist accommodation attraction to the north of the Esplanade - a waterpark, an aquarium... . Food and drink . Tourist accommodation P85 Retain access to the slipway and Delete text Planning space should be given to support permission has its use now been granted for public realm enhancements at Orcombe Point which will prevent access to the slipway. P89 Convenience Retail - GVA Grimley Convenience Retail - GVA To reflect undertook a Retail Needs Study in Grimley undertook a Retail additional retail 2008. Analysis of the 2007 figures Needs Study in 2008 assessment show scope to accommodate (updated in 2011). Analysis work more food related retail provision of the figures show scope to undertaken as in the town. (See Study for detail) accommodate more food part of the related retail provision in the Local Plan town. (See Study for detail) Review.

111 Agenda Item

Development Management 6 December 2011 KAL

Neighbourhood Planning Regulations – A Consultation

Summary This consultation sets out how the Government proposes to take up the regulation making powers in the Localism Act for Neighbourhood Planning and the Community Right to Build. It sets out the minimum level of requirements that would ensure a nationally consistent approach to designating neighbourhood areas and neighbourhood forums and the preparation of Neighbourhood Plans and Neighbourhood Development Orders. The Consultation seeks comments on whether the regulations as proposed are workable and proportionate.

The Consultation does not cover how the Government proposes to take forward the regulation making powers on charges that Local Planning Authorities can levy on development allowed under a Neighbourhood Development Order, to enable them to recoup some of the costs of neighbourhood planning. This will be the subject of a separate consultation later this year. Nor does it cover any provisions in respect of the requirements that are needed to ensure compatibility with EU obligations, for example the Strategic Environment Assessment, the Environmental Impact Assessment and the Habitats Directive. Finally it does not cover the provisions in respect of referendums which will be brought forward through separate regulations and which recent news from the Government suggests may be dropped anyway.

The Consultation runs until the 5 January 2012.

The full Consultation document and draft regulations can be found on the Council’s website.

Recommendation It is recommended that the answers in Section 10 below be sent as this Council’s response to the regulations.

a) Reasons for Recommendation In order to advise the Government of this Council’s views on the draft regs. b) Alternative Options The Committee may choose to alter any of the recommendations. c) Risk Considerations None from this exercise.

112 d) Policy and Budgetary Considerations There is a cost to Councils of the independent examinations and referendums associated with Neighbourhood Plans. e) Date for Review of Decision N/A.

Background

1.0 Neighbourhood planning is central to the Government’s Decentralisation, Localism and Big Society agenda giving people the opportunity to shape and influence the places where they live and have more reasons to say yes ‘to sustainable development’.

2.0 The Government’s neighbourhood planning proposals will enable the devolution of planning responsibilities to a more local level than ever before. A fundamental principle is that neighbourhood planning should be community led with the community being in the driving seat of the process, but with the Local Planning Authority making necessary decisions at key stages. A referendum at the end of the process ensures the community has the final say and whether a Neighbourhood Plan or Neighbourhood Development Order or a Community Right to Build Order comes into force.

The proposed Approach to the Neighbourhood Planning Regulations:

3.0 The Government’s guiding principle in taking forward the regulations is that they should be workable and proportionate to their purpose. It will do this by:

 Placing the minimum of requirements on communities to free them from unnecessary process and to encourage them to get involved  Placing the minimum of requirements on Local Planning Authorities to enable local dialogue on the detail of the process so that it suits local circumstances  Not interfering with Local Authority decision making  Reserving regulation making powers wherever possible and only taking them up in the future if practices prove them to be necessary and  Drawing on existing procedures where this is possible and appropriate to minimise the time taken for communities and authorities to become familiar with the new system.

4.0 The use of referendums will be based on the existing referendum rules and no guidance will be given on the procedures for examination where authorities already have a wealth of experience.

An Introduction to Neighbourhood Planning:

5.0 Neighbourhood Planning is optional, not compulsory, but where taken up communities will be able to:

 Choose where they want new homes, shops and offices to be built

113  Have their say on what those new buildings should look like  Grant planning permission for the new buildings they want to see go ahead

6.0 Key Stages

6.1 There will be five key stages to neighbourhood planning.

Stage 1 defining the neighbourhood: first local people will need to decide how they want to work together. In areas with a Parish or Town Council, these Councils will take the lead on neighbourhood planning. In areas without a Parish or Town Council local people will need to decide which organisation should lead on co-ordinating the local debate. In some places, existing community groups may want to put themselves forward, in other places local people may form a new group. In both cases the group must meet some basic standards. It must for example, have at least 21 members and must be open to new members.

Town and Parish Councils and community groups will then need to apply to the Local Planning Authority which will keep an overview of all the different requests to do neighbourhood planning in their area. The Planning Authority will check the suggested boundaries for different neighbourhoods make sure they make sense and fit together. The Planning Authority will say ‘no’ if for example two proposed neighbourhood areas overlap. It can also say no if the organisation is too small and not representative enough of the local community. If approved by the Planning Authority the group will call itself a ‘neighbourhood forum.’ The town or parish council or neighbourhood forum is then at liberty to start planning for their neighbourhood.

Stage 2 preparing the plan: with a Neighbourhood Plan communities will be able to establish general planning policies (consistent with but not necessary if identical to the LPA’s adopted Development Management policies) for the developments and use of land in the neighbourhood. It will set a vision for the future either detailed or general depending on what local people want.

With a Neighbourhood Development Order, the community can grant planning permission for new buildings they want to see go ahead without the need for developers having to apply for separate planning permission.

Local people can draw either a Plan or a Development Order or both following some ground rules:

 They must generally be in line with local and national planning policies  They must be in line with other laws  If the Planning Authority says that an area needs to grow, then communities cannot use neighbourhood planning to block the building of new homes and businesses. They can, however, use neighbourhood planning to influence the type, design, location and mix of development.

114 Stage 3 independent check: once a Neighbourhood Plan has been prepared, an independent examiner will check that it meets the basic standards. If it doesn’t the examiner will recommend changes. The Planning Authority will then need to consider the examiner’s views and decide whether to make those changes. If the examiner recommends significant changes then the Parish Council, Town Council or Neighbourhood Forum may decide to consult the local community again before proceeding.

Stage 4 community referendum: the Local Council will organise a referendum on any Plan or Order that meets the basic standards. This ensures that the community has the final say on whether the Plan or Order comes into force. People living in the neighbourhood who are registered to vote in local elections will be entitled to vote in the referendum.

In some special cases where, for example the proposals put forward in a plan for one neighbourhood have significant implications for other people nearby – people from other neighbourhoods may also be allowed to vote. If more than 50% of people voting in the referendum support the Plan or Order then the Planning Authority must bring it into force.

Stage 5 legal force: once a neighbourhood plan is in force it carries real legal weight. Decision makers will be obliged by law to take what it says into account when it considers proposals for development in the neighbourhood.

A Neighbourhood Order will grant planning permission for development that complies with the order. Where people have made it clear that they want development of a particular type, it will be easier for that development to go ahead.

Timetable:

7.0 The formal legal right to do neighbourhood planning came in with the Localism Act with the formal right to do neighbourhood planning to follow in 2012.

Funding and Support

8.0 The Local Planning Authority will be obliged by law to help people draw up their Neighbourhood Plans.

Developers, Parish and Town Councils, landowners and local businesses may all be interested in sponsoring and taking a leading role in neighbourhood planning. In fact in some places, local businesses are already starting to debate with local residents and councils. The Government has committed to providing £50m until March 2015 to support local councils in making neighbourhood planning a success.

The Government has already provided £3m to four community support organisations, who already support communities in planning for their neighbourhood. These are:

 The Princes Foundation for the Built Environment  Locality  CPRE in partnership with NALC  The Royal Town & Planning Institute – Planning Aid

115 Local Authority Decision Making

9.0 Time limits have only been proposed in certain parts of the process to provide information, submit applications or make decisions to provide Local Planning Authorities with the ability to flex the process to suit their own practices and timetables. For example the Government proposes that the regulations will require a 6 week period from the date the first application for a neighbourhood area is received for representations and responses on the application. This will give different perspective Neighbourhood Forums an opportunity to submit applications for the same or different neighbourhood areas and to provide residents and businesses of the neighbourhood areas and any other bodies, an opportunity to comment on the proposals. However the Government is not setting a time limit for the Local Planning Authority to decide whether or not to designate a Neighbourhood Forum. It is expected that the decision will be made as soon as reasonably practical.

The Secretary of State has taken powers to set out how the Local Planning Authority should make certain decisions e.g. to validate an application or designate the Forum. It does not propose however, to prescribe exactly how the Planning Authority should make key decisions, for example whether by a delegated officer, a full meeting of the Full Council or via the Council’s Executive or whether there must be a majority vote at these council meetings in order for the decision to be valid. It is believed that this is for the Local Planning Authorities to decide.

The Act also allows for a neighbourhood planning area to cross two or more Local Planning Authority boundaries. Although there are powers to specify how this is done, in general it is for the Local Planning Authorities to work together to decide how they wish to manage cross boundary arrangements, for example by establishing a joint committee or by agreeing a lead authority for part or all of the processes.

Consultation Responses

10.0 Question 1: Do you agree that the proposed approach is workable and proportionate and strikes the right balance between standardising the approach for Neighbourhood Planning and providing for local flexibility.

Answer: Whilst the logic of the approach seems to build in the correct amount of flexibility there is concern that the ability of Neighbourhood Plans to override the Local Authority Development Management policies in order to set up a local set of policies for determining the acceptability of development. It is appreciated that there will be a need for an examination of these neighbourhood policies but with 66 parishes within this District the number of variations on interpretations of policy will lead the Development Management Committee into some difficultly it is believed. Whilst there is no objections to communities setting out locations and types of development, detailed control will lead to complex and confusing situations.

Question 2: Our proposition is that where possible referendums should be combined with other elections that are within 3 months (before or after) of that date the referendum could be held. We would welcome your views on whether this should be a longer period, for example 6 months.

Answer: Elections between the four yearly District Council ones are fairly infrequent and linking the referendums up to these occasions could be difficult. On the other hand the cost of a single referendum not locked into an election could be

116 expensive for the Local Authority especially where we could be faced with a high number of Neighbourhood Plan referendums. Without details of on what powers are going to be given to Local Authorities to charge a levy on development allowed in a Neighbourhood Development Order it is difficult to budget for the early bird Neighbourhood Plans we are expecting. If no Orders are proposed there will be no opportunities to recoup expenditure.

Question 3: The Bill is introducing a range of new community rights alongside Neighbourhood Planning – for example the Community Right to Build and the Right to Challenge to help communities make the most of this opportunity, we considering what support measures could be made available we are looking at how we could support people in communities as well as Local Authorities other public bodies and private businesses to understand what each right can and cannot do, how they can be used together and what further support could be made available for groups wanting to use them. We would welcome your views on what support could usefully be provided and what form of support that should take.

Answer: It is anticipated that staff resources will have to be put into assisting the Neighbourhood Planning process in order to save Parish and Town Councils significant costs in employing consultants which evidence to date in the nearby Town of Dawlish in Teignbridge District has already thrown up a cost of £40,000 without having yet got through to the examination. The Council is not currently budgeted for such staff resources. It may be that there is some synergy with the Community Infrastructure Levy administration for which 5% top slicing is possible but different skills may be necessary between running a financial and procurement system and working with the community to facilitate community planning.

It is anticipated that many communities will find the opportunities offered through these regulations more than they are willing to take on and the problem may not be as wide spread as we fear. Nevertheless managing the New Homes Bonus, Community Infrastructure Levy proportion to the local community, Community Asset Transfers, and Neighbourhood Plan activity will demand a different way of working for the Local Authority with different skill sets and resources necessary to those which currently exist. In addition there will be a multiplicity of different micro level plans and policies that will drive the future of development in the District, given the large number of individual communities in East Devon as well as their differing ambitions and their ability to draw up a plan that will survive an independent examination and referendum. What we will need is the financial support to put in place the community officers to support this whole new approach to local planning.

Legal Implications The report summarises clearly the statutory framework and the five main stages involved in neighbourhood planning. There may be legal advice required at a number of stages in the process: for example, interpretation of the regulations, examining criteria applicable to neighbourhood forums, definition of ‘excluded development’ in context of neighbourhood development orders. However, at this point no particular legal observations on the consultation responses.

117 Financial Implications As indicated within the report there will be a cost to East Devon District Council for examinations and referendums associated with Neighbourhood Plans, therefore a £50,000 special bid for 2012/13 has been submitted.

Consultation on Reports to the Cabinet

Background Papers The Draft Neighbourhood Plan Regulations

Kate Little Development Management Head of Economy 6 December 2011

118 Ward Clyst Valley

Reference11/1878/FUL

Applicant Mr A Freemantle

Location Kenniford Farm Clyst St Mary Exeter EX5 1AQ

Proposal Retention of and alterations to open sided structure over existing seating area associated with cafe.

RECOMMENDATION: Refusal

119 Committee Date: 06.12.2011

Clyst Valley Target Date: (CLYST ST 11/1878/FUL 26.10.2011 GEORGE)

Applicant: Mr A Freemantle

Location: Kenniford Farm Clyst St Mary

Proposal: Retention of and alterations to open sided structure over existing seating area associated with cafe.

RECOMMENDATION: Refusal

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The structure subject of the application has been constructed without the benefit of planning permission and is therefore unlawful.

The desire of the applicant to provide covered seating in order to expand the number of covers offered by the cafe to customers is fully appreciated. There are also clear benefits for the business in having this additional space however, it is not thought that this proposal represents an appropriate form of development given the sensitivity of the location in relation to its close proximity to both the principal and curtilage listed buildings and the wholly excessive massing and scale of the building in relation to the existing former farm buildings to which it is adjacent and the detrimental dominating impact that it has upon the farmyard space that it occupies.

Although supportive of the principle of the business expansion of the shop and cafe that this scheme represents, it is required to be balanced against the need to ensure that the character of the setting of listed buildings and the spaces between them is not unduly adversely affected. In this regard, it is considered that the latter should be regarded as carrying greater weight, particularly in the absence of any compelling justification for the structure or adequate assessment demonstrating how the development impacts upon the significance of the adjacent buildings as heritage assets. Refusal of the proposal is therefore recommended whilst authorisation to pursue the appropriate legal action to secure the removal of the structure is also sought from Members.

120 CONSULTATIONS

Technical Consultations

County Highway Authority Does not wish to comment.

Other Representations No third party representations have been received.

POLICIES

Devon Structure Plan Policies CO6 (Quality of New Development)

CO7 (Historic Settlements and Buildings)

East Devon Local Plan Policies S5 (Countryside Protection)

D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness)

EN9 (Extension, Alteration or Change of use of Buildings of Special Architectural and Historic Interest)

ANALYSIS

Relevant Planning History There is no previous history relating to the site that is directly relevant to consideration of the current proposal.

Site Location and Description Kenniford Farm is a working pig farm located approximately 2 km. to the south east of Clyst St. Mary a short distance to the south of Oil Mill Lane from which it is accessed via an unclassified road.

The main farmhouse, parts of which date back to the 17th century, is listed Grade II. A small range of single storey former agricultural buildings, located to the north west and loosely arranged around three sides of a courtyard (the fourth side being formed by the rear of the farmhouse itself), are of pre-1948 construction and are regarded as being curtilage listed. They comprise a detached stone and slate barn of linear form that has been converted to holiday letting accommodation and a rendered L-shaped barn with a pitched tiled roof, gable ended, that has been converted to a farm shop and ancillary cafe and kitchen. An outdoor patio seating area immediately adjacent to the building has also been created.

The remainder of the complex mainly comprises more modern agricultural buildings that continue to serve the farm.

121 Proposed Development The internal seating area of the cafe provides 10 covers and the kitchen has an internal area of around 20 square metres. This has been increased with the addition of an open-sided roof structure by a further 49 square metres that provides covered space for another 22 covers. The structure is positioned immediately alongside the cafe and kitchen.

The application seeks to regularise the retention of this building. It comprises a timber framed roof structure with a king post truss and exposed rafters and purlins supported by seven timber columns. The roof is fully pitched and finished in double roman clay tiles that match the roof finish of the shop and cafe. Detailed elements incorporated within the design include corner bracket supports within each bay and untreated horizontal timber boarding to the front gable which is set back to allow for an overhanging roof verge.

The floor level of the seating area is set below the level of the adjacent yard and is accessed from the south and east by a ramp and steps respectively.

The proposal as originally submitted envisaged the enclosure of the two open elevations (south and east) with glazed screens set within the timber framing in order to provide increased protection for customers from the weather and enable the opening times of the cafe to be extended. Also proposed were alterations to the adjacent ground levels to enable level access to the enclosed seating area via a pair of entrance doors in each elevation. However in an attempt to address Officer concerns regarding the structure, which are discussed in more detail below, the proposal has been amended to omit these alterations. The proposal is therefore to retain the structure as it stands.

Considerations/Assessment The main issue upon which the consideration of this proposal turns is the impact of the structure upon the character of the setting of the adjacent curtilage listed former farm buildings and their wider contribution to the setting of the principal listed farmhouse. This impact needs to be balanced against the economic benefits of the business being carried on at the site.

Conservation Issues

Although not especially ancient or unique in architectural terms in their own right, it is thought that the building group does contribute positively to the character of the setting of the main farmhouse and, moreover, as already stated are themselves to be regarded as listed owing to their curtilage location.

Set against this, it is considered that the positioning of the open-sided structure appears incongruous to the group since it significantly compromises the open farmyard space that is defined by the historic arrangement of the farmhouse and the former barns. Any development of this area that is acceptable in principle should at the very least follow the pattern of the existing layout.

In addition, the massing and form of the structure itself is of concern as it is considerably greater than that of the narrow gable ended building alongside which it

122 is viewed from the farmhouse and the parking area immediately adjacent. Although incorporating a traditional clay tiled pitched roof that does adequately reflect the roof finish of this building, the differing scales appear very evident with the unsatisfactory result that it is thought to dominate the farmyard space and therefore adversely impact upon the setting of both the curtilage building to which it is adjacent and the principal farmhouse. The detailed concerns regarding the impact of the structure in conservation terms can be summarised as:

• The location of the building is quite incongruous to the building group as it severely compromises the open farmyard space defined by the arrangement of the historic barns and the farmhouse. Any additional structures that are found to be acceptable should follow the pattern of the existing arrangement at the very least. • The massing and form of the existing open-fronted structure is also of concern as it far greater than that of the narrow building to which it is attached. The result is very unsatisfactory and it does seem to dominate the farmyard space and therefore adversely impact upon the setting of the principal building and the curtilage building to which it is attached. This is despite a traditionally pitched roof clad with clay tiles. • The application also proposes the glazing of the sides of the existing structure where they are presently open. This will remove the appearance of the structure further away from its context and result in an incongruous addition to the building group.

The possibility of relocating the structure to a more appropriate location has been discussed with the applicant and his agent. However, it is argued that it is functionally necessary for the external seating to be well related to the cafe and kitchen and therefore the structure could not reasonably be constructed elsewhere. In this regard there is some understanding of this point, particularly given that the building is not visible from outside of the site and is not thought to otherwise cause any harm to the character or appearance of the surrounding landscape/open countryside.

It has also been suggested that a temporary permission could be granted for a period of five years after which time a further application would need to be made for its continued retention, which could come at a time when the applicant may no longer have a need for the cover. However, this is not considered to be a feasible option given the strong likelihood of the business still being in operation and the difficulty that there would be at that stage in seeking to resist a renewal of the permission bearing in mind that it would have been present for a number of years. In effect it is either acceptable for it to be retained permanently or not at all – there are no grounds to justify testing its acceptability for a temporary period.

Further options suggested by the applicant's agent are that any permission could be suitably conditioned to ensure that the structure is used solely for the use of the shop and cafe and is removed at such time as the applicant ceases ownership of the farm or the cafe is closed. Whilst these might be viewed as slightly more feasible alternatives to prevent the structure being retained permanently, they are not thought to be acceptable given the strong listed building setting objections that are held generally to the proposal.

123 Economic Issues

The applicants operate a sucessful farm shop and cafe at the site and the provision of the additional covers provided by this development has helped to enable the further development and expansion of this business. Clearly it is important that the Council supports rural businesses such as this as they are an important source of employment for local people. Clearly these issues weigh in favour of this development, however it is important to bear in mind that there is no objection in- principle to the provision of facilities such as that proposed to help support this business it is the siting, design and scale of the proposed development that is of concern. A development that provides the accommodation that the applicants are seeking could be accommodated within the site in a much more senstive manner. As a result it is considered that any economic arguments for this development would not justify the proposal which is currently for consideration.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE for the following reasons:

1. The structure, by reason of its inappropriate form and massing and position in relation to the adjacent group of curtilage listed former farm buildings, has an unduly dominating and intrusive impact upon the character of the open farmyard space defined by the arrangement of these historic buildings and the principal Grade II listed farmhouse to the detriment of the character of their setting. As a consequence, the proposal is contrary to the provisions of Policy CO7 (Historic Settlements and Buildings) of the Devon Structure Plan 2001- 2016, Policy EN9 (Extension, Alteration or Change of Use of Buildings of Special Architectural and Historic Interest) of the East Devon Local Plan 1995- 2011 and the guidance contained in Planning Policy Statement 5 (Planning for the Historic Environment).

Further Recommendation

That authorisation be granted to pursue the appropriate legal action to secure the removal of the unauthorised structure, it being expedient to do so in the interests of the character of the setting of the adjacent Grade II listed buildings.

Compliance Period: 6 months

List of Background Papers Application file, consultations and policy documents referred to in the report.

124 Ward Exmouth Halsdon

Reference11/2084/FUL

Applicant Mr W Harvey (Melbury Hill Properties Ltd)

Location The Maldens Marley Road Exmouth EX8 5DE

Proposal Construction of 2no detached dwellings

RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions

125 Committee Date: 06.12.2011

Exmouth Halsdon Target Date: (EXMOUTH) 11/2084/FUL 17.11.2011

Applicant: Mr W Harvey (Melbury Hill Properties Ltd)

Location: The Maldens Marley Road

Proposal: Construction of 2no detached dwellings

RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The starting point for consideration of the proposal is the extant planning permission 09/1040/FUL for the construction of a single dwelling on the site. Set against this, it is thought that this revised scheme for two units could be achieved in a manner that would be compatible with the character of the surrounding area, particularly with regard to plot sizes and configurations, and would not represent an unacceptable overdevelopment of the site. Furthermore, in comparison with the footprint area and overall scale and height of the approved single dwelling, it is considered that the proposed development would not result in any significantly greater impact upon the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring residential properties in Dinan Way, Barrowdale Drive or Marcom Close in terms of adverse effect on privacy, outlook or aspect or through the scheme being unduly overbearing, dominating or oppressive.

Taken together with the absence of any highway or sustainable drainage objections, it is not thought that the objections raised by the town council, ward member and third parties can be supported.

Approval is therefore recommended subject to conditions relating to the submission for approval of details of materials and tree and hedge protection measures together with the removal of permitted development rights in respect of forms of development that could otherwise result in harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers to the site.

CONSULTATIONS

Local Consultations

Parish/Town Council OBJECTION on the grounds of: -

126 • Over-development. • Overlooking of surrounding properties. • Loss of privacy to nearby properties and gardens. • Inadequate drainage provision. • Increased flood risk. • Access issues. • Removal of trees and some of the Devon Bank.

Exmouth Halsdon - Cllr J Elson Object to the application

This is a new planning application on a site that had previous plans. I believe this current plan does not resolve the problems of the protection of the Devon Bank, Trees or the drainage issues. These properties seem to be connected to the existing sewerage which runs onto land belonging to properties in Barrowdale. The previous owner of this property cleared the drains at least annually to prevent flooding.

In the event that this application comes to Committee, I would reserve my position until I am in full possession of all the relevant facts and arguments for and against.

Technical Consultations

County Highway Authority Standing advice

Other Representations 6 letters of objection have been received raising the following points: • Overdevelopment of the site. • Likely to be noise pollution due to movement of so many vehicles. • A shared driveway would be dangerous. • Overlooking from rear windows of rear of neighbouring properties and gardens causing loss of privacy and amenity. • Shading of garden and obscuring of outlook. • Concerned about roof height and the size of the properties which is greater than the surrounding properties. • Vehicular access and parking problems; access road is a small lane not clearly signposted for traffic on Dinan Way and vehicles would access immediately adjacent to a traffic island crossing which would endanger pedestrians and road users. Also difficult access for larger vehicles. • Concern at possible loss of trees and hedges with implications for the well being of wildlife. • Inadequate drainage and proposal will increase existing problems with blocked drains. • Vehicular access, especially for contractors and emergency vehicles, is insufficient without possibility of damage to Devon bank. • Increased paving and driveways will result in additional surface water runoff which will exacerbate existing problems with the collection of water in the gardens of Barrowdale Close properties during winter months.

127 PLANNING HISTORY

Reference Description Decision Date

11/0336/FUL Construction of 2no detached Withdrawn 08.07.2011 dwellings 09/1040/FUL New dwelling Approval 09.07.2009 with conditions

POLICIES

Devon Structure Plan Policies ST1 (Sustainable Development)

ST3 (Self Sufficiency of Devons Communities)

ST5 (Development Priority 2001 to 2016)

ST15 (Area Centres)

CO6 (Quality of New Development)

TR2 (Co-ordinating Land Use/Travel Planning)

TR10 (Strategic Road Network)

East Devon Local Plan Policies S2 (Built-up Area Boundaries for Area Centres and Local Centres)

S4 (Development Within Built-up Area Boundaries)

D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness)

D5 (Trees on Development Sites)

RE3 (Open Space Provision in New Housing Developments)

TA1 (Accessibility of New Development)

TA7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access)

TA9 (Parking Provision in New Development)

ANALYSIS

Relevant Planning History Detailed planning permission was granted in July 2009 (under application reference 09/1040/FUL) for the construction of a two storey, three bedroom detached dwelling

128 within a plot within the rear garden of The Maldens. The approved scheme incorporated the provision of a new driveway alongside the hedgebank that defines the south western boundary of the curtilage of the property and the division of the curtilage between the existing and proposed dwellings. This permission remains extant at the time of writing and will not expire until July 2012.

Planning permission has also since been granted, in December 2010 (under application reference 10/1935/FUL), for the construction of a two storey side extension to The Maldens in place of a single storey garage and extension and the subdivision of the resulting building to form two separate dwellings. At the time of inspection of the site, this development was being carried out and nearing completion.

A subsequent application (11/0336/FUL refers) for the substitution of a pair of identical, but handed, detached four bedroom dwellings for the single dwelling subject of planning permission 09/1040/FUL referred to above was submitted earlier this year. However, the application was withdrawn in the light of significant Officer, town council and neighbour concerns with regard to the scheme and more particularly the level of development of the site that it proposed and the detrimental impact upon the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, principally Crystal House and Ty Mawr to the immediate north east of the site.

Site Location and Description The Maldens is a detached dwelling that occupies a generous curtilage with an approximate area of 0.168 hectares located within a residential area towards the northern edge of the town. It is accessed via a short length of Marley Road extending south off Dinan Way that permits vehicular access. Beyond the entrance to The Maldens further south it becomes a footpath.

The Maldens is one of the older properties within an area of the town that has seen considerable expansion over the last 20-30 years. It is positioned close to the principal frontage of the site onto Marley Road with the majority of its curtilage area to the rear.

The curtilage is bounded by a series of hedges and trees of comparative maturity amongst which is a protected Oak tree positioned close to the north eastern boundary with Ty Mawr adjacent to the south eastern corner of the curtilage. Wider views of the site are limited owing to the screening effect of both surrounding dwellings and these trees/hedges.

Much of the surrounding residential development comprises detached two storey dwellings in Dinan Way to the north east and Barrowdale Close to the south west.

Proposed Development The current proposal relates to a revised scheme for the construction of two dwellings within the rear garden of The Maldens to that subject of withdrawn application 11/0336/FUL.

The submitted details show, once again, a handed pair of identical dwellings that would be positioned beside each other. However, in contrast to the two units

129 proposed under the previous application, the current scheme relates to a pair of much simpler three bedroom dwellings. Their form shows a principal two storey gabled element measuring 10 metres by 5.4 metres with a fully pitched roof with a ridge height of 7.5 metres, attached to the side of which would be a subservient single storey element measuring 3 metres in width of almost the same length as the main two storey build that would house a single garage, utility room and w.c. A small gap of 0.9 metres would be retained between the two units.

