SOUTH HAMS DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE - WEDNESDAY, 14TH JANUARY, 2015

Agenda, Reports and Minutes for the meeting

Agenda No Item

1. Agenda Letter (Pages 1 - 2)

2. Reports

Reports to DM:

a) 03/2163/14/O (Pages 3 - 26)

Outline application with some matters reserved (access to be considered) for residential development of up to 75No. Dwellings - Land at Great Court Farm, Berry Pomeroy, Totnes, TQ9 6LB

b) 56/2564/14/F (Pages 27 - 32)

Change of use of top floor of garage to create residential flat (resubmission of 56/0892/14/F) - Ridgeside, Jubilee Road, Totnes, TQ9 5BW

c) 56/2941/14/F (Pages 33 - 36)

Extension to conservatory - Totnes Bowling Club, Borough Park Road, Totnes, TQ9 5HW -

d) 46/2401/14/F (Pages 37 - 56)

Development and extension of hotel to provide 56 bedrooms, 3 staff and 1 owners accommodation, new parking facilities plus new restaurant, bar, lounge and function room - The Cottage Hotel, Hope Cove, Kingsbridge TQ7 3HJ e) 59/2482/14/F (Pages 57 - 72)

Erection of 17 mixed tenure dwelling with associated access road, parking, hard/soft landscaping and farm access - Residential development at Home Field, West Alvington TQ7 3QQ

f) 15/2252/14/F (Pages 73 - 80)

Construction of 7 dwellings (following refusal of planning application 15/2265/12/F for construction of 8 dwellings) - Development site at SX 8651 5145 Site at Collingwood Road, Dartmouth

g) Planning Appeals Update (Pages 81 - 82)

3. Minutes (Pages 83 - 102)

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

6 January 2015 Dear Councillor

A meeting of the Development Management Committee will be held in the Council Chamber, Follaton House, Plymouth Road, Totnes, on Wednesday, 14 January 2015 at 10.30am, when your attendance is requested.

Yours sincerely

Kathryn Trant Member Services Manager

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

AGENDA

1. Minutes - to approve as a correct record and authorise the Chairman to sign the minutes of the meetings of the Committee held on 3 December 2014 (pages 1 to 18);

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

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

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

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

7a. 03/2163/14/O - Outline application with some matters reserved (access to be considered) for residential development of up to 75No. Dwellings - Land at Great Court Farm, Berry Pomeroy, Totnes, TQ9 6LB (pages 20 to 42);

56/2564/14/F- Change of use of top floor of garage to create residential flat (resubmission of 56/0892/14/F) - Ridgeside, Jubilee Road, Totnes, TQ9 5BW (pages 43 to 48);

56/2941/14/F- Extension to conservatory - Totnes Bowling Club, Borough Park Road, Totnes, TQ9 5HW (pages 49 to 52);

(Upon the conclusion of the above agenda items, the meeting will be adjourned and re-convened at 2.00pm)

7b. Planning Applications - Members are requested to raise any queries they may have with the respective case officer before the meeting (pages 53 to 95);

8. Planning Appeals Update – (page 96 only).

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

********************************** An optional lunch will be available for Members of the Committee in the Cary Room at 1.00 pm ********************************** During the preparation of reports contained in this Agenda, the Officers have had recourse to the following documents:- Devon County Structure Plan and relevant Local Plans South Hams Local Plan Relevant Government Circulars and Advice Relevant Appeal decisions Human Rights Act 1998 Where other information has been used, the relevant sources are quoted within the individual report. Planning case officer’s recommendations include reference to conditions and reasons for refusal by code. Please note that 'NS' refers to a non-standard condition or reason for refusal and for details of these, contact the appropriate case officer.

MEMBERS ARE REQUESTED TO SIGN THE ATTENDANCE REGISTER THIS AGENDA HAS BEEN PRINTED ON ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY PAPER The Council Chamber doors will be opened to the public from 10.15 am

Case Officer: Patrick Whymer Parish: Berry Pomeroy

Application No : 03/2163/14/O

Agent/Applicant: Applicant: Alister King-Smith The Trustees of Lord Seymour's 1971 Settlement C/O agent

Site Address: Land at Great Court Farm, Berry Pomeroy, Totnes, TQ9 6LB

Development: Outline application with some matters reserved (access to be considered) for residential development of up to 75 No. Dwellings

Scale 1:5000

This map is reproduced from the Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (c) Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. South Hams District Council 100022628. 2014. Scale 1:5000 For internal reference only – no further copies to be made

Reason item is being put before Committee Mindful of the objections and concerns raised by the Parish Council & third parties it is considered appropriate for the merits of this proposal to be considered by the Development Management Committee following a site inspection.

Recommendation: Conditional approval subject to the receipt of revised plans in accordance with the recommendations of the County Highways Officer and the prior satisfactory completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure the following:

1. Affordable Housing - 44% affordable housing to be provided on site to comprise three discount market Units with the remaining balance to be 70% affordable rented housing and 30% shared ownership.

2. Public Open Space - Onsite public open space comprising: LEAP of circa 400 sqm, equipped play area of circa 180 sqm, casual/informal play of circa 1,600 sqm and allotments of circa 340 Sqm with public access to the areas of open space in perpetuity including the future management and maintenance of the public space and bio-diversity areas. An offsite contribution towards playing pitches and other outdoor facilities at a rate of £595 per occupier, based on an average of 2.2 occupiers per dwelling .

3. Off-site highway Improvement works as set out in the Transport Assessment and the recommendations of the Highways Officer including Traffic Regulation Orders and a contribution per dwelling of £1643.24 towards the Totnes Strategy set out by the County Highway Authority.

4 A contribution of £62,000 towards off-site improvements to the footpaths within the Bridgetown Corridor to improve the pedestrian and cycling links from the site into the town centre.

5. Provision of bus and cycle vouchers for every dwelling totalling £300 per dwelling and the provision of a travel and welcome pack for new residents.

6. The provision of a sustainable urban drainage scheme including management and maintenance responsibility and arrangements.

7. To secure the implementation in full of the Travel Plan, submitted with this application in accordance with the details in Section 6 Travel Plan Targets; Section 7 Travel Plan Measures; Section 8 Monitoring and Review and Section 9 Action Plan, including compliance with the timetable for actions as set out in the Action Plan.

Note This application is a Departure from adopted Development Plan policies and therefore has been advertised as such.

Conditions/Reasons for refusal (list not in full) 1 – 3 Standard Outline for submission of Reserved Matters and time limit for commencement. 4. Accord with Plans/Exclude Illustrative Drawings 5. Car Parking/garage retention 6. GPDO Exclusion 7. Contaminated Land Investigation. (submitted prior to commencement) 8. Contaminated land Verification Report (submitted and approved prior to occupation) 9. Unsuspected Contamination 10. Barn Owl survey to be undertaken (Details to be submitted and approved prior to commencement of the development). 11. On-site highway works (Details to be submitted prior to commencement). 12. Construction Management Plan (Details to be submitted and approved prior to commencement). 13. Phasing Plan (to be submitted prior to commencement). 14. Programme of Archaeological work (To be submitted and approved prior to commencement). 15. Surface water drainage layout and details (To be submitted prior to commencement and the approved details shall be completed and operational prior to occupation). 16. Parking strategy (To be submitted prior to commencement). 17. Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (To be submitted prior to commencement). 18. Arboricultural Impact Assessment, Tree Protection Plan and Arboricultural Methodology Statements. (To be submitted prior to commencement) 19. Lighting Strategy (To be submitted prior to commencement). 20. Details and provision of footpath links (details to be submitted prior to commencement) 21. Provision of fibre broadband ducting to each dwelling. 22. Renewable energy/energy efficiency (details to be submitted prior to commencement) 23. Lifetime homes

Key issues for consideration: Given the location of this unallocated site outside the development boundary it is considered that, taking into account paragraph 49 of the NPPF, the initial issue to be considered is whether South Hams District Council can demonstrate a five year housing land supply. If a five year housing land supply cannot be demonstrated, relevant planning policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date and the key issue is whether the proposal represents sustainable development and if it is, whether there are significant and demonstrable adverse impacts that would outweigh its benefits .

Given the issues that have been raised in connection with the application, the potential adverse impacts on the following matters to be considered:

• Economy • Ecology • Flood risk • Air Quality • Contaminated Land • Traffic • Landscape • Neighbouring development

Financial Implications (Potential New Homes Bonus for major applications): It is estimated that this development has the potential to attract New Homes Bonus of £52,000 per annum, payable for a period of 6 years. Members are advised that this is provided on an information basis only and is not a material planning consideration in the determination of this application.

Site Description: The residential application site extends to some 2.6 hectares (6.4 acres) and is roughly triangular in shape located on the eastern fringe of Totnes adjacent to the Bridgetown area. The site also includes an area some 0.46 hectare in size within the land on the opposite side of Weston Lane for potential drainage works such as attenuation ponds and swales.

The site lies within the Parish of Berry Pomeroy and comprises two distinct areas; a northern area immediately south of Blackpost Lane and an area that lies to the south around the existing Farmhouse and stone barns which are outside of the application area. Weston Lane runs along the eastern boundary of both areas with existing residential development running alongside the western boundary of both areas. The northern section of the site is mostly laid to grassland pasture with a number of large modern agricultural buildings in the southern and eastern parts of this northern area. The topography is of land that falls from north to south across the area and there is a significant man made change in level defined by a retaining wall that runs along the southern part of the top field which provides a level platform for the agricultural buildings at the lower level. There are three cottages adjacent to the site in its northeast corner and seven bungalows that back onto the top part of the site from Courtfield to the west. An existing hedgerow forms the northern edge of the site separating it from Blackpost Lane. There is a group trees next to the retaining wall in the middle of the site.

The southern part of the site is also grassland pasture that has a closer visual relationship with the existing farmhouse and stone barns that are within the central area between the two main elements of the application site. There is an existing vehicle access into the site from Weston Lane. The natural landform falls generally to a low point in the southern corner. Hedgerows are the principle boundary to the west and east. There is further residential development to the south of the site.

The Proposal: The planning application seeks outline consent for up to 75 dwellings with all matters reserved for future consideration, with the exception of means of access. The development will comprise residential dwellings, internal site roads, private and public open space, car and cycle parking together with landscaping and associated servicing including the provision of a sustainable surface water drainage scheme. . Details relating to layout, appearance, scale and landscaping are not for consideration as part of this application but will be determined at the reserved matters stage, should this application be approved. However indicative information has been provided with this submission. The masterplan envisages mainly 2, 3 and 4 bedroom homes, with building heights predominantly two storey, with 44% of the units (33 Homes) being affordable.

The development will be connected to the existing road network by way of T-junctions on to Blackpost Lane and Weston Lane. Pedestrian and cycle only links are envisaged into Parkfield Close and Courtfield. The application includes improvements/alterations to the local highway network including the junctions with the A385.

The application includes the loss of a substantial number of the existing, modern agricultural buildings. Whilst the farmhouse and traditional stone buildings are not part of the application site it is clear from the submitted documents that the application will result in the use of the holding as a dairy business.

The application has been accompanied by the following:-

• Indicative Master plan/layout drawing, access details and proposed off-site highway alterations.

• Heads of Terms for the Section 106 Agreement

• Planning Statement

• Statement of Community Involvement;

• Landscape and Visual Appraisal;

• Transport Assessment;

• Travel Plan;

• Flood Risk Assessment;

• Historic Environment Assessment;

• Ecological Impact Assessment;

• Phase 1 Contamination Assessment.

The Draft Heads of Terms accompanying the application sets out the following:-

• Affordable Housing to be constructed onsite at 44% of the total dwellings (33 Affordable Homes if 75 Dwellings are constructed in total). Tenure mix to be 3 discount market units with the remaining balance to be 70% affordable rented housing and 30% shared ownership.

• Onsite public open space comprising: A LEAP of some 400 Sq M; equipped play area of circa 180 Sqm, casual/informal play of circa 1,600 sqm and allotments of some 340sqm. Public access to areas of public open space to be in perpetuity.

• Offsite contribution towards playing pitches and other outdoor facilities at a rate of £595 per occupier and based on an average of 2.2 occupiers per dwelling. Subject to the contributions being necessary and justified in accordance with the CIL Regulations 2011.

• Each open market and affordable household will be provided with a bus voucher and a cycle voucher totalling £300 per dwelling;

• Highway improvement works as set out in the Transport Assessment accompanying the submission. Principally comprising of works at the Totnes Road/Black Post Lane junction to realign the junction by providing a wider access onto the A385 Totnes Road and provision of a short yellow box is also proposed in front of the Blackpost Lane approach to the junction. Further works at the Totnes Road / Weston Lane junction to secure an only left turn-in approach from the A385 Totnes Road onto Weston Lane ; • A contribution per dwelling of up to £2,100 towards the Totnes Strategy set out by the County Highway Authority to help mitigate against cumulative traffic impacts in Totnes;

• Education contribution based on recognised need and DCC adopted rates and subject to the contributions being necessary and justified in accordance with the CIL Regulations 2011;

• A sustainable urban drainage system (SUDS) scheme to be agreed with SHDC and to be provided onsite and/or on land within control of the applicant;

• Management and maintenance in perpetuity of public space, biodiversity areas, drainage areas and landscape areas to be agreed with SHDC.

Consultations :

• County Highways Authority The initial response from the Highways Authority was a holding objection pending more information regarding drainage. This has been provided and the objection has been removed. Section 106 clauses and planning conditions are requested.

• Environmental Health Section - - Contaminated Land: Conditions are recommended. - Air Quality: When considering this development the Environmental Health Officer does not have just cause to object, as it does not feel the impact is sufficient to justify an objection. - • Affordable Housing Officer - The Affordable Housing team have scrutinised this appraisal and are in agreement that the level of affordable housing is appropriate for this site. Totnes is a sustainable location benefiting from shops, school and transport links and as such can support the delivery of more affordable housing.

• South West Water – No Objection

• Environment Agency – A number of concerns were raised by the Environment Agency which have been satisfied by the applicants consultant and the original objection has been withdrawn providing development proceeds in accordance with the FRA.

• SHDC – Drainage Engineer – No Objections; conditions requested.

• SHDC Strategic Planning Officer – No overriding policy objection.

• County Archaeology Officer – The results of the archaeological report indicate that further work is required this can be satisfactorily achieved by a planning condition.

• County Strategic Planning – Children’s services – No Objections and no financial payment sought

• Natural England – the site is not located within, adjacent or in close proximity to any SSSI, SAC or RAMSAR site and is not likely to affect the interest features for which they are notified. The advice of the AONB Partnership should be sought to confirm whether or not the development would impact significantly on the AONB. Standing Advice is given in respect of protected species and the site is in areas where there is the potential for enhanced green infrastructure.

• Barn Owl Trust – conditions are requested

• Devon and Cornwall Police liaison Officer – It is acknowledged that the masterplan is indicative. Advice is given regarding detailed elements of the scheme that are not for consideration at this time but will be taken into account as part of the Reserved Matters should planning permission be granted.

• Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue – The proposal will need to comply with the access provisions for emergency vehicles within the Building Regulations.

• RSPB – The RSPB has no information that the site supports significant populations of birds of conservation concern. Satisfied that the ecological assessment identified important habitats and any protected species present or likely to be on the site. On site nest provision is requested and the boundary hedgerows should remain outside of the curtilage of the dwellings. The mitigation measures within the ecology assessment should be implemented.

• SHDC Ecology Officer – No objection, subject to conditions and S106 requirements:

• SHDC Natural Environment and Recreation - No objection – conditions and Section 106 clauses recommended:

• AONB Partnership – Comments awaited.

• Berry Pomeroy Parish Council – Objection

• Totnes Town Council – Objection

• Stoke Gabriel Parish Council – Objection

Representations:

Parish/Town Councils

• Berry Pomeroy Parish Council – Objection - The Parish Council has carried out an extensive programme of impartial consultation including an Open Day which over 35 members of the public attended and most left written comments, the open forum before the start of the Council meeting which 28 attended and the receipt of letters/emails. Every opinion given has been against the application. - Sustainability: The site was deemed unsuitable and was therefore not included in the SHDC development plan in 2010. Nothing has changed since then. - Highways: Congestion is a major concern together with the full impact of the Riverside Development not being clear. There is a concern that the junctions onto the A385 at both Weston Lane and Blackpost Lane are inadequate and dangerous. - Community: This will be a car dependent development with people travelling to school and shops. In addition as there is no increase in local employment people will have to seek work out of the area. - Skyline Development: The site will be visible from the A385 travelling west into Totnes

In addition the Council wished to reference points from the NPPF: - The NPPF states that sustainable development is about positive growth, making economic, environmental and social progress for this and future generations. Have respondent in respect of this application has made the point about the existing very bad congestion in Totnes, generally and particularly about the A385 in the vicinity of the Blackpost Lane junction which is frequently gridlocked in the peak morning and afternoon periods. This has resulted in serious inconvenience to residents and is also deterring visitors to Totnes. As Totnes has lost nearly all of its industries only tourism is left to provide positive growth, which the congestion and lack of parking is driving away. The effect of the Riverside development is unknown and has not been evaluated and it is counter-productive to introduce more traffic until a major road improvement has been made. - The development will not contribute towards building a strong, responsive and competitive economy but will ensure the opposite. The resulting constriction of trade will not support strong, vibrant, healthy communities but will hinder this. The extra car usage will pollute the atmosphere harming the environment and polluting the atmosphere and not facilitate a low carbon economy while the loss of the last dairy herd in Totnes will be to the detriment of the bat population as well as UK self- sufficiency in food and food miles. The development is not sustainable. - NPPF para 11 sets out that planning applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The site is not included within the development plan and should therefore be refused (NPPF para 12). - NPPF para 7 lays down 12 planning principles that should underpin both plan making and decision taking. The first of these is that planning should be plan led empowering local people to shape their surroundings with succinct local and neighbourhood plans setting out a positive vision for the future of the area. The local view is clearly against this development. The dominant feeling seems to be that there has been enough growth and that the area should not expand until the serious infrastructure problems have been addressed. - There is great dismay at the potential loss of Totnes’ last dairy herd and the revenue- bringing bed and breakfast and the atmosphere and character that this brings to the area. The green fields is an unofficial green belt that is greatly valued, the proposal is doing the opposite of supporting a thriving rural economy. The Farm is a Heritage Asset which should be conserved. - Planning should contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment with development sited on land of lesser environmental quality. There are 20,000 empty homes in South Hams and many Brownfield sites that remain undeveloped. - The housing will be out of reach for local people and many will be sold as Holiday homes impacting negatively on the aim of supporting a vibrant and healthy community.

• Totnes Town Council – Objection on the following grounds: - Loss of Bat Habitat - No legally enforceable maintenance plan for public open space. - Lack of Infrastructure given the 305 new dwellings around Totnes already approved, lack of primary school places and Grove Primary School is 2km away and doctors surgeries already over-subscribed. - Loss of employment land (NPPF 28) - Loss of last dairy farm in Totnes. - Outside the development boundary and loss of green wedge between Totnes and Berry Pomeroy, considered unsustainable development for inclusion in the DPD. - Development is not and cannot be made sustainable (NPPF 17, principle 11) because it is too far and significantly uphill from the town and amenities, making it unsuitable for walking and cycling to them. - No provision on site for activities for teenagers. - Parking is to be provided for 150 cars, suggesting considerable additional traffic will be generated. This additional traffic means the development cannot be consistent with the local air quality action plan (NPPF 124) when other developments already approved, from Torbay to Dartington, all of which will add traffic to the A385, are taken into account (NPPF 132). The assessment of a total of 19 vehicle trips during the AM peak from the completed Riverside development (Transport Assessment p59, 7.25) lacks verisimilitude (NPPF 9 para 5 point 4) - The Traffic and Transport Assessment contain several inaccuracies suggesting the assessment may be unreliable and a poor basis for a decision that will lead to further impairments in air quality along the A385.

• Stoke Gabriel Parish Council – although the site is outside of Stoke Gabriel Parish it will have a significant impact on residents within the Parish. There will be a great loss of valuable agricultural land and the end of one of the remaining dairy farms in the area. Residents of Stoke Gabriel depend upon the services in Totnes and regularly experience delays gaining access into Totnes. The additional traffic will worsen this situation of unacceptable congestion. There is insufficient local infrastructure to cope with the additional people.

Letters of Objection .

At the time of writing this report some 143 letters/emails of objection have been received and are available on the website for perusal. In no particular order the objections can be summarised as follows:

• The development is unsustainable on a site outside the Development Boundary which was previously rejected as a housing allocation on the basis that it was not a sustainable site. It is too far from shops and amenities at the top of a hill leading to a car dependant development nothing has changed since the site was rejected and it does not comply with local or national planning policy. • In the absence of a five year housing supply, sustainability criteria are the deciding factors. The application fails the three sustainability factors within the NPPF: Economy – the construction jobs are short term, the congestion affects the local economy and tourism and the loss of the B and B and dairy business are negative impacts. Social – the affordable housing will have limited impact, there will be added pressure on the schools that are over-subscribed, and the dwellings will be bought by people outside the southwest. Any additional traffic will have adverse impact. Environmental – adverse impact on air quality, biodiversity and landscape. The cumulative impact of all of the Totnes sites has not been evaluated. • Cumulative impact with other sites lessens the sustainability of the site. • There are a number of other large sites being developed in Totnes these should be completed and assessed before development of this scale is allowed on sites not identified in the DPD allocations. Developments are not being considered in the context of a planned sustainable outcome for the Town. • Traffic problems – The congestion in Totnes is increasing and is already causing significant problems. The A385 and the roads from it at True Street and Blackpost Cross are constantly blocked. Traffic funnels down through the Bridgetown housing via Weston Lane and Westonfields to avoid the congested A385 adding further congestion within the Town. The surrounding roads cannot cope with more traffic and this is within the developments happening within Totnes and the thousands of homes to be built in Torbay that will use these roads. • The additional traffic and the location of the proposed accesses will be to the detriment of the safe movement of pedestrians and cyclists using the surrounding lanes. • Air Quality – the additional traffic will impact upon the increasing pollution along the A385 which is already at a level that breaches the WHO standards for Air quality. The impact will be to increase the level of Nitrogen Dioxide within the identified Air Quality Management Area, within which are schools and where it is already acknowledged that levels of air pollution are at an unacceptable level. The development will be contrary to EU Directive 2008/50/EC. Air pollution can have a significant impact on health. The mitigation measures put forward are insufficient; there are no practical measures that can be taken to sufficiently reduce the impact on air quality from these additional vehicle movements. (A detailed assessment of this issue has been submitted to the Council by a member of the public, this has been assessed by the Environmental Health Section as part of this application process and is detailed in the analysis section) • Low proportion of Affordable Housing that would not, in any event be affordable to locals. • The development has no support from the local area; the community voice should be listened to. • Too many houses proposed on the size of the land. • This site is one of a few Dairy Farms left in the area the loss of the working farm against the tenant farmers wishes and subsequent loss of the land from food production to facilitate an un-necessary housing makes no sense and will have an adverse impact on the economy and a devastating impact upon the tenant. • The full economic impact of losing a working dairy farm, loss of agricultural land and a bed and breakfast has not been assessed. • Visual impact of the development including the impact on the AONB. The site will be visible and intrusive to views as the Town is approached from Paignton and Marldon. • This will take development beyond the natural limit of the Town. • Adverse impact on protected trees and hedges • Schools and doctors surgeries are full • Impact on wildlife, particularly bats and natural resources • The buildings will not be environmentally friendly • The proposed designs are ugly and not in keeping with the Town. • Overlooking to/from new properties to existing residences. • The proposed footpath links will create disturbance to existing properties. • Light and noise pollution • Disruption to ground stability and drainage during and post construction • Disruption and disturbance during construction. • Insufficient sewage capacity • Surface water runoff and flooding • Reduction in the green belt between Totnes and Torbay. • Poor consultation process • No employment for owners of houses. • No mechanism for the long term management of the open spaces. • The landowner has large resources and doesn’t need to develop this site. • There are 24,000 empty properties in Devon/Cornwall and undeveloped land in the district. • The number of large residential developments around the town is altering the unique character of the Town and having a negative impact on the community.

Relevant Planning History

There have been no planning applications directly relevant to this site. There have been two planning appeal decisions within the District that are relevant to the consideration of this application. The first is relates to an outline application for the erection of 82 dwellings, 0.7 Hectares of employment land, vehicular accesses, open space, play provision and drainage at K5 West Alvington Hill, Kingsbridge 28_59/1232/13/O (APP/K1128/A/13/2210602). The second relates to an application for a mixed use development comprising about 100 dwellings, up to 5,350 sqm of office/light industrial floorspace, up to 60 units of extra care accommodation and associated communal facilities, up to 350 sqm of floor space for community use, provision of new vehicular and pedestrian/cycle accesses and associated works at Land between Steamer Quay and Weston Lane, Bridgetown, Totnes, 03_56/0447/12/O (APP/K1128/A/12/2179204)

ANALYSIS

Principle of Development :

This is an Outline planning application for the development of the site for up to 75 dwellings. Although an indicative plan has been provided, which demonstrates how the site could be development it is illustrative only and does not form part of any subsequent permission that may be granted. The only matter of detail to be considered is access. The key issue in the determination of the application is therefore whether the development of the site is acceptable in principle.

The application site is not allocated for development in the Council’s adopted Local Development Framework Site Allocation Development Plan Documents 2011 (SA DPD) and is located adjacent to but outside the Totnes development boundary as defined in the South Hams Local Plan (1996). Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that, regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the Planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In the case of residential development paragraph 49 of the NPPF states that ‘Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.’ The first key question therefore is whether the Council can demonstrate a five-year housing supply. The Council published a Housing Position Statement in March 2014 which set out a detailed assessment of the district’s housing land supply. This concluded that for the rural South Hams (including Totnes) (rSH) just over a five year supply of housing land could be demonstrated. However, this was challenged at an appeal relating to a site in Kingsbridge and the Inspector concluded (August 2014) that “…the Council has failed to demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites in relation to the rSH part of the District.” As a consequence of this lack of a 5 year supply the relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up to date. In light of the Kingsbridge K5 Appeal (APP/K1128/A/13/2210602) it is accepted that, at present, the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year housing supply. In such circumstances it is considered that the current position is that an assessment as to whether the proposed development is sustainable has to be undertaken. If it is, the presumption in favour set out in paragraph 14 of the NPPF will apply and planning permission should be granted where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies, as in this case, are out-of-date unless ‘any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF as a whole.’ However, if it was concluded that the proposal would not result in sustainable development, the presumption in favour would not apply.

The main issue, therefore, in respect of whether the development is acceptable in principle, in the absence of a five year supply of deliverable housing land in the District, is whether the proposal represents sustainable development and if it is, whether there are significant and demonstrable adverse impacts that would outweigh its benefits. Sustainable Development LDF Core Strategy Policy CS1 - Location of Development sets out where development is acceptable in principle subject to detailed planning considerations such as access to the site, the scale, bulk and design of the proposal and the effect on the neighbouring properties. Totnes is included as one of the districts’ Area Centres and is therefore covered by policy CS1. It is the district’s second largest town and is one of its most sustainable settlements containing a wide range of range of shops and facilities to cater for additional residential development. Totnes is therefore a sustainable location for additional development to take place. Paragraph 7 of the Framework identifies three dimensions to sustainable development – economic, social and environmental – whilst Paragraph 12 sets out twelve core planning principles that should underpin planning decisions. These two paragraphs set the context in which to consider sustainability. The three dimensions stated in Paragraph 7 are considered below: The Economic Role : Housing development is recognised as an important driver of economic growth and there would be economic benefits to the construction industry from the proposed development. Once the dwellings were occupied there would be an increase in the level of disposable income from the occupants which would be likely to be spent in the local area with some increase in the demand for local goods and services. The development will result in the loss of some 2.6 hectares (6.4 acres) of agricultural land and buildings which includes the removal of all of the modern farm buildings for the residential area and up to a further 0.46 hectares (1.1 acres) for possible drainage works. The farmhouse and traditional stone barns are not within the application site. The Planning Statement submitted with the planning application, (Paragraphs 7.18 – 7.20), states that the holding totals 322 acres consequently the level of land lost to the development is less than 2.4% of the overall holding and should not threaten the viability of a farm business on the remaining land. However the impact on the farm business is not as straightforward as a simple loss of land calculation as the proposal will result in the loss of a number of buildings and, it is clear that the existing dairy business on the holding will cease. The loss of the dairy business has been one of the main concerns raised/objections received in respect of the application. There are planning policies/guidance to protect the rural and, by definition, agricultural land. However there are no planning policies to protect specific types of agricultural business and it is considered that this falls outside of planning controls. At paragraph 7.18 of the Planning Statement it advises that when the holding was let in 2012 to the current tenant, it was on the basis of it not being used long term as a dairy business. If the Council took the alternative view that the dairy business should be protected and remain there are no avenues open to the Council to facilitate this aim. Ultimately the type of agricultural business undertaken on the land is a matter for the tenant and the landowner. There is no evidence to suggest that the remaining land holding could not be continued to be farmed productively and that the loss of the land and buildings would have an impact on the viability of the agricultural holding. The loss of the Bed & Breakfast business has also been raised; however the farmhouse is not within the application site. A further objection to the scheme raised in a number of representations is the impact of the additional traffic on congestion and the knock-on impact this has on businesses within the Town. The comments of the Highways Officer are considered below; given that it is considered that this development will have a negligible impact on congestion there is no evidence to suggest that the development will have an adverse impact on the economic well- being of Totnes. Economic Dimension Balance On balance it is considered that the impacts of the development do not outweigh the positive economic impact and there is no evidence that the development would result in any significant adverse overall economic impact and in respect this element of sustainable development the balance is considered to be within the favour of the development. The Social Role Provision of housing including affordable housing The principle social benefit of the proposed development would be the provision of additional housing, including 44% of the homes being affordable and meeting a clear need in the immediate area. The 33 Affordable Homes have a tenure mix of three discount market units with the remaining balance to be 21 affordable rented housing and 9 shared ownership. These will be available and affordable to local people. Given the NPPF priority to significantly boost the supply of housing the additional dwellings to be provided must carry significant weight in this balance. The affordable housing officer has confirmed that the proposed 44% affordable housing provision complies with policies CS6, AH1 & AH3 and that there are significant levels of unmet housing need across the district with 938 households currently registered on the Council’s housing register, Devon Home Choice of which 157 have expressed a wish to live in Totnes. There is a separate waiting list with Help to Buy South West for all households looking to access low cost home ownership housing in the South Hams and 237 applicants have stated an interest in Totnes.

The site is anticipated to meet some of this housing need. In the District wide Strategic Housing Market Needs Assessment (SHMNA) undertaken in 2013, identified need for affordable housing across the District was 242 affordable homes needed every year. The applicant has submitted a viability appraisal with the offer of 44% affordable housing. The Affordable Housing team have scrutinised this appraisal and are in agreement that the level of affordable housing is appropriate for this site. Totnes is a sustainable location benefiting from shops, school and transport links and as such can support the delivery of more affordable housing. In respect of the social aspect of sustainability a number of objections have been raised including the pressure on schools with primary schools being oversubscribed, added congestion on highways that are already dangerous, impacts on existing residents who live adjacent to the site and the distance of the site to the facilities within the Town. Impact on existing Infrastructure Consideration has been given to these concerns; the County Council has confirmed that there is capacity with the Secondary and Primary Schools to cater for this development without any additional funding being required from the developer. In particular between the three primary schools within safe walking distance there are sufficient places for the likely number of pupils that the development would create.

The issue of congestion has been considered elsewhere in the report and it is concluded that the development will not result in any significant impact upon the traffic levels using the A385. The application includes alterations/revisions to off-site highway junctions to improve traffic safety. The site is on the edge of the built up area of the Town, immediately adjacent to existing residential areas. Although the site is some 1.3 km from the edge of the Town Centre, it is situated close to a bus route that has a frequent service to the town and steps are to be taken to improve the connectivity of the site with the services and facilities in the town centre. The layout provides pedestrian links into the adjacent development and a financial payment is being made towards the improvement of the footpaths in the Bridgetown corridor to facilitate better pedestrian access. The Travel Plan includes actions and aims to encourage walking and cycling together with the use of bus service as an alternative to car usage. Whilst the site is not immediately adjacent to the services and facilities with the Town neither is it so far removed that all transport would be undertaken by private car journeys. Impact upon Neighbours The application does not include details of the siting and design of the proposed dwellings and the relationship between the proposed dwellings and those that exist around the boundary of the site and the existing farmhouse. However it is considered that there is sufficient area to accommodate the development with a layout that will not have any significant adverse impact on the residential amenity of the neighbouring dwellings. A assessment of the relationship of the proposed dwellings with existing properties will be undertaken at the Reserved Matters stage when the detailed plans have been submitted.