External wall and roof finishes would comprise facing brick at ground floor level with ivory smooth render above (on the two storey elements) and Eternit riven blue/black slate roofs respectively.

The proposed subdivision of the site would create plot areas of around 340 square metres and 300 square metres, access to which would be via a shared private driveway from Marley Road that would run between the side of The Maldens (as extended) and the hedge and trees that define the south western boundary of the site in a very similar arrangement to that approved under application 09/1040/FUL to serve the approved single dwelling. The proposed driveway would then turn to run in front of both units with turning areas provided in front of both garages.

Unit 2, as shown on the submitted drawings, has been positioned so as to avoid encroachment into the root protection area of the protected Oak tree.

Considerations/Assessment The proposal falls to be considered having regard to the following issues, each of which is discussed in turn:

Principle of Development The site lies within the built-up area of Exmouth as defined in the East Devon Local within which there is no objection to the principle of residential development in settlement policy terms. Consideration of the proposal therefore turns on the detailed issues that are referred to below.

Impact upon Character and Appearance of Area.

The two units subject of the present scheme would occupy a largely similar position within the site to the approved single dwelling in terms of its proximity to these side boundaries with no part of it shown to extend beyond the line of its rear elevation wall. The development is set off the north eastern and south western site boundaries by 6.5 and 2.5 metres respectively. Including the garages and the small gap between the two dwellings, the scheme would assume an overall length of 17.9 metres. However, the additional length of around 3.6 metres over that of the approved unit would be derived mainly from the addition of the proposed single storey garage/utility room/w.c. element to the side of unit 2, bringing the development nearer to the north eastern boundary with Crystal House and Ty Mawr in relation to which the nearest part of this unit would be set in by around 4 metres.

In addition, the principal parts of both units would be greater in depth than the approved dwelling by around 2.7 metres owing to the reconfigured floor plan necessitated by the addition of a further dwelling.

130

Although resulting in slightly greater site coverage than the approved single unit owing to the cumulatively larger footprint area to be expected from seeking to provide for an additional dwelling on the site, it is not thought that the scheme would represent an overdevelopment of the site. It is considered that the configuration and area of both plots would compare favourably with those of the greater majority of neighbouring residential properties in both Barrowdale Close and Marcom Close whilst the individual footprint areas and design and form of both units would also relate reasonably well to those of the neighbouring properties in Barrowdale Close, in particular.

In terms of the wider impact of the development upon the character and appearance of the area, it is thought that this would remain limited owing to the backland nature of the site and the screening created by the presence of surrounding dwellings and the trees and hedges along the site boundaries. In this regard, it is considered that the visual impact of the development would compare with that likely from the approved single unit, especially given the slightly reduced height of the proposed dwellings which could be considered to offset to some degree the modest increase in the overall length of the two units collectively.

Impact upon Neighbours The considerations here are addressed in part by the above section of the report in as much as it is thought that the overall scale and bulk of the proposed development would compare favourably with that of the approved single dwelling. Although it is acknowledged that it would assume a greater depth, as previously stated, this would be compensated for to some extent by the reduced roof ridge height which at 7.5 metres would be 0.7 metres lower than that of the approved unit.

The relationship of unit 1 to the site boundary with the adjacent properties in Barrowdale Close would be largely similar to that as previously approved. Although the development would bring unit 2 closer to the boundary with Crystal House and Ty Mawr, as stated above this would only relate to the subservient single storey garage element. Moreover, although of increased depth, the impact of the two storey part of the development upon these properties would be similar overall to that of the approved dwelling given the reduced height of the revised scheme and the presentation of a roof plane that would slope away from these properties in contrast to the full height gable of the approved unit.

The scheme would allow for the retention of around 10 metres between the rear elevation wall of both units and the rear site boundary with properties in Marcom Close, and therefore a separation distance overall of about 21 metres between them and the nearest properties at nos. 6 and 7 Marcom Close, which would be identical to that of the permitted single dwelling. As such, although there would be an increase in the number of first floor level bedroom windows that would afford an outlook towards the rear of the neighbouring properties, this is thought to represent a reasonable degree of separation between the rear of dwellings in an urban location such as this and ensures that acceptable levels of privacy to the rear of properties and their garden areas are retained.

131 Similarly, although the scheme would see the principal elevations of the two units positioned nearer to the boundary of the retained garden area of The Maldens than that of the approved single dwelling, there would in total be only two first floor level windows that would be clear glazed, serving bedrooms, in place of three within the scheme previously approved intended to serve two bedrooms and a landing. It is not thought therefore that the scheme would increase the level of overlooking of The Maldens beyond that already accepted. Similarly, although the development would be brought slightly nearer to the rear of The Maldens than previously approved, there would still be a separation distance of around 21 metres between the existing and proposed buildings.

Highways The County Highway Authority has advised that standing advice should apply in this case having previously expressed no comments in respect of application 09/1030/FUL for the single dwelling on the site.

The proposed vehicular access arrangements would remain largely unchanged from those approved previously, other than the shared nature of the private driveway, and are thought to be adequate to accommodate the additional traffic movements that would be likely to be generated by one additional dwelling. Equally, the visibility at the junction of Marley Road with Dinan Way is of an acceptable standard in both directions and any extra vehicular activity is not thought likely to give rise to any increased danger to highway safety conditions.

The scheme also makes appropriate provision for the parking, garaging and turning of vehicles within both plots.

Trees No observations have been received from the Council's Arboricultural Officer at the time of writing the report. However, it is thought that unit 2 would be positioned where sufficient clearance of the root protection zone of the protected Oak tree close to the site's south eastern corner could be achieved so as to avoid any potential damage to the rooting system.

The submission is accompanied by an arboricultural survey report which, among other things, details a method statement and a construction exclusion zone. However, it is shown in relation to the position of the two dwellings subject of the withdrawn application 11/0336/FUL and not the two units now proposed. It is therefore thought appropriate that details of protection measures and, where appropriate, a method statement be conditioned in respect of both the protected Oak and the hedge and trees that define the south western site boundary and alongside which the shared driveway serving the development would be laid. The statement does however prove that the development is possible without having a excessive impact in this respect.

Although the observations made by the parish council and the ward member with regard to the hedge and trees are acknowledged, it is important to be mindful of the fallback position established by the extant permission for one dwelling on the site, the approved access arrangements which are very similar to those now proposed. In addition, details of tree and hedge protection measures have been conditioned as

132 part of the permission. As such, it is not thought that objection to the current proposal could reasonably be supported on grounds relating to any damaging impact upon trees or hedges bounding the site.

Drainage The proposal envisages the discharge of foul drainage from the development to the mains sewer and surface water to a soakaway. Whilst there may be legitimate concerns with regard to the shared private connection to the sewer, these do not relate to issues of capacity within the public system and cannot therefore be considered as material to determination of the application on planning grounds.

Whilst the town council in its objection to the scheme makes reference to the increased risk of flooding from the proposal, it is highlighted that the site is not within a flood zone and there are no technical objections to the intended drainage arrangements, as stated above, which would lead to any flood-related concerns.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE subject to the following conditions:

2. Notwithstanding the submitted details, before development is commenced, a schedule of materials and finishes, and, where so required by the Local Planning Authority, samples of such materials and finishes, to be used for the external walls and roofs of the proposed development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. (Reason - To ensure that the materials are sympathetic to the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policy CO6 (Quality of New Development) of the Devon Structure Plan and Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

3. Notwithstanding the submitted details, prior to the commencement of development, full details of tree and hedge protection measures produced in accordance with B.S.5837 (Trees in Relation to Construction: Recommendations) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall also include a method statement for the construction of the shared driveway shown on drawing no. 6445-24. The measures shall provide for the protection of all mature trees on the site. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. (Reason - To protect mature trees and hedges on the site in the interests of the character and appearance of the area and to comply with the provisions of Policy D5 (Trees on Development Sites) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

133 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 as amended (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order, with or without modification), no development of the types described within Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes A and B for the enlargement, improvement or other alteration to either of the dwellings hereby permitted, other than works that do not materially affect their external appearance, shall be undertaken without an express grant of planning permission from the Local Planning Authority. (Reason - To enable the Local Planning Authority to retain control over operations that would not ordinarily require a grant of planning permission in the interests of protecting the privacy and amenities of neighbouring occupiers and to comply with the provisions of Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the East Devon Local Plan 1995-2011.)

5. Before any development commences details of final finished floor levels and finished ground levels in relation to a fixed datum shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. (Reason - To ensure that adequate details of levels are available in the interest of the character and appearance of the locality and to comply with the provisions of Policy CO6 (Quality of New Development) of the Devon Structure Plan and Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

NOTE FOR APPLICANT

1. IN GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT, THE FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION:

The proposal complies with the following Devon Structure Plan 2001-2016 Policies and the adopted East Devon Local Plan 1995-2011 Policies:

Devon Structure Plan Policies ST1 (Sustainable Development)

ST3 (Self Sufficiency of Devons Communities)

ST5 (Development Priority 2001 to 2016)

ST15 (Area Centres)

CO6 (Quality of New Development)

TR2 (Co-ordinating Land Use/Travel Planning)

TR10 (Strategic Road Network)

East Devon Local Plan Policies S2 (Built-up Area Boundaries for Area Centres and Local Centres)

134 S4 (Development Within Built-up Area Boundaries)

D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness)

D5 (Trees on Development Sites)

RE3 (Open Space Provision in New Housing Developments)

TA1 (Accessibility of New Development)

TA7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access)

TA9 (Parking Provision in New Development)

2. The proposal does not adversely affect the privacy or amenity of neighbouring properties.

3. The design and external appearance of the proposal does not harm the visual amenity of the site and surrounding area.

4. The proposal does not harm or give rise to a perceived threat from important trees on or adjacent to the site.

5. The proposal is contained within the defined built-up area boundary of the settlement.

6. The proposal makes adequate provision for the disposal of foul/surface water in the interest of flood/pollution prevention.

7. The access to serve the proposal does not prejudice highway safety.

8. The density of the development is at the highest level possible compatible with the area.

Approved Plans

6445-24 Location Plan 19.09.11

6445-13B Sections 19.09.11

6445-23 Combined Plans 19.09.11

6445-22A Combined Plans 21.09.11

List of Background Papers Application file, consultations and policy documents referred to in the report.

135 Ward Exmouth Littleham

Reference11/2014/FUL

Applicant Mr D Moore

Location Tumby Lawn Maer Lane Exmouth EX8 2DD

Proposal Construction of two storey detached dwelling, extension to dwelling and detached double garage (resubmission of application 11/1365/FUL)

RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions

136 Committee Date: 06.12.11

Exmouth Littleham Target Date: (EXMOUTH) 11/2014/FUL 07.11.2011

Applicant: Mr D Moore

Location: Tumby Lawn, Maer Lane, Exmouth

Proposal: Construction of two storey detached dwelling, extension to dwelling and detached double garage (resubmission of application 11/1365/FUL)

RECOMMENDATION: Approve with conditions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This application proposes a single detached two storey dwelling in the rear garden of Tumby Lawn, extensions to the existing property and the construction of a new garage. The proposal is considered to comply with amended government guidance in the form of PPS 3 (Housing) which has afforded Local Planning Authorities greater powers to protect the character and appearance of urban areas. Development proposed in appropriately located areas should only by resisted where it would result in material harm being caused to the identified character of the area. The principle of this form of development has previously been accepted on the adjacent site at the rear of the Moorings (ref 11/0254/FUL) and this dwelling is currently under construction. In this instance, it is considered that the site characteristics and dimensions are such that it is difficult to identify sufficient harm that would warrant refusal of the application. Although backland development should always be considered carefully, the proposal would result in only limited views from public vantage, close integration with the existing access arrangements and consequently little impact on the spacious character of Maer Lane. The design of the proposed dwelling and the extensions to the existing dwelling are considered to be acceptable given the existing development in the area and it is not considered that the proposal would result in material harm to residential amenity. Whilst the proposal will result in the loss of a number of trees within the site, these trees have limited amenity value and therefore their removal cannot reasonably be resisted. This application has raised a number of local concerns which have been addressed within this report, however in having due regard for the above issues, it is not considered that this proposed development could reasonably be resisted on account of the fact that it will not cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the area or the amenities of the surrounding neighbouring properties and would not prejudice highway safety. The application is therefore recommended for approval.

137 CONSULTATIONS

Local Consultations

Exmouth Littleham - Cllr T Wood I remain concerned about this application for similar reasons to those I gave regarding the previous application on this site. If there is a recommendation for granting consent to the application, I would like the application to be referred to the Development Management Committee.

Parish/Town Council OBJECTION on the following grounds: -

• Over-development. • Out of keeping with the area. • Access is too narrow. • Proposed dwelling is too large and the garage is situated in front of the building line.

Other Representations 5 letters of objection have been received raising concerns which can be summarised as:

• Additional properties will inevitably lead to additional vehicles travelling along Maer Lane which cannot accommodate additional traffic flow. • Increase in traffic and risks to residents, young children and cyclists using Maer Lane. • Impact on neighbouring properties affecting peaceful and tranquility of rural area. • Impact on fields to rear of site which contains deer, badgers, herons, foxes and other wildlife. • Overlooking and loss of light. • Loss of views of the sea and rural fields • Changing the character of the neighbourhood • Backland development will set a precedent for other properties in the area. • Loss of trees to the entrance and garden will impact on birds. • Loss of trees and shrubs will open up views to neighbouring properties. • Inaccuracies with the site plan and incorrect annotation of a wall as the boundary when it is in fact a chain link fence. • Inappropriate development for the area. • Garage at front of site will dominate and affect light to front windows and will detract from the character of the lane. • Increase in noise levels and carbon footprint. • Increased flooding at the bottom of the garden. • Inadequacies of the sewage system • Odour from sewage pumping station if there was a pump failure.

138

Technical Consultations

County Highway Authority Standing advice

POLICIES

Devon Structure Plan Policies CO3 (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty)

CO6 (Quality of New Development)

East Devon Local Plan Policies S4 (Development Within Built-up Area Boundaries)

D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness)

D5 (Trees on Development Sites)

EN1 (Developments Affecting Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty)

RE3 (Open Space Provision in New Housing Developments)

TA7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access)

TA9 (Parking Provision in New Development)

Planning Policy Statement PPS3 (Housing)

PLANNING HISTORY

Reference Description Decision Date

11/1365/FUL Construction of 2no dwellings, Withdrawn 31.08.2011 extensions to dwelling and erection of detached double garage

Site Location and Description

The site refers to Tumby Lawn, a detached, chalet bungalow occupying a susbstantial plot on the southern edge of Exmouth. The area is characterised by a variety of detached properties on individual plots and apartment buildings that are either purpose built or conversions of previous larger dwelling houses. The area has a spacious character with the buildings generally set back from the road and benefitting from large rear gardens. These back onto the Littleham Brook which is some 60 metres from the north boundary of Tumby Lawn and an associated flood

139 zone 3 which stops short of the garden area. Maer Lane is narrow for much of its length but its alignment generally affords good visibility from and of emerging vehicles.

The application site specifically relates to a lower section of the large rear garden of Tumby Lawn which is set at a significantly lower level than the host dwelling. The site is located within the built-up area boundary of Exmouth and is not the subject of any national or local townscape or landscape designations. Land to the south of Maer Lane is however designated as AONB.

Proposed Development

The application can be broken down into three main components:

1) The sub-division of the site and the construction of a detached 5 bedroom dwelling with an adjoining garage. The plot would be accessed via a new driveway that will be formed along the western boundary of the property. This will utilise the existing vehicular access to Maer Lane which will serve as a double entrance whereby the existing access is reconfigured to create a new access to both Tumby Lawn and the new dwelling. The front garden boundary will be set back to allow for the construction of a new 2.0 metre wide footway to be constructed to Maer Lane.

2) The construction of a large extension to the existing property which will exhibit a two storey appearance to the principle, roadside elevation and will extend over the ridge of the existing property to create a form of development at the rear which would appear as a roof extension only and would not create any additional footprint beyond the existing rear wall of the property. This will accommodate an additional two bedrooms within the roofspace. The proposal also includes the construction of a lean-to roof over an existing flat roof garage on the north eastern side of the property which will be converted into a garden room.

3) The construction of a detached single garage at the front of the property. The garage will have a pitched roof design and will measure 5.2 metres in width, 4.0 metres in height and 6.7 metres in length.

ANALYSIS

The main issues to consider in determining this application relate to the design, size, scale and siting of the proposed dwelling, the extensions to the property and the garage and the impact on both the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area, the impact on the residential amenities of the surrounding neighbouring properties, the impact on the trees within the site and the suitability of the shared access onto Maer Lane in terms of highway safety.

Members should note that planning permission has recently been granted for a similar form of development to that proposed (ref 11/0254/FUL) for a single dwelling at the rear of the Moorings (to the south west of the site) and that this property is currently under construction. This proposal is similar to the permission granted in the rear garden of the Moorings in so far as the proposed dwelling will occupy a similar footprint and siting within the plot and will be positioned a similar distance back from

140 Maer Lane and the host dwelling. Whilst this application should be determined on its own merits, it is important to note that the principle of a similar form of development has previously been accepted on the adjacent plot on the basis that a dwelling in the rear garden would not be significantly harmful to the spacious character and appearance of the area and that the plot was of a sufficient size to accommodate an additional dwelling whilst maintaining an acceptable relationship between other properties located on Maer Lane.

Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area

Proposed Dwelling:

The character of the area has already been identified as being spacious with the detached buildings well spaced and set back from the road. Another key feature which adds to this overriding character is the large rear gardens which many of the properties benefit from. Maer Lane provides access from the built-up area on the edge of Exmouth into the countryside beyond and this setting lends a semi-rural character to the area. Clearly there is a risk that further development may undermine this character which is comparable with that of the Exmouth Avenues area to the north. The recent changes to government planning guidance through amendment to PPS 3 (Housing) were intended to give Local Planning Authorities more leeway in determining infill or backland development proposals in areas such as these by changing the status of residential gardens to greenfield. The intention of this being to relieve pressure on garden land and to emphasise the priority to develop brownfield sites. While in theory this should make it easier to resist developments on residential garden land in reality the lack of significant brownfield sites within East devon means that the majority of housing needs will have to be met on Greenfield sites and garden sites are often in the most sustainable locations.

It should be noted that the amendments to PPS 3 have not removed the requirement to use appropriately located land efficiently. This relates most specifically to land within built-up area boundaries which has been identified as the most suitably located for development in terms of its access to services and facilities. The issue to determine is therefore whether this proposal, which by virtue of its location within the built-up area boundary has already been identified as being appropriately located for new development, would cause significant harm to the character of the area.

Although the pattern of development in this area of Exmouth has resulted in gaps between the ribbon of buildings on the north side of Maer Lane, the distance they are set back from the road limits any views between them. The Littleham Brook to the rear and the limited public views from other vantage points also weigh in favour of this scheme. The limited views from public vantage points on Maer Lane are such that it is not considered that the proposal would erode the spacious character to any significant extent. Whilst officers were previously of the view that two dwellings within the site (ref 11/1365/FUL) would represent over development of the site, it is considered that this revised proposal for a single dwelling will sit comfortably within the plot and will be set in a sufficient distance from the side boundaries to allow for a reasonable sized curtilage. The location of the proposed dwelling to the rear of Tumby Lawn, at a significantly lower level than road level, will ensure that it will not appear unduly prominent within the streetscene and thus it is not felt that it will cause

141 significant harm to the visual amenity of the streetscene or the overriding character and appearance of the area.

The submitted plans show that the existing access would be reconfigured to provide a shared access for the existing and proposed dwelling which would further help to integrate the new development with the existing. The visual impact of the new driveway which is intended to run along the western boundary of the site, will be broken up by an island of planting and it is recommended that further details of how this will be planted is secured as part of a landscaping condition, should members be minded to support this proposal.

The submitted details show a detached, two storey dwelling which will be of rendered construction with timber framed detailing. It will have a prominent gable to the front elevation with a stone chimney and porch which will add further visual interest. The street scene on Maer Lane displays a wide variety of property designs and styles and it is not considered that the development would be out of keeping in this context. It has also been concluded that there would only be limited views of the new building from public vantage and this would lessen any visual impact. In this regard, it is not considered that the design would be harmful in its own right nor that the development would detract from the surrounding character of the area.

Impact on Residential Amenity:

A number of representations have raised concern over a potential loss of amenity in terms of additional noise and overlooking. The issue of noise relates to both the construction phase of any development and the potential longer term impact in terms of vehicular movements and occupation of the new dwelling. Notwithstanding the comments made, the characteristics of the site are not unusual in terms of the relationship with neighbouring properties and it is not considered that construction would necessarily cause more disturbance here than any other residential locality. A standard condition is recommended to ensure that working hours are restricted owing to this surrounding residential use.

The access to the proposed dwelling would utilise a new driveway which will be sited close to the boundary with neighbouring Tumby Lawn. Clearly this new development would introduce vehicle movements alongside this boundary. It is the level of use associated with a new dwelling which must be considered and again whether the relationship would be unusual in planning terms. Although the result would be a degree of disturbance to the occupiers of the single storey flat unit in the Moorings, this property has its main aspect into an enclosed rear garden with a high brick wall which occupies much of the boundary adjacent to the driveway which will be retained as part of the proposal. This would help to limit noise from vehicles which are often required to pass close to site boundaries with this type of backland development. The presence of the wall and the amount of development proposed are such that it is not considered an objection could be sustained on amenity grounds.

With regard to overlooking, there are no side openings proposed at ground floor or first floor level of the proposed dwelling which would potentially allow direct views into neighbouring gardens. The windows in the front elevation would afford views to the south and back towards the existing ribbon of properties fronting Maer Lane but

142 the dimensions of the site would ensure that this would only occur at distances which would prevent any significant harm in planning terms. It is not considered that the resultant relationship between the new dwelling and Tumby Lawn would be unusual within a residential area of a town such as Exmouth.

Furthermore, it is considered that the proposed dwelling will be sited in a position at the rear of the garden area of Tumby Lawn which will ensure that it will not have a significant impact in terms of over bearance or over dominance. The proposed dwelling will be set in from both side boundaries of the site which will significantly lessen the impact on the dwelling known as Anglesea which is located to the north east of the site. In having due regard for the fact that the proposed dwelling will occupy a significantly lower level than Anglesea and will be positioned at the lower end of the garden of this property, it is not considered that it will materially harm the occupiers of this property to an unacceptable level. An objection has also been received from the future occupier of the new dwelling (currently under construction) in the rear garden of The Moorings. The relationship between this new property and the dwelling proposed has been carefully considered. It should be noted that the dwelling under construction is orientated such that its rear elevation backs onto the boundary of Tumby Lawn. The rear windows of this property will be obscure glazed and their openings limited by restrictor stays. The main outlook of this property is therefore to the west and it is therefore considered that the relationship between these two properties will be acceptable.

In terms of assessing the impact of the extensions to the existing property, it is not considered that they will materially harm the amenities of the surrounding neighbouring properties. The two storey extension to the front of the property will be located a sufficient distance from the boundaries of both properties eitherside of the site such that it will not have a significant impact. It has been designed with a hipped roof which will further limit its impact. The submitted drawings show two windows located at first floor level on the side facing Anglesea. Given the fact that Anglsea has side windows facing towards Tumby Lawn, it is recommended that a condition is imposed to ensure these windows are fitted with obscure glass. The addition of a hipped roof to the single storey garage will not have a significant impact owing to the fact that the new roof will be sloping away from the side wall of Anglesea and the proposed side windows will be facing a substantial hedgerow on the side boundary.

Impact on Highway Safety

A number of the objections received raise concerns over the suitability of the highway network and the existing vehicular access onto Maer Lane. The proposal will utilise the existing access onto Maer Lane and has been designed to form a double entrance that will also continue to serve Tumby Lawn. Despite this falling under Highways Standing Advice, in light of the level of objections received, this element of the proposal has been discussed with the County Highways Officer who raises no objections to the proposal on highway safety grounds. Furthermore, the realignment of the existing front boundary will allow for the provision of a new footway offering facilities not only for pedestrians but which will also significantly improve visibility in both directions along Maer Lane. It is considered that the provision of this new pathway offers benefits to both users of the highway and pedestrains which far outweigh the limited number of additional traffic movements

143 that will be created by an additional dwelling on this site whilst providing improved and adequate visbility to the existing access. It is not therefore considered that the proposal will prejudice highway safety.

Impact on Trees

The proposal is accompanied by an Arboricultural Survey which concludes that a number of trees within the site will have to be removed to enable the development. This survey has been discussed in detail with the Council's Arboricultural officer who agrees with the recommendations of the report and concurs with the view that none of the trees within the site are of specific importance either individually or in terms of their amenity value and therefore the loss of some of the trees within the site, which are mainly ornamental and orchard trees, would not be resisted. It should be noted that the proposal does seek to retain a number of these ornamental trees within the garden of Tumby Lawn as well as two large shrub beds on the boundary of Anglesea which wil help to soften the impact of the development. Furthermore, it is considered that the loss of these trees will not have a significant detrimental impact on the overall visual amenity value of the site or the surrounding area. None of the trees are the subject of a TPO. In any case, it is considered that the provision of new planting in the site will mitigate for the loss of the trees within the garden of Tumby Lawn and it is therefore recommended that a condition is imposed which will secure planting in key locations on the Maer Lane frontage and on the south western boundary of the property between the proposed access road and the boundary fence which will help to reduce the visual impact of both the proposed garage and driveway.

Impact on Flood Risk

The application site lies entirely outside of the flood zone related to the Littleham Brook to the north. Owing to this limited flood risk as identified by the Environment Agency and the size of the application site, the application is not required to include a flood risk assessment. The proposed development is not considered to have any flooding implications.

Proposed Extension to Dwelling:

Whilst the two storey extension to the front elevation of the property will significantly alter its form and appearance, it is not considered that it will have a significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area to raise an objection. The property does benefit from the fact that it is set back from the road which will reduce its prominence within the streetscene and this coupled with the fact that Tumby Lawn is located in an area of Maer Lane which is characterised mainly by two and three storey properties with varying architectural styles will ensure that the extension will not appear out of character with the surrounding development in the area. It is certainly acknowledged that introducing a two storey extension to the front of a single storey building is not a particularly sympathetic way of extending the host dwelling however in this case the original form of the property will still be apparent eitherside of the proposed extension and in this regard it is not considered that the extension would cause undue harm to the character and appearance of the property.

144 Proposed Garage:

Owing to the loss of the existing attached garage at the side of the property, the applicants also wish to construct a single garage which will be positioned at the front of the site. The submitted drawings show a conventional pitched roof garage which will be orientated such that the side walls run parallel to the front boundary. Whilst concerns have been raised with regards to the impact of the garage owing to its position at the front of the site, it should be noted that there are other examples of frontage development along Maer Lane and as such it is not considered that a garage at the front of the site would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the area. In addition, it is not considered that the garage will be of a size and scale that will appear unduly prominent and visually intrusive within the streetscene. It is acknowleged that owing to its siting at the front of the plot, the garage will have a degree of impact, however in having due regard for the fact that the garage will be modest in height (4.0 metres) and will be set down from road level, it is not felt that it will have a significant visual impact to sustain an objection. Officers have also sought an amendment to the siting of the garage which will allow for some planting along the front boundary of the site which will further soften the impact of this part of the proposal.

Other Considerations

The application is accompanied by a unilateral undertaking to secure the necessary contribution towards open space provision in accordance with Policy RE3 of the East Devon Local Plan.

A number of representations have cited the impact on local wildlife interests as a result of the loss of the garden area but the land is not subject to any specific designations which would prevent its development. Notwithstanding the amendments to PPS 3 and the changes to the status of residential gardens as discussed previously, the principle of development within the built-up area is still supported by this document.

Concern was also expressed with regard to the impact on the local sewerage system but South West Water have not raised an objection to further development in this location.

RECOMMENDATION

Approve subject to the following conditions:

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed at the end of this decision notice. (Reason - For the avoidance of doubt.)

145

3. No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the building hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. (Reason - To ensure that the materials are sympathetic to the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policy CO6 (Quality of New Development) of the Devon Structure Plan and Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

4. The development hereby approved shall only be carried out in full in accordance with the recommendations contained within the submitted Arboricultural Survey, undertaken by Advanced Arboriculture, dated 3rd November 2011. (Reason: To ensure the retention of trees on the site in the interests of amenity and to preserve the character and appearance of the area in accordance with policy D5 (Trees on Development Sites) of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 1995-2011).

6. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No.2) (England) Order 2008 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no works within the Schedule Part 1 Classes A or B for the enlargement, improvement or other alterations to the dwellings hereby permitted, other than works that do not materially affect the external appearance of the buildings, shall be undertaken. (Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the adjoining occupiers in accordance with policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 1995-2011).

7. No noisy construction machinery shall be operated on site and no deliveries of materials to the site shall take place outside of the following hours - 0730 to 1800 Monday to Friday and 0730 to 1300 on Saturdays and not at all on Sundays or public holidays.

146 (Reason: To protect residential amenity during construction in accordance with policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 1995-2011).

8. The new 2.0 metre footway as shown on drawing no 133.L01.03 REV F shall be constructed in accordance with details that shall have previously been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to first occupation of the dwelling hereby approved. (Reason: To provide adequate visibility from and of emerging vehicles in the interests of highway safety in accordance with policy TA7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 1995-2011).

9. All windows shown on the north east elevation at first floor level of the two storey extension hereby permitted shall be fitted with obscure glass and the obscure glazing of these windows shall thereafter be retained at all times. (Reason: To protect the privacy of adjoining occupiers in accordance with policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 1995-2011).

NOTE FOR APPLICANT

1. IN GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT, THE FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION:

The proposal complies with the following Devon Structure Plan 2001 – 2016 Policies and the adopted East devon Local Plan 1995-2011 Policies:

Devon Structure Plan Policies

CO3 (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty)

CO6 (Quality of New Development)

East Devon Local Plan Policies

S4 (Development Within Built-up Area Boundaries)

D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness)

D5 (Trees on Development Sites)

EN1 (Developments Affecting Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty)

RE3 (Open Space Provision in New Housing Developments)

TA7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access)

TA9 (Parking Provision in New Development)

147

2. The proposal does not adversely affect the privacy or amenity of neighbouring properties.

3. The design and external appearance of the proposal does not harm the visual amenity of the site and surrounding area.

4. The proposal does no harm to wildlife interest.

5. The proposal does not harm or give rise to a perceived threat from important trees on or adjacent to the site.

6. The proposal is contained within the defined built-up area boundary of the settlement.

7. The proposal does not cause a significant flood risk.

8. The access to serve the proposal does not prejudice highway safety.

9. The proposal would not generate a level of noise that would unreasonably affect the amenity of neighbouring properties.

10. This planning permission is accompanied by a unilateral undertaking which requires the payment of a financial contribution towards public open space provision on first occupation of the dwelling.

List of Background Papers Application file, consultations and policy documents referred to in the report.

148 Ward Exmouth Withycombe Raleigh

Reference11/2271/VAR

Applicant McDonalds Restaurants Ltd

Location Mcdonalds Salterton Road Exmouth EX8 2NR

Proposal Variation of condition 10 of planning application 02/P0108 to allow restaurant to open 24hours a day seven days a week

RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions

149 Committee Date: 06.12.2011

Exmouth Target Date: Withycombe 11/2271/VAR 06.12.2011 Raleigh (EXMOUTH) Applicant: McDonalds Restaurants Ltd

Location: McDonalds Salterton Road

Proposal: Variation of condition 10 of planning application 02/P0108 to allow restaurant to open 24hours a day seven days a week

RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The site refers to McDonalds located on Liverton Business Park. The application seeks permission to vary a condition to allow 24 hour opening seven days a week. Concerns have been expressed that allowing this business such opening hours would set a precedent for other businesses both within the town and on the Liverton site. It should be noted that every planning application must be considered on its own merits and each site is different. This particular site is located on the fringes of an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty but is also set within a business park on the edge of Exmouth. It is set away from principal residential areas and the nearest residential properties are set some distance away. The Environmental Health Officer has not raised an objection to the proposal (subject to a condition relating to litter). Given the nature and setting of the site it is considered that an objection to the extension to opening hours could not be sustained and the application is recommended for approval.

CONSULTATIONS

Local Consultations

Ward Member - Cllr B Taylor

I object to this application as this will set a precedent if approved for other food outlets in the town to also request 24 hour opening.

In the event that this application comes to Committee I would reserve my position until I am full possession of all the relevant facts and arguments for and against.

150

Parish/Town Council OBJECTION as the variation would set a precedent for 24 hour opening for other fast food outlets in the Town

Technical Consultations

Environmental Health I have considered this application and do not have any objections under the potential for noise or odour pollution in this area, however I have spoken to our street scene services and there are concerns regarding potentially more litter in the area, therefore I would recommend that a condition is attached to any permission granted stating that McDonalds will arrange regular collections for litter picking within their own curtilage and beyond within the immediate vicinity at regular intervals.

County Highway Authority Does not wish to comment.

Other Representations

One letter of representation from the Exmouth Civic Society objecting on the grounds of:

• A retrograde and inappropriate relaxation that could be used as a precedent to the other businesses here and in other parts of the town. • There is also a restriction on the hours of use of the illuminated signs being on a prominent ridgeway and causing light pollution at night time.

PLANNING HISTORY

Reference Description Decision Date

02/P0108/FUL Erection of single storey Approved 30.05.2002 restaurant with associated landscaping and car parking

04/3029/VAR Application to vary condition 10 Approved 11.01.2005 of planning permission 02/P0108

POLICIES

Devon Structure Plan Policies CO16 (Noise Pollution)

CO3 (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty)

East Devon Local Plan Policies S4 (Development Within Built-up Area Boundaries)

D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness)

151

Planning Policy Guidance PPG24 (Planning and Noise)

Planning Policy Statement PPS23 (Planning and Pollution Control)

Site Location and Description

The site refers to McDonalds restaurant and 'drive through', located at the north east corner of the built up area boundary of Exmouth. Mcdonalds lies in a prominent setting on the Salterton Road at the entrance of Liverton Business Park. Whilst the site is contained within the business park, there are some residential properties to the east around 138m and to the west around 260m away. However the site is located away from the principal cluster of residential properties within the built up area boundary of Exmouth. It is adjacent to an Area Of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

ANALYSIS

Proposal and history

The proposal is to vary condition 10 of planning Permission 02/P0108 to enable McDonalds Restaurant to open 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Condition 10 of the permission states that:

“The development authorised by this permission shall be open to custom only between the hours of 7.30am and 11.00pm on any day”.

It would appear from the planning file (02/P0108) that condition 10 was added to the recommended list of conditions at the Development Management Committee, the reason being "to define the permission and to safeguard the amenities of nearby residential properties from traffic noise and general disturbance that would arise from an unrestricted permission."

In 2004 a variation of this condition was sought to extend the opening hours of the business (reference 04/ 3029/VAR) for the morning by 1 ½ hours and evening opening by an hour. This was approved to vary the condition to read:

Notwithstanding the information submitted with the application, the permission hereby granted is to vary condition 10 of planning permission 7/01/02/P0108/04310 to allow opening between the hours of 6.00am and 11.00pm daily only. This consent does not extend late night opening beyond 11.00pm. (Reason - To protect the residential amenities of dwellings in the vicinity of the site.)

The main considerations in this instance relate to the principle of extending opening hours in terms of neighbouring amenity the concerns regarding precedent, highways implications and effect on the character of the area.

152

Principle

The location of the site is within a business park and away from residential areas. The nearest property to the site is nearly 130m to the north east of the south and 230m to the south west. At this distance it is considered that these properties are far enough away to mitigate against any adverse impacts in terms of noise. The Environmental Health Officer has raised no objection to the extension of opening hours.

Concerns have been raised that the proposal would set a precedent for opening hours within the town. However it should be remembered that every application is considered on its own merits. In this instance the proposal is at Liverton Business Park and is not within the Town centre. The nearest residential properties are set some distance away, and it is therefore considered that the same noise nuisance would not be similar to that in the town centre, which would be closer to residential properties. It is therefore considered that the precedent argument could not be sustained in this case. Any other businesses which wanted to extend their opening hours would also be considered on their own merits. It is not therefore considered that there would be detrimental harm upon the character of the area.

In terms of any highway implications the Highways Authority does not wish to comment on the proposal and it is therefore considered that the proposal is acceptable in highways terms.

Other considerations

The site is adjacent to an AONB and there are concerns relating to the lighting and any impact this could have upon the appearance of the area, given that it may follow that longer opening hours would require the signage being on for longer. It is noted that the current 'M' sign is restricted to being illuminated 7.30 am to 11pm on any day. Any issues relating to the lighting of the site would be dealt with separately and would be considered under any signage application. In this instance the application relates solely to varying the opening hours. It is not therefore considered reasonable to object to the application on these grounds.

Concerns have been raised by the Environmental Health Officer regarding litter and a condition has been recommended relating to McDonalds arranging regular collections for litter picking within their own curtilage and within the immediate vicinity at regular intervals. However this is not considered to be an enforceable planning matter. Any issues which arise would relate to Environmental Health and it is considered that it would be in McDonalds own interests to keep its premises and surroundings clean.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE subject to the following conditions:

1. The permission hereby granted is to vary condition 10 of planning permission 02/P0108 to allow opening 24 hours a day seven days a week.

153

NOTE FOR APPLICANT

1. IN GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT, THE FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION:

The proposal complies with the following Devon Structure Plan 2001-2016 Policies and the adopted East Devon Local Plan 1995-2011 Policies:

Devon Structure Plan Policies CO16 (Noise Pollution) CO3 (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty)

East Devon Local Plan Policies S4 (Development Within Built-up Area Boundaries) D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness)

2. The proposal does not adversely affect the privacy or amenity of neighbouring properties.

3. The proposal would not generate a level of noise that would unreasonably affect the amenity of neighbouring properties.

4. The design and external appearance of the proposal does not harm the visual amenity of the site and surrounding area.

Approved Plans

SAVHD01 Location Plan 11.10.11

List of Background Papers Application file, consultations and policy documents referred to in the report.

154 Ward Feniton & Buckerell

Reference11/2245/MOUT

Applicant Strategic Land Partnerships

Location Land West Of Ottery Road Feniton

Proposal Outline planning permission of up to 120 residential dwellings (C3) including associated employment floorspace (A1/A3/B1) and community space (D1/D2) along with associated public open space, play space and infrastructure (means of access to be determined only)

RECOMMENDATION: Refusal

155 Committee Date: 6 December 2011

Feniton & Buckerell Target Date: (OTTERY ST MARY) 11/2245/MOUT 03.01.2012

Applicant: Strategic Land Partnerships

Location: Land West Of Ottery Road Feniton

Proposal: Outline planning permission of up to 120 residential dwellings (C3) including associated employment floorspace (A1/A3/B1) and community space (D1/D2) along with associated public open space, play space and infrastructure (means of access to be determined only)

RECOMMENDATION: Refusal

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks planning permission for the construction of up to 120 residential dwellings (C3) including associated employment floorspace (A1/A3/B1) and community space (D1/D2) along with associated public open space, play space and infrastructure. In outline, only the means of access has been submitted in detail for consideration.

The applicant has claimed that owing to poor house delivery rates in recent years this Council has failed to meet its targets in accordance with guidance at both County and Local Plan Level and in so doing should permit this scheme in accordance with PPS 3 paragraph 71, where it recognises that in such circumstances Local Authorities should look favourably on releasing additional housing land to boost supply. Given the latest housing supply figures published in the annual monitoring report it is evident that East Devon away from the Principal Urban Area has a sufficient housing land supply to hold the existing policy stance - That is one where the application site outside the existing built up area boundary and the countryside should be protected. Despite a recent appeal decision recognising that a lack of supply across the District should be the starting point (and this figure falls below the required 5 years), the site performs poorly in terms of sustainability (for the scale of units proposed) affordable housing provision (for which no figure has been provided), forms a green backdrop to the existing settlement which is therefore important for the character of the area, fails to adequately address the drainage requirements, fails to deliver the public open space in terms of formal recreation and most significantly fails to respect the spatial vision for the area (that is locate most housing at the Principal Urban Area) where it is in the most sustainable location.

156

CONSULTATIONS

Local Consultations

Feniton Parish Council Feniton Parish Council cannot support this application for the following reasons:-

The planning vacuum that we seem to find ourselves in does make it difficult to respond in the appropriate way. However, the planning process should be following PPS12 which makes it very clear that the core strategy should be supported by evidence of what physical, social and green infrastructure is needed to enable an amount of development in an area. The evidence should show who and when that infrastructure will be provided. There should proper consideration and planning of the infrastructure before any development is undertaken. This was highlighted and considered via HM Treasury's CSR07 Policy Review on Supporting Housing Growth. If the infrastructure issues, which have been highlighted below have not been considered and dealt with satisfactorily then the planning application should fall, by virtue of PPS 12.

Feniton has (historic) concerns over both sewage capacity and more importantly drainage within Feniton, the continual additional building in Feniton has over the recent years made the situation worse; any additional building is totally unacceptable until both of these are sorted. In addition, the school is already oversubscribed, until a few weeks Devon County Council were prepared to taxi local Feniton children to Awliscombe at the cost of £80,000, fortunately this has now been resolved for the children concerned, but if this development is allowed to go ahead without major investment at the Primary School, Feniton village children will be bussed all over the place, also Kings School is almost at capacity. Then we have the extra traffic to consider on an already very busy road which is very narrow and carries a lot of heavy goods vehicles.

The land is much needed Grade II agriculture land it is also sloping down towards Ottery Road and natural gravity will mean that water will run into this area which gets flooded every time there is a heavy downpour of rain, (this week is a perfect example with drain covers oozing water).

Ottery St Mary Town Council The Committee did not support this application and this was unanimous:-

- Outside of the Boundary Line.

- This development is on Grade 2 Agricultural Land.

- Infrastructure is at capacity with flooding problems ongoing in this area.

- There are transport and road access problems with the train service in decline.

- Under the LDF 5% new homes equates to 35 homes therefore there is no justification for this development.

157

- The Doctors Surgery and Schools are already at capacity.

Ottery St Mary Rural - Cllr T Howard (adj. Ward Member)

This development application is for land on the border of Feniton and Ottery St Mary Rural wards. I hereby write as the member for Ottery St Mary Rural.

I sit on the EDDC Development Management Committee and as such I must not prejudice my position. This is in accordance with the councillors code of conduct applicable to members who sit on a decision making committee. I therefore reserve my final position until the committee meeting.

However, my initial thoughts on this proposal are as follows; the Feniton community are unanimous in objecting to the proposal (about 175 letters). I further note their objections are well argued and they have exposed all the appropriate reasons and risks to support their case. The application to build outside of the BUAB, the totally inadequate sewerage system and the inappropriate infrastructure are very sound arguments. I shall be supporting the community in their aim to achieve the right decision.

We should be encouraged that neighbourhood rights are strongly supported at both National and Local government levels at the present time. Localism and with it community empowerment is fast becoming a reality. I am a very strong supporter of Localism and I believe the application 11/2245/MOUT will be an excellent test case for the Development Management Committee. I would urge the Feniton community to place their trust in the new DMC and in the due process.

Ottery St Mary Rural - Cllr C Wright (adj. Ward Member)

This application is in my ward and my preliminary view, based on the information presently available, is that this application should be REFUSED

I have many concerns about this application, which is partly in the Ottery Rural ward and partly in the Feniton ward.

They are as follows:

- The application is outside Feniton's built up area boundary and if approved could give other developers (many of whom appear to be interested in developing at Feniton) grounds to argue for their own schemes to be approved

- Under the EDDC Local Development Framework Core Strategy Preferred Approach of October 2010, Feniton was classified as a hub village, and was set to have 50 dwellings. Under the LDF of October 2011 it is set to have a five per cent increase in its housing stock - around 35 dwellings. The dwellings proposed in this planning application considerably exceed both of these numbers.

- There is a very real and longstanding flooding problem in Feniton .The two properties (Metcombe Cottage and Sweethams Cottage) to the south of the site

158 have been flooded on frequent occasions. Ottery Road to the east of the site has been flooded on frequent occasions.

- The application states that the proposed development would not worsen the flooding risk. I find this hard to believe, particularly as the field is on an incline towards the village.

- The application states that it will connect to mains sewage. Feniton has an inadequate sewage system, much of which has not been adopted.

- The proposed development could cause an increase in traffic of around 840 vehicle movements per day. The road is only a slightly wider than an average country lane. I am concerned that this road is not designed for such a large increase in traffic.

- The land is grade 2 agricultural land. There is little or no grade 1 agricultural land in East Devon and not very much grade 2. Developing on high quality food growing farmland conflicts with both Government guidance and EDDC planning policy. It also conflicts with common sense in a time of growing scarcity of food.

- I don't believe that that a need has been established for the 400 sq m of commercial units proposed. This could draw people away from the centre of the village if the proposal goes ahead as it is. Or empty units would remain (in common with over 400 others in the district) and blight the area, which could then prompt conversion of the empty units into even more dwellings.

- The design and access statement talks of affordable housing being provided but the application form itself appears to indicate that all the dwellings are market value housing.

- The planning application is contrary to the Feniton Parish Plan of February 2007 which clearly established that over 70% of the population were opposed to further development in Feniton, which is reflected in substantial public opposition to this planning application.

- The wildlife survey seems to imply that very little wildlife exists in the field currently. Oddly, it appears to suggest that wildlife would benefit from the proposed development. The information provided appears inadequate.

- The designated schools for Feniton are Feniton Church of England Primary School and The Kings School, Ottery St Mary. Both schools are at capacity.

This is my preliminary view and I will reserve my position in the event that this application comes to committee.

Technical Consultations

County Highway Authority

The site is located outside the built-up area of Feniton as defined in the adopted EDDC Local Plan. As such, the planning authority will be assessing the suitability of

159 this site to accommodate this level of development in this location. The station in Feniton, does, however, provide a reasonable alternative mode of transport which does not exist in many other villages in the East Devon District and as such the highway authority does not believe that the application is unacceptable for sustainability reasons.

The development that is the subject of this planning application has been the subject of pre-application discussions and meetings between the applicant's consultants and representatives of the highway authority. As a result the general principle and content of the Transport Assessment produced in support of the planning application is accepted by the highway authority. Although the road from Feniton southwards to the A30 and indeed other roads in the vicinity are restricted in width in some locations and have no footways it is not anticipated that the additional vehicle movements arising from the proposed development cannot be safely accommodated on the network.

Some of the details shown on the plans are being seen by the highway authority for the first time and as such there are some detailed issues that will require revision / deletion before the plans are acceptable to the highway authority. The application is to be considered as an outline application, but as the means of access is to be assessed in detail at the outline stage, these matters should be dealt with at this time.

1. It would be preferable from a pedestrian safety perspective if a footway could be provided between The Burlands and Green Lane. This has been an aspiration of the highway authority for a while but it is not readily apparent how this footway link could be provided without involving the use of land within the control of a third party.

2. Red tarmac as a surface treatment at an uncontrolled pedestrian crossing point does not comply with the County Council's policy and should be deleted.

3. The proposed speed limit changes to Ottery St Mary Road would not comply with the County Council's Speed Limit Policy (even following the completion of the development, if permitted) and should be omitted from the scheme.

4. The use of the sign ‘Passing Place' does not comply with the County Council's Policy and should be deleted.

5. Internal turning overlays for cars exiting the chevron parking areas (which appear to be positioned across the footways) result in vehicles driving over the footways, generally illustrating the inappropriateness of this type of parking layout adjacent to a carriageway.

In addition to being the highway authority, the County Council are likely to become the Flood Risk Management Authority within the next 12 months. The highway authority has not assessed the flood risks of the scheme submitted, but is well aware of the flooding issues generally in the Feniton area. The highway authority therefore recommends the imposition of appropriate conditions on any permission granted.

160

Recommendation:

THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT, ECONOMY AND CULTURE, ON BEHALF OF DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL, AS LOCAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY, RECOMMENDS THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE INCORPORATED IN ANY GRANT OF PERMISSION:-

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

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

2. No part of the development hereby approved shall be commenced until: A) The access roads have been laid out, kerbed, drained and constructed up to base course level for the first 20 metres back from its junction with the public highway B) The ironwork has been set to base course level and the visibility splays required by this permission laid out C) The footway on the public highway frontage required by this permission has been constructed up to base course level D) A site compound and car park have been constructed to the written satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority

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

3. The occupation of any dwelling in an agreed phase of the development shall not take place until the following works have been carried out to the written satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority: A) The spine road and cul-de-sac carriageway including the vehicle turning head within that phase shall have been laid out, kerbed, drained and constructed up to and including base course level, the ironwork set to base course level and the sewers, manholes and service crossings completed; B) The spine road and cul-de-sac footways and footpaths which provide that dwelling with direct pedestrian routes to an existing highway maintainable at public expense have been constructed up to and including base course level; C) The cul-de-sac visibility splays have been laid out to their final level; D) The street lighting for the spine road and cul-de-sac and footpaths has been erected and is operational;

161 E) The car parking and any other vehicular access facility required for the dwelling by this permission has/have been completed; F) The verge and service margin and vehicle crossing on the road frontage of the dwelling have been completed with the highway boundary properly defined; G) The street nameplates for the spine road and cul-de-sac have been provided and erected.

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

4. No building hereby permitted shall be occupied until surface water drainage works have been implemented in accordance with details that have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Before these details are submitted an assessment shall be carried out of the potential for disposing of surface water by means of a sustainable drainage system in accordance with the principles set out in Annex F of PPS25 (or any subsequent version), and the results of the assessment provided to the local planning authority. Where a sustainable drainage scheme is to be provided, the submitted details shall: i. provide information about the design storm period and intensity, the method employed to delay and control the surface water discharged from the site and the measures taken to prevent pollution of the receiving groundwater and/or surface waters; ii. include a timetable for its implementation; and iii. provide a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include the arrangements for adoption by any public authority or statutory undertaker and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime. REASON: to provide the development with a suitable sustainable drainage system

Natural England

Under section 40(1) of the Natural Environment & Rural Communities Act 2006 a duty is placed on public authorities, including local planning authorities, to have regard to biodiversity in exercising their functions. This duty covers the protection, enhancement and restoration of habitats and species.

Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity & Geological Conservation also expects local authorities to prevent harm to biodiversity and geological interests. Part (vi) of the Key Principles makes it clear how the government expects the council to consider planning decisions that could lead to harm to biodiversity and geological interests. Section 10 on ancient woodland and section 12 on networks of natural habitats describe how these particular biodiversity features should be protected from development.

The ecological survey submitted with this application has identified that there will not be any significant impacts on statutorily protected sites, species or on priority Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) habitats as a result of this proposal. However when considering this application the council should maximise opportunities in and around the development for building in beneficial features as part of good design in

162 accordance with the duty on the council described above and in paragraph 14 of PPS 9.

The Town and Country Planning Association's publication ‘Biodiversity By Design' provides further information on this issue and the publication can be downloaded from http://www.tcpa.org.uk/pages/biodiversity-by-design.html

Examples of biodiversity enhancements that can be widely incorporated into development proposals include: Green/brown roofs. The use of alternative roofing (turf, aggregate, brown and green roofs) can make a significant contribution to biodiversity, attenuation of rainfall, and energy efficiency as they can provide a high degree of insulation.

Landscaping.

Native species of plant should be used in landscaping proposals associated with development, unless there are over-riding reasons why particular non-native species need to be used. The nature conservation value of trees, shrubs and other plants includes their intrinsic place in the ecosystem; their direct role as food or shelter for species; and in the case of trees and shrubs, their influence through the creation of woodland conditions that are required by other species, eg the ground flora. Nesting and roosting sites.

Modern buildings tend to reduce the amount of potential nesting and roosting sites. Artificial sites may therefore need to be provided for bats and birds. There is a range of ways in which these can be incorporated into buildings, or built in courtyard habitats. Their location should provide protection from the elements, preferably facing an easterly direction, out of the direct heat of the sun and prevailing wind and rain.

Sustainable urban drainage system (SUDS).

Many existing urban drainage systems are damaging the environment and are not, therefore, sustainable in the long term. Techniques to reduce these effects have been developed and are collectively referred to as Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS). SUDS are physical structures built to receive surface water runoff. They typically include ponds, wetland, swales and porous surfaces. They should be located as close as possible to where the rainwater falls, providing attenuation for the runoff. They may also provide treatment for water prior to discharge, using the natural processes of sedimentation, filtration, adsorption and biological degradation.

Environment Agency

The proposal is accompanied by a flood risk assessment (FRA) dated August 2011 that has identified and recognised the importance of flooding and flood risk in Feniton. Accordingly it has promoted a scheme for the management of surface water and drainage of flood waters through the site that will potentially make a significant contribution to the overall alleviation of flood risks locally. Of particular importance is the promotion of a much improved watercourse (flood alleviation

163 channel) as shown on drawing No 10006 - FRA - 03 Rev -. The delivery of such a feature will alleviate risk to Sweethams and Metcombe Cottage while at the same time providing a properly sized channel for the safe conveyance of flood flows from the upstream catchment. However the delivery of the proposed flood channel is, in part, on land owned by third parties. This is recognised in the FRA (para 3.3) where it states ;

" the channel could be completed by EDDC using their powers as Land Drainage Authority if the third party land owner does not make their land available " .

It is essential that such a large open channel is constructed if flooding at Sweethams and Metcombe Cottage is to be properly alleviated and if flood flows from upstream are ever to be more safely accommodated past these dwellings. As the works proposed in the FRA will ; a) reduce flood risk locally, b) facilitate future flood reduction measures and c) serve the proposed development satisfactorily ; we strongly support the proposal providing your Council are satisfied that the works proposed can and will be delivered.

South West Water

We would advise that as recent improvements have been undertaken to the sewage treatment works serving Feniton, and after subsequent monitoring to assess its performance, capacity is available to support the proposal in terms of adequate sewage treatment capacity.

The site would, however, discharge to the Sidmouth Junction sewage pumping station which is operating at capacity and cannot support the development without prior improvements.

No funding is currently allocated to carry out the necessary evaluation to establish the level or costs of improvements necessary and therefore these would need to be funded by the applicant/developer prior to any development commencing - a suitable planning condition would need to need to be imposed to reflect this requirement.

It is noted that in recognition of the deficiency noted above that the applicant has in the flood risk assessment suggested a means of overcoming this problem, this solution is not one identified or approved by South West Water and is therefore not at this time an acceptable solution.

Devon County Council Education Dept

The Primary school affected is Feniton Church of England Primary School (forecast number on roll autumn 2011 231, pupil place capacity 210). 120 family dwellings could be expected to produce 30 primary school aged pupils will increase the shortfall of places at the school. The contribution required is £332,220.00 which would be used to part fund additional education facilities required as a result of this development plus £8625.00 for ICT. These calculations are based on the DFE Cash multiplier extension rate for Devon

164 The Secondary School affected is The Kings School (forecast number on roll autumn 2011 1107, pupil place capacity 1107). 120 family dwellings could be expected to produce 18 primary school aged pupils will increase the shortfall of places at the school. The contribution required is £302,238.00 which would be used to part fund additional education facilities required as a result of this development plus £26,100.00 for ICT. These calculations are based on the DFE Cash multiplier extension rate for Devon

Devon County Archaeologist Previous archaeological work within the application area has shown there to be below-ground survival of archaeological remains associated with an earlier field system and the alignment of the parish boundary between Ottery St Mary and Feniton. The initial investigations did not recover any dating evidence for these features, but they are likely to be of some antiquity and may date to the setting out of the parish itself. The construction of the 120 dwellings and associated infrastructure will have an impact on these below-ground archaeological deposits.

For this reason and in accordance with Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment (PPS5) (2010) I would advise that any consent your Authority may be minded to issue should carry the condition as worded below, based on model Condition 55 as set out in Appendix A of Circular 11/95, whereby: ‘No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Planning Authority.'

The development shall be carried out at all times in strict accordance with the approved scheme, or such other details as may be subsequently agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason - To ensure that an appropriate record is made of archaeological evidence that may be affected by the development.

I would envisage a suitable programme of work as taking the form of limited archaeological investigations investigating the alignments and intersections of the former field boundaries that cross the site in order to obtain dating evidence and to understand their form and function. The results of the fieldwork and any post- excavation analysis undertaken would need to be presented in an appropriately detailed and illustrated report.