Social Dimension Balance

The balance of the social dimension of sustainable development, given the distance from the services and facilities is not clear-cut, but given the very substantial weight that must be given to the provision of additional market and affordable housing, the steps to be taken to encourage non car usage and the lack of harm from the other identified areas of concern it is considered that the balance is positive in favour of the development.

The Environmental role

With respect to the environmental role of sustainable development, the elements that are considered to be especially relevant to the proposed development are impacts on the landscape including the AONB; ecology and bio-diversity; heritage assets; surface water drainage and air quality.

Landscape Impact

The application has been carefully considered and evaluated by Officers within the Natural Environment and Recreation Team who have assessed the scheme. The site is located within the eastern fringe of Totnes within National Character Area 151 and Devon Character Area (DCA) 38 – Mid Dart Valley and Slopes which lies to the west but includes Bridgetown and the proposal site. On the boundary, encircling the site is (DCA) 60~ Torbay Hinterland (where the majority of inter-visibility occurs) and to the south DCA 18 – Dart Estuary (very limited inter-visibility due to topography). It is important to note that the local character assessment identifies the entire development site as an ‘ Urban’ local description unit (LDU). The adjacent Landscape Character Type is LCT 3A (LDU 490) – Upper Undulating farmed and wooded slopes. The overall condition is very good although changes to farming practice to arable on the eastern fringes of Totnes is eroding the more pastural nature further east to Longcombe and along the Dart River valley.

The study area principally focuses on DCA 60 where the defining characteristics are more evident and influence the site because of its rural nature. But, as noted, the development site is within DCA 38 which in this location is closely associated with the urban form of Bridgetown, where the fields are orientated. The south-east edge is however, facing more to open countryside which undulates towards the River Dart, and across to Longcombe. Within the western fringe element of DCA 60, the landscape looks ‘inland...’ and ‘there is a stronger rural character; the folds of the landscape and high hedgebanks lend visual enclosure...’ but because site is so close to Bridgetown, tranquillity is less prevalent and more urban fringe in character.

In understanding this wider baseline character (acknowledging the site is currently a farmstead) and reflecting upon the topography and proximity of the development site, within the urban fringe, it is the officers’ view that the landscape character in each of the surrounding DCAs is conserved and impacts are neutral to slight adverse. The site comprises two quite distinct areas, the northern area under pasture and modern elements of the farm and the southern located close to the urban edge bordered by the older farmstead and Western Lane. The folds in the landscape, including the rising ridge at the north of the site limit the wider impacts of the proposal but emphasise the need to protect these as ‘buffers’ where strategic planting should further reduce the impact of the development.

The Submission of a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan, fully detailing a landscape plan, strategy, specification; ecology mitigation and biodiversity gain and the Submission of an Arboricultural Impact Assessment, Tree Protection Plan and Arboricultural Methodology Statements will be necessary prior to the start of the development.

It should be noted that due consideration has also been given to the setting of the AONB which adjoins the site to a limited extent on the very south-western corner. Given the proposed development site’s location and the above appraisal, no objection is raised.

Visual Impact As identified within the initial appraisal on character visual impacts are considered to be limited locally because of the intervening undulating topography; however, given its elevated position on the fringe of Totnes, it does have views across the Dart valley and Totnes town. A Zone of Theoretical Visibility would have been useful. The study area extends to approximately 3km and a baseline assessment has been made of the underlying topography – this has informed the LVIA viewpoints. Also within views from local public receptors, there are urban fringe elements at parts of the existing developments of Bridgetown and the scattered dwellings around Great Court can be glimpsed over hedgerows and the undulating landform; the proposed development sits within this context.

The viewpoints have been noted including a number of additional viewpoints further considered by officers. Of particular note are the edges of the site where some views from further afield will potentially see buildings encroaching on the ridgeline or site boundaries. However, with a well-considered layout, including design, massing and scale in these location, with appropriate mitigation, the proposed development would not have an unacceptable visual impact; in particular, given its urban fringe location with existing dwellings and farm buildings forming part of the current visual amenity. On this basis, the visual amenity is conserved and no objection is raised.

Protected Landscape The site is outside of the South Devon AONB but within its setting where a small, narrow part extends over the ridge to Weston Road, opposite the southern part of the development site. The AONB has not been considered by the submitted LVIA.

Given the limited view of the site along a rural green lane into the lower field and western edges of the northern field, with Bridgetown clearly in the same context, the proposal will have very limited impact on the any of the identified special qualities and purposes of the designation which is principally focused on the Dart River valley in this location. As required by para 115 of the NPPF, great weight has been given to consideration of the AONB. However, given the limited inter-visibility and underlying topography which presents a separation to the main focus of the designation, and the context of the site within the urban fringes of Totnes, the impacts are considered to be acceptable and no objection is raised.

Bio-diversity The application has been considered by the Councils Ecology and Biodiversity officer who sets out that the EcIA summarises the site as comprising two large cattle-grazed improved grassland fields, surrounded by hedgerows and scattered areas of poor semi-improved grassland and scrub.

Phase 2 surveys were undertaken and concluded: - That the site did not support dormice, reptiles or badger setts (although suitable badger foraging habitat present). - No bat roosts within the site boundaries. - Three bat roosts (whiskered, common pipistrelle and long-eared bat) within the farm complex adjacent to the eastern site boundary, and a common pipistrelle roost within a residential property to the north-east of the site, foraging and commuting activity predominantly in south-east of the site in association with the farm complex roost. - Very low numbers (i.e. not significant) of calls from rarer bat species. - Suitable nesting and foraging habitat for range of bird species. Swallows were nesting in adjacent farm complex .

The Implications of the development include: - Loss of two 10m sections of hedgerow, and a 70m translocation of hedgerow. - Loss of improved grassland across the site and some foraging habitat. - Lighting during construction and post development.

No significant adverse effects have been predicted, with loss of habitat mitigated by new habitat creation (wildflower meadow, native species-rich hedgerow). With respect to the bats roosting within the farm complex, it is necessary to maintain the continued use of the roost and avoid disturbance. It is considered that the light-sensitive bats are predominantly using the countryside to the east for foraging, and accordingly a suitably dark corridor must be maintained to the southeast of the roost/farm complex linking to Weston Lane. This route is essentially the area above and in the vicinity of the southern road access point from Weston Lane into the proposed development (currently the farm access track).

Accordingly, it will be necessary to restrict lighting (i.e. public realm/highway lighting) at the southern most road access point from Weston Lane and to the east of the farm complex. This must be secured by condition. In general, the lighting strategy for the site should be sensitively designed, avoiding spillage onto boundary features (notably northern dark boundary) and in the area around the roosts identified within the farm complex (i.e. to the south of the complex). The strategy should be based upon BCT/ILE design guidance (Bats and lighting in the UK, 3rd ed, 2009).

Measures to maintain existing boundary hedgerows, create new habitats, bat and bird boxes are noted as are the references to requirement for a pre-commencement LEMP. The comments by the RSPB with respect to numbers of boxes are noted, and an increased from that specified within the ecology report would be welcomed. The LEMP should reflect and detail these aspects, including setting out the management of retained and new habitats to maximise their wildlife value..

Heritage Assets The application is supported by a Heritage Assessment that identifies the heritage assets in the area. There are no designated assets within or adjacent to the site. The majority of the assets near to the site are Listed Buildings within Bridgetown that are not affected by the application. The impact of the application of Heritage Assets and their setting has been considered and it is concluded that no harm is caused to the character, appearance or setting of any Heritage Asset.

Surface Water Drainage/Flood Risk The Environment Agency and Council Drainage Engineers are satisfied that the development can be satisfactorily accommodated on the site without having any adverse impact from surface water drainage subject to conditions ensuring the provision of a fully designed scheme. Air Quality The issue of congestion and its impact upon air quality is one of the main concerns raised by the general public in response to this application. The development site is located to the East of the A385 which will be the main road transport network for all of the traffic from the development site. The A385 through Totnes is the subject of an Air Quality Management Area due to the elevated levels of NOx (Oxides of Nitrogen). This issue has been considered by Environment Health Officers who have also considered the detailed assessment that has been provided to the Council by a member of the public.

The National Planning Practice Guidance states that Air Quality will be a concern when considering an application if the development would significantly affect traffic in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development site or further afield. This could be by generating or increasing traffic congestion; significantly changing traffic volumes, vehicle speed or both; or significantly altering the traffic composition on local roads. Other matters to consider include whether the proposal involves the development of a bus station, coach or lorry park; adds to turnover in a large car park; or result in construction sites that would generate large Heavy Goods Vehicle flows over a period of a year or more or give rise to potentially unacceptable impact (such as dust) during construction for nearby sensitive locations.

The Air Quality and Traffic assessment submitted with the application and has been reviewed by the Environmental Health department and it is satisfied that this development will not significantly affect traffic flows or give rise to unacceptable levels of dust if adequate controls are put in place.

When considering this development the Environmental Health Officer does not have just cause to object, as it does not feel the impact is sufficient to justify an objection. This is because the increases in traffic levels predicted in the Travel Plan provided by the developers (July 2014) are so low as to be deemed insufficient to trigger the requirement for a Full Air Quality Assessment according to the available and accepted national guidance (see below). Furthermore, the developer has offered some mitigation against any traffic increases in the Transport Plan (section 7). The Environmental Health Officer would like to see all these measures implement as promised in that document.

The Guidance referred to is ‘Development Control; Planning for Air Quality’, EPUK, 2010, para 5.6. in which the trigger level at which an Air Quality assessment in an Air Quality Management Area is required is 5% in either peak traffic flow or in AADT (Annual Average Daily Traffic flow). Defra guidance, ‘Local Air Quality Management, Technical Guidance LAQM TG.(09) states when Local Authorities should undertake more detailed Air Quality Assessments in their annual review process to check that new AQMAs won’t be created. For roads with significantly changed traffic flows and a normal flow of more than 10,000 vehicles per day (as has the A385), the trigger level at which a detailed assessment is required is an increase of 25% in traffic flow. The Developer’s Travel Plan predicts an increase of 3.2% traffic in the am peak flow at the Black post lane junction (taken to be the ‘worst case’ location for increased traffic flow), and 2.3% in Annual Average Daily Traffic flow (AADT).

The NPPF however states that we should not assess a development site in isolation but consider the cumulative impact of all approved development, on this basis the department does believe it is necessary for the applicant to provide a contribution towards the A385 management fund administered by Devon County Council. The aim of this management fund is to fund improvements to the A385 corridor in Totnes to alleviate the impact on both air quality and traffic flows by developments on this strategic road network. Environmental dimension balance The environmental role in considering where the development is sustainable is not clear-cut. The benefits identified are either marginal or essentially mitigation as in the case of any landscape/ecological measures to be applied to the development. Moreover, those benefits have to be set against the loss of an area of open countryside, leading to a change in the local environment and landscape. That impact has been carefully considered and, it is offset by the location of the appeal site outside the AONB, and the lack of evidenced harm to the environment. Whilst the appeal site is within a pleasant piece of countryside the site itself is neither so special nor the impact of the development so substantial, that its loss to development would represent significant material harm to the identified areas of potential concern. Sustainable development conclusion

In terms of the economic and social dimensions of sustainable development, it is considered that there are benefits from the proposed development and that where adverse impacts in these respects can be identified, there is no evidence to suggest that they represent a scale of significant and demonstrable impact as would outweigh those identified benefits. Furthermore, given the NPPF’s priority and the acknowledged housing supply position in the District, the additional dwellings to be provided must carry very substantial weight in determination of the application.

It is concluded that the site is sufficiently sustainable to pass the first part of the test set by Paragraph 14 of the Framework. It is clearly sustainable in economic and social terms and, although there is an issue over the use of land adjacent to the open countryside, the location of the appeal site is reasonably sustainable and the adverse impacts identified including the landscape to be lost are not so significant as to fatally undermine the proposed development’s sustainable credentials. It is also concluded that whilst the impact on the ecological and biodiversity worth of the site is on balance probably neutral, the impacts, given mitigation measures, are not so significant as to outweigh the benefits identified.

Overall, therefore, on balance, it is considered that the proposed development is sufficiently sustainable to pass the first part of the test as set out in the NPPF.

A number of representations have stated that when the Council prepared the housing allocations for Totnes this site was rejected as being unsustainable and nothing has altered to justify the approved of his application. It is correct that this was one of many sites in and around Totnes considered as potential development sites as part of the Sustainability Threshold Assessment (STA). This assessment concluded by giving the Great Court Farm site an overall middle/neutral sustainability rating of yellow. This conclusion indicated that the site had possible sustainability issues. The only constraint referred to specifically in the STA related to pedestrian access. This was a consequence of the site’s location on the periphery of Totnes and the walking distance from the site to the services and facilities in the town. This site was not allocated for development in the Totnes SA DPD, but this should not be regarded as indicating that it is an unsustainable site in principle. Whilst there may not have been any physical changes to the site the application does take steps to facilitate more trips by walking cycling and the use of public transport.

Given the conclusion that the site is in a sustainable location the further consideration is whether there are significant and demonstrable adverse impacts that would outweigh its benefits:

Other matters

Traffic Conditions/Highway Issues The only key issue not considered above in detail as part of the consideration of whether the development is sustainable is the effect on traffic conditions. The Highways Authority have provided a comprehensive response to the application and have concluded that it is acceptable subject to conditions and works to be carried out in accordance with plans that have been submitted.

Traffic impact conclusion : Approximately 15 Vehicle trips of the generated traffic leaving the site during the AM peak hour are estimated to travel through Blackpost Lane, with nine of these turning left onto the A385 towards Totnes and the remaining six turning right at the junction towards Torbay. Only three vehicle trips would turn right on the A385 to access Blackpost Lane. Two vehicle trips are expected to use the junction of the A385 with Weston Lane in order to access the site during the AM peak by turning left in the A385. The remaining 25 vehicle trips are expected to travel on a westbound and southbound direction towards Bridgetown and Totnes and back using the local roads and avoiding the A385. The total volume of traffic flows generated on the A385 by the development will be of 20 vehicle trips in and out. This will result in a 0.35% increase in the total volume of traffic on the A385, which is considered a minimal impact by the Highway Authority. The applicant has agreed to provide S106 mitigation money towards the A385 Management Strategy which is now called the Totnes Strategy. The applicant has also agreed to implement a Travel Plan which will help to reduce traffic generations at the site. The cumulative impact of traffic on the overall strategic road network is less than 0.35%. The NPPF sets out that development should not be refused if the cumulative impact of development is not severe.

Accidents on the nearby road network : The applicant has demonstrated that in the 3-yr period 2010-2012 only one slight traffic accident was directly related to the operation of Blackpost Lane. The remaining accidents showed that highway design was not related to the cause. It has been demonstrated that the visibility available at the Blackpost lane junction is sufficient. At the junction of the A385 leading to berry Pomeroy a total of six accidents took place between 2010 and 2012, five of them involved accidents related to the operation of the junction with vehicles turning right without seeing approaching cars. The fatal accident took place when a driver lost control of the vehicle after seeing a vehicle overtaking when travelling in the opposite direction. It is proposed to provide an only left-turn in approach from the A385 onto Weston Lane stopping any other movements at the junction.

Pedestrian and Cycle facilities : Pedestrian and cycle access points have been shown on masterplan. The principle of these points is accepted by the Highway Authority. It is preferred that access points could be achieved to Courtfield and Parkfield Close. However there appears to be private land between the highway and the site at these points. On balance if there is no suitable access direct to Courtfield and Parkfield Close the Highway Authority would not raise an overriding objection noting the site is only 300 from north to south and many amenities would be within walking distance.

Proposed highway works : The proposed improvements for the Totnes/Blackpost and the Totnes Road/Weston Lane Junction have been assessed within an independent road safety audit stage 1. The audit did not highlight any safety issues only some minor modifications.

Leisure and Recreation: The application includes the provision of open space and play areas on the site, which will be secured with a Section 106 agreement. In addition offsite contributions for Sport and other outdoor facilities are to be provided. The level of provision is acceptable to cater for the demand from the development.

Other Issues including Archaeology; Contamination and loss of Agricultural Land Other matters that have been raised such as contaminated land and archaeology can be satisfactorily accommodated by the use of planning conditions. The application documents indicate that the majority of the site is not grade 1 or 2 agricultural land and that the application will not therefore result in an unacceptable loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land.

Public Opinion There has been considerable local opposition to the proposed development, whilst planning authorities are expected to consider the views of local residents when determining an application, the extent of local opposition is not, in itself, a reasonable ground for resisting development. To carry significant weight, opposition should be founded on valid planning reasons which are supported by substantial evidence. Planning authorities should therefore make their own objective appraisal and ensure that valid planning reasons are stated and substantial evidence provided. In this case, the concerns raised have not been set aside lightly and the Council is mindful of the content of the Localism Act 2011. However it is considered that the objections raised in respect of this application have been carefully and objectively considered with this report

The Planning Balance and Conclusion The application seeks outline planning permission, i.e. to establish the principle of whether the development of the site for up to 75 dwellings, is acceptable. The only detailed matter to be considered is the access to the site.

Whilst the indicative plan simply demonstrates how housing, landscaping, open space, play provision and cycle and footpaths could be accommodated upon the land, the details of the layout, scale and appearance of buildings will be subject to a separate Reserved Matters application to be considered on its merits.

The proposed development would conflict with Development Plan policy and would result in residential development outside the development boundary. It is considered that, in the absence of the Council being able to demonstrate a five year housing supply, the policies within the Development Plan with regards to housing have to be seen as out of date.

In such circumstances the NPPF sets out that the issue to consider is whether the proposal represents sustainable development and if it does there is a presumption in favour of the scheme.

For the reasons as set out in the report, it is considered that the proposal does satisfy the three dimensions of sustainable development. Given the view taken that the development is sustainable the question to be considered is whether there are any adverse impacts that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal when assessed against the policies in the NPPF as a whole.

No overriding technical objections have been raised and the impacts of the development have been assessed. There are no adverse impacts that would outweigh the befits of the scheme.

With regard to the objections raised in the letters of representation, the main areas of concern have been addressed above. With regard to the “affordability” of the affordable housing, the Council ensures there is a range of tenures to meet differing incomes.

Therefore, in conclusion, the application is recommended for approval, subject to conditions and a s106 agreement.

This application has been considered in accordance with Section 38 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004

Planning Policy

National Planning Policy Framework Paragraphs 6 -10; 11; 12; 14; 17; 28; 34; 36; 38; 47; 49; 50 112; 115; 118; 120 & 124

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

Development Policies DPD DP1 High Quality Design DP2 Landscape Character DP3 Residential Amenity DP4 Sustainable Construction DP5 Conservation and Wildlife DP6 Historic Environment DP7 Transport, Access & Parking DP8 Open Space, Sport and Recreation DP9 Local Facilities DP11 Housing Mix and Tenure DP15 Development in the Countryside

Affordable Housing DPD AH1 Affordable Housing Provision AH3 Provision on unallocated sites AH4 Mix and tenure of affordable housing

Open Space, Sport and Recreation DPD

South Devon AONB Management Plan

Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010

National Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006

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

Case Officer: Mr Alex Sebbinger Parish: Totnes

Application No: 56/2564/14/F

Agent/Applicant: Applicant: Mr & Mrs Mudge Mr & Mrs Mudge Ridgeside Ridgeside Jubilee Road Jubilee Road Totnes Totnes TQ9 5BW TQ9 5BW

Site Address: Ridgeside, Jubilee Road, Totnes, TQ9 5BW

Development: Change of use of top floor of garage to create residential flat (resubmission of 56/0892/14/F)

Scale 1:1250 This map is reproduced from the Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (c) Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. South Hams District Council 100022628. 2014. Scale 1:1250 For internal reference only – no further copies to be made

Reason item is being put before Committee This application is before Committee at the request of Councillor Westacott.

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Conditions: Time limit for commencement In accordance with approved plans Permitted development right restrictions Obscure glazing to eastern elevation prior to commencement of works No further windows without approval Ground floor level solely as ancillary storage and not for habitable accommodation without approval Parking provision prior to occupation.

Key issues for consideration:

The main issues with this application are the acceptability of the principle of converting this detached building, which is within a residential area within the Development Boundary into a separate dwelling. In addition, the amenities of neighbouring properties, any design issues arising from conversion works and highway issues are of importance.

Site Description:

The application site comprises a detached building which is located on the southern side of Jubilee Road, which is comprised primarily of residential properties and is within the Totnes Development Boundary. The building is currently used as an ancillary outbuilding comprising a garage and store in association with Ridgeside, which is to the immediate south. The building has a car parking area which is accessed via the driveway to Ridgeside, which itself leads to the highway

The Proposal:

This application is for the change of use of the top floor of the garage to create a residential flat. The application includes an area for parking and turning.

Consultations:

 County Highways Authority – No comments.

 Town Council – No objection.

Representations:

Five letters of objection raising the following issues:

 Proposal was originally for a garage, never been used as this.  Building is out of keeping and large, unsuited to a residential area  Change of use has been anticipated by residents  Inadequate parking and no garages provided – out of character with the area  What will happen to the ground floor store area?  Area is identified under Local Plan Policy TP7 as being low density and that development that alters the low density character of, or increases the number of vehicles within the area will not normally be permitted. Proposal is contrary to that Policy.  Overlooking and loss of privacy – top floor window and garage door looks into bedrooms and bathrooms.  Noise and disturbance.  Where would wheelie bins be placed?  Too close to the road, no other buildings within Jubilee Road are so close.  Inadequate amenity space.  Ground floor level could be converted in the future making this a three bedroomed dwelling.

Relevant Planning History

56/0892/14/F – Change of use of top floor of garage to create residential flat Withdrawn on 2/7/2014

56/0108/09 – Demolition of existing house and garage and erection of replacement dwelling and detached garage/store. Granted permission on 19/3/2009

56/1524/11/MIN – Non material amendments to planning approval 56/0108/09/F for demolition and replacement dwelling and garage. Granted permission on 12/7/2011

56/0097/13/MIN – Non-material amendments to planning approval 56/0108/09/F for amendments to door and windows and internal amendment. Granted permission on 4/2/2013

ANALYSIS

Principle of Development/Sustainability:

The application site is located within a residential area within the Totnes Development Boundary. This application is for the change of use of an existing (newly constructed) building which is currently used as a garage for domestic residential purposes. As the site is within a residential area, within a Development Boundary the principle of development of an additional residential unit is considered acceptable in principle under established planning policies.

It is noted that representations refer to Saved Policy TP7 from the 1996 South Hams Local Plan. Whilst it is acknowledged that this policy states that “Development which would alter the low density character of, or increase the number of vehicles in, the Policy Area in northern Bridgetown will not normally be permitted”, this policy is now considerably out of date. The National Planning Policy Framework (which post-dates this Policy) advises that from a twelve month period (that expired in March 2013), due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans dependent on their consistency with the NPPF. It is not considered that saved Policy TP7 can carry significant weight given its age and how its scope does not accord with the principles that are found within the NPPF. Moreover, Paragraph 14 of the NPPF states that where relevant policies are out of date, planning permission should be granted unless there are any adverse impacts of doing so, that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the framework.

Consequently it is considered that the principle of a new residential unit is acceptable subject to compliance with all other relevant development control policies.

Design/Landscape:

The proposed flat would not entail any extension to the building in its current form, however there will be modifications to window/door openings. Although concerns have been raised regarding the appearance of the building, it is considered that the proposed alterations to replace the existing garage door with two high level windows and the insertion of an additional window in the eastern elevation will not harm the appearance of the building.

Concern has been raised that the use of this building as a separate flat would be alien to the character of the area, and that the prominence of the building is out of character with existing surrounding development. In terms of the proposal, the form of the building will (from the view from the street scene) remain largely unchanged. Although the comments about the building being located close to the pavement are acknowledged, the fact remains the building is in situ already and Officers are of the opinion that the use as a dwelling will not give rise to any material harm to the street-scene. It should also be noted that there are other examples of buildings that contain dwellings (Greengates and 1 The Cedars) to the south of the application site, which are close to the road frontage with a similar relationship to this proposal so it is not considered that this proposal would be out of character or keeping with the surrounding area.

The application has been submitted to demonstrate that an area of amenity space can be provided. Whilst this is acknowledged as being small in size, it is commensurate with the size of the dwelling. It is also positioned in a location which ensures that it can achieve privacy on a continuing basis. Concern has been raised regarding the potential for the lower ground floor level “store” to be converted into further habitable accommodation, increasing the size of the property and giving the potential for levels of parking and amenity space to be inadequate. A condition can ensure that control is retained over this, preventing conversion into habitable use of the lower ground floor areas.

Neighbour Amenity:

Concern has been raised regarding the impact of the development, specifically in the form of overlooking of neighbouring properties. A new window opening will be formed in the eastern elevation of the first floor of the building (to serve a kitchen). Also on the northern elevation a small window will be installed for a utility room, and the existing garage door will be removed and replaced with high level windows. All other openings remain unchanged. The new windows to replace the garage door are high level and will serve a bathroom and cloakroom will not give rise to excessive levels of overlooking. Existing windows (on the western and southern elevations) will serve a bedroom (on the western elevation) and the living area (southern elevation).

The relationship between the proposed dwelling and existing properties is not considered to be un-conventional; the distance between properties opposite is in excess of 20 metres, which is not excessively close to give rise to unacceptable levels of overlooking. Concern has been raised about the possibility of overlooking from the bedroom window, however the distance is 9m and the angles between the properties are skewed so the potential for direct overlooking is limited. It is however also considered that obscure glazing would mitigate this, and any perception of overlooking which could also arise. Conditions can ensure that this is undertaken.

Highways/Access:

The proposal will have sufficient off-street car parking space for at least one vehicle, and the existing dwelling, Ridgeside, will retain at least two off-street car parking spaces. Traffic generation from a one bedroom unit will be minimal, and no specific comments are received from Highway Officers. No undue highway concerns are considered to arise as a consequence of this proposal.

Conclusion:

The concerns of neighbouring properties have been carefully considered, however this site is located within a sustainable position within a development boundary, in a residential area. The conversion of the building into a separate unit of accommodation would not adversely affect amenity to an excessive degree, and any adverse impacts can be controlled by way of condition.

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

This application has been considered in accordance with Section 38 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Planning Policy

National Planning Policy Framework Section 6 – Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes Section 7 – Requiring good design

South Hams LDF Core Strategy CS1 Location of Development CS7 Design CS9 Landscape and Historic Environment CS10 Nature Conservation CS11 Climate Change

Development Policies DPD DP1 High Quality Design DP3 Residential Amenity DP4 Sustainable Construction DP7 Transport, Access & Parking

South Hams Local Plan SHDC 1 Development Boundaries TP 7 Environment in Totnes

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

Case Officer: Charlotte Howrihane Parish: Totnes

Application No : 56/2941/14/F

Agent: Applicant: Mr Robert Durney Totnes Bowling Club 7 Manor Park Way Borough Park Road Totnes Totnes TQ9 5HP TQ9 5HW

Site Address: Totnes Bowling Club, Borough Park Road, Totnes, TQ9 5HW

Development: Extension to conservatory

Scale 1:1250

This map is reproduced from the Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (c) Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. South Hams District Council 100022628. 2014. Scale 1:1250 For internal reference only – no further copies to be made

Reason item is being put before Committee: The application site is owned by South Hams District Council

Recommendation: Conditional Approval

Conditions: 3 year time limit Accord with plans Materials to match existing

Key issues for consideration: Design Setting of nearby listed buildings

Site Description:

Totnes Bowling Club is located in the northern corner of Borough Park, to the north of Totnes Town Centre. The main clubhouse is a single-storey building, with a conservatory, constructed of brick and UPVC to the north-west elevation. Adjacent to the conservatory is a patio area, providing access from the clubhouse onto the bowling green itself. The site is surrounded by a boundary fence and hedges.

The site is within the Totnes Development Boundary.

The Proposal:

This application seeks approval for an extension to the existing conservatory sited on the north-west elevation of the clubhouse. This extension would measure approximately 2.6m wide, bringing the total length of the conservatory to 12.8 metres. It would extend 2.5m from the clubhouse elevation, giving it the same depth as the existing conservatory.

To match the existing conservatory, the bottom section of the extension would be constructed from brick, with a white UPVC roof, door and windows in a traditional conservatory style. The door leading from the current conservatory onto the patio would be moved to the side of the extension (north-east elevation) to provide one long conservatory, with access to the Bowling Green from the side door.

Consultations :

• County Highways Authority- no objection

• Town Council- no objection

Representations:

None received at the time of writing this report. However, the statutory consultation period for comments does not end until 19 th December. Members will be verbally updated of any representations received at the Development Management Committee.

Relevant Planning History

• 56/0289/05/F- Internal alteration of access to men’s toilets and enlargement of existing conservatory- Conditional Approval • 56/1700/99/F- Amendment to approved plans for alterations and extension to bowling club- Conditional Approval • 56/1687/98/F- Extension to clubhouse to provide improved changing facilities and access to toilet for disabled- Conditional Approval • 56/1776/92/3- Alterations and extensions- Conditional Approval • 56/1927/91/3- Extension to pavilion to form club room- Conditional Approval

ANALYSIS

Totnes Bowling Club is a well-established facility within the centre of the town, with an existing conservatory which is used as a general social space and to play indoor bowls during the winter season. The conservatory is of a lower height than the main clubhouse and is clearly a subservient addition to the main building, and the additional extension is not considered to alter this. The design would be a continuation of the existing conservatory, and so Officers do not consider that it would impact upon the design or character of the site as a whole.

The north-east elevation of the clubhouse is slightly longer than the rest of the building, creating an ‘L-shape’ at this end of the site. This would help to reduce the impact of the conservatory extension, by obscuring the view of it from the public footpath which runs along the north-east of the park. The extension would therefore be nestled between the clubhouse building and existing conservatory to three elevations, with the north-west elevation facing out onto the Bowling Green. The proposal is therefore considered to have a minimal impact on the surrounding landscape due to its small scale and obscured position, and is in keeping with the existing character of the site.

The application has been advertised as affecting the setting of a Listed Building. This relates to two grade II listed buildings approximately 55m north-west of the application site; the old signal box (now the Station Cafe) and the former Dairy Crest site. Officers have a duty to consider the impact of the proposal on the setting of these listed buildings, and to ensure that no harm would be caused to them, should the application be approved.

During a site visit, the Case Officer noted that these listed properties were not visible from the application site, due to the tall trees bordering the footpath between the listed buildings and the Bowling Club. The distance between the two is considered to be significant enough that the proposal would not impact upon these sensitive sites, especially when one considers that the railway station and track runs between them. The small scale of the extension also leads Officers to consider that no harm would be caused to the setting of the nearby listed buildings, and the proposal is therefore considered acceptable in this respect.

The positioning of the Bowling Club within Borough Park means that Officers do not foresee any issues regarding the impact of the proposal on the residential amenity of neighbours. Although there are properties in Borough Park Road, some 70m to the east of the site, that would be able to see the proposed extension, the small scale of the extension, and the fact that there is already a 10 metre-wide conservatory along this elevation leads Officers to conclude that no additional harm would be caused to these residents should the application be granted approval. The clubhouse is a reasonable distance from these properties, with boundary hedges and fences between the two, limiting any opportunities for overlooking or impact upon neighbour privacy. The extended area would be use as general amenity space for the club members, the same as the existing conservatory, and so no additional issues of noise or disturbance to nearby residents are anticipated, and the proposal accords with the objectives of policy DP3.

The proposal for a small-scale extension to an existing sports club is supported by policy DP9, which seeks to protect local facilities. The NPPF also encourages planning decisions which allow established social and recreational facilities to develop and modernise (para 70) and as the site falls within the Development Boundary, the principle of the development is acceptable. The design and siting of the extension would minimise the impact of the proposal on the surrounding landscape, and is not considered to have a harmful effect on any nearby residents. The proposal is therefore recommended for approval, subject to the conditions listed above.

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

Planning Policy NPPF South Hams LDF Core Strategy CS1 Location of Development CS7 Design CS9 Landscape and Historic Environment

Development Policies DPD DP1 High Quality Design DP2 Landscape Character DP3 Residential Amenity DP9 Local Facilities

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

Case Officer: Mr Malcolm Elliott Parish: South Huish

Application No : 46/2401/14/F

Agent/Applicant: Applicant: Nick Thomas The Cottage Hotel Mr Ireland The Cottage Hotel Hope Cove Kingsbridge TQ7 3HJ

Site Address: The Cottage Hotel, Hope Cove, Kingsbridge TQ7 3HJ

Development: Development and extension of hotel to provide 56 bedrooms, 3 staff and 1 owners accommodation, new parking facilities plus new restaurant, bar, lounge and function room

Scale 1:2500

This map is reproduced from the Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (c) Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. South Hams District Council 100022628. 2014. Scale 1:12500 For internal reference only – no further copies to be made

Reason item is being put before Committee This application has been placed before the Committee because of the significance of the proposed hotel extension plans and given the sensitivity of the site’s location within Hope Cove and the AONB,

Recommendation: REFUSE

Reasons for refusal 1. The proposed development, by reason of its overall size, height and massing, would have an overbearing and bulky visual impact on the character and setting of Hope Cove village. Such development would in addition have a most significantly adverse impact on the wider landscape setting of the village within the South Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The proposal would be contrary to the provisions of the NPPF, LDF Core Strategy policies CS7 & CS9; South Hams Development Policies DPD policies DP1 &DP2; and AONB Management Plan policies Plan/P2, Lan/P1.