I will be happy to discuss this further with you, the applicant or their agent. I can provide the applicant with a Brief setting out the scope of the works required, as well as contact details for archaeological contractors who would be able to undertake this work.

Other Representations 1 letter of support has been received.

281 letters of objection have been received raising the following concerns:

165 • Contravention of the Local Plan • Site is outside the built up area boundary • Feniton Primary School and the Kings School at Ottery St Mary are oversubscribed • Would harm the distinctive landscape and cause significant visual intrusion • Contrary to the Feniton Parish Plan • 71% of the parish do not want houses built • Feniton is a village not a town and should stay that way • Proposal ignores Core Strategy Preferred Approach • Would create a precedent for further expansion to the west and south • Roads cannot cope with extra traffic • Having a station does not make Feniton sustainable • Train and bus services are limited and don’t deliver people to their place of work • Loss of grade 2 agricultural land which is needed for food production • Flood and sewerage problems should be addressed before any development is allowed • Run-off water would cause more flooding • Village is cut off when flooding occurs at Patterson’s Cross and Fenny Bridges • New housing should be accommodated in Cranbrook • Development would not create community cohesion or coherence • Having houses on both sides of the road would lose village feel • Development should improve Feniton, not just make it more crowded • There is no pavement on the West side of Ottery Road • Danger to pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders from extra traffic • Level crossing causes tail backs • Health services are oversubscribed • Increased noise and light pollution • Inadequate parking provision within the development • Dwellings would be unaffordable to local people • Would destroy the rural character of the village • How would Devon and Cornwall Constabulary police an enlarged community with fewer police officers? • Would disturb wildlife • Brown field sites elsewhere should be developed first • Majority of residents would need to commute for work, leisure and grocery shopping • Would impact negatively on the community and pose a threat to our quality of life • The site is of archaeological and historic significance to East Devon • The village shop is too small and the post office has closed • Would contravene the Council’s Corporate Strategy and Constitution • Local opinion should be respected

PLANNING HISTORY

None relevant to the application site

166

POLICIES

Devon Structure Plan Policies

ST1 (Sustainable Development) ST3 (Self Sufficiency of Devons Communities) ST4 (Infrastructure Provision) ST5 (Development Priority 2001 to 2016) ST16 (Local Centres and Rural Areas) ST17 (Housing and Employment Land Provision) ST18 (Affordable Housing)

CO1 (Landscape Character and Local Distinctiveness) CO6 (Quality of New Development) CO9 (Biodiversity and Earth Science Diversity) CO8 (Archaeology) CO13 (Protecting Water Resources and Flood Defence) CO14 (Conserving Agricultural Land)

TR1 (Devon Travel Strategy) TR4 (Parking Strategy, Standards and Proposals) TR5 (Hierarchy of Modes) TR7 (Walking and Cycling)

East Devon Local Plan Policies

S5 (Countryside Protection) S7 (Infrastructure Related to New Development)

D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) D2 (Sustainable Construction) D4 (Landscape Requirements) D5 (Trees on Development Sites)

EN6 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) EN8 (Proposals Affecting Sites Which May be of Archaeological Importance)

H1 (Residential Land Provision) H2 (Residential Land Allocation) H3 (Range and Mix of New Housing Development) H4 (Affordable Housing)

E6 (Small Scale Employment Development in Rural Areas)

RE2 (Open Space, Sports Facilities and Parks) RE3 (Open Space Provision in New Housing Developments)

C2 (Local Community Facilities)

167 TA3 (Transport Assessments /Travel Plans) TA4 (Footpaths, Bridleways and Cycleways) TA7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) TA9 (Parking Provision in New Development)

Planning Policy Guidance PPG13 (Transport)

Planning Policy Statement PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) PPS3 (Housing) PPS4 (Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth) PPS7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas) PPS9 (Biodiversity and Geological Conservation) PPS25 (Development and Flood Risk)

Feniton Parish Plan

ANALYSIS

The site lies on land to the south west of the village of Feniton. The village which is well contained sitting north of Ottery Road, has community facilities including a bus stop and railway line, village stores, primary school, sports and social club and recreational facilities. The site itself comprises agricultural land gently rising in a westerly direction up towards a ridge close to Long Park. The site which is one large field is bordered by typical Devon Hedgerows and two detached properties on the south eastern edge. The site has an area of 5.4 ha.

The application proposes the construction of up to 120 residential dwellings (Class C3) a limited amount of multipurpose floor space (total 397m2) - this to be used for either B1 employment purposes, A1 (retail) or A3 (Restaurants/cafe) (or a mixture of all) and community space (D1/D2) along with associated public open space, play space and infrastructure. The application has been submitted in outline, with only plans for the proposed access shown in detail.

In considering this application the main issues relate to the asessment against policy, the land uses and housing provision, technical matters of drainage highways and flood risk, environmental credentials including impact on trees and ecology and proposed contributions. These will be addressed in turn.

Policy

In addressing and understanding the policy implications of the proposed development it is necessary to split this element into two distinct areas – the first relating to the relationship between the site and the existing adopted East Devon Local Plan and the second the issues of strategic housing, the needs of the District and the implications of national guidance and the latest government advice.

168 Local Plan Context

While the plan period runs until the end of 2011 and there are no strategic provisions made within the Local Plan beyond this period it is clear in assessments made at the time it was originally adopted that it was considered to be in conformity with the Devon Structure Plan (that runs until 2016) and provided a sufficiently flexible approach to housing delivery to meet the housing allocations for the District (both in terms of the Principal Urban Area (PUA) and the rest of East Devon. This coupled with the saving of the adopted policies means that it still carries significant weight in the determination of planning applications. It has also been noted that the Secretary of State gave weight to the saved policies of the Winchester Plan in dismissing an appeal by CALA homes on the edge of that city. As such it is recognised by the Inset Maps of the Local Plan that the site the subject of this application lies outside the defined development boundary for the village of Feniton and as such is in the open countryside – controlled by Policy S5, consequently the application was advertised as a departure.

Policy S5 (Countryside Protection)

This policy seeks to protect the open countryside outside of the defined Built-Up Area Boundaries for towns and villages from inappropriate development. It states that development within the countryside will only be permitted where it is explicitly permitted in accordance with a specific Local Plan policy and where it would not harm the distinctive landscape, amenity and environmental qualities within which it is located, including:

1. Land form and patterns of settlement;

2. Important natural and manmade features, which contribute to the local landscape character, including topography, traditional field boundaries, areas of importance for nature conservation and rural buildings; and

3. The adverse disruption of a view from a public place which forms part of the distinctive character of the area or otherwise causes significant visual intrusion.

In considering this large-scale mixed use development within the open countryside against the provisions of Policy S5 it is clear that there are no specific adopted Local Plan policies that would explicitly permit such development. In addition the scheme would result in the loss of a green and rural backdrop to the existing village as the land rises in a south and south-westerly direction. The area’s open nature and its field boundaries contribute significantly to the local landscape character which is protected under both Policy S5 and D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness).

As well as the principle policy and resulting presumption against development, the scheme would also result in the loss of a substantial area of Grade 2 agricultural land. PPS 7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas) seeks to preserve and protect the highest grades of agricultural land. It clearly states that the presence of the best and most versatile agricultural land (defined as land in grades 1,2 and 3a of the Agricultural Land Classification) should be taken into account alongside other sustainability considerations including biodiversity, the quality and character of the

169 landscape, its amenity value or heritage interest, accessibility to infrastructure, workforce and markets, maintaining viable communities and the protection of natural resources including soil quality, when determining planning applications. This classification clearly adds weight to the environmental qualities of the site and the area in which it is located, which should be protected under the provisions of Policy S5.

Feniton Parish Plan

The Feniton Parish Plan was prepared in 2007and is a material consideration in the determination of this application. It recognises that the best things about the Parish is the environment and community while traffic, parking issues and flooding/sewerage issues are a problem. The Plan also recognises that the vast majority of residents want the village to retain its present character or develop as a balanced community and over 70% of respondents do not wish to see more houses built.

Strategic development and National Guidance

From the above assessment there is a clear policy presumption against development in this location, however national guidance under PPS 3 (Housing) requires determining authorities to have regard to other material considerations. In this regard one of the fundamental requirements of the planning system is to ensure a regular and sustainable supply of housing that meets identified policy needs. This requirement is outlined in Paragraph 71 of PPS 3which states that where it cannot be demonstrated that the District has the required 5 year land supply, the presumption subject to a series of tests set out at Paragraph 69, should be to support such development. As has been addressed in detail at a recent public Inquiry in respect of a development site at West Hill this is a major issue that needs careful assessment.

Strategic Housing Supply

East Devon is a District split in its geography and character with part subject to influence from the urban centre of Exeter and the remainder a more rural environment characterised by market towns and a hierarchy of villages set within an attractive landscape, much of which is designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. This geography is recognised in the Structure Plan and Local Plan where reference is made to the Principal Urban Area (PUA). The PUA encompasses the city centre and a projection of land to the east which extends into East Devon. The justification for this definition recognised as the “spatial vision”, rests on the growth, role and function of Exeter and availability/suitability of sites in the City boundary to meet housing needs (in comparison with sites outside the City boundary). The Structure Plan clearly sees Cranbrook and the PUA in East Devon as a contributor to the role and development of Exeter where it is relevant to note that the Exeter City Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) showed a land supply in excess of the targets necessary.

The division between the two sub areas of East Devon which is most clearly shown within the Devon Structure Plan to 2016 Key Diagram Inset Map B demonstrates that

170 the PUA extends no further to the east than the new community (Cranbrook) boundary and identifies land almost wholly sandwiched between the new A30 and the Exeter- London Waterloo Railway line. This split and the spatial vision which it embodies forms the basis of a disaggregation argument that relates to the housing supply figures for East Devon. Despite the assertions to the contrary, it was found at Public Inquiry at West Hill that the village there, which falls at the bottom of the settlement hierarchy was outside the PUA.

The 2009/10 LDF Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) (reporting to a year end date of 31 March 2009) contains an assessment of land supply in East Devon. The Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) exercise (also reporting to an end date of 31 March 2009) provides further data on land supply, albeit to a slightly different methodology, but showing similar conclusions. These reports show that in taking East Devon as a whole there was a calculated 2.72 year supply of land for housing. This supply figure is worked out on the basis of assessments of the Devon Structure Plan requirements; houses already built and projected future completions.

Whilst it is acknowledged that East Devon as a whole does not therefore have a five year supply and is therefore vulnerable to the PPS 3 Paragraph 71 guidance, the AMR also provides separate data for two sub areas of East Devon as set out within the Structure Plan. These sub areas relate to that part of East Devon at the Exeter Principal Urban Area (PUA) with the second being the rest of East Devon – these areas are broken down in line with the areas identified above. Following this disaggregation approach it is clear that the shortfall arises solely in the area of East Devon located within the PUA while the rest of East Devon has a significant over supply of housing which has previously been calculated as a 10 year supply – double that required by PPS 3.

Although of limited weight and clearly indicated by the Government to be withdrawn in the near future the draft South West Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) reinforces the policy role/message in respect of Exeter through identifying Exeter as a strategically significant city (SSCT) and making provision allied to the future role and function of Exeter for 7,500 dwellings at Cranbrook and 4,000 dwellings at Area of Search 4B (in East Devon). 4B is diagrammatically indicated in the RSS as being in East Devon district, abutting the eastern edge of the City and only stretching a short distance (perhaps 2 or 3 kilometres) into East Devon.

The RSS recognises a three tier hierarchy of settlements and that development for each should be appropriate to the scale of the settlement. It states that “Development Policies A, B and C set specific outcomes for different types of places. They do not set out a sequential or 'cascade' approach to the location of development; so development needs relating to an SSCT should not be met at a settlement identified under Development Policies B and C, and development needs relating to a market or coastal town should not be met at a settlement identified under Development Policy C. The other policies in this section cover issues related to the delivery of development, including infrastructure, design and the re-use of land.”

171 It is considered that Area of Search 4B and Cranbrook are in/at/part of the Exeter SSCT, Policy A, and that Exmouth would come under a Policy B definition. In the case of this site, Feniton as a rural village, would fall within the Development Policy C. Applying the above advice to the current application it would seem logical to conclude that the development needs of Exeter should not be met at a site to which the provisions of Policy C would apply.

The emerging RSS required only modest development in the rest of East Devon. It required (at least) 5,600 dwellings, which equates to an annual average completion rate of only 280 dwellings per year across the rest of the District. This figure compares to the Structure Plan equivalent of 330 and actual average annual completions in the rest of East Devon that have typically been in the order of 450 to 500 dwellings per year although this has fallen back slightly in the last two years. A policy message of the Structure Plan and the clear spatial plan approach that is reinforced and considerably emphasised in the RSS is one of accommodating significant development in East Devon very close to Exeter but progressively lowering development in the rest of East Devon.

Taking all the above arguments together there is therefore a clear policy logic for considering East Devon as comprising of two parts – either under a disaggregated housing supply route or in more general terms under the terms of the spatial vision for delivery of housing in the most sustainable locations. While the Inspector at Eastfield did not explicitly support a disaggregated approach he recognised the latter approach. Members may wish to note that the matter of disaggregating a District into sub-areas has also formed the subject of recent appeal decisions involving a proposals for 148 dwellings on a site in Wiltshire and another for up to 120 dwellings in Blaby, both of which parallel the East Devon situation. In considering and dismissing these applications for new housing the Inspectors concluded that it was appropriate in relation to both appeals for the Councils to disaggregate its monitoring and to reach conclusions as to whether or not the targets were likely to be met. In these cases the District Councils had disaggregated the former North Wiltshire District and the area covered by the East Midlands Regional Plan into sub areas based on spatial policy requirements for housing.

This approach has now been implicitly accepted for East Devon following the appeal decision at Eastfield. In this instance the Inspector while recognising that the lack of supply across the District was the starting point, the lack of supply was due to delays in bringing forward development at the PUA (which West Hill did not forma part of). However now that works had commenced there was a “good prospect that the new community will be delivered” and the appeal site would “not contribute to the planning objectives of concentrating growth at the Cranbrook New Community in a sustainable manner”. These more detailed considerations reduced the weight that was applied to the overall land supply position.

In any event the fall back position remains PPS 3. In this instance and again this was the case in the Eastfield decision, other tests remain before a presumption in favour of development can be finally adopted. These tests are set out paragraph 69 and state:

172 “In general, in deciding planning applications, Local Planning Authorities should have regard to:

1. Achieving high quality housing. 2. Ensuring developments achieve a good mix of housing reflecting the accommodation requirements of specific groups, in particular, families and older people. 3. The suitability of a site for housing, including its environmental sustainability. 4. Using land effectively and efficiently. 5. Ensuring the proposed development is in line with planning for housing objectives, reflecting the need and demand for housing in, and the spatial vision for, the area and does not undermine wider policy objectives eg addressing housing market renewal issues.”

While it is considered that on the basis of the above assessment, the scheme already fails the third and fifth test a formal assessment against these criteria will be made at the end of report

Finally the issue of maintaining and significantly increasing the supply of housing land is also addressed in some detail in the recently published draft National Planning Policy Framework. As this is still in its draft stage, it is considered that little weight should be afforded to it in the context of current applications.

Land Uses

The previous section of the report deals mainly with the housing element of the proposal, identifying that there continues to be a fundamental objection in principle. The application does however include other land uses, but they too fail to meet the same policies. PPS 4 Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth Policy EC6 paragraph 2a states that local planning authorities should “strictly control economic development in open countryside away from existing settlements, or outside areas allocated for development in development plans”.

Although the proposal seeks to provide 400 m2 of floor space split between B1 office use and other non-residential uses including A1 (retail) A3 (Cafe) and other D1/D2 community space uses, the benefits that would accrue do not outweigh the ‘in principle’ objection to the development. Whilst there is a recognised need for additional employment space/ provision within the rural environment, it remains that the inclusion of the employment floor space and associated jobs do not provide sufficient justification to allow the proposal ahead of the unacceptable strategic and local planning policy based objections within the adopted East Devon Local Plan.

Housing

The provision of a range and mix of housing within any development is an important aspect for balanced socially cohesive settlements that meet the tests of sustainability. Such requirements are clearly stated in Local and County Level Policy as well as guidance in both PPS1 and PPS3.

173 In this instance the Council seeks 40% affordable housing as a minimum in line with current Policy requirements. It is expected that this would usually be split 70:30 in favour of social rented although could comprise some affordable rent, which is charged at up to 80% of the open market value. Such a facility helps to ensure that properties remain genuinely affordable but aid significantly with viability in a climate where the financing of schemes without grant are difficult to achieve. In this instancei the application has been accompanied by a “heads of terms” documents which states that the scheme would look to provide “xx%” ie an unspecified amount of affordable housing. This therefore fails to provide any comfort as to the actual percentages that would be offered or allow a comprehensive assessment of the social mix and resulting sustainability of the scheme. Attempts have been made to obtain clarification from the agents on this matter, but none has been forthcoming.

Based on the above assessment and without any certainty over the level of affordable housing provision being offered, this aspect is considered contrary to policy and as aspect on the application should fail irrespective of the conclusions on other elements.

Drainage and Flood Risk

The site of the application has been identified by the applicant as Flood Zone 1. This means that the site is at low risk of flooding from fluvial or tidal sources and therefore the guidance from the Environment Agency is that surface water generated by the scheme should be managed appropriately – usually through a Sustainable Urban Drainage scheme. In this instance however the problems of flooding that Feniton experience are well documented, both north of the railway line, to the east of Sweethams and further south at Patersons Cross (the underpass around the junction within the A30).

The scheme currently under consideration makes provision for dealing with surface water from the proposed development through the provision of infiltration ponds on site. The storage volume has been calculated to hold the 1:100 year event and release water flows at a rate equivalent to the Greenfield run off rate. On a purely site specific basis this approach is considered acceptable. However, the site does not sit in isolation and its relationship to the surrounding environment and particularly water movement must be carefully considered.

Flood alleviation through Feniton is currently under investigation and a funding bid for DEFRA is being prepared. While proposals are still being worked up and therefore there are no finalised plans, the historical evidence for the route of flooding is clear. In recognising this the current scheme avoids the flood route, and makes sufficient provision for its own surface water increase, means that no objections can be sustained in this regard.

Importantly the submitted alleviation scheme also recognises the requirement in PPS25 that works should mitigate and where possible enhance flood risk reduction. The scheme associated with this application has also proposed an additional flood relief channel to pick up flows from the north and carry these past Sweethams and Metcombe Cottage. While this work does not solve the problem along the full length of the flood risk corridor from Feniton to the River Otter, it is an important section

174 which, falling within the application site is reasonably related to the scheme (and guidance in PPS25) to be considered as a benefit arising from the proposal.

Foul Drainage has been considered by South West Water and in their consultation response it has been recognised that despite recent improvement works, there remains insufficient capacity for foul flows at the pumping station at Sidmouth Junction. While Section 106 of the Water Act makes provision for connection charges to be levied by South West Water in the event that permission is granted and connection sought by the developer this charge fails to adequately meet the scale of expected harm or the resulting works that would be required in this instance. While legislation is clear that Planning Control cannot be exerted over aspects which are controlled by other legislation, the case is made here that the Water Act does not cover the environmental implications of the development, which is being brought forward outside of the planned Local Plan process. This process not only offers a strategic approach to housing provision but also allows bodies such as SWW to secure funding for the necessary improvements related to the scale of development, through their regular bid funding windows with DEFRA and in a timely manner for future development.

In addition to being the County Council acting as the highway authority, they are likely to become the Flood Risk Management Authority within the next 12 months. The highway authority have advised that they have not assessed the flood risks of the scheme submitted, but is aware of the flooding issues generally in the Feniton area.

Highways

Although the application is made in outline, a matter to be assessed at this stage is the access. Two vehicular access points are proposed onto Ottery Road, a primary route approximately halfway along the site frontage and a secondary (shared surface) route in the north east corner of the site, again onto Ottery Road.

The Highway Authority has been consulted on the application and considers that the proposal is acceptable, subject to conditions. The site is located outside the built-up area of Feniton with resulting sustainability issues. However, Feniton, does provide alternative modes of transport which do not exist in villages of a similar size and as such the highway authority considers the village as performing well when compared to other villages in sustainability terms.

The development that is the subject of this planning application has been the subject of pre-application discussions and meetings between the applicant’s consultants and representatives of the highway authority. As a result the general principle and content of the Transport Assessment produced in support of the planning application is accepted by the highway authority. Although the road from Feniton southwards to the A30 and indeed other roads in the vicinity are restricted in width, and in many locations have no footways it is not anticipated that the additional vehicle movements arising from the proposed development cannot be safely accommodated on the network.

175 A number of the details shown on the plans were not subject to pre consultation advice and therefore the Local Highway Authority have identified a number of details which will require revision / deletion before the plans are fully acceptable to the highway authority. In this regard they have suggested that it would be preferable for a footway to be provided between the Burlands and Green Lane. While this preference is noted, it is not considered a realistic or achievable outcome given the apparent land ownership/control situation. Further concerns were raised regarding surface treatments, speed limits changes and highway signage; however, these elements do not fall under the remit of planning or could be dealt with at reserved matters stage/any necessary s106 agreement. The highway authority therefore recommends the imposition of appropriate conditions on any permission granted.

Landscape Impact

The application site is currently agricultural land (grade 2) situated to the west of Feniton. This attractive parcel of land is contained by bordering hedging which is typical of East Devon. The agricultural land slopes upwards to the west with a woodland copse situated on the ridge of higher level land (Long Park Hill). Views of this parcel of land are evident from the village and the road to the immediate east of the site, known as Ottery Road, which is one of the main entry/exit points for Feniton. In terms of notable trees there are mature Oak and Scots Pine trees along the eastern boundary. Further to the west of the application site is land owned by Escot Estate. The application site is not within a designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. There is a public footpath that runs past Iron Gate Lodge along the ridge of the higher land and towards the woodland copse to the west of the application site.

Although the application is in outline only there have been submitted indicative layouts to demonstrate that the site can deliver the scale of the development proposed. It should be noted that the red edge, indicating the application site, does not include the entire agricultural field. The south west corner of the site, which is on higher ground and with a steeper gradient, is excluded from the application.

In policy terms the field which forms part of the protected countryside, has an attractive rural quality. The road acts as a clear western boundary for the settlement of Feniton, with residential development to the north and open field to the south and west. The landscape is characterised as a rolling mixed farmland with dispersed woodland with the settlement of Feniton siting within a relatively lowland plain ‘bowl’, which has historically led to flooding difficulties.

Evidence has been submitted by the applicant to substantiate the visibility of the site and the potential landscape impact of the proposed development. The site is considered to have an open character, however, contrary to the submitted Landscape Assessment Report it is considered that this land does not feel enclosed, by virtue of sloping topography and little in the means of screening offered by the boundary hedging. As this land is considered countryside, which is protected by restrictive rural policies, there is no justification for the intrusion of a suburban built form into this agricultural field. Views from the existing residential properties to the east and the junction of Ottery Road and Green Lane would be particularly prominent leading to a substantial loss of open character that fails to reinforce the

176 key rural characteristics that currently exist. The Landscape Assessment considers that vehicular users of Ottery Road would experience a series of sequential views along the road, however the change in landscape character would be definite and harmful.

It remains unlikely that compensatory planting or a landscaping scheme could successfully mitigate the visual intrusion of the development due to its scale and the sloping topography of the site.

A tree constraints report has been submitted with the planning application which has identified potential trees of significance on the development. It should be noted that with the exception of an Oak adjacent to the north east corner of the site, there are no other tree preservation orders affecting the application site. However, at this stage it is entirely plausible that the layout of the development, at reserved matters stage, could accommodate these tree constraints.

Ecology

The potential impact on ecology within and beyond the confines of the site form an important consideration for the scheme. The current application has been accompanied by an ecological survey which has assessed the site for the presence of protected species and the biodiversity value of the site. This has been assessed by Natural England as consultees to the application process and it is accepted that the field and surrounding hedges are of limited ecological value due to years of arable cultivation and over management of the hedges. The retained trees have a slight potential as summer roosts for bats, but any scheme permitted could ensure that these trees are retained and therefore the ecological value that they provide could be maintained.

Both the submitted report and the response from Natural England recognise that the site has the potential for ecological enhancement through careful management and control of the likely environments. In this regard the development has the potential to add value to the biodiversity and ecological status of the site and this will need to be weighed when assessing the application.

Archaeology

The site has been fully assessed for archaeological potential and the submitted report assessed by the Historic Environment Service at Devon County Council. This report identifies few issues of any significance other than the Grade II listed status of Sweethams cottage and the cultural significance of hedgerow boundaries that pre date the tithe maps. However given the unknown quality of any resources below ground it is considered reasonable to impose a condition in the event that planning permission is granted.

Other Section 106 Contributions

Contributions made by applicants play an important role in recognising the impact that development can make on the functioning of a local community and addressing the additional demands that are placed on services and facilities. However in order

177 for contributions to have weight in the decision making process it is important that they are carefully regulated. In this regard government guidance requires there to be a direct link in scale and kind to the development, to meet the requirements/tests of Circular 05/2005, the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations and the recently published draft National Planning Policy Framework.

The applicants have offered through a Section 106 Heads of Terms that they are willing to make a range of contributions comprising affordable housing, a flood relief corridor, off road highway improvements and a foul drainage attenuation tank (as previously discussed), education provision, play and neighbourhood facilities and allotments. The latter will be discussed below.

Open Space and Allotments

The District Council has spent time and effort in recent years in securing a regulated and managed programme to both identify contributions required and how/where such contributions can be used - this was after having regard to guidance contained the National Circular. Such evidence now form the backbone required under the CIL Regulations and against which proposed contributions must be judged in order to give the resulting benefits weight in determining applications.

While further work is in progress, open space standards are currently set in accordance with the National Paying Fields Association Rule 6 standards. This is backed by the Council’s Recreational Area strategy and embodied within the Saved Local Plan through Policy RE3. In this regard it has been calculated that in this instance a need would arise for informal and formal play space and formal recreation. The indicative plans indicate that on site it would be possible to provide a LEAP (Local Equipped Area for Play) which while not necessarily in the best location could be further negotiated through the S106 or at reserved matters stage. In addition there is suitable and sufficient informal play provision on site leaving only formal recreation to be provided off site as a commuted sum. In this instance the applicants have only offered £45,000 which is a substantial shortfall on the headline figure of £210,000 that is sought. Further clarification has been sought to understand whether the offer of £45,000 would be increased but no response has yet been received. Despite the proposed provision of allotments which do not form part of the open space package, the shortfall is considered such that this should form a reason for refusal in the event that permission is not granted. The failure to provide the full suite of open space requirements identified undermines the sustainable credential that the applicants aspire to and as such the scheme is considered contrary to policy.

Allotments are recognised as part of a community benefit although these fall outside the required contributions in light of the identified resource requirements. However as a community benefit they can still be afforded limited weight in the decision making process.

Education

In seeking education contributions, Devon County Council have used a formulaic approach to determine the numbers of children at the respective age groups that the

178 development is likely to generate and looked at the shortfall or otherwise in the respective local schools. This exercise has demonstrated that there is currently a shortfall in places at both the village Primary School and the nearest secondary school (Kings School Ottery Sty Mary). These shortfalls result in a financial contribution of around £340,000 at Primary level and £328,000 at secondary.

In accordance with guidance for both the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and Section 106 contributions, a robust evidence base of need, and how any pooled monies collected, will be spent, is required. In this instance Devon County have indicated an intended programme of development including additional accommodation for drama provision at the Kings School. This aspect is therefore considered to be agreed between parties and no objections sustained

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development would take place on an unallocated site in the open countryside where due to:

a. the Local Plan development strategy which seeks to resist development in such areas (where not supported by other specific policies in the Local Plan); and

b. the conflict between the proposals and considerations at paragraph 69 of PPS 3; and

c. the extremely limited weight that can be attributed to the emerging Local Development framework which is currently in its infancy; and

d. the ability to demonstrate through the Annual Monitoring Review that there is a sufficient 5 year land supply within the sub area where the application lies and therefore the scheme is at odds with the spatial vision;

there are no material planning reasons to depart from the adopted Plan Policy. To do so would undermine sustainable objectives and the adopted development strategy and result in unplanned and speculative development in the countryside where there is no identified need or justification for local regeneration or additional housing. The proposed development is therefore considered contrary to guidance in PPS1 and PPS 3, Policies ST1 (Sustainable Development), ST5 (Development Priority), ST16 (Local Centres and Rural Areas) and ST17 (Housing and Employment provision) of the Devon Structure Plan, Policy S5 (Countryside Protection) of the adopted East Devon Local Plan and guidance in the Feniton Parish Plan.