2. The proposed extensions, by reason of their scale, height, extent and close proximity, would have an unduly overbearing and unneighbourly impact on the adjoining dwelling ‘West View’. As such the development would be contrary to the provisions of South Hams Development Policies DPD policy DP3.

Key issues for consideration: The proposal presents very significant extensions and alterations to the existing hotel. The economic benefits resulting from such investment must be considered against the detailed planning considerations. The key issues for consideration are the scale and design of the development and resulting impacts on the site’s setting within the AONB, the neighbour relationship, increased traffic generation, impact on Bolt Tail as a scheduled ancient monument and drainage.

Site Description: The Cottage Hotel first opened as a small guest house in 1927. It has since been much altered and extended over the years and continues to be a popular and respected business. The applicant’s family have run the business since 1973.

The hotel occupies a prominent location in Outer Hope Cove, in an elevated position above the immediate old village to the north and west. More modern development adjoins the link road to Inner Hope Cove to the east and south. The South West Coastal footpath adjoins the western site boundary. The hotel enjoys panoramic views of the coast. As a consequence of its relatively elevated position the site is also open to views from much of the surrounding coastal area and footpaths. The hotel is however viewed in the context of the village as a whole. The site lies wholly within the South Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

The hotel is currently accessed from the link road to the east. The existing open car park is located on the upper part of the site adjacent to the road. The whole site is generally open with little landscaping.

The closest residential properties, not in the ownership of the hotel, are ‘Atlantic Lodge’ to the north east and directly adjoin an existing vehicular access to the hotel; ‘West View’ to the south east and directly overlooking the site to the north and west; and ‘Old Colonial House’ immediately to the south.

The Proposal: The proposed development relates to extensions and alterations to The Cottage Hotel to provide 56 bedrooms, 3 staff and owners accommodation, new parking facilities, new restaurant bar, lounge and function room. A new two storey car parking decks is to be constructed to the rear of the hotel, in the position of the existing car park. 38 spaces are located at ground floor and 40 spaces at first floor. The upper parking level is open and no higher than the existing car park

A proposed phasing plan has been put forward, following in depth conversations with both the owners and operators of the hotel and construction specialists, to ensure that the hotel itself can be maintained and run during the individual construction phases. This is central to the applicant’s business plan. All drawings referred to may be viewed on the Council’s web site.

The phasing of the proposed extension and internal alterations to hotel are to be broken down into approximately four phases. These phases are indicated on submitted drawings nos. 6634/320, 321, 322 & 323 in a colour breakdown of phase by phase of the proposed works.

Drawing no. 6634/320 comprises an existing and proposed identification drawing showing the proposed extensions and alterations together with an outline of the existing hotel area and footprint. This drawing is able to show that two extensions are to be constructed on both sides of the existing structure together with extensions to the rear of the existing hotel. The area indicated to the front of the hotel is the restaurant and lobby area only together with a conference centre at lower ground floor and does not extend up to the full height of the overall building. This is clearly indicated on elevational and floor plan drawings included within this application.

The existing car parking arrangements will be retained during phases 1 and 2. The new two storey parking decks will be constructed as part of phase 3 and completed prior to occupation. The new hotel servicing arrangements will also be included in phase 3.

PHASE ONE Phase One of the proposed works will not require the demolition or alteration to the existing as this will be a new extension to the East side of the existing hotel that will be interconnected to the inner corridors by a temporary weathered and covered walkway. The proposed phase will offer three lettable rooms at ground floor level and an owners apartment at both first floor and second floor level, this having a separate access from the rear of the hotel and integral parking within the unit.

PHASE TWO This phase will require the demolition of the end East wing of the hotel and allow for Phase One to be connected to the main hotel, this incorporating four bedrooms at ground floor level together with the increase in the restaurant capacity and enhancement to the main internal kitchens and lounge entrance lobby area to the restaurant.

Rear stairs and service corridors will also be created in this phase, this incorporating the tunnelling out for the lower ground floor level conference centre.

At first floor level there will be an additional three bedrooms together with all of the laundry and rear storage areas for the hotel.

This proposed phase will also include the rear fire escape staircase and secondary lift shaft for use by hotel guest in the East wing.

Two additional bedrooms and three stores will be created at roof level.

To the underside of the new restaurant extension the shell will be constructed and finished with windows and glazing doors for the lower

PHASE THREE This phase will incorporate the alteration to the existing hotel and the creation of the new main feature staircase and bank lifts, the retention and alteration to the existing front lounge and demolition and removal of the existing reception and Cove Room at ground floor level.

At first floor level a steel frame will be erected over the existing hotel and the creation of eight new bedrooms at first floor level together with ancillary staff accommodation, bin storage and snooker rooms, arcade and gym will all be constructed.

At second floor level eight new bedrooms will be created together with the new main entrance lobby and reception/offices for the running of the main hotel, this including the entrance lounge and luggage stores.

At roof level an additional eight bedrooms will be created with interconnection between Phases Two and Three.

PHASE FOUR Phase Four is the West extension to the main hotel and will create at ground floor level four new rooms.

At first floor level five rooms together with the main fire escape to the end of this section of the building.

Second floor level will have seven new rooms together with ancillary stores and storage for staff use.

At roof level an additional three rooms will be created again with storage.

Consultations : • County Highways Authority : No objection subject to imposition of conditions

• South West Water : No objection subject to foul flows only being connected to the public sewer

• Environment Agency : No objection subject to a planning condition ensuring the construction and maintenance of a sustainable drainage system.

• SHDC Drainage Engineer ; No Objection in principle subject to planning condition

• Environmental Health Section : No objection subject to Unsuspected land contamination planning condition

• Police Architectural Liaison Officer : offers detailed observations

• Natural England : Views awaited

• English Heritage : recommends revisions to the submitted scheme to reduce impact on a scheduled ancient monument

• AONB Unit : views awaited

• South Huish Parish Council : Strongly support, subject to qualification of use of roof materials

• Malborough Parish Council : Unanimously supports the application

Representations All letters of representation may be viewed on the Council’s web site. A total of some 50 letters of objection and some 99 letters of support have been received .Comments made are summarised below in no particular order:

Objection • Unacceptable degree of overlooking and loss of privacy on ‘Midships’ • Unacceptable impact on the holiday business and amenity of ‘Atlantic Lodge’ • Overbearing upon and loss of views from ‘Atlantic Lodge’ • Severe overlooking from balcony and resulting loss of privacy on ‘Port’, Old Colonial House • Question the impact of construction works on the Coastal footpath and potential of future further erosion • Need for independent geological/engineering reports to ensure stability of cliff areas • The proposal would impact on the road access and servicing of immediately adjoining properties • Will set an undesirable precedent • The development is of unacceptable scale in a very prominent location, will detract from the character and appearance of the locality within the AONB • Detrimental visual impact on the landscape character of the area being visually dominant • Major developments in AONB should only be approved in exceptional circumstances • Will dominate the small village • Will have an adverse impact upon the setting of nearby listed buildings • Question the economic viability of the proposal • Failure to show any demand for the increase size of the hotel and question the contribution to be made to the economy • Question the likely composition of additional staff to be employed • Will impact on other small local hotels and B&B’s • Inadequate road access leading to Hope Cove to cater for increased traffic generation • Huge implications for future road maintenance • No need for additional hotel rooms in Hope Cove • Significant impact on public views • Increase in effluent flow will exacerbate treatment issues • Specific concerns on surface water disposal • Unacceptable traffic generation during the construction period and increased traffic generation from extra accommodation and hotel functions • Unacceptable impact of the amenity of the area and residents • The adverse impacts from the development outweighs the benefits • There is a duty to have regard to the impact of development on the AONB • 55% Increase in floor area is excessive resulting in a building that is too large for this setting • Inadequate sewage system in Hope Cove. Proposal will exacerbate problems • Phase 4 elevation is out of keeping being 3 / 4 floors, the proposal should be scaled back • No regard or consideration given to the impact on adjoining properties • The phasing of development would be damaging to Hope Cove and the amenity of residents and visitors • Contrary to the provisions of NPPF

Support • The hotel is a key employer using local producers • Increased hotel capacity will be a major asset to the locality • The design uses ground contours to best advantage • Larger building does fit in with the site and surroundings • Improved facilities would provide more employment, attract more people to the area • The hotel is an integral part of the local community with a recognised reputation for providing excellent facility and service • An important local hotel facility which is in need of an update, the expansion plans will enable the hotel to continue to operate meeting future needs • The current proposals are sympathetic to its surroundings • Significant improvements are justified to ensure that business viability is maintained • Suggestion that the car park deck is covered with a light weight roof structure • Hotel improvements are needed to meet consumer expectations, the increase in size and modern facilities are needed to continue a viable business • Will make a positive contribution to the local economy and benefit local suppliers

Relevant Planning History The hotel has been subject to many planning decisions over the years relating to alterations and extensions to the property. Of particular significance by reason of the nature and size are;

46/1012/80/3 : Remodelling and extensions of The Cottage Hotel. Refused and subsequently dismissed on appeal, decision letter dated 22/12/1982 .

46/909/81/O : Alterations to The Cottage Hotel and new staff accommodation. Refused and subsequently dismissed on appeal, decision letter dated 22/12/1982

The Inspector found the central consideration to these appeals to be the economy and visual impact and effect on neighbour amenity. The proposals related to extensions comprising a 62 bedroom hotel and not dissimilar scale to the current proposal. The general massing and scale was considered to have an unacceptable impact on the AONB. There was no evidence to substantiate an overriding highway objection.

46/0936/83/3 : Alterations and extension to hotel including indoor swimming pool. Approved August 1983.

46/340/87/3 : Alterations and extensions to The Cottage Hotel. Refused April 1987.

The most recent application relates to a pre-application enquiry REF: 1490/13/PREMAJ for alterations and extensions which has led to the sub mission of the current planning application. This pre-application enquiry has been subject to a public consultation exercise, detailed discussions with officers and presentations to the Council’s Design Review Panel on two occasions. The letters may be viewed in full on the Council’s website.

The Panel’s findings after the first presentation were: “In summary, the Panel felt strongly that the current proposal represents a missed opportunity for this site, while there may be scope for a larger building here, the current scheme would have too dominant an impact on what is a sensitive setting...... The Panel would welcome the opportunity to discuss the project with you further at a later date in order to enable a meaningful debate about the design in the light of alternative designs that have been explored”

Further to the second presentation in June 2014 the Panel stated: “In a lengthy presentation to this special Design Review Panel meeting, you described the scheme in more detail and justified it in the light of the Client’s brief. However, the requested analysis of the site and its context, the scheme and similar precedents elsewhere was not forthcoming. No diagrams were provided in order that the Panel could gain a proper understanding of the site, or why you proposed to develop it in this way. The members of the Panel therefore felt that this was a missed opportunity to explain the scheme and gain useful input in making it more sympathetic. There is therefore little to add to the comments made in the previous letter. However, on the basis of the limited information available, the Panel would strongly reiterate the two following points: The proposed building would harm the village and its setting. This is due in part to its excessive size (the justification for which remains unconvincing) but also to the client-led design approach which, in turn, is a result of the requirement to preserve and build around the existing structure. Secondly, the suggested 7-year building programme would be likely to cause immense and protracted disruption to this small, relatively inaccessible community due to noise and heavy traffic.

The purpose of the Design Panel is to provide impartial advice; it is not a decision making body. Notwithstanding the views expressed, it is for the Committee Members to decide whether the size and design of the building is acceptable.

Officers have had detailed engagement with the pre-application process and the principle of improving the hotel facilities has been actively encouraged. Modifications to the scheme have been achieved to improve the relationship with neighbouring properties and the adjoining coastal footpath.

ANALYSIS The proposal has clearly attracted much representation. The importance of the family run hotel and its contribution to the local community has been reinforced in the many letters of support.

South Huish Parish Council considers the proposed alterations and extensions to the hotel to be essential for its sustainable future and for the benefit of the parish. The PC also considers that the increase in visitors will in turn be beneficial to local businesses, plus an increase in employment. The hotel is seen as the hub of the community having supported the community over many years. It is considered that the proposed plans blend in well with the surrounding area and considers that the applicant has taken local opinions into consideration. The one negative comment concerns the proposed roof colouring and the PC is of the view that the use of red roof tiles would be less obtrusive, blend better with surrounding roofs and adjacent cliffs.

Malborough Parish Council also expresses strong support, considering the proposal to be acceptable and in keeping, offering a quality development that would provide local employment.

Principle of Development/Sustainability: The NPPF in para 7 sets out the economic, social and environmental roles which the planning system should perform. Local Authorities are required to approach decision making in a positive way, be problem solving seeking to approve applications for sustainable development wherever possible (para 186-187). However, NPPF para 7 sets out the three dimensions to sustainable development being the economic, social and environmental roles. These roles are mutually dependent and as such must be looked at simultaneously when assessing the merits of development proposals.

Whilst there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, such matters that may support a development proposal must be carefully balanced against all pertinent material planning considerations. The principle of extending and improving the hotel facilities and accommodation is supported by the NPPF insofar as it recognises the clear contribution to the local economy such developments may provide.

LDF Core Strategy policy CS12 and DPD Development Policy DP12 supports the provision of new tourism facilities, including associated accommodation the location of which should follow a sequential approach. The principle of extending and improving the existing hotel accommodation in a sustainable location is supported by these policies.

The Cottage Hotel site enjoys a very prominent location in the village, located within the South Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, directly adjoining the South West Coastal footpath. The landscape impact assessment, neighbour relationship, proximity to nearby heritage assets, highway and drainage considerations are all material considerations of importance to the determination of this planning application and are dealt with in detail below.

The economic benefits considered to derive from the proposed development must be carefully balanced against these considerations. The proposal has been developed following a business plan that the applicant considers can deliver the type and quantum of new hotel accommodation that would enable a sustainable hotel business to proceed to fruition. The phasing of the development is designed to achieve this, allowing the hotel facility to continue to operate during the build process. The applicants justifications for this development are further detailed in para 2.3 of the Access and Design Statement. This may be viewed on the Council’s website.

Design The design, form and scale of the proposed building has been lead by the functional requirements of the accommodation needs influenced primarily by the applicants own business plan. Some design modifications have been made in response to the pre- application process and detailed in the submitted Design and Access statement.

The NPPF promotes good design recognising that it is a key aspect of sustainable development. Para’s 60 – 65 are relevant. Planning policies and decision should not stifle innovation, originality or initiative through unsubstantiated requirements to conform the certain forms or styles....decisions should address the connections between people, places and the integration of new development into the natural, built and historic environment...... LPA’s should have local design review arrangements to provide assessment and support to ensure high standards of design...... permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and qualityof an area...... These requirements are supported by adopted Development Plan policies CS7 and DP1.

The submitted design cannot be described as innovative; the architect has however attempted to influence the external appearance of the built form by reference to recent architectural styles that do form part of the local area. This approach in itself should not be criticised and such individual elements would not necessarily be out of place. The building’s form and elevational treatment does result in a building stepping back from the frontage onto the public footpath. The change in materials; natural stone, render and slate also contributes to breaking up the facade onto the sea frontage and coastal footpath.

The main concerns on the design relate to the overall size and massing of the building which is a necessity of the applicant’s accommodation requirements. Notwithstanding the design changes that have been taken on board, the central judgement that the impact this bulk/massing of building has on the village setting and wider landscape setting remains to be made.

Landscape It is very clear from the representations received that there is mixed opinion on the whether the proposal has an acceptable or unacceptable visual impact on the landscape setting which the Cottage Hotel enjoys.

Paragraph 115 of the NPPF requires ‘great weight’ to be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in AONB’s. Hope Cove village lies wholly within the AONB, as such the developed area is an integral element of the coastal scene. New development is not precluded but must have due regard to its landscape setting.

The application has been supported by a LVIA. In response to representations submitted opposing the development, the following comments have been made by the applicant’s landscape consultants (Redbay Design);

“ ....the proposals are for a replacement/redevelopment of an existing hotel building. If the proposed development were to take place on a green field, currently free of development within the AONB there is no doubt that the sensitivity would be high. As there is currently a building in this location the ability of the landscape to accommodate development is evident and the impact would arise from what is proposed over and above the existing situation. With that in mind, due to the presence of the building currently on this site, it is considered justification enough to reduce the susceptibility of the landscape and visual receptors to accommodate a replacement building and therefore when compared to its high value results in a medium-high sensitivity.”......

“The adverse impact that arises from the development identified by the LVIA and agreed within Tyler Grange’s review is from the scale and mass of the proposed building. However, overall the architectural style of the proposed building respects the local character and it contains individual elements that are characteristic of the area as well as being typical of coastal vernacular.”

The Council’s Landscape Officer has considered the application in detail. The consultation response may be viewed in full on the Council’s website. It is accepted that;

Officers have been involved in long pre-application discussions, providing detailed input and comment over the evolving schemes. Particular emphasis has been placed on the highly sensitive location within the South Devon AONB, where natural beauty and scenic quality is extremely important and especially outstanding in this coastal position. Constructive dialogue was held over controlling the extensions to the north and south, and reducing impacts of the two storey car park to the rear. However, following the request to see the hotel modelled in the wider setting of the village, photomontages clearly illustrated the large scale, form and massing of the proposal and immediate concern was expressed.

The submitted LVIA (Redbay Design) is noted and reads as a competent appraisal, appraising the importance of this sensitive landscape whilst recognising the context of the seaward facing coastal village nestled within the combe. It also acknowledges that aspects of the landscape character and visual amenity will be adversely affected including moderate- substantial adverse effects on the character of the AONB and visual amenity......

Visual Impact

As highlighted within the character appraisal, this is a highly sensitive location, which is extremely sensitive to visual changes. Whilst it is acknowledged that the hotel’s position mid- slope within Hope Cove limits views from inland, it is clearly visible from some highly sensitive receptors including from Bolt Tail to the south-west, the ridge to the north, the South West Coast Path and from the sea. Overall the Zone of Theoretical Visibility relatively contained.

When viewing Inner Hope and parts of Outer Hope from Bolt Tail, the sense of scale is very apparent, there is a consistency in building sizes across the full extent of the village; the existing hotel sitting neatly within this.

Wider views exist along the coast around the full extent of Bigbury Bay, with no one individual feature dominating. It is in this context that the proposed development will be overbearing and has the potential to dominate the view from the adjacent landscapes, disrupting the presently acceptable scale and tranquillity of the existing built form and landscape. The dominance arises from the height and visual bulk of the proposal’s built form and roof structures, and to a degree the extent of the site over which it now fills. This also has potential to affect the adjacent South Coast footpath (high sensitive receptor) which passes beneath the site.

Protected Landscape

As identified, Hope Cove is situated within the South Devon AONB. Due regard and great weight must be given to this designation when assessing development proposals within it; this is a highly sensitive landscape receptor (NPPF para 115)

In understanding the designation, particular emphasis is placed on its special qualities and significance; its distinctive characteristics and key features are identified in the ‘sense of place’. These are set out within the South Devon AONB Management Plan 2014-2019. The special qualities define the unique natural beauty of the AONB and include: • Fine, undeveloped, wild and rugged coastline • ... steep combes and a network of associated watercourses • Deeply rural rolling patchwork agricultural landscape • Iconic wide, unspoilt and expansive panoramic views • A landscape with a rich time depth and a wealth of historic features and cultural associations • Areas of high tranquillity, natural nightscapes, distinctive natural soundscapes and visible movement • A variety in the setting to the AONB formed by the marine environment...coastal towns, and rural South Hams

It should be noted that the AONB Management Plan also serves as a management plan for the South Devon Heritage Coast because the finest stretches of the coast justify national recognition. These objectives are set out within the plan.

In reviewing the proposed development and in understanding the landscape character setting, officers believe the special qualities (noted above) and policies of the AONB are being adversely affected by the overbearing nature of the proposed design. In particular it conflicts with policies Lan/P1 and Lan/P5. This is contrary to the requirements of the paragraph 115 of the NPPF.

Landscape Planting Scheme

The landscape strategy is noted and attempts to mitigate elements of the scheme. Whilst this is achieved to a degree, the overwhelming scale and form of the proposal is not addressed.

A full and thorough appraisal has been carried out by both the applicant and SHDC Officers. In understanding the landscape character and special qualities of the South Devon AONB in this location an objection has been raised.

Landscape characteristics are well represented locally and range in condition from good to excellent. In considering this baseline position and the likely adverse impacts arsing, it is the officer view that the proposed development fails to conserve and enhance what is special about the landscape character and visual amenity of this highly sensitive landscape. This results from the scale and overbearing form of the proposed development where it will dominate views from highly sensitive receptors and conflict with its defining characteristics. The proposed development will result in a permanent moderate to substantial adverse impact on both landscape character, visual amenity and the special qualities of the South Devon AONB. It is therefore contrary to LDF policy and the provisions of the NPPF.

In conclusion, the Landscape Officer raises an objection to the proposal for the following reasons:

As a result of the proposal’s overbearing scale, form and massing, the development fails to conserve and enhance the landscape character and visual amenity. This is contrary to Policies CS9 and DP2r where development proposals will need to demonstrate how they conserve and / or enhance the South Hams landscape character, including coastal areas, estuaries, river valleys, undulating uplands and other landscapes, by: (a) reflecting the needs and issues set out in identified landscape character areas; (b) ensuring its location, siting, layout, scale and design conserves and/or enhances what is special and locally distinctive about the landscape character (including its historic, biodiversity and cultural character); (c) avoiding unsympathetic intrusion in the wider landscape, such as detrimental (d) impact on the character of skylines or views from public vantage points; and (e) light pollution respecting the unspoilt nature and tranquillity of the area

Heritage Impacts The Council’s Senior Conservation Planning Officer has made the following observations;

In considering this application and assessing potential impacts of the development proposal against surrounding heritage assets the following policies, principles, guidance and recent case law have been considered:

• Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act; • Section 12 of the NPPF including paragraphs; 128, 129, 132, 133, & 134; • The National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG), particularly the Section: Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment. • The 2011 English Heritage publication: The Setting of Heritage Assets; • Recent Case Law in particular the East Northamptonshire DC v. Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (known as the ‘Barnwell Manor’ case) and R. (on the application of (1) The Forge Field Society (2) Martin Barraud (3) Robert Rees) v Sevenoaks District Council [2014] EWHC 1895.

Designated Heritage Assets in the Area. There are two listed buildings in the vicinity of the hotel that would be affected by the proposal – Bridge Cottage (Mayers) and The Cabin . Both are thatched, 18 th century cottages set low down in the centre of Outer Hope. Mayers, especially, has been thoroughly modernised and the setting of both of these houses has been transformed by 20 th century development – suburban-style housing and the Cottage Hotel itself on the surrounding hillsides. Both houses are built on to the street and are significant as exemplars of the traditional house typology and village form. Their setting has been transformed by indifferent 20 th century development.

Bolt Tail Camp is an Iron Age cliff castle and is a Scheduled Ancient Monument. The site is significant, being the only one of its type in South Devon and its rural and maritime setting is generally well preserved. The exception to this is the village of Hope Cove looking back inland to the NE, especially its associated 20 th century extension.

The other listed buildings in the area are at Inner Hope , which is a designated conservation area, which comprises a well-preserved group of traditional houses.

Heritage Impact Assessment of Proposed Development. The applicant has not provided any heritage impact assessment with the application. The assessment below was carried out by the Senior Conservation Officer in November 2014.

The impact on the two listed buildings mentioned above was assessed from the street, from the coast path to the north of the site and from the coast path leading to and passing through Bolt Tail.

The two listed cottages are both built in the lowest, most sheltered part of the Outer Hope, in stark contrast to most of the 20 th century buildings (including the Cottage Hotel), whose elevated position was chosen to make the best of the sea view. In practice, this means that the listed houses are dominated by the surrounding buildings and, in all but the closest views tend to blend in with them. The impact on their setting of the proposals when seen from the coast path, either from the north, or from Bolt Tail to the SW is not therefore great.

However, from closer viewpoints both houses are visible in conjunction with the Cottage Hotel and the proposed significant increase in size and change in appearance would have some impact on their setting. This is most noticeable from the main approach to this part of the village, with the Hope and Anchor straight ahead and from the beach. The existing Cottage Hotel building already occupies a dominant position in relation to the listed cottages, but it is only one of a number of unsympathetic buildings around them. Mayers, in particular, has also been affected by the tarmac road covering that surrounds it on all sides. Given the scale of change to these buildings’ setting that has already occurred, therefore, the increase of scale of the hotel is not considered to result in harm to it.

I have assessed the impact of the development from Bolt Tail and English Heritage has provided comments on the impact of the development on it. The Cottage Hotel is prominent from Bolt Tail when looking back towards Hope Cove. Again, the impact of the proposal needs to be considered in the light of the considerable, less than sympathetic development that has already occurred in the village. In the context of this, the proposed expansion of the hotel is not considered to cause harm to this view despite its size.

However, views of Bolt Tail from Hope Cove also need to be considered and the increased bulk of the new building would have an impact on this. Currently, there is a clear view of Bolt Tail over the roof of the hotel from the road that links Outer and Inner Hope. By raising the height of the hotel this view would be partially blocked and English Heritage has judged that this would cause less than substantial harm to the setting of the Scheduled Ancient Monument. However, although the view is significant, it should be pointed out that it would be blocked for a very short length of road.

The setting of the conservation area and listed buildings at Inner Hope would not be affected by the development as it would not be visible from or in conjunction with them.

Summary Due to the existence of indifferent 20 th century development surrounding the listed buildings, the proposed extension to the hotel is not considered to cause harm to the setting of the Grade II listed Cabin and Mayers.

The view of Hope Cove from the Scheduled Ancient Monument at Bolt Tail is also already compromised and the larger building would not in itself cause harm. However, views of Bolt Tail from the link road between Outer and Inner Hope would be affected by the development and have been judged by English Heritage to cause less than substantial harm to the setting.

English Heritage is a statutory consultee and has had regard to the impact of this development on the scheduled ancient monument of Bolt Tail Cliff Castle. The full response can be viewed on the Council’s website. The following advice has been offered;

Bolt Tail Cliff Castle is a late Iron Age fortified enclosure, formed by the construction of earthen ramparts on the landward side to defend the peninsular. It is the only known cliff castle in South Devon, and the commanding visual presence in the landscape of the peninsular and its associated earthworks remains well-preserved.

In the context of landward views from Bolt Tail, the proposed hotel development will be read as part of the rather suburban sprawl of Outer Hope village. The hotel will be a significant and prominent addition but the increase in size will not affect views from the monument.

However, in considering setting, regard must be also paid to views of the monument and whether they contribute to its significance. In this context, it is apparent that fine views of the monument are currently afforded from the public road to the rear of the Cottage Hotel. This road is the primary approach to Inner Hope, and the views of the monument, showing its visual primacy in the land and seascape, are important. They contribute to the setting of the Castle, and thus its significance .

The proposed development on the site of the Cottage Hotel will adversely affect the setting of the monument, as evidenced by viewpoint 4b of the supplied landscape and visual impact assessment. Whereas the existing building currently sits low in the landscape, the proposed building will rise higher and block views of the monument. This is regrettable; the monument’s prominence in the landscape is part of its significance, and we therefore advise consideration is given to reducing the height of the proposed development to allow preservation of the setting of Bolt Tail.

I acknowledge, however, that the harm described above is to one particular view of a monument which can be seen and experienced from many areas. In the language of the NPPF, the harm to the monument is therefore less than substantial (NPPF 134).

Following the advice of the NPPF however, you will be aware that a Scheduled Ancient Monument is a highly-graded heritage asset (NPPF 132), and the more important the asset the greater the weight that should be given to its conservation. “Conservation” is defined by the NPPF as “the process of managing change to a heritage asset in a way that sustains and where appropriate enhances its significance”.

Bearing the above in mind, we encourage your authority to give the required “great weight” to managing the setting of the monument, and in accordance with NPPF 129 seek to minimise conflict between conservation of the asset and the proposed development by revising the design and restricting its height, to preserve the setting of Bolt Tail Cliff Castle.

English Heritage recommends that revisions to the submitted scheme should be sought to address these identified concerns. There are no revisions to consider and it is therefore necessary for officers and Members to carefully weigh the identified harm to the ancient monument against any public benefits of the proposal, in accordance with NPPF para 134.

It is agreed that there is no harmful heritage impact from views out of Bolt Tail but there is such impact on limited occasion from the village looking over the hotel site onto Bolt Tail. Current views of the headland will be partially interrupted. Officers do however consider that Bolt Tail is part of a much wider vista and as such, whilst it is acknowledged that there will be partial interruption to the headland view, this is at the’ lower end of less than substantial consideration.’

In this instance, in terms of the proposals heritage impacts the officer advice to Members is that the economic benefits resulting from improving and extending the hotel facilities would be in the wider public interests and would outweigh the impact of the development on the scheduled ancient monument.

Residential Amenity Properties located alongside and above the Cottage Hotel do generally enjoy panoramic views. However, the proposed development will have an impact on neighbouring properties to varying degrees. It is necessary to assess the visual outlook of the most affected dwellings.

Atlantic Lodge , This is a single storey dwelling located to the north and adjacent to the access drive leading to the hotel’s entrance. The dwelling faces north west and has an open garden falling away to the west. The open views of the coast to the north and west are retained. Views to the south west onto Bolt Tail will be lost. The accommodation block in phase 4 will be located approx 6.5m from the garden boundary which is formed by a low bank. A patio to the front of the bungalow provides an open amenity area. The eaves line of the proposed building is at approximately existing ground level to the rear and approx 7m above ground level on the seaward facade. The elevation is 22m in length, 15m extending beyond the existing front face of the bungalow. There are no windows proposed in the wall facing Atlantic Lodge. This element of the development will have a significant impact on Atlantic Lodge. However, given the respective levels and general orientation of the dwelling, it is not considered that the proposal would be unduly overbearing or unneighbourly, neither would it have a marked impact on the dwelling’s visual outlook.

Old Colonial House This single storey dwelling is located to the south of the hotel and also enjoys panoramic views. The existing hotel is separated from this building by an open grassed area being approximately 40m distant. The proposed accommodation wing comprising phase1 will be within 16m of the dwelling. This part of the hotel extension features 2 storey accommodation under a mansard roof with a height of approx 11m above ground level at the seaward elevation. The height of the building diminishes as it is set back into the rising land, approximately 6m to the rear. High level windows to a kitchen area feature on the elevation facing the neighbour. The front facade of the extension extends approximately 3m forward of the seaward facing elevation of Old Colonial House. Balconies on the extension have privacy screens to protect overlooking. Whilst the proposed development has an impact on Old Colonial House it is not considered that this is so significant as to substantiate a reason for refusal by reason of an unneighbourly impact or adverse overlooking.

West View This property is a bungalow located to the south, directly adjacent to the existing hotel car park. The main aspect to this property is to the west. A terrace directly adjoins the site to the west and overlooks the open area of land upon which the extension comprising phase 1 is to be located. The dwelling also enjoys views of the coastline, over the existing hotel to the north and west and Bolt Tail to the south and west. It is considered that this property is the dwelling most impacted by the proposed extensions. The proposed hotel accommodation extends approximately 22m beyond the existing hotel into the open area and to within 6m of the garden terrace boundary. The outlook from this property to Bolt View will not be lost. The accommodation wing has been revised prior to submission of this application by removing another floor. By doing this views over the mansard roof are retained but the outlook onto the beach and harbour would be significantly interrupted. Similarly the outlook to the north and west is obscured as a result of the main body of hotel extensions comprised in the remaining phases of development. The loss of private view is not in itself a material planning consideration. However, in this instance the scale, height and proximity of new development in its totality is considered to have an adverse impact on the amenity of residents. The removal of the second floor roof from phase 1 is very clearly a significant improvement but does not in itself address the concerns identified. The extensions would together be overwhelming and overbearing resulting in an unacceptable loss of amenity contrary to Development Policies DPD policy DP3.

Noise and Odour Impact There is some concern over the impact of the new parking arrangements to the property known as West View, If the Committee is minded to approve this application then it may be deemed appropriate that the boundary between the two properties be further treated with a 2m high wooden fence of density 10kg/m2 or greater to act as a sound barrier to reduce the noise levels.

In regards to potential noise levels from the proposed extension and the use as a conference facility, whilst there is potential for noise at night to cause an impact, should this area be used as a leisure facility this can be dealt with through either the licensing legislation, or other environmental health legislation. Good management of the noise will prevent this facility from causing a problem and as such there should be no need to condition this further.