2. The proposed development fails to make adequate provision for on-site affordable housing. As such the scheme is considered to undermine social cohesion and the need to provide balanced sustainable and vibrant communities. The application is therefore considered contrary to guidance

179 contained in PPS 1 (Delivering Sustainable Development), and PPS 3 (Housing), Policy ST18 (Affordable Housing) of the adopted Devon Structure Plan and Policy H4 (Affordable housing) of the East Devon Local Plan.

3. The proposed development ahead of a plan lead process (the emerging Local Plan is still in its infancy) that enables proper provision to be made by the Local Provider and with no proposed mitigation within the application would result in a sewerage infrastructure system that would fail to cope with the additional flows generated and result in potential harm to water quality and the local environment. As such the development is considered contrary to Policy ST4 (Infrastructure Provision) of the Devon Structre Plan and Policy S7 (Infrastructure Related to new development) of the adopted East Devon Local Plan).

4. The proposed development would result in the loss of an attractive open green field environment which provides an important backdrop for the character and setting of the existing settlement with the road providing a well defined boundary. The application is considered contrary to the Feniton Parish Plan, guidance in PPS1 and Policy C01 (Landscape Character and Local Distinctiveness) of the adopted Devon Structure Plan and Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the adopted East Devon Local Plan

5. The applicant has failed to adequately address and cater for the demand that the proposed dwellings would place on formal recreational facilities to serve the development. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy RE3 (Open Space Provision in New Housing Developments) of the adopted East Devon Local Plan 1995 - 2001 and PPG 17 (Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation).

6. The proposed development would lead to the loss of a significant area of high quality (grade 2) agricultural land without it having been demonstrated that there is an overiding need for the development and that lower grade land could not be used or that the benefits of the development would outweigh the loss of the land for agriculture. The development would therefore lead to the unjustified loss of land that should be retained for the current and future needs of agriculture contrary to the requirements of policy CO14 (Conserving Agricultural Land) of the Devon Structure Plan and Policy EN14 (Development on High Quality Agricultural Land) of the East Devon Local Plan and PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas.

List of Background Papers Application file, consultations and policy documents referred to in the report.

180 Ward Ottery St Mary Rural

Reference10/2375/MOUT

Applicant Mr N Hardy

Location Land Adjacent Greytops Cooper Court West Hill Road West Hill

Proposal Outline consent for residential development of 22 retirement apartments and 16 dwellings with land for public use plus surgery and coffee house. All matters reserves except for access.

RECOMMENDATION: Refusal

181 Committee Date: 6 December 2011

OTTERY ST MARY 10/2375/MOUT Target Date: RURAL 12.05.2011 (Ottery St Mary)

Applicant: Mr N Hardy

Location: Land Adjacent Greytops West Hill Road

Proposal: Outline consent for residential development of 22 retirement apartments and 16 dwellings with land for public use plus surgery and coffee house. All matters reserves except for access.

Update Report

Introduction

This application was originally reported to the Development Management Committee on the 3 May 2011. At the meeting, members resolved to refuse permission for 6 reasons as set out in the report. The complete report and wording for the reasons for refusal are set out at the end of this report. The applicant has now lodged an appeal against this refusal and this is proceeding in the form an informal hearing with statements due by the 16th December 2011.

Since the decision was previously taken, a number of issues have been clarified in respect to the reason for refusal relating to surface and foul water drainage and a further resolution is therefore sought from members to confirm the Council’s stance on this aspect and as a result, how the appeal should be addressed.

Assessment of surface water and foul drainage

In preparing for the recent public Inquiry at Eastfield, West Hill, it emerged that in respect of the foul drainage issues, South West Water who had raised objections in respect of both the Eastfield site and the current appeal site (Greytops), agreed that there was a technical solution to the foul drainage capacity issues at Fluxton. In identifying this solution, which was a temporary fix but would secure the treatment works and its capacity until a more permanent solution could be delivered, it was considered that the potential environmental harm could be overcome. Legislation makes it clear that under the Water Act and where planning permission is granted, it is the responsibility of the Water Authority to accept connection to the Public Sewer. Furthermore, planning legislation is also clear that where other legislation covers a particular aspect, it is unreasonable for the Local Planning Authority to duplicate such protection. In this instance therefore and where the potential for environmental harm was overcome by a technical solution, it was considered unreasonable for the Local Planning Authority to refuse planning permission and on this basis the reason for refusal was not contested at the Inquiry.

182 In addition the Environment Agency have also recognised that given the foul drainage position, it is reasonable that their concerns are addressed through the imposition of conditions rather than an insurmountable objection. On this basis they too do not seek to defend the current reason for refusal.

It is interesting to note that in the decision letter from the Inspector on the Eastfield site he commented:

“Local residents expressed concerns about foul and surface water drainage, traffic conditions in the locality, overlooking and impacts on wildlife. South West Water (SWW) objected to the application on the basis that the Fluxton sewage treatment works is at capacity. However, following further discussions regarding potential improvements to the works, the Council did not pursue its reason for refusal on drainage grounds. Given that there appears to be scope to improve the works on land within SWW’s control, I agree with the Council that this matter does not amount to a reason for refusing planning permission. The application was supported by a flood risk assessment which recommended that surface water flows from the site should be attenuated to match greenfield run-off rates. The implementation of this recommendation could be secured by a condition”

Based on the above assessment, it is considered that the Council should no longer seek to defend this reason for refusal.

Recommendation:

Reason 6 on refusal of permission under reference 10/2375/MOUT (concerning a lack of information in respect of foul and surface water drainage) is no longer contested.

Original Committee Report – 3 May 2011

CONSULTATIONS

EDDC Tree Officer 01/04/11 - Further to my site visit I can confirm my original doubts over the accuracy of the Arboricultural Implications Assessment (AIA)submitted with the application.

I have checked a sample of the trees and found the measurements for height and crown spread given in the AIA to consistently record a value some 25% lower than those which I have measured. My sample measurements indicate the true top height of the trees on the eastern boundary to be in the range of 23 -27m. Given the trees are growing from the top of a hedge bank which itself is on land some 4 - 5 m higher than the lower site,. Similarly the crown spread of many of these trees has

183 been measured at up to 13m.The significance of this is that the above ground constraints (BS 5837:2005 para 5.3) presented by the trees are significantly greater than that ,that may or may not have been calculated and used when determining the indicative layout of the development.

There is little evidence that a Tree Constraints Plan (TCP) has been used to inform the layout and design of the development. The AIA makes reference to the issues of shading, root protection, construction exclusion zones (CEZ) and the need to plot this information on a "finalised plan". However there is no indication of such a plan having been drawn up . Indeed the Site Layout Plan shows only one tree on the eastern boundary of the site, cross referencing from the sketch plan accompanying the AIA, it is assumed this tree is T52. This being the case the measured trunk diameter of 99cm (AIA) indicates a root protection area (RPA) with a radius of 12m, however the layout plan shows a retaining wall at a distance of 9.00 from the centre of the tree running in an arc from north to south west. The RPA of the trees within G1 are similarly compromised by the path and building line, likewise the 2,3 and 4 bed houses all compromise the RPA of various trees along the eastern boundary.

In conclusion the information provided with the application does not demonstrate that the development will not cause significant harm to trees of significant visual amenity. Accordingly I consider the application to be contrary to the requirements of the Local Plan Policy D5, I ask that the application be refused. EDDC Housing Having had a very quick look at the Design and Access Statement I note the following: • That 16% provision for affordable homes falls way below the expected amount of 40%. • That there needs to be a robust housing needs survey undertaken to confirm id there is an affordable housing need within West Hill, I understand that this survey is in hand. • Unless proven that there is a need for an age restricted affordable housing, I would be looking to encourage a mixed and balanced community. • As I understand that this site is a departure site we would ideally be looking to secure more than 40% affordable housing. • No viability study has been produced to suggest that the scheme cannot provide at least 40% affordable housing. • No evidence provided to suggest why all affordable are shared ownership, I would like to see a 70/30 split in favour of affordable rent the remaining as shared ownership.

Environment Agency 01/04/11 - This application proposes to use a private foul water treatment plant with discharge to watercourse. However, as your Council will be aware, for reasons of sustainability, we resist the proliferation of private foul drainage in sewered areas where it is reasonable to connect to the public foul sewer. This position is supported by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions' Circular 03/99 which states that ‘..the first presumption must always be to provide a system of foul drainage discharging into a public sewer'. In this case, being close to the public highway, a connection to the public foul sewer should be possible.

184 On the matter of Flood Risk, the submitted Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) sets out a reasonable strategy for managing surface water flows. It does not promote a fully detailed surface water disposal system however. In due course a detailed scheme for the management of surface waters will need to be submitted to your Council for approval.

Given all of the above, until a satisfactory foul drainage proposal is put forward, we must recommend refusal of this application.

It should be stressed that we are aware of capacity problems in the public foul sewer. As such, it is recommended that the applicant contacts South West Water to discuss a way forward.

South West Water 16/02/11 - I refer to the above application and note that the Environment Agency have already indicated that they will not issue a consent for a private sewage treatment works to serve the majority any of the proposed development.

In view of this the suggested means of providing foul drainage for the entire proposal is unachievable.

As South West Water have no direct powers under the Water Act to prevent a connection to the public sewer once planning permission is gained we cannot support the application as submitted.

Only should you be completely satisfied that you can prevent through planning legislation any connection beyond the 8 dwellings we have agreed to would we be able to remove our objection to the application.

Natural England 25/02/11 - Based on the information provided, Natural England has no objection to the proposed development in respect of legally protected species as they are unlikely to be adversely affected by the proposal. This is subject to the recommendations in the ecological report by Devon Wildlife Consultants dated December 2010 for all species being included as conditions on the permission should the council be minded to grant the application.

However, if any other information such as representations from other parties highlights the possible presence of a protected or Biodiversity Action Plan species, the LPA should request further survey information from the applicant before determining the application in line with paragraph 99 of Circular 06/2005. If the application is amended with this additional information, Natural England should be re-consulted for a further 21 days in accordance with Circular 08/2005.

The protection afforded these species is explained in Part IV and Annex A of ODPM Circular 06/2005 to PPS9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation - Statutory Obligations and their Impact within the Planning System. Paragraph 98 of the Circular states that "the presence of a protected species is a material consideration when a planning authority is considering a development proposal that, if carried out, would be likely to result in harm to the species or its habitat."

185

The applicants should be informed that planning permission, if granted, does not absolve them from complying with the relevant law, including obtaining and complying with the terms and conditions of any licences required as described in Part IV B of the Circular 06/2005.

Parish/Town Council 23/02/11 - This application was debated at length but was unanimously not supported by the Planning Committee:- 1. Outside of the building line 2. Development contravenes the Local Plan and is out of character with the West Hill Design Statement. A more balanced use of this land would be appropriate 3. Development is overbearing in scale and size representing massive over development of the site 4. Design of the apartment block is completely out of keeping with other buildings in the area 5. Increase flood risk both on the field in question and Ford Lane. Also an impact on an already overloaded sewerage capacity 6. Creation of increase in vehicular and pedestrian access to the site 7. Distinctive character of this semi-rural area would not be upheld as identified in the Design Statement 8. Concerns to damage to Wildlife, Habitats and trees many of which are Protected

County Highway Authority 01/03/11 - The content of this planning application has been the subject of detailed discussions with officers of the Highway Authority prior to its submission. The content of the Transport Statement is broadly agreed as an analysis of the impact that the proposed development will generate on the highway network.

At the entrance to the site is a three-arm mini-roundabout which is less than ideally aligned currently, because the deflection is not quite correct on the main road approaches. This was because its design and installation was a compromise based on the highway land available. The development of the application site allows the possibility to realign the roundabout such that the deflection angles on all approaches will be improved which will consequently improve its function as an effective speed control measure in a 20 m.p.h. zone.

The roundabout can adequately and safely cope with the vehicular and pedestrian traffic that will be generated from the proposed development and the turning geometry of all sized vehicles is accommodated. Heavy goods vehicles over-run the centre island on some manoeuvres, but that is the design ethos for mini- roundabouts. Recent design guidance contained in Manual for Streets 2 (published in October 2010) now accepts that a four arm mini-roundabout may be acceptable to serve as the main access to new development in certain circumstances, such as a 20 m.p.h. speed limit zone.

The access design has been the subject of an independent Stage 1 Safety Audit, which accompanies the planning application. Although there are no Designer's responses to the recommendations, the Highway Authority is satisfied that all the

186 issues raised in the Audit can be addressed in the detailed design of the revised mini-roundabout, in the event that planning permission is granted.

The site is reasonably well located with respect to primary school education and shopping facilities, together with some local services identified in the Transport Statement. It is located on bus route, although the service provided is not ideal. As there is a significant proportion of retirement dwellings proposed, the highway authority would recommend, in the event that planning permission were to be granted, that the applicant should contribute the sum of £12,000 towards TRIP Community Transport Operation to provide an additional day's service for a 5 year period.

The car and cycle parking provided on site complies with the standards adopted in East Devon District Council's Local Plan and is therefore appropriate for the development. It is noted that storage and charging facilities will be provided for mobility scooters which is also welcomed.

The proposals are therefore acceptable in principle from a transportation perspective and the following conditions are recommended.

Recommendation:

Subject to the developer first entering into an appropriate agreement to provide:-

1) A contribution of £12,000 towards TRIP Community Transport Operation and 2) alterations to the existing mini-roundabout at the site entrance to provide a fourth arm, to include any necessary alterations to carriageways and footways, pedestrian crossing points, street lighting, drainage, signs and road markings all as generally shown on the application drawings,

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

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

187

2. No part of the development hereby approved shall be commenced until:- A)The access road has been laid out, kerbed, drained and constructed up to base course level for the first 20 metres back from its junction with the public highway B) The ironwork has been set to base course level and the visibility splays required by this permission laid out C) A site compound and car park have been constructed to the written satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority

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

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

4. When once constructed and provided in accordance with condition 3 above, the carriageway, vehicle turning head, footways and footpaths shall be maintained free of obstruction to the free movement of vehicular traffic and pedestrians and the street lighting and nameplates maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority

REASON: To ensure that these highway provisions remain available

Other Representations 62 letters of objection have been received raising the following points

188

• Proposed development is in conflict with the character of West Hill • Proposal is in conflict with both the County Structure Plan and the Local Plan • Contrary to the West Hill Village Design statement - this site is specifically referenced within the statement as forming part of the distinct character • Proposal does not meet the affordable housing criteria of 60% for exception sites • Scale of development is inappropriate and represents over development • Development could set a precedent for future proposals around West Hill • Potential flooding from surface water could affect Ford Lane an surrounding roads • Additional traffic would cause congestion and pollution • Foul sewerage system cannot cope with additional units as proposed • Access would have be substantially altered to accommodate the development which would utilise a difficult road junction • Proposal shows four floors of accommodation which together with the layout is out of character • Undergound parking is out of keeping/character with the village • Large round-about would present an urbanised centre to the village and is out of character • Lack of clarity as to how the site would be managed in the future. • Land should be kept available as amenity land for use by the public • Environmental survey was undertaken in November after site clearance - this does not give a clear representation of the site • Support for the scheme has been generated on pro formas and following a presentation of a reduced scheme - not a true representation of the current proposal • Ottery St Mary Medical centre has no plans to open a new facility in West Hill • There is no need for a coffee shop in West Hill - suitable premises are already vacant and coffee shops have failed in the past. • There are alternative sites in West Hill which are more suitable and have better access than the one currently proposed • Survey undertaken by the applicant is not representative - omitting a number of letters of objection • Local services would be over whelmed including the school • Concern about the threat to adjacent trees due to the scale of development and underground parking proposed • Letters of support have been engaged from around the World and do not reflect local views • The need for retirement homes has not been established • Amenity of neighbouring occupiers would be severely affected by the proposed development • The proposed Commercial units are not sustainable and should not be used to justify the development • The proposal fails to take account of the impact of light pollution on the area • Lower part of the site is wet and would need significant drainage work to make it suitable for development

189 6 letters of support have been received raising the points listed below together with a letter from the applicant rebutting a number of the objections received.

• Accommodation and in particular the retirement homes will provide an important facility for existing and returning residents • Existing site is an eyesore and development will be beneficial • Plan accords fully with the SHLAA site identified • Development would breathe new life into the village and fits with the current government policies • Improvements to the biodiversity are welcomed • Preference for a tennis court rather than a bowling green although no information about how such proposals would be funded • Housing would assist the range of facilities in the village to be retained

In addition the following have also been received:

2 visitor survey questionnaires;

97 pro forma responses supporting the scheme and identifying that the land is in the centre of the village, there is a confirm need for both retirement and family homes the additional facilities proposed will benefit the village and the appearance of the village will be improved; and

1 neutral letter

PLANNING HISTORY

Reference Description Decision Date

02/P0716 Erection Of Two Dwellings Refusal 20.05.2002

98/P1116 Residential Development Refusal 27.03.2000

96/P1844 Residential Development Of 6 Refusal 29.01.1997 Units

POLICIES

Devon Structure Plan Policies ST1 (Sustainable Development) ST4 (Infrastructure Provision) ST5 (Development Priority 2001 to 2016) ST10 (Exeter Principal Urban Area) ST16 (Local Centres and Rural Areas) ST17 (Housing and Employment Land Provision) ST18 (Affordable Housing) ST18A (Mix and Type of Housing) CO1 (Landscape Character and Local Distinctiveness) CO6 (Quality of New Development)

190 CO9 (Biodiversity and Earth Science Diversity) CO10 (Protection of Nature Conservation Sites and Species) CO11 (Conserving Energy Resources) CO13 (Protecting Water Resources and Flood Defence) CO14 (Conserving Agricultural Land) TR2 (Co-ordinating Land Use/Travel Planning) TR4 (Parking Strategy, Standards and Proposals) TR5 (Hierarchy of Modes) TR6 (Network Integration) TR7 (Walking and Cycling) TR9 (Public Transport)

East Devon Local Plan Policies S2 (Built-up Area Boundaries for Area Centres and Local Centres) S4 (Development Within Built-up Area Boundaries) S7 (Infrastructure Related to New Development) D2 (Sustainable Construction) D4 (Landscape Requirements) D5 (Trees on Development Sites) EN6 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) EN8 (Proposals Affecting Sites Which May be of Archaeological Importance) H1 (Residential Land Provision) H2 (Residential Land Allocation) H3 (Range and Mix of New Housing Development) H4 (Affordable Housing) RE3 (Open Space Provision in New Housing Developments) TA1 (Accessibility of New Development) TA3 (Transport Assessments /Travel Plans) TA4 (Footpaths, Bridleways and Cycleways) TA7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access)

Planning Policy Guidance PPG13 (Transport) PPG17 (Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation)

Planning Policy Statement PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) PPS3 (Housing) PPS9 (Biodiversity and Geological Conservation) PPS10 (Planning for Sustainable Waste Management) PPS25 (Development and Flood Risk)

Site Location and Description

Land adjacent Grey Tops comprises an informal rural environment made up of a central grassed area (previously cleared from scrub and over grown brambles grass and immature trees) and surrounded by mature trees of varying heights ages and species. The site has a frontage with West Hill Road (the main road through the centre of the village) and is positioned centrally within the village adjacent to the mini

191 roundabout by the village stores car park with access to the school. This frontage is typical of the site as a whole with mature trees on a bank along the road frontage.

The topography of the site comprises an elevated strip to the north (behind the road frontage), with a gradual slope falling away from the trees - a more significant dip/valley drops through the centre of the land. Land at the southern end of the side which is more densely covered in trees continues to slope gently down in a southerly direction. Of note and running contrary to the general trend is a more stepped gradient located along the southern projection of the site and which runs to the east. This boundary is again thickly tree covered and provides a distinct woodland character at the edge of and beyond the site.

Proposed Development

The application seeks permission for the construction of 38 properties comprising 22 retirement apartments and 16 dwellings. While in outline with only access detailed, it is indicated that 10 properties would be located to the south in a mixture of detached, and terraced housing while the remaining 28 would take the form of a single block (L shaped) and be in the form of apartments and town houses. Coupled with the residential development and located within the main block it is also proposed to provide a surgery and coffee house. To the east of the apartments, community land is also proposed.

Access which is proposed in detail would be taken off West Hill Road with a new junction formed where the existing mini roundabout is located. This would be formed by the provision of a new enlarged roundabout serving through traffic of West Hill Road, the new housing development and Beech Park located opposite.

Indicative landscaping is also proposed, coupled within internal roads, turning areas and parking.

Considerations and Assessment

The main considerations are:-

• Principle of Development and Policy context • Scale Character and Impact on local Amenity • Trees and Ecology • Highways and Access • Infrastructure provision • Development Contributions

Principle of Development and Policy context

The application site lies outside the built-up area boundary of West Hill as defined within the East Devon Local Plan 1995-2011. Despite the site being close to the village centre and the built-up area boundary bordering the site to the north, east and west it is considered that the proposed development is contrary to Policy S5 of the East Devon Local Plan which limits development in the countryside to that which accords only with a specific Local Plan policy.

192

While the position in respect of Policy S5 does not seem to be in dispute with the applicant one key issue arises - namely the weight than can be attributed to the emerging Local Development Framework and the identification of the site as available and deliverable in the recent SHLAA assessment. Other issues which it is prudent to address and which have been debated recently at other proposed development sites – namely Eastfield in West Hill and Land at Otter Close in Tipton St John will also be addressed.

As alluded to above, the East Devon Local Plan is in the process of being superseded by the Local Development Framework (LDF). This is a key policy document that will ultimately set out how development should be accommodated in the District over the next plan period. In preparation for this, two exercises have already taken place. A Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) has been carried out for the District. This is a technical exercise which considers those sites that may be available for housing and the technical issues related to their development. The SHLAA process is not part of the housing allocation process but helps to inform this process in terms of the ability to deliver and develop various sites over the plan period. The site currently under consideration was included and assessed as part of the SHLAA process. Unlike Eastfield, it was considered that this site could be used to meet part of the potential housing requirement for West Hill but still qualified this with the caveat that... “In the case of sites in the settlements of Ottery St. Mary, West Hill and Tipton St. John where major investment is required to provide sewerage capacity all sites found to be developable have been put in the 11- 15 year period”. These timescales allow this investment to be planned for and provided – This arises because of a severe lack of capacity in the sewage treatment facilities lower down the network and therefore any development that comes forward early in the plan period may give rise to flooding and pollution concerns.

The second exercise which has already been undertaken by the Council was the publication in the autumn of last year (2010) of the first draft of the Core Strategy Preferred Approach which set out the preferred approach for the development of the District over the plan period. This document was prepared following community consultation and itself was subject to a further consultation exercise undertaken with respect to the details proposed. This consultation concluded in December 2010 the clear picture that has emerged from the communities comments is one of too much housing being proposed and that the scale of growth and development should be reduced.

In light of the Localism Bill which has recently been published and the intention by the Government to scrap the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) which has previously set the predicted housing numbers required for each District, weight must be given to the views of local residents. This does not mean that all development should be fettered by a “nimby” response, but a clear proportionate and reasoned approach must be established through a plan led system. While the original Core Strategy preferred approach identified West Hill as a potential hub village capable of accommodating up to 50 houses over the plan period, the recent consultation response associated with the Draft Preferred Approach has caused significant uncertainty in this regard. Objections have been raised to the number of dwellings proposed, the suitability of the village as a hub village and the arbitrary nature of the

193 numbers without localised justification. The LDF document therefore carries very little weight as it has not gone through statutory procedures. The policy response therefore has to fall back on the adopted Local Plan and the Built Up Area Boundaries which are a fundamental part of this strategy. In this regard the development is considered to conflict with the established policy.

Previously applicants for other local sites have claimed a second aspect to the policy approach where in the event that there is no direct policy backing found for a development it may be possible to rely on guidance in PPS 3 (Planning Policy Statement 3) and the provision of housing land supply. PPS3 requires Local Authorities to be able to demonstrate that they have a deliverable 5 year land supply which arises from the desirability of having an established and steady approach to development and ensuring that there is a continuous supply of houses that are delivered evenly over time. This helps not only with the housing market but also the related infrastructure provision that is needed for any new development.

East Devon is a District split in its geography and character with part subject to influence from the urban centre of Exeter and the remainder a more rural environment characterised by market towns and a hierarchy of villages set with an attractive landscape much of which is designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. This geography is recognised in the Structure Plan and Local Plans where reference is made to the Exeter Principal Urban Area (PUA). The PUA encompasses the city centre and a projection of land to the east which extends into East Devon. The justification for this definition rests on the growth, role and function of Exeter and availability/suitability of sites in and around the City boundary to meet housing needs (in comparison with sites outside the City boundary). The Structure Plan clearly sees Cranbrook and the PUA in East Devon as a contributor to the role and development of Exeter where it is relevant to note that the Exeter City Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) showed a land supply in excess of the targets necessary.

The division between the two sub areas of East Devon which is most clearly shown within the Devon Structure Plan to 2016 Key Diagram Inset Map B demonstrates that the PUA extends no further to the east than the New community (Cranbrook) boundary and identifies land almost wholly sandwiched between the new A30 and the Exeter-London Waterloo Railway line. This split and the reasons behind it, form the basis of a disaggregation argument that relates to the housing supply figures for East Devon.

The 2009/10 LDF Annual Monitoring Report (reporting to a year end date of 31 March 2010) contains an assessment of land supply in East Devon. The previously completed SHLAA exercise (also reporting to an end date of 31 March 2010) provided further data on land supply, albeit to a slightly different methodology but showing similar conclusions. The Annual Monitoring Report shows that taking East Devon as a whole there was a calculated 4.24 year supply of land for housing. This supply figure is worked out on the basis of assessments of Devon Structure Plan requirements; houses already built and projected future completions. Whilst it is acknowledged that East Devon as a whole does not therefore have a five year supply the AMR provides separate data for two sub areas of East Devon. These sub areas relate to that part of East Devon at the Exeter Principal Urban Area (PUA) with the second being the rest of East Devon – these areas are broken down in line with

194 the areas identified above. Following this disaggregation approach it is clear that the shortfall arises solely in the area of East Devon located within the PUA while the rest of East Devon has a significant over supply of housing which has previously been calculated as a 9 year supply.

The disaggregation approach is one that the developers have previously objected to. However appeal decisions from elsewhere in the country including Wiltshire, and most recently at Blaby District Council, maintain that this is a reasonable and reasoned approach which can be supported. Based on this approach it is not considered that there is any policy support for the application which unless material circumstances demonstrate otherwise, should be resisted as speculative development.

A further development in the policy aspect and which can form a material consideration albeit with limited weight is emerging advice from the Government. In this regard it is noted that within the written statement from Greg Clark (Minister of State for Decentralisation) on the 23 March 2011, the Government's top priority in reforming the planning system is to promote sustainable economic growth and jobs. The Government's clear expectation is that the answer to development and growth should wherever possible be 'yes', except where this would compromise the key sustainable development principles set out in national planning policy

The Chancellor set out details on their commitment to introduce a strong presumption in favour of sustainable development in the forthcoming National Planning Policy Framework, which would expect local planning authorities to plan positively for new development; to deal promptly and favourably with applications that comply with up-to-date plans and national planning policies; and wherever possible to approve applications where plans are absent, out of date, silent or indeterminate.

In this instance and notwithstanding the proximity to the centre of the village, the need to drive economic development and say yes to development must be balanced against the current plan, emerging guidance and the ultimate need for new housing. The lack of policy backing for development of such a site coupled with the current lack of identified need for new housing in West Hill, uncertainty as to what would be required in the future together provides no substantial basis with which to support this application.

Affordable Housing

Policy H4 of the East Devon Local Plan requires that on developments of this size, affordable housing must be provided at a minimum of 40%. The usual requirement is that the split of affordable housing should be 70 % rented and 30% shared ownership.

Within the submitted Planning Statement the applicant claims that the established local demand in West Hill is for retirement housing and not for affordable housing. The age restricted element is welcomed and helps to diversify the type of tenure in the locality, however this by itself is not considered to off-set the requirement for affordable provision. It is also claimed that the cost of land in the centre of West Hill

195 is so high that it would not be practical to provide housing within appropriate rents. Therefore if no government grants are available, the offer for affordable housing is on a shared equity basis of 6 affordable homes, (with 12 offered if full government grant is available).