Highways/Access DCC as County Highway Authority raises no objection to this development. The traffic flow predictions supporting the application are accepted by the Highway Engineer. It is considered that, whilst there will inevitably be some impact on the local highway network, this will be on average 1 vehicle every 6 minutes added to the network. This is not considered sufficient to substantiate a highway objection being raised. Planning conditions mitigating the impact on the road network during the construction period are recommended.

In response to the representations made on traffic generation and the adequacy of the road network the County Highway Engineer offers the following comments; “The applicant has commissioned a Transport Report, which the Highway Authority has examined carefully. The contents of this report are in line with the National Guidance on Transport Assessments and therefore the Highway Authority has no reason to not support its contents. Inevitably there will be some additional delays on the road networks as it is acknowledged in places it is narrow, however this does not necessarily constitute a reason to refuse planning applications especially if the numbers proposed will generate in-severe levels of additional traffic, which noting the current levels of traffic on the road network is the case here in the view of the Highway Authority. The National Planning Policy Frameworks specifically specifies applications should not be refused unless the implications are severe.

Highway Maintenance is not a planning consideration as the Highways Act 1980 specifically specifies that Highway Authorities have a duty to maintain roads. However, if it can be proven extraordinary traffic such as construction traffic has caused the damage then this is something that can be claimed. There are provisions for this in the requested Construction Management Plan.”

On this basis there are no substantive highway objections to the proposal.

Lighting The Environmental Health Officer has reviewed the submitted lighting assessment and is satisfied that the pre-curfew (i.e. between the hours of 07:00 – 23:00) levels of lighting are acceptable in accordance with the guidance provided by the Institute of Lighting Professionals. However the reports states that there is a need for a lower level of lighting to in place post-curfew to ensure compliance and still allow a suitable level of lighting to protect the safety of guests.

There is also concern regarding the glazing treatment to the hotel allowing light spillage out of the hotel if it is not appropriately treated. It is considered that this may be controlled by suitable planning condition. This will require the submission of a lighting management policy which will include details of:

• low level and low energy lighting to all terrace and balcony areas; • internal circulation areas to be operated by PIR motion sensors with timer controls to reduce energy and light pollution; • all glazing to windows, doors and balconies to be non-reflective glass to reduce solar reflection and the amount of artificial light emitted from the building.

Contaminated Land The contamination assessment demonstrates that there should be no contamination issues with this site. No site investigation can completely characterise a site. A planning condition is required to ensure that any unexpected contamination that is uncovered during remediation or other site works is dealt with appropriately.

Drainage South West Water raises no objection in principle to the development subject to foul flows only being connected to the public sewer. It is proposed that surface water will be dealt with by SUDs.

The Environment Agency raises no objection subject to a satisfactory sustainable drainage system being provided. A suitable planning condition has been recommended.

The Council’s Drainage Engineer raises no objection and recommends an appropriate planning condition requiring trial holes and percolation tests to be carried out prior to commencement, the SUD’s be designed for a 1:100 year event plus 30% for climate change and provision be made for alternative drainage mitigation if the percolation tests prove unsatisfactory.

Clearly it is very important to ensure that surface water runoff does not increase to the detriment of the public highway or other local properties as a result of this proposed development.

Concerns have been raised in representations on the inadequacy of the sewage treatment in Hope Cove and that the enlargement of the hotel will exacerbate problems presently experienced. These have been raised with SWW who consider that the proposed development will greatly benefit the situation. The hotel currently discharges all its surface water to the public sewer. During adverse weather conditions, this puts considerable additional load to the sewer/pumping station. The surface water disposal strategy for the extension will result in all current surface water from the entire Hotel building being removed from the sewer network thus reducing any potential sewer flooding risk.

Ecology The submitted Ecological Survey Report indicates that there was limited potential for impact on protected species or habitats subject to adherence to some basic mitigation (namely timing of vegetation clearance). There is potential for enhancement measures (bird boxes) to be included within the building and these should be conditioned.

The initial Ecological Survey Report recommended further bat surveys of various buildings with low potential for bat access/use, but a supplemental report (which takes into account the exposed position and lack of access points into the buildings) satisfies this matter.

Should Members be minded to approve the application the following condition is recommended • Works shall fully adhere to mitigation and enhancement measures as detailed in sections 3, 4 and 5 of Appendix 4, of the Ecological Survey Report (Acorn Ecology Ltd, 29 th September 2013).

Conclusion DCC as Highway Authority does not raise objection for the reasons set out in this report. Notwithstanding the third party objections received on highway grounds there is no highway objection to this development that can be substantiated.

English Heritage has identified an impact on the nearby scheduled ancient monument at Bolt Tail. As with the balance of all issues identified, the economic benefits of providing a sustainable hotel development is in the wider public interest and this is a material consideration. When considering heritage impact assessment, officers are of the view that the wider public benefits would outweigh the impact the development would have on Bolt Tail as a scheduled ancient monument.

The central issues to consider in the determination of this planning application are the landscape impact caused within the AONB and the impact the development would have on immediate neighbours.

As required by the NPPF and relevant Development Plan policies, it is necessary to place ‘great weight’ to the conservation of the landscape and scenic beauty in AONB’s. Officers have given this matter very careful consideration. Any enlargement of the hotel will impact on the very sensitive landscape setting but it must also be acknowledged that it would be unacceptable for the hotel business to remain unchanged. This is indeed shown by the high level of support for the family business to be allowed to expand. The proposals have been modified prior to the submission of the application to overcome some concerns and improve the general design. However, the overall bulk and scale of the proposal would not change significantly as the applicant’s business aspirations would otherwise be unacceptably compromised. The overbearing nature of the proposed building would have an adverse impact on the special qualities of this part of the AONB, the conservation of which is required to receive special consideration. In this instance the weight to be given to safeguarding the protected landscape outweighs the economic benefits that may be derived to the wider rural economy.

Finally, although it is acknowledged that development on the site will have an effect on neighbouring properties, the impact on West View is particularly imposing. The combination of the amount of new development, the height and close proximity on this property would be unduly overbearing and unneighbourly.

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

Planning Policy

National Planning Policy Framework

South Hams LDF Core Strategy CS7 Design CS9 Landscape and Historic Environment CS10 Nature Conservation CS11 Climate Change CS12 Tourism

Development Policies DPD DP1 High Quality Design DP2 Landscape Character DP3 Residential Amenity DP4 Sustainable Construction DP5 Conservation and Wildlife DP6 Historic Environment DP7 Transport, Access & Parking DP12 Tourism & Leisure

South Hams Local Plan SHDC 1 Development Boundaries

AONB Management Plan

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

Case Officer: Ben Gilpin Parish: West Alvington

Application No: 59/2482/14/F

Agent/Applicant: Applicant: Daniel Lethbridge DCH Group Andrew Lethbridge Ltd 72 Paris Street 102 Fore Street Exeter Kingsbridge EX1 2JZ TQ7 1AW

Site Address: Residential development at Home Field, West Alvington TQ7 3QQ

Development: Erection of 17 mixed tenure dwelling with associated access road, parking, hard/soft landscaping and farm access

Scale 1:5000 This map is reproduced from the Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (c) Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. South Hams District Council 100022628. 2014. Scale 1:5000 For internal reference only – no further copies to be made

Reason item is being put before Committee: The Ward Member requests the Committee considers the proposed design, setting and bearing with neighbouring properties and the pedestrian access.

Recommendation: Conditional Approval, subject to the prior satisfactory completion of a Section 106 Agreement dealing with:

 8 Affordable Units (4 Rented / 4 Shared Equity – 2 x 1 Bedroom Flats; 3 x 2 Bedroom Houses; 3 x 3 Bedroom Houses);  Open Space, Sport and Recreation Area (level to be calculated using standard formula) – off- site provision (on or before the Occupation of more than 50% of the Open Market Units to pay the Open Space Sport and Recreation contribution in full to the Council);  Education Contribution (level to be calculated using standard Devon County Council formula);  Public Footpath (Public Right of Way) to the west of the site – to be upgraded;  Permissive Path (new) – to be constructed to the same standard as the upgraded PRoW and secured by way of a Permissive Path Agreement;  Management Company – to be created to maintain communal hard and soft landscaping areas (including boundary treatment and planting where appropriate);  Management of Boundary Hedges – where in the ownership of the landowner they are to be maintained by the landowner.

Conditions: Standard Time Limit Accord with Plans Unsuspected Contamination Landscape / Boundary Treatment (Prior to Commencement (PTC)) Gate Details Drainage Details / Drainage Maintenance Plan (PTC) Construction Management Plan (PTC) Highways Details (PTC) Flood Risk Assessment (accord with submitted details) Ecology (Bird Nesting / Bat Roosting – provision of (PTC)) Foul Water flows to be connected to the public sewer system (bespoke) Provision and Retention of Parking. Removal of Permitted Development Rights

Key issues for consideration:  Principle of Development / Sustainability  Impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)  Impact on the Conservation Area (CA) / Listed Buildings (LB)  Transport / Highways  Planning Gain (Community Benefits / Affordable Housing)  Impact on Residential Amenity  5 Year Housing Land Supply  Other Matters

Financial Implications (Potential New Homes Bonus for major applications): It is estimated that this development has the potential to attract New Homes Bonus of £11,558 per annum, payable for a period of 6 years. Members are advised that this is provided on an information basis only and is not a material planning consideration in the determination of this application.

Site Description: The site is located to the south / south east of West Alvington, immediately adjacent to, but beyond the settlement boundary (so being designated as open countryside). Access to the site is via the A381 (vehicular and pedestrian access) and Public Right of Way (‘West Alvington Footpath 4’). The site is approximately 0.95 Hectares (2.34 acres) in area and slopes from north to south.

There are residential properties to the north and west of the site, and agricultural land uses to the east and south of the site

The site is within the South Devon AONB but has no other statutory designation constraints.

The site has not been formally adopted / allocated as a residential development site. However, the site was identified in the ‘South Hams and West Devon Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) – March 2009’ as a site that could be developable subject to improved access (SHLAA reference: SH_59_04_08) – 20 units on 0.54 Hectares (1.33 Acres).

The Proposal: This is a fully detailed application for the erection of 17 mixed tenure dwelling with associated access road, parking, hard / soft landscaping and farm access. The residential units comprise a mixture of detached (7 no.) and semi detached units (6 no.) with a terrace of 2 no. dwellings and 2 no. flats. The affordable units are 8 no in total, comprising 2 x 1 bed flats, 3 x 2 bed houses and 3 x 3 bed houses.

Consultations:  County Highways Authority - no objection subject to planning conditions (Construction Management Plan (CMP)) and Highway Construction Details (‘Prior to Commencement’ Planning Condition)

 Environmental Health Section - no objection subject to planning condition (‘Unsuspected Contamination’)

 SWW – no objection subject to foul flows only being connected to the public sewer.

 Natural England – no objection (generic response) subject to advice from AONB Unit and SHDC Ecologist

 English Heritage – no objection subject to advice from SHDC Conservation.

 Environment Agency – no objection subjection to accordance with the recommendations of the submitted Flood Risk Assessment (FRA)

 SHDC Ecology – no objection subject to the submission of bird / bat boxes to be incorporated on buildings on site (‘Prior to Commencement’ Planning Condition)

 SHDC Conservation – no objection. Comments received state: ‘In summary, the proposed development is unlikely to offer a harmful impact on nearby heritage assets or their settings and as such there is no reason to raise an objection from a Conservation perspective.’

 SHDC Drainage – no objection subject to the inclusion of planning conditions for drainage on site and drainage maintenance on site (both ‘Prior to Commencement’ Planning Conditions)

 Devon and Cornwall Constabulary – no definitive objection, but have offered comment on a number of points in relation to opportunities for crime and criminal activity (within the design)

 SHDC Affordable Housing – support as the scheme would deliver an identified affordable housing need for the settlement

 DCC Archaeology: - no objection. Assessment of the Historic Environment Record and details submitted by the applicant do not suggest that there will be a significant impact upon any known heritage asset.

 South Devon AONB – No objection. Comments received state: ‘When viewed from public vantage points the site is not prominent and is already bounded by development on two of its three boundaries. The layout and planting will not harm the character of this ‘edge of village’ location. The overall impacts of the scheme are low when considering it against the purpose of the AONB designation and the landscape character, special qualities and key characteristics for which it was designated.

In our view, these do not warrant an objection to the scheme.

The application is considered to be appropriate and proportionate for the location being modest in scale, appropriate to its setting, in keeping with character and meets the social needs of the local community.’

 West Alvington Parish Council (WAPC) – objection, although the Parish Council ‘continue to support in principle the development of affordable homes on the Home Field site’.

 Kingsbridge Town Council (KTC) – support.

Representations: Some 20 letters / e-mails of objection, some 12 letters / e-mails in support and some 7 letters offering comment about the proposal have been received and are on the Council’s website for information and consideration.

In summary, and in no particular order, the objections and support are as follows:

Objections:

 Impact on the AONB / Contrary to the AONB Management Plan;  Contrary to Appeal Case Law (K5);  Does not meet Sustainability Threshold Assessment (K5);  Lack of Pedestrian Access (Highways);  Accessibility (Highways – vehicular traffic / pedestrian access);  Impact on views from PRoW;  Overlooking / Loss of Privacy;  Unsustainable;  Impact on Ecology;  Impact on Conservation Area (CA) / Listed Buildings (LB);  Departure Site;  Impact on Private Wall;  Better sites elsewhere;  Safety (Personal)

Support:

 Suitable location;  Appropriate Scale for the Settlement;  Would deliver affordable housing;  Appropriate pedestrian access to services;  Potential residents could support the local economy;  Limited impact on the appearance of the area or AONB / skylines;

Relevant Planning History The site has no relevant planning application history.

NOTE: The site has been identified as a potential housing site for West Alvington as part of the ‘South Hams and West Devon Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (March 2009)’ (site reference: SH_59_04_08) and was identified as a ‘site developable subject to improved access’.

ANALYSIS Principle of Development / Sustainability: The site is identified as open countryside and as such would need to demonstrate initial accordance with the criteria of Policy DP15. In this respect, the development will need to accord with DP15, 1 (a) or (b). The development proposed does not accord with the criteria of sub section 1(a) as the housing is not intended to support the essential needs of agriculture or forestry interests.

Therefore, for the development to be acceptable in principle, it needs to accord with subsection 1(b), and demonstrate that it meets essential, small scale, and exceptional local development needs of a settlement which cannot be met within the development boundaries.

In support of this policy, paragraph 3.133 of the Development policies DPD states that: ‘In some cases the essential and exceptional local development needs of a settlement could be met by appropriate development in the countryside. Development that provides increased access to jobs, services and affordable housing will contribute to the Council’s strategic objectives. This will aid the Sustainable Community Strategy’s cross cutting theme of social inclusion. Employment development in the countryside will be promoted to encourage a more competitive, sustainable and prosperous countryside. This can broaden the base of the rural economy, encouraging micro businesses and provide a means of environmental stewardship for the countryside. Its importance is necessary to maintain the viability of many farms and it can play a key role in supporting agricultural activities. Affordable housing can be delivered through rural exception sites, as outlined in national policy and AH5 in the Affordable Housing DPD.’

Development that provides increased access to jobs, services and affordable housing will contribute to the Council’s strategic objectives.

In this instance, as part of the SHLAA site identification / analysis process, a number of sites were put forward. A total of 4 sites were put forward / analysed in West Alvington, with 2 sites identified / considered as having potential, with the site the subject of this planning application being one of them. For information, none of the sites put forward were within the identified and adopted development boundary. In addition, all 4 of the sites are within the AONB. Two of the 4 sites are immediately adjacent to the West Alvington Conservation Area, and one of the sites is approximately 420 metres distant from the West Alvington settlement boundary.

The site that is the subject of this planning application is adjacent to the Conservation Area (but is adjacent to the development boundary). A very small part of the site to the north (which comprises a small building) is within the Conservation Area.

From comments received, notably from SHDC Housing Strategy, it is understood that there is a local development need in / around West Alvington, with a requirement for 8 affordable units (homes).

It has been detailed by SHDC Housing Strategy that the landowner has entered into partnership with ‘Westco’ (open market division of the ‘Devon and Cornwall Housing Association’) and that to enable the delivery of the 8 identified affordable units, approximately 50% of the site will need to be open market housing. This arrangement ensures the scheme is both viable and deliverable (as required by paragraph 173 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Therefore, in this instance, it is considered that the scheme is small scale, meets an exceptional (and identified) local need, and requires a site near the point of need which cannot be accommodated within the development boundary (albeit immediately adjacent to the settlement boundary). The proposed development will deliver units to assist with an identified exceptional local need, in the most sustainable location of the 4 potential sites, and as such accords with the criteria of policy DP15, 1(b).