As the current economic climate is uncertain and as there is almost no grant funding available at the moment it is recognised that full contributions are often difficult to achieve. However in this instance the applicants have not provided a financial viability assessment to demonstrate their position in respect of contributions offered. The view that the land has high value is based on the premise that the land is adjacent residential development land and therefore would attract a higher valuation, compared to a green field site which is unallocated and where housing is not required due to the Council’s assertion that it has a suitable 5 year land supply in this area of the District. In such circumstances for land outside of a BUAB and where there is no identified need for new housing, it is argued that the residual land value could be lower and as such the level of affordable housing required by policy (set at a minimum of 40%) should be attainable. It should be noted that the 12 affordable dwellings offered within a development of 38 units (if full grant is available) is still below this 40% requirement.

Without such provision and on the basis of the current policy position in regard to the Local Plan and the housing land supply, this affordable housing offer continues to be considered unacceptable.

Scale Character and Impact on local Amenity

With any outline application the implication for the character of the area is far harder to encapsulate and assess given that, as in this instance all matters with the exception of access are reserved for consideration at a later date (in the event that outline permission is granted). However, the validation requirements seek indicative layouts and the envelopes within which buildings could take place – this helps to provide a degree of certainty about the scale and massing and whether development proposed can be accommodated on the site and is appropriate for the character of the area.

In this instance the applicant has provided both layout plans and indicate elevations and these show a spine road running the length of the site with a four storey block of flats to the north (front of the site) and a series of dwellings (both terraced and detached to the south. While it is recognised that the site levels fall away from the road the provision of a four storey block of apartments in the north area is completely out of keeping with the character of the area, the general grain of development and the style and design of houses found locally. The presentation of a solid mass of built form behind the front tree canopy is considered at odds with the area which coupled with the height would dominate the centre of the village.

While the design of the four storey block of apartments may be substantially altered at reserved matters stage, the number of apartments would not. Having assessed the site, it is not considered this number could be provided onsite without harming the character of the area – either the development has to be too high (as currently indicated) or cover such an area of the site that it would appear cramped and would

196 still be out of character for the area – an area which is generally of detached units with good size gardens and a generally spacious verdant environment.

Currently the scheme shows the retention of many of the boundary trees and further assessment will be given to the specific impact on trees later in the report – however any harm that did arise to the trees would further threaten the character of the site and its relationship to the local area.

The impact on neighbour amenity is another difficult area to assess at outline stage, but given the concerns about scale, density and height that were raised above the potential impact on the closest neighbour at Grey Tops is itself significant. This property which has recently been replaced maintains the character of the area as a single larger property set in spacious and verdant grounds. However the boundary with the application site is thinly vegetated and it currently enjoys a private rear garden. Development as proposed would both dominate and overlook the property and its private rear garden causing significant harm to the amenity of the occupiers of the property.

Properties in Ashley Brake also back onto the site with their rear garden set above the application site. These properties have narrow rear gardens and being elevated the potential impact on amenity would be acceptable – no overlooking, and no resulting dominance. However with the uncertainty over the ultimate layout and housing type, and importantly coupled with the potential for increased density if the height and scale of the apartment block were to be reduced, there remains justified concern.

Trees and Ecology

Typical of the area the site currently retains many important trees which help to maintain the verdant character. While these trees are positioned around the periphery of the site they are largely of mature form and create an important and pleasing back drop both within the site and for views around the surrounding area. Accompanying the application an arboricultural report has documented the trees and assessed the degree of constraint that they have on the development site. This report has been assessed by the Councils own arboricultural officer and serious concerns have been raised regarding the degree of information included and the accuracy with which the information has been recorded and analysed. While only a sample of the trees were checked it has become apparent that the degree of constraint that the trees place on the potential development site has been underestimated and as such the potential developable area should be reduced in order to maintain the health and well being of the trees and avoid damaging works taking place within the root protection area of the trees themselves. Such a constraint not only is important for preserving the character of the area – something which is borne out within the West Hill Village Design Statement, but also clearly has an effect on the numbers of properties that can be accommodated on the site. With an effectively reduced site area the number of units sought (which has already been assessed as being too high) would need to be further reduced.

As with any site the ecological potential needs to be assessed to understand the impact that the development could have. In this instance an ecological report has

197 been submitted by the applicant which recognises that the site currently has significant potential including a number of trees which offer bat roosting potential, foraging areas and flights lines for both badgers and bats (respectively) and the potential for the support of a dormice colony within the coppiced hazel in the far southern section of the site. There is also suitable habitat for other protected species such as otters and reptiles although no survey work has been undertaken to formally assess this aspect.

While Natural England have not currently raised any concerns over the report itself, and seeks to ensure that the recommendations and conclusion are undertaken, it is these that cause significant concern given the current layout and scale of the proposed development. The concerns arise from the proposed felling of two trees in the north eastern section of the site – both of which have been identified as trees having significant potential for bat roosting sites. Additionally, while the boundary vegetation would largely be retained the indicative plan and more particularly the fixed access point is shown in close proximity to the western boundary. An important finding within the submitted report makes it clear that in order to preserve the potential of the hedgebanks as flightlines it was important that no lighting is positioned on or adjacent to the vegetation and the development should be designed so as not to alter the light levels in the immediate vicinity of the boundary features. Given the position of the main access road which is of a scale and size where some street lighting would be required, it is not clear how this element can be achieved. Aspects such as lighting could normally be conditioned (particularly as the layout remains a reserved matter) – however in this instance with such doubt over the scale and density of the development and given the narrow constrained and tapering site, it is not clear how the road could be repositioned without the potential for harm arising. Additional information or details should therefore be sought if the principle is found to be acceptable. In addition there is also a lack of survey work with respect of the trees to be felled – to approve an application where such doubt occurs would be irresponsible and contrary to European legislation concerning protected species.

Highways and Access

Currently at the entrance to the site there is a three arm mini-roundabout which the proposal seeks enlargement of, to include a further ‘arm’ belonging to the site access road. The existing roundabout has previously been installed at a less than ideal alignment due to the restricted highway land available. The development therefore provides the possibility of re-aligning this current roundabout to a correct position. This re-alignment will consequently improve its function as an effective speed control measure in a 20 m.p.h zone.

The Highway Authority has been consulted on the application and considers that the proposed roundabout can adequately and safely cope with the vehicular and pedestrian traffic that would be generated from the proposed development and the turning geometry of all sized vehicles is accommodated. Additionally the car and cycle parking provided on site complies with the standards adopted in the local plan and is therefore appropriate.

198 The site is reasonably well located with respect to primary school and shopping facilities, with other local services identified in the applicants Transport Statement. As there are a significant proportion of retirement dwellings proposed, the Highway Authority would recommend that the applicant should contribute the sum of £12,000 towards TRIP Community Transport Operation to provide an additional day’s service for a 5 year period. In the event of an approval this commuted sum and off-site alterations would require the developer to first enter into an appropriate agreement. Other highway requirements, such as carriageway and footpath specifications, visibility splays, parking provision, street lighting etc to be suitably conditioned.

Infrastructure provision

The preferred means of disposal for foul water is for all of the proposed properties to connect to an existing sewer which runs through and adjacent to the site. However, South West Water (SWW) has indicated that there is no spare capacity to the sewage treatment works at Fluxton. Furthermore, there are no plans or indeed funding to provide the necessary upgrades to these works in South West Water’s current business plan to 2015.

The site in question falls outside of a designated built-up area boundary and is not allocated for development. SWW would have had no indication that development might be brought forward on this site and sought to allocate funding into the upgrading of the Fluxton Sewage Treatment Works. The applicant has stated in the Drainage Statement the cost of upgrade works required would be disproportionate to the size of the current proposal. Accordingly a connection to the public sewer for the whole development is not economically viable at present. As a means of addressing the limited capacity the applicants propose disposal of foul water by allowing eight dwellings to connect to the combined sewer with the remaining units using a temporary package treatment solution. Circular and PPS guidance recognises that the planning system may be complementary to other legislative regimes and that the capacity of existing and potential infrastructure (including for water supply, sewage and sewerage provision) may be material in the consideration of individual planning applications.

However, the Environment Agency (EA), for reasons of sustainability and pollution control, has resisted the proliferation of private foul drainage in sewered areas where connection to a public foul drainage sewer is a reasonable alternative. This position is supported by Circular 03/99 which states that ‘..the first presumption must always be to provide a system of foul drainage discharging into a public sewer’.

SWW have been consulted on the application and have stated that as they have no direct powers under the Water Act to prevent connection to the public sewer once planning permission is gained they cannot support the application. Only if planning legislation can prevent any connection beyond eight dwellings would SWW be able to remove this objection. The sewerage considerations raised in this case will not be served properly under other legislation. The vulnerability of leaving this all to the Water Industry Act 1991 would be that, irrespective of the capacity and funding issues, there would be no right for SWW to refuse the developer the right to connect, post-planning. Without being able to secure this and with the concern raised by the

199 EA regarding the proliferation of private foul drainage for the remainder of the dwellings it is considered that the scheme can be refused on this issue.

With regards to Flood Risk the submitted FRA sets out a reasonable strategy for managing surface water flows. However, the information lack detail regarding the management of a surface water disposal system and therefore officers cannot take into account fully potential issues that may arise.

Development Contributions

A Heads of Terms has accompanied the application agreeing obligations and financial contributions towards the provision of necessary infrastructure to serve the site, including:

• Contribution to public open space (of £3698.81 per dwelling) • Education Contribution (relevant amount to be determined by Devon County) • Highway Works and contributions (requested by the Highway Authority) • Affordable housing Provision (see below)

CONCLUSION

Despite the proximity to the village centre, the site remains outside the development boundary (as drawn by the current Development Plan) and has been brought forward at a time when little weight can be attributed to the emerging Local Development Framework and during a period of significant uncertainty over the housing numbers that the District should accommodate. Coupled with an over dense development, implications for the character of the area and trees and ecology on site and a sewerage system that is at capacity, it is considered that the scheme is contrary to the West Hill Design Statement and there are no material benefits to outweigh the harms that have been identified. The proposed development is therefore considered to be unacceptable.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development would take place on an unallocated site in the open countryside where due to: a. the Local Plan development strategy which seeks to resist development in such areas (where not supported by other specific policies in the Local Plan), b. the extremely limited weight that can be attributed to the emerging Local Development framework which is currently in its infancy and c. the ability to demonstrate through the Annual Monitoring Review that there is a sufficient 5 year land supply within the sub area where the application lies, there is no material planning reasons to depart from the adopted Plan Policy. To do so would undermine the adopted strategy and result in unplanned and speculative development in the countryside where there is no identified need for

200 local regeneration or additional housing. The proposed development is therefore considered contrary to guidance in PPS1 and PPS 3, Policies ST1 (Sustainable Development), ST5 (Development Priority), ST16 (Local Centres and Rural Areas) and ST17 (Housing and Employment provision) of the Devon Structure Plan, Policy S5 (Countryside Protection) of the adopted East Devon Local Plan and the West Hill Village Design Statement.

2. The proposed development, by reason of the application site’s location and the policy approach adopted in respect of this location, should provide a minimum of 40% affordable housing. To fail to achieve such provision on a departure site where there is no policy support for its development, results in the proposal being considered contrary to guidance contained in PPS1, and PPS3, Policy ST 18 (Affordable Housing) of the Devon Structure Plan and Policy H4 of the adopted East Devon Local Plan 1995 – 2011.

3. The proposed development through the indicated density, size of the site and the constraints that the site has, is considered to result in a scale of development (either through the resulting height and massing of the buildings) or through a cramped layout with lack of space between the buildings, fails to recognise the distinct elements that make up the character area and would harm the spacious and verdant environment. The proposed development is therefore considered to be contrary to the West Hill Village Design Statement, guidance in PPS 1 and PPS 3, and Policies CO1, and C06 of the Devon Structure Plan and Policy D1 of the East Devon Local Plan.

4. The proposed development by reason of a lack of detailed and accurate information fails to accurately reflect and take account of trees of high amenity and ecological importance around the site with resultant threats to the trees and harm to the character of the area. As such the application is considered to be contrary to good practice in accordance with British Standard 5837 (2005), Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and D5 (Trees in relation to development) of the adopted East Devon Local Plan and the West Hill Village Design Statement.

5. Submitted information demonstrates the potential for the site to be an area of ecological importance. However insufficient survey work and a scheme that is considered too high in terms of density, results in a lack of evidence to demonstrate that the recommendations and conclusions set out within the submitted report can be adhered to - most particularly in terms of the necessary felling of trees which have the potential to act as bat roosts and the potential for light spill along boundaries which could act as flight paths for bats and an important foraging corridor. The development is therefore considered contrary to guidance in PPS9, Policy CO9 (Biodiversity and Earth Science Diversity) of the Devon Structure Plan and Policy EN6 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) of the East Devon Local Plan.

6. Insufficient information has been submitted to adequately demonstrate that suitable provision has been made to accommodate the additional surface and foul water drainage requirements arising from the proposed development. As such the proposal is considered to be contrary to Policy ST4 (Infrastructure

201 Provision) of the Devon Structure Plan 2001-2016 and S7 (Infrastructure Related to New Development) of the East Devon Local Plan 1995-2011.

Refused Drawings

03 Site layout Plan 10036 L 04.01 Elevations 10036 L 03.01 Sections

List of Background Papers Application file, consultations and policy documents referred to in the report.

202 Ward Ottery St Mary Rural

Reference11/1886/MFUL

Applicant Paul Hunt Investments Ltd

Location West Hayes West Hill Road West Hill Ottery St Mary EX11 1UZ

Proposal Construction of 15 dwellings (including 10 affordable) together with associated access (off Eastfield) and landscaping.

RECOMMENDATION: Refusal

203 Committee Date: 15.11.2011

Ottery St Mary Target Date: Rural 11/1886/MFUL 29.11.2011 (OTTERY ST MARY)

Applicant: Paul Hunt Investments Ltd

Location: West Hayes West Hill Road

Proposal: Construction of 15 dwellings (including 10 affordable) together with associated access (off Eastfield) and landscaping.

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposal seeks planning consent for the creation of 15 dwellings (5 open market and 10 affordable) outside the development boundary of West Hill. Whilst this is contrary to rural restrictive planning policies in place, the Council have adopted an Interim Statement which facilitates development of up to 15 dwellings provided an identified affordable need is established and subject to site constraints. The applicants have conducted a suitable Housing Needs Survey which establishes the need for affordable housing within West Hill that the development can satisfy, in accordance with the thrust of the Interim Statement. However, as a result of the Inspectors consideration, afforded to the adjacent development site of ‘Eastfield’ during a recent Public Inquiry, there has been an increase in weight attributed to landscape value and quality since the report published last month. Consequently officers consider that the proposed development would be intrusive to the rural character and result in the loss of an attractive green field (parkland) environment that detracts from the setting of West Hill.

CONSULTATIONS

Local Consultations

Parish/Town Council The committee unanimously does not support this application;

• Infrastructure including drainage, water run-off which would be exacerbated • sewers inadequate to meet the needs • response at the Housing Needs survey was noted • adverse effect on the wild-life and environment

204 • concerns for the loss of Trees and the Grade 'A' Oak tree as roots run along proposed new drive • concerns for access and capability of traffic to proposed site • viability of the site was questioned whether it was sustainable

18.10.2011- The Committee unanimously does not support this application;

• infrastructure including drainage, water run-off which would be exacerbated • sewers inadequate to meet the needs • response at the Housing Needs Survey was noted • adverse effect on the wild-life and environment • concerns for the loss of Trees and the Grade ‘A’ Oak Tree as roots run along proposed new drive • concerns for access and capability of traffic to proposed site • viability of the site was questioned whether it was sustainable

Ottery St Mary Rural - Cllr T Howard

As a member of EDDC Development Management Committee, I would urge that this proposal is presented to Committee.

In the event that this application comes to Committee, I would reserve my position until I am in full possession of all the relevant facts and arguments for and against.

However, my initial thoughts are as follows:-

The dwellings are outside of the existing Built Up Area Boundary (BUAB). The site will be invasive into a sheep grazing field and reach a wooded area adjacent to the B3180. There is a footpath from the existing residential area frequently used for walking trips into the village countryside. It is a beautiful undeveloped walking area.

The site is intended to partly use land that surrounds a large stand-alone home which is best described as a country ‘mansion'. The entrance is narrow with pillars (one vehicle width) set between two existing properties. The drive is long and sweeping around the grounds to the front of the home. The current street scene is very attractive and in keeping with the surrounding private gardens. To change such an entrance into an estate like entrance for 10 affordable homes, plus 5 market homes, is totally unacceptable to the neighbourhood.

The sewerage system is unable to add 15 new dwellings. This is a key pre-requisite impacting on all local development plans. A major costly expansion at South West Water (SWW) Fluxton Sewerage Works is essential before any commitment is entered into.

In the knowledge that the West Hill Local Plan is nearing completion, a survey of residents opinion on future village development is a matter of recent record (July/August 2011). This very clearly states that ‘the vast majority (of residents) are against starter homes/estate development'. The survey findings also reflect that over 70% want to develop their own plan. In accordance with the principles of ‘Localism',

205 the neighbourhood has spoken and rejects the type of site proposed for Westhayes. Furthermore, the Local Plan would only expect a single digit number of affordable homes between now and 2026. So, for 10 affordable homes to be planned for this one site is totally out of line with the Plan.

In summary, proposal 11/1886/MFUL should be rejected for being outside of the BUAB, insufficient sewerage capacity and not in accordance with the village Local Plan.

Ottery St Mary Rural - Cllr C Wright

Unable to comment as I have a prejudicial interest.

Technical Consultations

County Highway Authority

Email dated 23.09.2011 - There are several issues with the plans and information provided in support of the planning application which means that the highway authority is not able to make a recommendation at this stage.

A meeting has been arranged with the applicant and representatives of the planning authority and highway authority when the outstanding required information and revisions will be discussed in detail.

The highway authority therefore reserves the right to make further more detailed comments until such additional or revised information is available.

Further comments following receipt of additional amended plans dated 11 October 2011 -

The amended plans address the concerns of the highway authority to the original plans which were outlined at a meeting with the applicants.

The highway authority has some concern about the additional pedestrian movements that will arise from the development towards the village centre and shop. There is a section of road on this route that does not have a separate footway. The provision of a footway along this stretch has been an aspiration of the highway authority for many years, but has not been possible due to land ownership issues. The applicant does not control the land in question to provide the footway over this length. The development would give rise to a comparatively small number of additional pedestrian movements, when assessed against the existing number of pedestrian movements, so it is not felt that a highway reason for refusal could be justified on those grounds.

Eastfield is generally designed to accommodate the vehicles and pedestrians that would be generated by a development of this size, as is the mini-roundabout at the southern end of Eastfield.

206 Conditions are therefore recommended to be imposed on any planning permission granted.

Further comments following the publication of an appeal decision on land to the north of Eastfield, West Hill – 15th November 2011.

An inspector for the Secretary of State dismissed a recent appeal (held in October 2011) against the refusal of planning permission for the erection of 50 dwellings on a nearby site. Paragraphs 22 to 27 of that appeal decision letter make it quite clear that the area of West Hill was not considered by that inspector to be a sustainable location for this level of development. In light of the content of that decision letter, the highway authority has no alternative other than to revise its previous recommendation. However, if the planning authority is minded to grant planning permission for the proposed development then it is recommended that the conditions that were recommended in the previous response are included in any planning permission granted.

Housing Strategy Officer Paul Lowe

The proposed development should reflect an identified housing need and be evidenced via a rural Housing Needs Survey.

If the proposed development accords with planning requirements we expect that ten be affordable homes as defined in PPS3. All nominations should be sought from the Common Housing Register with preference being given to individuals who have a local connection to West Hill, all affordable homes should be available in perpetuity. Stair casing to be restricted to 80%.

All affordable housing will be transferred to and managed by a Registered Provider. Subject to housing needs evidence the affordable homes should reflect the proposed tenure mix stated in the Interim Mixed Affordable and Market Housing Position Statement.

All affordable housing to be constructed in line with the Registered Providers own design standard and to the Homes and Communities Agency Design and Build Standards. All affordable housing should be tenure blind and be constructed to Code Level 4 for Sustainable Homes.

South West Water

It has recently been established that a limited amount of spare capacity is available at the receiving sewage treatment works which would allow us to support foul flows only from a development of this scale being 15 dwellings.

The surface water proposals are however unacceptable as this would involve a connection to the public combined sewer which we will not permit.

Until such time as an alternative means of surface water drainage can be found we would be unable to recommend the application for approval.

207 Further email 03/10/2011 - I refer to the above application and would advise that our previous comments dated 6 September 2011 still apply.

Should the surface water as suggested be dealt with by means of soakaways the suitability of the site to accommodate must be confirmed by the Environment Agency/your Council.

Further email dated 10/11/2011 - We would advise that South West Water has no further comments to those made previously in respect of the proposals - in that there are no objections subject to foul flows only being connected to the public sewer.

Environment Agency

The proposed development is properly accompanied by a Floor Risk Assessment (FRA) dated July 2011 that has properly focussed upon the management of surface waters runoff from the site. Unfortunately the FRA proposes to drain surface waters to an off - site "combined" sewer in West Hill Road that is in the ownership / control of South West Water Plc. If correct the resulting drainage scheme will in all likelihood prove unacceptable to us on a number of grounds as follows;

a) SWWPlc will not accept flows from a SUDS scheme or a scheme that is capable of draining 'land drainage' flows into their sewers. Thus the proposed surface water drainage scheme is likely to be unacceptable to SWWPlc.

b) SWWPlc will typically accept only schemes designed to manage the 1 in 30 year flows and not adopt the "1 in 100 year storm 30% climate change" proposed in the FRA. This is serious failing in terms of compliance with PPS25.

c) The drainage of surface waters into ' combined ' sewers increase the likelihood of the sewers overflowing in response to intense or prolonged rainfall. This typically results in an increase in pollution and flooding risks for third parties downstream. In this instance this in likely to increase risks for those properties in Ford Lane who are already at risk of flooding.

As well as the above we are concerned that the submitted FRA promotes a scheme that does not mimic greenfield performance but instead simply restricts the discharge to a fixed rate (the Qbar "rural" rate). Without infiltration all rain falling on the developed site will result in site runoff. This significantly increases the volumes of surface waters that drain to any sewer / watercourse in response to rainfall.

At present we advise that the proposed development be held in abeyance while the above issues are addressed by the applicant's agents with the intention that the FRA be modified to satisfy our flooding and water quality concerns.

Further email dated 28.09.2011 - Additional information has been received and we can comment as follows.

The earlier proposal to drain surface water to an off site combined sewer are unacceptable to us and providing surface waters are disposed off 'at source' as set out in the revised Flood Risk Assessment dated 27th September 2011 and as

208 discussed in the submitted soakaways testing report paras 4-2 and 4-3 there are no objections to the proposed development. It is important that in due course a detailed surface water drainage scheme is submitted that conforms fully with the FRA and soakaway report.

Natural England

The ‘Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey' (Sept 2011) did not carry out any detailed surveys for protected species and has identified the need for additional surveys. It is our view that these should be undertaken prior to permission being granted unless it can be shown that species in question and the habitats they are using will not be affected.

Badgers - Possible badger sett was identified in the NE corner of the site and 6.8 recommends that these are incorporated into the development with a 20m buffer. If this is not possible they must be resurveyed prior to commencement of development or site clearance to confirm that they are not being used by badgers otherwise a licence may be required. 6.9 also makes the recommendation that scrub removal is undertaken in a precautionary way (PMW) with an ecological clerk of works present to ensure no hidden badger setts are disturbed or destroyed.

PMW should also be taken to ensure badgers using the site are able to escape from construction trenches (6.10).....

Bats - Natural England support the recommendations made in the non-technical summary that: i) Bat habitat suitability assessment should be made of any trees which are to be removed as part of the development. If any suitable trees are identified they should be assessed in more detailed to confirm whether of not they are providing a roosting place for bats. ii) Bat activity surveys are required which would need to be carried out between May and September (also in 6.16) and the recommendation in 6.15 of 3 measures to avoid impacts on bat feeding and commuting areas and enhance remaining habitats for bats, i.e. retention of mature trees on site, sensitive lighting particularly around retained and newly planted trees and shrubs and enhancement to the site boundaries using native species of trees and shrubs.

Impacts on West Hayes OSWI - The non-technical summary makes ‘recommendations for the protection of ecological features of value' and ‘other recommendations for enhancement'. Natural England supports these and recommends that, given the OSWI status of the site and the ‘biodiversity duty' placed on all local authorities (S40 NERC Act 2006), they should be implemented to ensure that there is no net loss of biodiversity interest in the area as a result of the development.

209 Reptiles - 6.21 recommends that, where habitats such as dead wood piles, scrub and rough grassland occur they should be retained on site. If this is not possible a condition should be applied requiring that these habitats are removed at a suitable time of year (April to September) and with the Ecological Clerk of Works present.

Nesting Birds - Vegetation clearance should only take place between September and Feb (inclusive) to avoid any offence being committed.

Further comments received 21/11/2011 - I have been speaking with the ecologist dealing with this site regarding the need for additional surveys – as recommended in their report. They have agreed they will incorporate the relevant habitats, retained and unaffected, within the development and therefore the additional bat surveys will not be required.

In speaking to them I realised that I have missed the word not from my response so the corrected letter is now attached

Other Representations

31 letters of representation have been received to date;

Objecting on the following grounds –

1. Development is outside of the development boundary and therefore contrary to planning policy. The development would result in urban sprawl. 2. Surface water drainage issues – proposed site is at a high point within the village. 3. Eastfield Road is a small cul de sac and unsuitable to additional traffic. 4. Increase pressure on school capacity. 5. Inadequate provision for pedestrian traffic. 6. Lack of service infrastructure within West Hill. 7. Lack of demand for affordable housing, question the accuracy of the Housing Needs Survey and viability of the scheme. 8. Detrimental impact on trees. 9. Development would change the character of the area with increased noise and traffic levels. 10. Affordable units are too large to cater for the identified single people – within the housing needs survey. 11. Foul water issues regarding the Fluxton station being at capacity. 12. Development would ruin views and experience of users of the bordering public footpath. 13. Increased usage of cars – unsustainable form of transport. 14. Detrimental impact on wildlife and protected species.

PLANNING HISTORY

None relevant.

210 POLICIES

Devon Structure Plan Policies ST1 (Sustainable Development) ST4 (Infrastructure Provision) ST15 (Area Centres) ST18 (Affordable Housing) ST18A (Mix and Type of Housing) CO9 (Biodiversity and Earth Science Diversity) CO11 (Conserving Energy Resources) CO13 (Protecting Water Resources and Flood Defence) CO14 (Conserving Agricultural Land) WM1 (Waste Management) TR2 (Co-ordinating Land Use/Travel Planning) TR4 (Parking Strategy, Standards and Proposals) TR5 (Hierarchy of Modes) TR6 (Network Integration) TR7 (Walking and Cycling) TR9 (Public Transport)

East Devon Local Plan Policies S5 (Countryside Protection) S7 (Infrastructure Related to New Development) D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) D2 (Sustainable Construction) D3 (Access for the Disabled) D4 (Landscape Requirements) D5 (Trees on Development Sites) EN6 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) EN8 (Proposals Affecting Sites Which May be of Archaeological Importance) H1 (Residential Land Provision) H2 (Residential Land Allocation) H3 (Range and Mix of New Housing Development) H4 (Affordable Housing) RE3 (Open Space Provision in New Housing Developments) TA1 (Accessibility of New Development) TA3 (Transport Assessments /Travel Plans) TA4 (Footpaths, Bridleways and Cycleways) TA7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) TA9 (Parking Provision in New Development)

Government Guidance

PPS 1 - Delivering Sustainable Development PPS3 - Housing PPS4 – Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth PPS7 – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas PPS9 - Planning for Biodiversity and Geological Conservation PPG13 – Transport PPS 17 – Planning For Open Space, Sport and Recreation

211 PPS25 – Development and Flood Risk

Supplementary Planning Guidance West Hill Village Design Statement Interim Mixed Affordable and Market Housing Position Statement

Guidance

Manual for Streets

Site Location and Description

The proposal site covers an area of approximately 2.06 hectares of agricultural land to the west of West Hill. The proposed site is land that was previously associated with the property of Westhayes (situated to the east). The site is situated on sloping ground (with higher ground to the north and lower ground to the south) with mature trees situated in and around the site in a parkland style environment. A public footpath runs along the southern boundary of the proposal site, views from which look directly into the existing field. This public footpath joins the B3180 to Eastfield Road and West Hill Road. There are approximately 23 dwellings which have access onto Eastfield Road, which itself is connected, by a roundabout, to one of the main through roads through the settlement known as West Hill Road.

To the east of the application site is the parcel of land which was the proposed site of ‘Eastfield’ development (planning ref; 10/0761/MOUT). This sought an outline application (seeking determination of means of access only) for the erection of 50 dwellings of which 20 were to be age restricted dwellings and 30 to be for general needs housing, together with associated open space and necessary infrastructure, the change of use of part of the site to educational use and provision of a new building for educational purposes. This planning application was refused by Members in line with the officer recommendation. This application has since been the subject of an appeal via a public inquiry where the Inspector has recently dismissed the appeal on the basis of sustainability and harm to the Councils spatial vision, this element being important for the 5 years housing land supply and the issue of disaggregation. In addition landscape harm was also raised as a significant concern.

ANALYSIS

Principle of the development

The application site lies outside the built-up area boundary of West Hill as defined within the East Devon Local Plan 1995-2011. It is therefore considered that the proposed development is contrary to Policy S5 of the East Devon Local Plan which limits development in the countryside to that which accords with a specific Local Plan policy. However, in 2009 the Council approved an Interim Mixed Affordable and Market Housing Position Statement for schemes in rural areas, due to the lack of

212 affordable housing in the District and the low levels of affordable housing constructed in recent years.

This Position Statement is not part of the East Devon Local Development Framework or the East Devon Local Plan and it does not form supplementary policy to the Local Plan. However, it does highlight factors that will form relevant material considerations which, when taken in conjunction with adopted Local Plan policy and other local, regional and national policy, will inform the determination of planning applications. Where compliant with this statement and the broad thrust of adopted Local Plan policy the Council will seek to support applications.

Rural departure sites (beyond Local Plan Built-up Area Boundaries) for development of a mix of affordable and market housing will be permissible provided that the following criteria are met in full:

(a) The new development should integrate the open market and affordable housing, making the best use of land and the development should be well related to and complement and be compatible with the built form of a settlement.

Despite previous assertions that the site was reasonably well related to the BUAB, the recent appeal decision in relation to Eastfield has required a re-appraisal of this relationship. This is because the inspector considered that the development of the Eastfield site would be harmful in landscape terms despite it being better related to the buil-up are boundary of West Hill than Westhayes. In giving greater weight to the local landscape quality and the parkland setting of Westhayes, it is not considered that the scheme is without harm. It would be read, particularly from the public footpath as a wedge of built form projecting onto higher land that harms the setting of the village. Without a comprehensive assessment of other sites around the village and in light of the Inspectors decision it is no longer considered that the site is appropriately related. In terms of the internal layout the proposed provision of market dwellings would be sited at the end of the development while the affordable would be clustered along the southern edge, bordering the public footpath. The “pepper pot” approach of mixing the market and affordable housing together has not been adopted, however registered providers prefer to have their units together and the proposed layout should prevent it appearing as two seperate developments.

(b) The scheme is at/near a village or settlement with a Built-up Area Boundary and/or with a state primary school.

The development boundary for West Hill, as defined in the local plan crosses the garden of the adjacent property of No. 18 Eastfield Road. Whilst the development is not adjoining this boundary line it is within reasonable proximity to be appropriately related to the settlement for access services and facilities for the scale of development. West Hill has a school to the east of the application site, and a village store. While recognised as a village of limited sustainability credentials (particularly with the lack of footways) the scale of development, where there is an identified need with a closely positioned school, is considered acceptable.

213 (c) A local housing needs assessment shows a need for affordable housing in the settlement and/or in surrounding areas and the open market housing will be of a type or size that is justified through the needs assessment and similar in size and character to the affordable houses.

The statement is built on the basic premise that there is a need for affordable housing. If there is no need in the vicinity of the application site then the statement will not apply. In this instance the applicants have submitted an Affordable Housing Needs Survey (July 2011) for West Hill produced by The Community Council of Devon, on behalf of The Devon Rural Housing Partnership. This survey has identified a need for nine affordable homes within the next 5 years with a methodology that appears sound with reasonable response rates (40%). Eight homes are required for single people and one 3 bedroom home. However, what is being proposed is not single bedroom dwellings but rather 2-3 bedroom dwellings for the most part. It is considered a necessity in terms of affordable housing delivery, to accommodate potential family growth, with a sustainable and long term stance taken. Furthermore in terms of aiding a tenure blind approach the pattern of development relates better to the open market dwellings proposed within the site. The housing survey also found that sixteen older households needed alternative accommodation, but had sufficient resources to meet their need in the open market. It is considered that this document has identified sufficient affordable housing need within the location to comply with the requirements of the interim statement. Accordingly a split of 10 affordable units and five open market dwellings have been submitted in line with the 66% minimum requirement for affordable dwellings (and not exceeding 15 dwellings overall). Within the draft Heads of Terms the applicant has proposed an expected tenure split of 70/30 split in favour of social rented and shared equity, compliant to our housing enabling officer’s expectations.

Concern has been raised as to the viability of the proposal, and it is likely that the market price of the open market dwellings would be required to offset the affordable units. However, the potential commercial viability issues of the development are not for the local planning authority to determine and have not been raised by the applicant at this time. It is necessary to secure the affordable units, as this forms the fundamental basis for facilitating development in accordance with the Interim Statement. This can be secured in a S106 legal agreement.

(d) At least 66% of all dwellings will be affordable in perpetuity and of these at least half will be available as social rented properties.

The proposal is for 66 % affordable housing and as stated above the tenure can be controlled via a Section 106 agreement.

(e) No open market property/properties may be occupied until at least twice the number of affordable dwellings have been completed.

This aspect of the permission will be agreed through the Section 106 agreement with particular regard to the phasing of the development.

(f) The development will be for no more than a total of 15 dwellings.

214 Only 15 dwelling have been proposed under this scheme.

(g) The cumulative impact of successive applications on the same land will be carefully considered against criteria (a).

To date this proposal is the only application that has been submitted on the land in this regard.

On balance it is considered that the proposal fails to fulfil the criteria of the interim statement. Other issues in relation to the overall application and its merits, namely landscape and visual impact, neighbouring amenity, trees, highway implications and drainage will be further discussed in detail.

Other matters

Layout, Landscape and Visual Impact

The proposed layout illustrates roads to service the development being connected onto the existing access road which services the existing property Westhayes (which in turn connects to Eastfield Road). The road would split into two approximately halfway into the site terminating in two cul-de-sacs. It is anticipated that this road would be adopted by the highway authority to comply with the requirements of a Housing Association.

The open market houses are generally clustered from the spine road to the north with the affordable units along the southern boundary of the site. Whilst this does not encourage a mix of housing in line with Planning Policy Statement 1 (Sustainable Development) over the whole site, in terms of appearance the affordable units are in spacious plots and in terms of the appearance utilise the same materials and symmetry of the market housing.

Planning policy seeks to reinforce the key characteristics and special qualities of the area and ensure that development does not adversely affect the urban form and important landscape characteristics. The application is not sited within a designated AONB.

Attention is drawn to a recent appeal decision on the adjacent site of Eastfield, West Hill, and the Inspectors considerations. In explaining his decision the Inspector specifically took into account the impact on the countryside and the setting of West Hill (paragraphs 19 – 21). He considered that under the merits of that case the landscape quality of the site and its surroundings were undervalued within the committee report. As previously alluded to it is considered that this view, held by the Inspector, is a material consideration and has direct bearing on the landscape consideration of the proposed development at Westhayes. This is due to the close proximity of the two sites and the fact that this consideration was made very recently (15th November 2011). As a result of the Inspectors decision increased weight to landscape impact must be given to the Westhayes Site.

In terms of visual prominence, the site at Westhayes is clearly more visible from the public realm, compared to the site at Eastfield, due to the public footpath which runs

215 along the southern boundary. Furthermore Westhayes is situated on rising ground, with mature trees which provide a strong definitive character that establishes a high quality landscape. The introduction of residential properties and the landscaping needed to achieve integration within the site would detract from this attractive landscape, which is key in establishing the setting of West Hill.

The site at Eastfield, in terms of relationship with the existing pattern of development, was arguably better situated as the site had closer proximity with the defined settlement boundary for West Hill. The Westhayes application site is more divorced from this boundary and therefore in terms of its sitting represents further intrusion into the countryside. Compensatory planting and landscaping would not suitably prevent the visual intrusion of the scheme given the proximity to the public footpath of the rear and side elevations of the affordable units (which also features close boarded fencing in the rear gardens). The development would appear overly harsh in relation to the surrounding rural character which would not reinforce the special qualities of the area.

It is a balanced consideration as to whether the visual harm to the high quality landscape outweighs the benefits of meeting an indentified affordable housing requirement within West Hill. In this instance however the increased weight placed upon landscape quality is considered to outweigh the affordable offer, as it is likely that opportunities for less intrusive sites, compliant with the Interim Statement, will come forward around West Hill.

Impact on Neighbouring Amenity

In terms of amenity it is the properties along Eastfield Road that are potentially most impacted upon as a result of the development. There are several properties to the south of the application site, including a newly constructed dwelling, however these properties are considered to be a sufficient distance from the development with suitable mature tree screening in place. Due to the distances involved it is considered that the proposed dwellings would not impose on, or overlook the properties along Eastfield Road. Number 18 Eastfield Road is the closest property to the development and features a post and wire fence as a means of boundary treatment. Nevertheless distances and lack of high level windows on the side elevation of plot 1 means that there would not be a sustained detrimental impact.

The Impact on Trees

The application is supported by a tree survey and the proposed layout has been designed following a production of a Tree Constraints Plan. A blanket Tree Protection Order (TPO) partially covers land shown as being retained by Westhayes, and the proposed access area to the application site. This blanket TPO does not extend to the proposed plots for the intended dwellings, although there are trees within and surrounding the plot that are considered worthy of retention and indeed every effort should be made to retain these as they greatly contribute to the character of West Hill.

The buildings and structures would be located outside of root protection areas (RPA) of substantial trees except where an access road is required. The original plans have

216 been amended to accommodate existing trees on the site which provide a positive contribution to the landscape. This includes altering the position of the proposed dwellings along the southern boundary of the site, away from the mature trees off the site. Additionally alterations to the road layout are proposed, incorporating a raised section of road to prevent interruption to the roots of a notable English Oak (T43). The councils arboriculturalist are insistent that the road should be designed to conform to no dig specifications, thereby allowing continued growth of the tree roots without hindrance or suffocation. The Highway Authority has been consulted on this access road and is insistent that this road would have to be constructed of a suitable hard standing material, i.e. concrete slabs, in order to be formally adopted. This has further significance as the road would need to be adopted in order to conform to the requirements of the Housing Association. The council’s arboriculturalist believes that a technical solution, incorporating bridged concrete slabs, could be reached to accommodate the road without hindrance to the English Oak. To date insufficient cross sections of the construction have been submitted. However, the resolution of this issue can be reasonably conditioned, in the event of an approval, in light of further construction methods submitted by the agent.

The other tree issue regards the positions of the pavement, as part of the road access into the development (adjacent to trees T9 and T8 on the plans). The position of the road does not come within the RPA of this tree but the pavement has the potential to, thereby requiring a no dig construction. This method of no dig construction should take place on level ground to avoid ground interference and a level surface would be a necessity to ensure its adoption by the Highway Authority. A rerouted pedestrian path solution should be sought, however, again further details and plans are required for clarification. As the council arboriculturalist considers that a technical solution can be found it is considered reasonable, in the event of approval to condition this aspect of the proposal.

The Council’s Arboricultural Officer has been consulted and considers that the general layout (notwithstanding the issues raised above) and design of the proposed development accords with the processes and requirements as laid out within British Standard Recommendations 5837:2005 (Trees in Relation to Construction). Accordingly all notable trees of importance have been retained and the constraints that these trees represent have been taken into account in the design. Subject to suitable conditions ensure mitigation measures are in place there are no objections to the proposals provided the two issues above are resolved.

Highway Issues

One of the main considerations in determining the development is the relationship with the existing highway network and the sustainability of the location, the suitability of the approach road and access to the development site. Additionally, parking provision and pedestrian links and road calming features should all be taken into account.

The Inspector dismissed a recent appeal against the refusal of planning permission for the erection of 50 dwellings on a nearby site (Eastfield). Paragraphs 22 to 27 of that appeal decision letter make it quite clear that the area of West Hill was not considered by that inspector to be a sustainable location for this level of

217 development. In light of the content of that decision letter, the Highway Authority had no alternative other than to revise its previous recommendation of approval. However, the Planning Authority takes the view that, West Hill being categorised as a village with a defined settlement boundary within the local plan under policy S4, has been identified as retaining sufficient sustainable attributes that can facilitate limited development. Therefore, on balance, it is not considered that this is a sufficient reason to warrant refusal of this application.

Notwithstanding the principle objection above, Devon County Highways department has been involved in suggesting amendments of the original plans to conform to expected highway standards and the Manual for Streets Document. The comments of the Highway Authority on the adjacent Eastfield application are again reiterated with regards to the ability of Eastfield Road to accommodate traffic, and it must be considered that the numbers of housing proposed are significantly lower.

The mini roundabout is considered adequate to deal with the additional traffic generated by the development. Eastfield Road is considered as having the potential to accommodate 100 residents according to previous Devon County Design Guide. This guide has now been superseded by ‘Manual for Streets’ which does not apply upper threshold numbers served by a category of road. The Highway Authority considers that the access routes can accommodate the increase in traffic anticipated. It is considered by the Local Planning Authority that the increased traffic flow would not have an impact on the amenity of the nearby neighbours as the majority of these properties are set back from the highway and would not experience an unreasonable level of pollution or amenity impact.

The Highway Authority has commented that there is some concern about the additional pedestrian movements that will arise from the development towards the village centre and shop. There is a section of road on this route that does not have a separate footway. The provision of a footway along this stretch has been an aspiration of the highway authority for many years, but has not been possible due to land ownership issues. The applicant does not control the land in question to provide the footway over this length. The development would give rise to a comparatively small number of additional pedestrian movements, when assessed against the existing number of pedestrian movements, so it is not felt that a highway reason for refusal could be justified on those grounds.

Surface and Foul Water Drainage

Issues have been raised with regards to surface water disposal resulting from the development. The application takes place on relatively high land and many of the letters of representation have drawn attention to surface water run-off and its potential increase as a result of the development. The Environment Agency (EA) have been consulted on the application and have stated that providing surface waters are disposed off ‘at source’ as set out in the revised FRA dated 27th September 2011, and as discussed in the submitted soakways testing reports para 4-2 and 4-3, there are no objections to the proposed development. It is considered that adequate provision on site can be accommodated and details of a suitable SUDS drainage system can therefore be secured via condition, in the event of an approval.

218

During the consideration of the planning application the issues of accommodating foul drainage water has been resolved. South West Water (SWW) have provided a technical solution to the foul water drainage issues at Fluxton waste water treatment works which, while temporary, would safeguard the environment until a permanent solution could be incorporated into the system which could potentially in the next round of funding in 2015. SWW comments state that it has recently been established that a limited amount of spare capacity is available at the receiving sewage treatment works which would allow us to support foul flows only from a development of this scale being 15 dwellings. Therefore there are no objections from SWW for the proposal.

Archaeology

The Devon County Archaeology department has been consulted on the application but have not responded to date. It is therefore considered that the area is unlikely to have the potential for archaeological findings.

Ecology

A Phase I Habitat Survey has been carried out (dated September 2011) and Natural England consulted on both the application and the submitted survey. However, Natural England initially responded stating that the protected species survey has identified the need for additional surveys to be conducted. It is Natural England’s view that these should be undertaken prior to permission being granted unless it can be shown that the species in question and the habitats they are using will not be affected. The site is reported as supporting a limited structural and habitat diversity, including well managed improved grassland, standard trees and scattered scrubs. No evidence of protected and/or notable species was recorded on site during the surveys. The current proposals are unlikely to affect suitable foraging and community habitat on site (boundary features); therefore the level of survey effort is considered unsuitable for the site. The applicants’ ecologist has agreed they will incorporate the relevant habitats, retained and unaffected, within the development and therefore Natural England have now agreed in this instance that the additional bat surveys will not be required. Therefore the proposal is considered to make appropriate provision for protected species in accordance with PPS9 and EN6 of the development plan.

Section 106 - Heads of Terms

A draft Heads of Terms has been submitted with the application which would have to be agreed upon in the event of an approval. The Heads of Terms includes securing the 10 affordable units in perpetuity, with a 70/30 tenure split in favour of social rented and shared equity. Appropriate phasing of the development would also be required to ensure that affordable units are completed alongside open market units. A primary school contribution of £26,060.75 is suggested by the applicant. This is based on paying the education authority’s requirements for the market dwellings only. It is understood that there is no requirement for a secondary school contribution. The primary school contribution derived from the affordable housing element could be omitted to encourage planning proposals which make suitable

219 affordable provisions. This has been the approach taken elsewhere and is considered to be reasonable in this case also.

With regards to the open space contributions of 5 open market houses would require £20,703.95 and the 10 affordable houses would require £57,653.01 in terms of contributions in line with local plan policy RE3. A Recreation Area Strategy (RAS) has been produced with a view to providing enhanced public open space facilities in and around the settlement. It should be noted that the exact amounts would be agreed through a negotiation process and are therefore, at this stage, indicative.

RECOMMENDATION

Refuse for the following reason:

1. The development proposed, by virtue of the visual impact of a suburban built form and character on a rural landscape of high quality which is situated on rising land and is poorly related to the settlement of West Hill, would appear intrusive. Forming part of the surrounding countryside the scheme would result in the loss of an attractive green field parkland environment, which provides an important backdrop to the rural character of West Hill. The application is considered to be contrary to the West Hill Design Statement, guidance in PPS1, PPS3, Policies C01 (Landscape Character and Local Distinctiveness) and C06 (Quality of New Development) of the adopted Devon Structure Plan and Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and D4 (Landscape Requirements) of the adopted East Devon Local Plan.

220 Ward Seaton

Reference11/1967/OUT

Applicant Mr Richard Anthony Cormick Lynch-Staunton

Location Land South Of Bramble Hill Seaton Down Hill Seaton

Proposal Construction of 5no. dwellings and associated works (outline permission with details of appearance, landscaping, and scale reserved)

RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions

221 Committee Date: 6 December 2011

Seaton Target Date: (SEATON) 11/1967/OUT 17.11.2011

Applicant: Mr Richard Anthony Cormick Lynch-Staunton

Location: Land South Of Bramble Hill Seaton Down Hill

Proposal: Construction of 5no. dwellings and associated works (outline permission with details of appearance, landscaping, and scale reserved)

RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Bramble Hill is a detached two storey property that occupies a generous sized plot on the hillside to the north of Seaton. The boundaries of the site are marked by mature tree screening and there is also a group of mature trees within the centre of the site. The application is in outline form and proposes the development of the southern part of the site with 5no. detached dwellings indicated to be of two storey form. Details of appearance, scale and landscaping are indicated as reserved with layout and access only to be considered at this stage. The proposals indicate 4no.units arranged in a line east to west, approximately 10 metres from the southern boundary at their closest point, with the fifth unit located to the north on the eastern boundary. The development would be served by a new access road. The proposal is at a higher density to the surrounding area and is of a different character being two storey, however the development would not be read directly in relation to existing development and would make a more efficient use of land. Concern has been raised by local residents, particularly in relation to the height of the proposed dwellings and the potential for them to impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers. Whilst these concerns are understood it is considered that impact could be controlled by avoiding windows directly overlooking neighbours. Although the proposed layout is considered to be unacceptable it does adequately demonstrate that the proposed development can be accommodated on the site. On balance the proposal is considered to be acceptable and is recommended that the principle of the development and the access arrangements be approved.

222 CONSULTATIONS

Local Consultations

Seaton - Cllr S Jones The concerns I have regarding the application are as follows:

1) Mr Morgan has stated in his letter of representation, dated 4th October 2011, that the Proposed Site Plan Drawing No. 10-2431-04 provides incorrect information about the formal boundary between the proposed development site and Nos 2 and 4 Churston Rise and 2 Upper Churston Rise.

2) The proposed 2-storey houses are not in keeping with the established design vernacular of the existing dwellings in the immediate area.

3) The 2-storey dwellings have the potential to cause overlooking and loss of privacy issues to the residents of Nos 2 and 4 Churston Rise and No 2 Upper Churston Rise.

Parish/Town Council OBJECTION. The Town Council's previous objections to this development are still valid. The development will result in over development of the site and the loss of privacy for existing dwellings; the development is out of keeping with the area, the design and layout do not meet the criteria of the Seaton Design Statement, the Archaeologist's reports strongly recommends that this development should not take place, loss of trees which is contrary to the Seaton Design Statement and EDDC Policy C2, conflict with D24 Flood Plain of DCC Strategy Plan, possible highway implications due to restricted visibility leading on to Seaton Down Hill. There is a concern that this application could lead to similar applications in other parts of the Town which would also be unwelcome for a variety of reasons, similar to those expressed for this site.

Technical Consultations

County Highway Authority The Executive Director Of Environment, Economy And Culture, On Behalf Of Devon County Council, As Local Highway Authority, Recommends That The Following Conditions Shall Be Incorporated In Any Grant Of Permission:-

1. No part of the development hereby approved shall be brought into its intended use until the access, parking facilities, visibility splays, turning area, parking spaces and garage / hardstanding, access drive and access drainage have been provided and maintained in accordance with the application drawings and retained for that purpose at all times

REASON: To ensure that adequate facilities are available for the traffic attracted to the site

2. The existing access shall be effectively and permanently closed in accordance with details which shall previously have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority as soon as the new access is capable of use

223

REASON: To prevent the use of a substandard access and to minimise the number of accesses on to the public highway

3. In accordance with details that shall previously have been submitted to, and approved by, the Local Planning Authority, provision shall be made within the site for the disposal of surface water so that none drains on to any County Highway

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

Devon County Archaeologist I refer to the above application. The archaeological evaluation of the site undertaken in support of this application has shown that the proposed development site has been subject to a level of disturbance through erosion, exacerbated by the slope, and by the creation of a terrace to create a level garden area. As such, the proposed development will have no archaeological impact and the Historic Environment Service has no further observations to make.

Arboricultural Consultant

I have revisited the site and can now confirm that the proposed plans and accompanying Arboricultural Report correctly identify and categorise the trees on and adjacent to the site. The layout does show the main access crossing the Root Protection Area (RPA) of the Oaks T5, T6, T7. However, so long as suitable construction (no dig) is utlised to ensure that no roots are damaged or lost and that free gaseous exchange as well as free flow of surface water is maintained , then the impact on these trees will be minimal. I am not convinced that the concrete haunching of the kerb line as detailed in the Aa Arboricultural survey is acceptable, so please secure the design and construction of the roadway within the RPA as a condition of any approval.

The remainder of the better quality trees remain unaffected by the development.

The removal of the C. leylandii hedges G2 and G3 will open the site up. However collectively the condition of these trees is poor and removal along with appropriate new tree planting (Landscape condition) will improve the amenity of the site and that enjoyed by the neighbours. The retained Thuja hedge on the southern boundary should recover its vigour and will also benefit from the removal of the other hedges.

On this basis I see no reason to raise any objections to the proposed developement.

Other Representations 6 letters of objection have been received raising the following concerns:

- Inadequate visibility from the proposed site access in relation to traffic speeds - Old fashioned design - Proposals do not represent sustainable construction - Height and proximity of dwellings to boundaries - The proposals would set a precedent for two storey development in the area

224 - The archaeological survey work carried out is inadequate - The proposal would put pressure on existing drainage and other services. - The development outlined does not accord with the Design and Access Statement - The proposal should remove the existing hedge on the southern boundary and replace this with a hedge entirely within the site to allow future maintenance - Impact on wildlife through loss of trees.

PLANNING HISTORY

Reference Description Decision Date

11/1118/OUT Construction of 5no. dwellings Withdrawn 01.08.2011 and associated works (outline permission with details of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale reserved).

POLICIES

Devon Structure Plan Policies CO6 (Quality of New Development)

TR10 (Strategic Road Network)

CO13 (Protecting Water Resources and Flood Defence)

East Devon Local Plan Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness)

S4 (Development Within Built-up Area Boundaries)

TA7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access)

D4 (Landscape Requirements)

D5 (Trees on Development Sites)

RE3 (Open Space Provision in New Housing Developments)

TA9 (Parking Provision in New Development)

Seaton Town Design Statement 2009

Planning Policy Statements PPS25 (Development and Flood Risk) PPS3 (Housing)

Draft National Planning Policy Framework

225 Site Location and Description

Bramble Hill is a detached two storey property that occupies a generous plot on the northern outskirts of the town but within the built-up area boundary. The land on the site slopes down from northwest to southeast and there is heavy tree screening of native trees to the north and east boundaries and conifer screening to the southern boundary. There is a further group of mature oaks in the centre of the site which together with those on the rest of the application site are the subject of an Area Tree Preservation Order. The application site relates to the southern part of the site which is largely laid to lawn and which is served by an existing access in the southeast corner of the site onto Seaton Down Hill. A pedestrian footway runs along the west side of Seaton Down Hill for the entire site frontage.

The surrounding area is characterised by bungalow and chalet bungalow development to the south in Churston Rise with a large nursing home on the opposite side of Seaton Down Hill to the west. The site lies outside of but adjoins a designated Area of Great Landscape Value, a Coastal Preservation Area and an area designated as green wedge.

ANALYSIS

Background

Application 11/1118/OUT sought outline permission for five units, it was submitted earlier in the year but was withdrawn pending the submission of further information requested by officers to allow a full assessment of the impacts of the scheme.

The new application is also proposed in outline with all matters except the access and layout are reserved. The submitted layout plan shows five units within the site with a central access drive adjacent to the northern boundary. The plan indicates the removal of the whole line of conifers along the southern boundary together with a number of smaller trees within the site and details the removal of one tree along the road frontage to provide the necessary visibility splay.

Principle

The site falls within the Built-up Area Boundary of the town and is not designated in a way that would preclude development in principle. Subject to other considerations the site is considered to be of sufficient size to accommodate the number of dwellings proposed without appearing overdeveloped. Although the density would be greater than that of surrounding development it is not considered to be cramped by modern standards and makes for a more efficient use of land.

Layout

The proposal indicates the creation of an access road at the northern end of the site, to the south of the existing property 'Bramble Hill'. The access road would effectively dissect the site form the land retained by Bramble Hill and would terminate in a turning head toward the western boundary. To the south side of the access road a

226 line of 4 dwellings are indicated set in angled plots that run northwest to southeast. The final dwelling is proposed to the northwest of the turning head.

The layout proposed does not reflect the prevailing pattern of development in the locality, which is to the south an estate of suburban bungalows set in generous plots. However, the propoals would not be viewed directly in relation to these properties and there would be limited visual/character impact outside of the site. In any event it is important that the layout of the development provides an attractive and appropriate form of development and in this respect it is considered that the proposed layout is unacceptable. The suggested layout does however indicate that five units could be provided with reasonable levels of amenity space.

Tree Impact

There are siginificant trees around the periphery of the site and a group of oaks in the centre immediately to the north of the proposed access drive which it is proposed to retain. There is also a group of mature conifers along the southern boundary of the site which it is proposed to remove. All of the trees on the site are subject to an Area Tree Preservation Order. The Council's arboricultural officer has considered the proposals and subject to conditions to ensure a no-dig construction of the proposed drive and a landscaping condition to provide for re-planting within the site he has raised no objections

Scale and Amenity Impact

The scale parameters and indicative details indicate two storey dwellings with an L shaped plan form. Whilst the properties to the south are mainly single storey or chalet bungalows it is not considered that two storey dwellings would be objectionable provided they would not adveresly affect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers.

There has been concern raised by occupiers of properties to the south of the site in relation to the potential impact of development on their amenity due to the height of the properties and potential overlooking from first floor windows. There is some concern that the proposed removal of the existing mature conifer screen would compound this impact. It is also acknoweldged that the sloping nature of the site would accentuate any height difference between the properties. However, the proposal site does lie to the north of the neighbouring properties and therefore there would be no loss of light to rear gardens as a result. Whilst some units, in particular no.4, are indicated close to the boundary with existing properties there is a sufficient distance beween the actual elevations of proposed units and existing properties and units are generally orientated to avoid face to face elevations. The concerns of the neighbours are understood and there is no doubt that the proposals would result in a change to their outlook with the removal of the existing line of conifers and the introduction of 4no. two storey units to their rear. This may give rise to a perceived loss of privacy through overlooking, however, the proposal could be conditioned to prevent windows being inserted at first or ground floor level where it is considered that they would give rise to a loss of privacy. The indicative floor plans shown on the submitted site plan suggest that no windows would be provided on the southwest elevations at either ground or first floor level.

227 The detailed design of the buildings is reserved for future consideration, should the application be approved, but the details submitted do allow an assesment of whether the site could be developed for the number and type of units proposed. In this respect it is consdered that the proposed development could be acceptably accommodated on the site without undue adverse impact on neighbouring properties in terms of overlooking or overbearing impact.

Highway Issues

The proposal site would access onto the west side of Seaton Down Hill within a 30mph restricted section where there is adeqaute visibility in both directions. There has been a number of objections form local residents raising concerns in relation to the use of the proposed access and whether there is adequate visibility from and of the access. The Highways authority has considered the proposals and has raised no objection subject to conditions to control the provision of the access and associated works prior to the occupation of the dwellings and there maintenance thereafter; the closure of the existing access and drainage details.

Local resident concerns

The main concerns raised by local residents are addressed under the relevant sub- headings above, those not directly addressed are considered below in no particular order.

The proposals indicate a tired and old fashioned design - The scale and external appearance of the buildings are reserved for future consideration and the details indicated at this stage are indicative only. It is agreed that the layout is old fashioned and innappropriate and as such it is recommended that the layout should not be agreed at this stage but remain a reserved matter.

The proposals are not a sustainable form of construction - It would be preferential for the dwellings to incorporate renewable energy production features as part of the design but there is no policy requirement at present to insist on this.

The proposals would set a precedent for two storey development in Churston Rise - The site is not part of Churston Rise and the development is separate from it, although it may be visible from there. It is not therefore considered that the proposal would set any precedent for future development in Churston Rise and any applciation that came forward for such development would be judged on its own merits at the time.

The archaeological survey is inadequate - On the previous application Devon Country Archaeology identified the potential for archaeological material within the site and objected in the absence of further survey work. This survey work has now been undertaken with a report being submitted to the County Council. On the basis of the previous disturbance of the site Archaeology has raised no objections and require no further works.

The proposal would put pressure on existing sewage and drainage services - Concerns have been raised that the proposal would increase surface water run-off

228 and foul drainage flows and that the existing systems could not cope. The proposal indicates that surface water would be dealt with by means of soakaway but it has been suggested that the underlying soil conditions would not allow this option, it is suggested that further details of surface water drainage are conditioned. With regards to foul drainage it is proposed to connect to the mains and no objection has been received from South West Water or indication given by them that the existing system can not cope.

The hedge on the southern boundary should be removed and replaced with a new hedge set back form the boundary - It is understood that the hedge on this boundary is a concern to existing residents in terms of how this will be maintained if the ownership is split between 4 no. properties and that the hedge is already overgrowing adjoining properties. The hedge would maintain a natural screen to the southern boundary and provide some privacy between the site and neighbouring properties, the arboricultural officer has also suggested that it may thrive more with the removal of the line of conifers to the north of it. The alternative would be the removal of this natural screen and its replacement with fencing. There is no reason to consider that the hedge would not be maintained by future occupiers and the owners of properties to the south are perfectly entitled to trim back the parts of the hedge that overhang their boundary.

The loss of the conifer trees could impact on wildlife - The existing conifers form a dense screen close to the southern boundary of the site. Although no wildlife survey has been submitted with the application there is no evidence provided to suggest that these trees harbour protected species. The timing of works for the removal of these trees should though avoid the nesting season but the emphasis is on the applicant/developer to ensure that they are compliant with the relavent legislation.

Other Issues

An acceptable unilateral undertaking has been submitted to deal with the required contributions towards public open space.

Landscaping would be dealt with as a reserved matter should the application be approved.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE subject to the following conditions:

1. Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved. (Reason - To comply with section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.).

229 2. Approval of the details of the scale, layout and appearance of the buildings and landscaping (hereinafter called the "reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced. (Reason - The application is in outline with one or matters reserved.)

3. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed at the end of this decision notice. (Reason - For the avoidance of doubt.)

5. The approved landscaping scheme shall be carried out in the first planting season after commencement of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall be maintained for a period of 5 years. Any trees or other plants which die during this period shall be replaced during the next planting season with specimens of the same size and species unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Reason - In the interests of amenity and to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the area and to accord with Policy C CO6 (Quality of New Development)of the Devon Structure Plan and Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness), D4 (Landscape Requirements) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

6. No development shall take place until details of fencing, walling or other boundary treatment have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The dwellings hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the fencing, walling or other boundary treatment have been completed in accordance with the approved details. (Reason - In the interests of preserving and enhancing the character and appearance of the area and/or protecting the privacy of local residents and to accord with Policy CO6 (Quality of New Development) of the Devon Structure Plan and Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness), D4 (Landscape Requirements) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

7. No part of the development hereby approved shall be brought into its intended use until the access, parking facilities, visibility spalys, turning area, parking spaces and garage/hardstanding access drive and access draiange have been provided and maintained in accordance with the application drawings and retained for that purpose at all times.

230 (Reason - To ensure that adequate facilities are available for the traffic attracted to the site and to accord with Policies CO6 (Quality of New Development) and TR10 (Strategic Road Network) of the Devon Structure Plan and Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness), TA7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) and TA9 (Parking Provision in New Development) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

8. The existing access shall be effectively and permanently closed in accordance with details which shall previously have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority as soon as the new access is capable of use (Reason - To prevent the use of a substandard access and to minimise the number of accesses on to the public highway and to accord with policy TR10 (Strategic Road Network) of the Devon Structure Plan and Policies TA7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

9. In accordance with details that shall previously have been submitted to, and approved by, the Local Planning Authority, provision shall be made within the site for the disposal of surface water so that none drains on to any County Highway (Reason - In the interest of public safety and to prevent damage to the highway and to accord with policy TR10 (Strategic Road Network) of the Devon Structure Plan and Policies TA7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

10. Prior to commencement of any works on site (including demolition), tree protection details, to include the protection of hedges and shrubs, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. These shall adhere to the principles embodied in BS 5837 and shall indicate exactly how and when the trees will be protected during the site works. Provision shall also be made for supervision of tree protection by a suitably qualified and experienced arboricultural consultant and details shall be included within the tree protection statement. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the agreed details.

In any event, the following restrictions shall be strictly observed:

(a) No burning shall take place in a position where flames could extend to within 5m of any part of any tree to be retained. (b) No trenches for services or foul/surface water drainage shall be dug within the crown spreads of any retained trees (or within half the height of the trees, whichever is the greater) unless agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All such installations shall be in accordance with the advice given in Volume 4: National Joint Utilities Group (NJUG) Guidelines For The Planning, Installation And Maintenance Of Utility Apparatus In Proximity To Trees (Issue 2) 2007. (c) No changes in ground levels or excavations shall take place within the crown spreads of retained trees (or within half the height of the trees, whichever is the greater) unless agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

231 (Reason - To ensure retention and protection of trees on the site in the interests of amenity and to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the area in accordance with policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness), D4 (Landscape Requirements) and D5 (Trees on Development Sites) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

11. Notwithstanding the details contained in the submitted arboricultural survey prepared by Advanced Arboriculture and dated 27th July 2011, full details of the method of construction of hard surfaces (including the access road) in the vicinity of trees to be retained shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of any works on site (including demolition). The method shall adhere to the principles embodied in BS 5837 and AAIS Arboricultural Practice Note 1 (1996) and involvement of an arboricultural consultant and engineer is recommended. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the agreed details. (Reason - To ensure retention and protection of trees on the site in the interests of amenity and to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the area in accordance with policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness), D4 (Landscape Requirements) and D5 (Trees on Development Sites) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

12. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No.2) (England) Order 2008 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no works within the Schedule Part 1 Classes A or B for the enlargement, improvement or other alterations to the dwellings hereby permitted, other than works that do not materially affect the external appearance of the buildings, shall be undertaken. (Reason - The space available would not permit such additions with detriment to the character and appearance of the area or to the amenities of adjoining occupiers and in accordance with policy C06 (quality of Development) of the Devon Structure Plan 2001-2016 and policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

14. No development shall take place until details of a surface water disposal scheme have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to first occupation of the dwellings hereby approved. (Reason:In the interests of flood prevention and in accordance with Planning Policy Statement 25 (Development and Flood Risk) and policy C013 (Protecting Water Resources and Flood Defence) of the Devon Structure Plan 2001-2016 )

NOTE FOR APPLICANT

1. IN GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT, THE FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION:

The proposal complies with the following Devon Structure Plan 2001-2016 Policies and the adopted East Devon Local Plan 1995-2011 Policies:

232 Devon Structure Plan Policies CO6 (Quality of New Development)

TR10 (Strategic Road Network)

CO13 (Protecting Water Resources and Flood Defence)

East Devon Local Plan Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness)

S4 (Development Within Built-up Area Boundaries)

TA7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access)

D4 (Landscape Requirements)

D5 (Trees on Development Sites)

RE3 (Open Space Provision in New Housing Developments)

TA9 (Parking Provision in New Development)

2. The proposal does not adversely affect the privacy or amenity of neighbouring properties.

3. The design and external appearance of the proposal does not harm the visual amenity of the site and surrounding area.

4. The proposal does not harm the unspoilt character and appearance of the Coastal Preservation Area.

5. The proposal does not harm the particular landscape qualities and characteristics of the landscape designated an Area of Great Landscape Value.

6. The proposal does not harm an identified archaeological site or deposit.

7. The proposal does not harm or give rise to a perceived threat from important trees on or adjacent to the site.

8. The proposal is contained within the defined built-up area boundary of the settlement.

9. The density of the development is at the highest level possible compatible with the area.

10. NOTE TO APPLICANT

The development hereby approved shall be read and implemented in conjunction with the submitted unilateral undertaking dated 21st September 2011.

233 11. NOTE TO APPLICANT

The submitted layout is considered to be unacceptable as it does not reflect the layout and character of development in the surrounding area and would represent a very standardised and regimented layout which is not condusive with creating an attractive and interesting space for residents to live in. The layout has therefore not been agreed at this stage and will form an additional reserved matter.

Approved Plans

10-2431-04 Location Plan 06.09.11

10-2431-05B Site Plan 06.09.11

10-2431-06 Sections 06.09.11

List of Background Papers Application file, consultations and policy documents referred to in the report.

234 Ward Sidmouth Town

Reference11/2143/FUL

Applicant Mrs Nasoula Sherlock

Location 106 High Street Sidmouth EX10 8EF

Proposal Change of use from retail shop to cafe and installation of retractable awning

RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions

235 Committee Date: 6 December 2011

Sidmouth Town Target Date: (SIDMOUTH) 11/2143/FUL 30.11.2011

Applicant: Mrs Nasoula Sherlock

Location: 106 High Street Sidmouth

Proposal: Change of use from retail shop to cafe and installation of retractable awning

RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Planning permission is sought to open a cafe in a vacant shop in the town centre shopping area. The business was displaced from the indoor market when it was converted to one large retail unit. The majority of premises in the town centre shopping area outside of the primary shopping frontage remain in retail use. The loss of one retail unit to a cafe use would not undermine the viability, vitality or shopping character of the area. Furthermore, it would bring a vacant property into use and the cafe could revert back to a shop without the need for planning permission. On that basis the use is considered acceptable subject to a restriction on opening hours and submission of further details in relation to control of noise and odours. The proposed awning is considered appropriate for the conservation area.

CONSULTATIONS

Local Consultations

Parish/Town Council Support, subject to a "no hot food takeaway" condition.

Sidmouth Town - Cllr F Newth I feel the loss of another retail shop is not appropriate in this part of the High St there are numerous coffee shop outlets in this vicinity.

Technical Consultations

County Highway Authority Does not wish to comment

236 Environmental Health I have assessed the application and I propose the following conditions:

The use hereby permitted shall not commence until a detailed proposal for the treatment of cooking odours has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To avoid odours detrimental to the amenities of local residents.

Any plant shall be so installed prior to the first use of the premises and be so retained and operated that the noise generated at the boundary of the nearest neighbouring property shall not exceed Noise Rating Curve 25. Reason: To protect the amenity of local residents from noise.

The ceiling/floor that separates the commercial premise and the nearest residential dwelling or from another part of the same building that is not used exclusively as part of the dwelling shall resist the transmission of airborne sound. Reason: To protect the amenity of local residents from noise.

It is a requirement of REGULATION (EC) No 852/2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs, (Annex II, Chapter I), that lavatories are not to open directly into rooms in which food is handled. I note that both toilets in this plan have ventilating lobbies as this legislation requires. However the WC in the cafe area would also need to comply with the disabled access requirements of the Building Regulations, as would the necessary lobby, at present they are far too small.

Other Representations Twelve letters of support have been received although one raises concerns about noise, opening hours and cooking smells.

Four letters of objection have been received raising the following concerns: There are too many cafes/coffee shops The town needs retail units to attract visitors The town is at saturation point regarding eating establishments

PLANNING HISTORY

Reference Description Decision Date

91/P1938 Change Of Use To Use Approval - 27.01.1992 Classes Order 1987 Class A2 standard time limit

97/P1152 Erection Of Dutch Blind Over Approval - 11.08.1997 Window & Doorway standard time limit

237 POLICIES

Devon Structure Plan Policies CO6 (Quality of New Development)

CO7 (Historic Settlements and Buildings)

CO16 (Noise Pollution)

East Devon Local Plan Policies S4 (Development Within Built-up Area Boundaries)

D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness)

EN11 (Preservation and Enhancement of Conservation Areas)

EN15 (Control of Pollution)

SH1 (Town Centre Shopping Areas)

Site Location and Description The site is located at the upper end of the High Street in a parade set back from the edge of the pavement. The premises last operated as a wine shop but is now vacant. On one side there is an estate agents and on the other a financial advisor's office. There are a number of flats/maisonettes on the upper floors of the parade.

The site is in the designated Town Centre Shopping Area but is not Primary Shopping Frontage.

ANALYSIS

Proposed Development

Planning permission is sought to change the use of the ground floor of the premises from retail (class A1) to a cafe (class A3). This would exclude takeaway uses which fall into a separate use class (A5).

The main issues to consider are the principle of the change of use and the effect of the awning on the character and appearance of the building and the conservation area.

In Town Centre Shopping Areas, policy SH1 of the local plan permits cafe uses provided: the shopping character, visual amenity, vitality and viability of the town centre are not undermined; the amenity of nearby residents is not harmed; and traffic problems would not result.

Within the town centre shopping area north of the primary shopping area about 60 percent of premises have an A1 use. A further 30 percent are A2 uses, including estate agents, solicitors and banks. The remaining 10 percent is made up of food and drink uses including cafes, pubs and takeaways. In addition there is a church, a

238 masonic hall and a dwelling as well as a number of flats and maisonettes on upper floors.

Within the town centre as a whole a significant area is designated as primary shopping frontage where proposals for new non-retail uses are generally discouraged. Such new uses are of the kind which would be expected in the town centre and can be accommodated in the area outside of the primary shopping area. In that area the majority of premises are still in retail use and the remainder are 'A' uses which attract members of the public and add to its vitality. The loss of one retail unit to a cafe use would not undermine the shopping character, vitality or viability of the town centre. Furthermore, it would restore a use which was lost when the indoor market was converted to a single retail unit and would bring an economic benefit through the re-use of a currently vacant property. It should also be noted that the premises could revert to retail use without the need for planning permission.

It is noted that extraction equipment would be installed inside the building and would make use of an existing chimney. In accordance with the advice of the environmental health officer and in order to ensure that the amenity of nearby residents is not harmed by any noise or odours, two conditions are recommended securing further details. A third condition relating to sound insulation is not included following confirmation from the environmental health officer that it is not needed owing to the first floor property being an office rather than residential.

It is appropriate to control the opening hours of the business in the interests of the amenity of nearby residents. In this central location it is reasonable to expect some activity in the evenings and it is noted that other premises in the vicinity remain open at such times. A condition restricting opening to the hours of 7am to 11pm on any day is considered appropriate in this instance.

There would be no material difference between the amount of traffic attracted to a shop compared to a cafe in this location.

The awning would be a simple design fixed below the existing projecting canopy which would limit its visual impact when closed. When open it would have a traditional appearance which is considered appropriate for the building and the conservation area. RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE subject to the following conditions:

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed at the end of this decision notice. (Reason - For the avoidance of doubt.)

239

3. The premises shall not be open for business outside the hours of 0700 hours to 2300 hours on any day. (Reason - To protect adjoining occupiers from excessive noise in accordance with Policy CO16 (Noise Pollution) of the Devon Structure Plan and Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and EN15 (Control of Pollution) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

4. The use hereby permitted shall not commence until a detailed proposal for the treatment of cooking odours has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Details shall include any prefilters, grease traps, mesh or fabric filters and/or activated carbon units intended to be installed, and the proposed method of dispersing residual odours, flue specifications and discharge heights. The equipment shall be installed prior to the use commencing and operated at all times when the kitchen is in use. (Reason - To avoid odours detrimental to the amenities of local residents in accordance with policy EN15 (Control of Pollution) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

5. Any plant (including ventilation, refrigeration and air conditioning units) or ducting system to be used in pursuance of this permission shall be so installed prior to the first use of the premises and be so retained and operated that the noise generated at the boundary of the nearest neighbouring property shall not exceed Noise Rating Curve 25, as defined in BS8233:1999 Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction for Buildings Code of Practice and the Chartered Institute of Building Service Engineers Environmental Design Guide 1999. Details of the scheme shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the first use of the premises. (Reason - To protect the amenity of local residents from noise in accordance with policies CO16 (Noise Pollution) of the Devon Structure Plan and EN15 (Control of Pollution) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

NOTE FOR APPLICANT

1. IN GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT, THE FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION:

The proposal complies with the following Devon Structure Plan 2001-2016 Policies and the adopted East Devon Local Plan 1995-2011 Policies:

Devon Structure Plan Policies CO6 (Quality of New Development)

CO7 (Historic Settlements and Buildings)

CO16 (Noise Pollution)

East Devon Local Plan Policies S4 (Development Within Built-up Area Boundaries)

240 D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness)

EN11 (Preservation and Enhancement of Conservation Areas)

EN15 (Control of Pollution)

SH1 (Town Centre Shopping Areas)

2. The proposal does not adversely affect the privacy or amenity of neighbouring properties.

3. The design and external appearance of the proposal does not harm the visual amenity of the site and surrounding area.

4. The proposal does not harm the character and appearance of the conservation area.

5. The proposal does not undermine the shopping character, vitality or viability of the town centre shopping area.

Approved Plans

Location Plan 26.09.11

Plan Proposed 26.09.11

A Combined Plans 05.10.11

Combined Plans 07.11.11

List of Background Papers Application file, consultations and policy documents referred to in the report.

241 Ward Whimple

Reference11/2239/FUL

Applicant Mr Ralph White

Location Northcotts Farm London Road Strete Ralegh Whimple Exeter EX5 2PT

Proposal Formation of new access and driveway (revisions to planning application 11/0716/FUL)

RECOMMENDATION: Refusal

242 Committee Date: 06.12.2011

Whimple Target Date: (WHIMPLE) 11/2239/FUL 05.12.2011

Applicant: Mr Ralph White

Location: Northcotts Farm London Road

Proposal: Formation of new access and driveway (revisions to planning application 11/0716/FUL)

RECOMMENDATION: Refusal

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Notwithstanding the applicant's continued desire to create an alternative, more attractive entrance and approach to his property and one that avoids the inconvenience of the Day Nursery use and buildings, the location of the chosen spot for that alternative access would be harmful to the essentially rural characteristics that define the 'landscape' of the stretch of the former A30 to the east of its junction with the B3174. This being so, and given that there has been no change in planning circumstances since the previous refusals in 2007 and earlier this year, the view is taken that permission should once again be refused.

The changes to the earlier scheme, including additional landscaping and a less engineered driveway in terms of its width and alignment have been noted, but even in this latest form it is considered that the development would be intrusive and harmful to the character and appearance of this particular area.

CONSULTATIONS

Local Consultations

Parish/Town Council

No objections to location but query why driveway needs to be 5m wide instead of the standard 3m of a domestic driveway. The Parish Council would accept a 3m-wide drive with passing places. No environmental assessment supplied - this is required due to the length and width. Insufficient information given on construction details and materials to be used. The Parish would like to see waste materials re-used on the site.

243 Ward Member - Cllr M Gammell

I would like to express my impressions of and support for this application for the development of a new driveway and access for Mr Whites property.

On visiting the site to increase my understanding of the issues involved, I felt that I could fully appreciate Mr Whites desire to create a new access point. The existing access to Mr White’s property is an extremely narrow lane running down the side of a nursery school, which school would be extremely pleased to see the demise of traffic to and from the Whites east their property. The Whites entrance exits onto the Exeter road on the old A30 and as it is rather narrow and obscure (merely a narrow opening in a thick hedgerow) it is difficult to spot if you are searching for it. At the moment, Exeter road is underused but with the development of Cranbrook it can be anticipated that traffic on this road will be increasingly substantial over time thus adding to the hazard to users of this cramped and awkward entrance. The exit onto the old A 30 is obscured by mature vegetation, which means, that anyone exiting the lane has to nose out into the road before they can see if it is clear to proceed. At this point, the road is derestricted and vehicles travelling on it are moving at a fairly high speed, which makes the strategy of nosing out until visibility is achieved, of necessity, quite hazardous. In addition, anybody wishing to turn right on exiting the entrance has to negotiate vehicles travelling in both directions as well as the new hazard of the recently opened crematorium entrance on the opposite side of the road with all its attendant vehicle movements.

The proposed new exit onto Straightway Head would, by contrast, allow good visibility of the Whites entrance for approaching visitors as well as approaching traffic for the exiting driver before he has to move out into the road. In addition, because the proposed new driveway exits onto Straightway Head the density of traffic is much lower as most of the traffic along Exeter road continues up to the Daisymount roundabout and onto the new A30 or to Ottery./West Hill and has not turned onto Straightway Head. As well as fewer vehicles going past the proposed new exit, the traffic that would be passing it has either slowed to turn into Straightway Head or is slowing to turn into Exeter road so is passing the proposed new exit far more slowly, on average, than that passing the present exit on the busy Exeter road. Overall, therefore the proposed entrance would enhance the safety of passing traffic as well as that of visitors without in any way detracting from the integrity of the surrounding countryside.

Mr White’s proposal for a new driveway and exit would be through a boundary hedge, which I believe is his property and the entrance would make small impact on this substantial hedge with no loss of its mature trees. In addition, I have no objection to the proposal to create a five metre roadway for the new access way as this would allow entering and exiting vehicles to pass safely into and out of the property.

Bearing the above comments in mind I feel that I must support Mr Whites application for the change in access to his property that he proposes as it appears to make minimal impact upon the character of the immediate, surrounding countryside, will alleviate his immediate neighbours concerns for her customers children and improve the safety of the access to his property for Mr Whites family and visitors as well as for the passing traffic.

244 I would make a final request for this application that if it does not receive delegated approval that it is presented to the development management committee for full consultation.

I reserve the right that if new information were to come forward of which I was not aware the opinions expressed in this report could alter.

Other Representations

No representations have been received as a result of the local publicity given to the application.

Technical Consultations

County Highway Authority

Had no objection to the previous application that overcame the highway objection to the first scheme. Recommended the following conditions for the second application that apply equally to this third proposal.

1. The site access and visibility splays shall be constructed, laid out and maintained for that purpose in accordance with the application drawings.

REASON: To provide a satisfactory access to the site with adequate facilities for short term parking and to provide adequate visibility from and of emerging vehicles.

2. The site access road shall be hardened, surfaced, drained and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority for a distance of not less than 10 metres back from its junction with the public highway

REASON: To prevent mud and other debris being carried onto the public highway

PLANNING HISTORY

Relevant Planning History

An application was submitted in February 2007 seeking permission to create a new access and driveway to serve the dwelling, through a grassed hedge and tree banked section of the old A30, just to the east of the fork in the road with its junction with the B3174. That application was reported to the Committee meeting of 1st May 2007, when permission was refused for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development represents intrusive and harmful development in the open countryside which undermines the character and appearance of the area. The application is therefore considered contrary to the aims of national planning guidance (PPS 1) and Policies S5 (Countryside Protection) and D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the adopted East Devon Local Plan 1995-2011.

2. Based on the submitted information it has not been demonstrated that the required visibility splays can be provided and maintained in accordance with the

245 requirements of the Highway Authority as the splays would extend across land outside of the applicants control. It is therefore considered that the access would be detrimental to highways safety in the locality contrary to Policy TR10 (Strategic Road Network) of the Devon County Structure Plan 2001 - 2016 and Policy TA7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) of the adopted East Devon Local Plan 1995 - 2011.

Subsequent to this proposal, an application under reference 11/0716/FUL was also refused although a single reason for refusal was given in this instance relating only to the impact of the new access on the character and appearance of the area. Information relating to the visibility at the new access and the impact on highway safety was submitted and considered acceptable.

POLICIES

Devon Structure Plan Policies CO6 (Quality of New Development) TR10 (Strategic Road Network)

East Devon Local Plan Policies S5 (Countryside Protection) D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) TA7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access)

ANALYSIS

Site Location and Description

Northcotts Farm is a previously extended substantial dwelling located within a rural and large garden plot on the edge of the village of Whimple. The property is set in semi mature landscaped grounds with a sweeping driveway from a higher ground level, from where vehicular access is taken 'through' the site of Apple Blossom Children's Day Nursery, fronting the former A30, roughly opposite the recently formed Crematorium.

The existing property comprises an old farm which has been linked with renovated and extended outbuildings now used for residential purposes (main area of accommodation), an internal swimming pool, and a detached triple bay double garage and store building. This cluster of buildings is located within a U shaped form and provides an open courtyard area with views out to the countryside beyond.

Proposed Development

The proposed development relates to the provision of a second access that would cross the applicants land from the south east corner of the site to the cluster of buildings, thereby joining the existing access to the front of the dwelling.

The new additional access would traverse the landscaped grounds, linking with the old A30 by cutting through the boundary hedge and utilising the existing grass verge for visibility splays. The scheme has been amended following the refusal of the

246 previous application and now includes a landscape and visual appraisal in addition to a detailed landscaping scheme which seeks to mitigate any impact on the character and appearance of the area. Furthermore the width of the drive has been narrowed to 5 metres over the first 6 metres back from the junction, narrowing to 3 metres for the remainder of the route. The driveway would measure approximately 250m in length.

Consideration and Assessment

The key consideration in respect of this latest application is the extent to which the additional information and amended proposal have sufficiently addressed the reason for the refusal of permission for the new access earlier this year.

Whilst the applicant's continued desire to create an alternative access into his property is understood, and that the previous highway objection has been overcome, the fact remains that to do so he will need to cut across the open grassed strip and through the existing landscaped bank that presently defines the boundary of the curtilage of Northcott Farm with the former A30. Although the latest scheme includes some compensatory planting either side of the access where it passes through the existing bank and within the site itself, and the route has been less 'engineered' in terms of its width and alignment, it is still felt that the principle of creating an access here is unacceptable. The formation of the access point across an otherwise natural grass strip with hedgerow and trees is considered to be unacceptable as this forms an important landscaped strip which defines the rural character of this part of the road. In addition it would facilitate views into the site of the driveway intruding into an otherwise unbroken landscaped strip and intruding into the glimpses of countryside that are otherwise available. Despite the changes that attempt to address the previous concerns, the proposal would still represent an intrusive and harmful development in the countryside that should be resisted.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE for the following reason:

List of Background Papers Application file, consultations and policy documents referred to in the report.

247