Consideration should also be given to the criteria of Policy DP15, 2 (a-c). It is considered that the form of development proposed could not be accommodated within existing buildings or previously developed land, hence the need (in terms of delivery of identified needs units) to seek a site such as this (Greenfield) (Policy DP15, 2(a)). However, the site is immediately adjacent to the identified settlement boundary (so being ‘close’ as required by sub section (b) would not prejudice viable agricultural operations on the farm (sub section (c)).

In conclusion, the site and development are considered to be acceptable in principle and in the most sustainable location of the sites identified (subject to accordance with other adopted Development Policies).

Impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) A number of the objections received have stated how the proposal would be to the detriment of the character of the AONB, and would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (para. 115), the ‘South Devon AONB Management Plan 2014-2019’ and Development Plan Policy.

For clarity, the South Devon AONB Management Plan 2014-2019 does not form part of the Development Plan, but is a material consideration.

The conservation of the character of the AONB is material to decision making and as such needs consideration (Policy CS9 of the Core Strategy and Policy DP2 of the Development Policies DPD). Furthermore paragraph 115 of the NPPF needs to be considered, as it states that: ‘Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty.’

In this instance, the opinion of the South Devon AONB Team has been sought, which is as follows:

‘Whilst the size of development will be substantive in terms of the number of units (17) it will sit on a sloping site of low visual prominence and would form a logical extension to the village. The development is not in our view one that could be considered "major" in terms of the National Planning Policy Framework paragraph116 meaning, which departs from major development as defined in Article 8 of the Town and Country Planning Order (2010). As a consequence, in our view the three tests normally triggered by paragraph 116 of the NPPF do not therefore apply in this instance.

The field itself whilst undeveloped is read in context with the existing envelope of the village. It is not a field that acts as a transition from the built environment into the open countryside. By contrast the fields immediately to the east do act in this way and therefore had development been proposed in this location it would have been more visually prominent but would also have had an impact upon the character of the landscape setting of the village. It would appear that consideration has been given to selecting and shaping this site so as to ensure that impacts of the kind described above are avoided.’

The AONB Team goes on to say that:

‘When viewed from public vantage points the site is not prominent and is already bounded by development on two of its three boundaries. The layout and planting will not harm the character of this ‘edge of village’ location. The overall impacts of the scheme are low when considering it against the purpose of the AONB designation and the landscape character, special qualities and key characteristics for which it was designated.

In our view, these do not warrant an objection to the scheme.

The application is considered to be appropriate and proportionate for the location being modest in scale, appropriate to its setting, in keeping with character and meets the social needs of the local community.’

Knowing the opinion of an identified Authority on this matter, in that the proposal would be appropriate to its setting, and in keeping with character, it is considered that the scheme would accord with the Development Plan and the NPPF, and as such a recommendation for refusal on these grounds could not be supported.

Heritage Impacts In considering this application and assessing potential impacts of the development proposal against surrounding heritage assets the following policies, principles, guidance and recent case law have been considered:

 Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act,  Section 12 of the NPPF including paragraphs; 128, 129, 132, 133, & 134.  The National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) particularly the Section: Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment.  The 2011 English Heritage publication: The Setting of Heritage Assets.  Recent Case Law in particular the East Northamptonshire DC v. Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (known as the ‘Barnwell Manor’ case) and R. (on the application of (1) The Forge Field Society (2) Martin Barraud (3) Robert Rees) v Sevenoaks District Council [2014] EWHC 1895.

Impact on the Conservation Area (CA) / Listed Buildings (LB): A number of objections received have cited impact on the West Alvington Conservation Area (CA) and Listed Buildings (LB) in the village as reasons for refusal of the planning application.

It is accepted that the north east corner of the site would be adjacent to the CA boundary. This part of the CA is composed of the rear yards and gardens of terraced properties (that front onto the A381) and the garden of Martinhoe Cottage.

Between the nearest point of the built form of the development and the CA boundary, the distance is a minimum of 10 metres. This area (to the rear of the proposed new properties (plots 1-10)) would be garden space and proposed planting and grassed area. It is considered that this will ensure there is a degree of visual separation between the built element of the site and the CA, visually strengthened by the drop in topography of the site. It is accepted that the development would result in a form of visual connection to the CA, but it is not considered that the scheme would be so detrimental to the character of this part of the CA (being the rear of buildings and their associated yards and gardens) as to justify a recommendation for refusal on these grounds.

In terms of LB’s and their setting, the nearest LB is the Post Office and Manor House (Grade II) which is approximately 55 metres to the north west of the site (separated by gardens and buildings of the intervening properties). The nearest Grade II* properties are Old Stones and School Cottage / Pay Cottage which are approximately 60 metres to the north west of the site (separated by gardens and buildings of the intervening properties). The nearest Grade I property is All Saints’ Church which is approximately 105 metres to the north west of the site (separated by gardens and buildings of the intervening properties).

To the south east (approx 400m) lies Woodhouse Farm and associated listed outbuildings (Barn, Lin hay and stable) (all grade II). To the south west (approx 300m) lies Longbrook Farmhouse and associated listed outbuildings (The Stable, The Parlour, The Pound House) (all grade II).

The comments of English Heritage (in relation to the Grade I LB) are as follows:

Because the development won’t affect key elements of the church’s setting such as its relationship to buildings immediately surrounding it, the prominence of its tower on the skyline and its relationship with the countryside to its north, it is unlikely that it (the development) will cause harm to the setting or significance of the Grade I Listed Building

Comments have also been provided by SHDC Conservation (in relation to Grade II* and Grade II LB and the CA):

I turn first to those assets which are located furthest from the application site. Longbrook Farm and associated (historic) ancillary buildings to the south west of the application site is buffered from the development proposals by virtue of the distances involved, the surrounding topography and the 20th century spread of development to the south of the village. The proposed development will not adversely impact on this asset (or group of assets) or its setting.

The relationship between Woodhouse Farm (and ancillary listed structures) and the development site is far more open with no development between the ‘site’ and the heritage asset(s), instead rather steeply sloping agricultural land (pasture) from the site falling in a south east direction towards the Farm complex. Although there will be a visible connection between the heritage asset(s) and the site, the site should be read in conjunction with the existing built form to the west and as a comfortable extension to the well established village grain. Given the distances involved, the situation of the Farm and those elements that contribute to its special interest the proposed development is unlikely to offer a harmful impact on the asset(s) or their settings.

The heritage assets that are closest to the development site are a cluster of listed buildings comprising five buildings, three of which are highly graded. This group follow the established historic pattern of development within the village, in that they offer a front to the main through road with their rear aspects to the south. The cluster is located to the north west of the site approximately 100m to the centre of the site. Although these significant assets are in relatively close proximity to the development site, it is unlikely given their orientation and the surrounding existing built form that the proposal will impact adversely on the assets’ setting or their special interest.

The heritage asset most likely to be affected by these proposals is the grade I listed Church of All Saints. It is noted that English Heritage in their statutory role has offered a consultation response which concentrates on the Church and potential impact. In summary, English Heritage are of the view that harm is unlikely to be caused through the development proposals to the Church or its setting given its relationship to buildings immediately surrounding it, the prominence of its tower on the skyline and the scale, layout and design of the proposed housing.

Further to analysis and inspection site, I have no reason to offer an alternative view than that offered by colleagues in English Heritage. Existing views from within the site looking north west and when viewed from the immediate environs (towards the south east) looking back up to the church will almost inevitable be impinged upon. However it is noted that these are not public views and are confined to private views afforded from within the site and the surrounding (falling) land. It is pleasing to note that the site layout and the domestic scale of the development should allow a continuation of these ‘private’ views with ‘glimpses’ being afforded through the development site.

In summary, the proposed development is unlikely to offer a harmful impact on nearby heritage assets or their settings and as such there is no reason to raise an objection from a Conservation perspective

In light of the above comments, it is considered that the proposal and its design (namely layout and massing) are acceptable in terms of effects on known heritage assets as the scheme would accord with the requirements of Policy DP6 of the Development Policies DPD in that the historic environment would be preserved.

Transport / Highways: Objections received from third parties refer to the access to and from the site for both vehicles and pedestrians as being a reason to refuse permission for this proposal.

These two elements will be considered in turn.

Vehicle Access (to the A381): The SHLAA identified the site in 2009 as having potential for development but at the time concerns were raised in relation to access to the A381 (as detailed in the SHLAA).

In addition, a number of the objections received have raised concerns over the impact additional traffic could have on the adjacent / surrounding highway network.

During the period of initial formal consultation, DCC Highways had raised a number of concerns in relation to the project on highways grounds. Subsequent to this, revisions to the scheme were submitted for additional consultation and DCC Highways are now satisfied that the scheme is acceptable (in that the original concerns have been suitably addressed), subject to the inclusion of reasonable planning conditions, if the Local Planning Authority minded to grant planning permission.

Requested planning conditions relate to proposed road construction details and Construction Management Plan details being submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development.

Pedestrian Access: Concerns have been raised that the access arrangements for pedestrians to and from the site are impractical and that the development should be refused.

It is accepted that from the point of vehicular access to the A381 west to the village (and associated amenities) there is no footpath proposed for pedestrian access. However, provision to, and enhancement of the PRoW to the west is proposed, as well as the creation of a new permissive pathway for the public around the site.

The comments of West Alvington Parish Council are noted re: the proposed ‘kissing gate’ to the southern end of the permissive path. However, what is also evident is that access to and from the village and its associated services would be unhindered to pedestrians with clear and safe access to the highway network both to the north and the south (albeit with the width of the PRoW at the north restricted to approximately 1 metre wide where it is adjacent to the north west corner of the site). Where the PRoW joins ‘Longfields’ to the south (public highway that serves only Woodhouse Farm beyond the point of intersection) there would be no constraints to access / egress.

Concerns have been raised that where the PRoW links onto the A381, the footpath (pavement) to the west is narrow and would not be able to support potential increased footfall to services to the west (note the Public House and Shop are to the east which is wider and is considered sufficient to support any additional footfall). Furthermore, objections have stated that access to services to the west would be difficult as there is not an opportunity to cross to use the wider pavement to the north of the A381 as at the point opposite where the PRoW meets the A381, the pavement is raised. However, using the pavement to the east, the footpath on the northern side of the A381 has a dropped kerb and is easily accessible (this point being approximately 10 metres east of the juncture of the PRoW and the A381.

Mindful of the above, it is considered in this instance that objections to the proposal on the grounds of poor pedestrian access cannot be supported as it is evidenced when on site, together with the requisite improvements to the surface of the PRoW, that pedestrian access will be at worst unaltered, and if anything improved. It is considered that, as a result of the improvements proposed, together with the identified links to existing pedestrian networks that the scheme would accord with Policy DP7 of the Development Policies DPD.

Planning Gain (Community Benefits / Affordable Housing): For clarity, the proposal would provide 8 affordable housing units for local residents (4 Social Rent / 4 Equity Share). In addition, the proposal would result in a direct improvement to the surface of the PRoW to the west of the site, and biodiversity gain, both of which are considered beneficial (directly and indirectly) to the wider community).

5 Year Housing Land Supply: South Hams District Council published a Housing Position Statement in March 2014 which set out a detailed assessment of the district’s housing land supply. This concluded that for the rural South Hams (including West Alvington) just over a five year supply of housing land could be demonstrated. However, this was challenged at an appeal relating to a site in Kingsbridge and the Inspector concluded (August 2014) that “…the Council has failed to demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites in relation to the rSH part of the District.” As a consequence of this lack of a 5 year supply the relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up to date.

Other Matters:

Section 106 Agreement:

The section 106 Agreement would seek to secure the delivery of:

 8 Affordable Units (4 Rented / 4 Shared Equity – 2 x 1 Bedroom Flats; 3 x 2 Bedroom Houses; 3 x 3 Bedroom Houses);  Open Space, Sport and Recreation Area (level to be calculated using standard formula) – off- site provision (on or before the Occupation of the more than 50% of the Open Market Units to pay the Open Space Sport and Recreation contribution in full to the Council);  Education Contribution (level to be calculated using standard Devon County Council formula);  Public Footpath (Public Right of Way) to the west of the site – to be upgraded;  Permissive Path (new) – to be constructed to the same standard as the upgraded PRoW and secured by way of a Permissive Path Agreement;  Management Company – to be created to maintain communal hard and soft landscaping areas (including boundary treatment and planting where appropriate);  Management of Boundary Hedges – where in the ownership of the landowner they are to be maintained by the landowner.

Views from PRoW: Objections have cited the loss of public views from the PRoW as reasoning for refusing this planning application. The loss of a personal view is not a material planning consideration. However, the loss of views from a publicly accessible vantage point (such as this PRoW) could be perceived as a loss of amenity, so would be a material consideration in this instance.

The planning application has acknowledged this with the creation and proposed permanent retention of a permissive path through the development site and the provision of rest / viewing facility (sitting area to the eastern boundary of the site). It is noted that the permissive path proposes ‘kissing gates’ at the northern and southern access points which have been suggested as restricting access to less able path users. However, access to and from the viewing area would be unrestricted to less able path users as the upgraded footpath and internal access road layout would permit unrestricted access to and from this area and negate the need to use the permissive path (and associated ‘kissing Gates’).

Knowing the proposed mitigation detailed in the planning submission and reiterated above, the loss of views from the PRoW are not considered to be overriding material reasons to refuse this application.

Overlooking / Loss of Privacy: Objections have suggested that the development could result in a loss of privacy to neighbouring properties.

The nearest point between windows of existing buildings and proposed buildings would be approximately 14 metres (minimum). Knowing that there would only be potential for views from secondary habitable rooms to secondary habitable rooms, together with the intervening boundary treatment and topography of the site, it is not considered in this instance that the development would impact on neighbouring privacy, or have potential future users amenity impinged upon by existing users to the north or west.

Unsustainable: Objections received have referred to unsustainable development as being a reason for refusal of the proposal. The objections have suggested that the development would be unsustainable on environmental and social grounds contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). What has not been detailed is how, or why, the scheme does not meet the criteria contained within the NPPF.

In paragraph 7 of the NPPF, the criteria for sustainable development are listed, being economic, social and environmental.

In this instance the concerns have been summarised by West Alvington Parish Council which has suggested that the development is inaccessible, unsafe, and divisive on social terms and would be environmentally incongruent as an extension to the village.

With reference to the aforementioned, and as detailed in this recommendation, it is considered that the site is accessible to both potential future residents and existing village residents in respect of pedestrian and vehicular access.

The objection also suggests that the development is unsafe, although the report submitted by West Alvington Parish Council does not appear to qualify exactly what is considered unsafe. In this instance it can only be interpreted as being unsafe on highways grounds. WAPC has suggested that the accessible pedestrian route along Longfields, especially by potential residents of the affordable element of the development, would not be used as safe route to services. This is an unfounded (albeit pragmatic) assumption of human behaviour. What is a matter of fact is that there are routes to a number of services provided in the village (notably the Primary School and Village Hall) that could avoid the A381. What is noted is the development is suitably close to the services within the village to promote the ease of walking over personal vehicle use.

It is also suggested that the scheme would be divisive in social terms. It is the opinion of West Alvington Parish Council that, as a result of the siting of affordable homes and open market homes, the scheme has resulted in social segregation. For clarity, the site is to provide 17 units, all on the same piece of land, all sharing the same vehicular access, with a separation distance of 14 metres (and clear lines of sight) between the two housing tenure types. It is also suggested by the parish Council that the spatial layout of the open market housing as proposed is wholly inappropriate to the highly integrated village structure.

Both these points and their validity are questioned as the affordable element would be well integrated and not ‘partitioned off’ (being sited between existing and new open market housing), so resulting in the scheme being socially inclusive rather than divisive. In relation to the layout of the proposed open market housing, where it to be tight-knit as implied is the case with the village, it could be considered feasible at a later date to potentially add to this area as a natural extension of the village. In its current form, the layout is such that it would help reduce visual impact on views to the village from the south east, with an open and more rural character, as opposed to a harder, urban edge (it is noted that housing densities decrease the further from the centre of the village properties are).

West Alvington Parish Council has acknowledged its support of the principle of delivering affordable housing. What also needs to be borne in mind in this respect is the need to ensure viability and deliverability of a scheme, as enshrined in paragraph 173 of the NPPF. WAPC has suggested that the development should deliver greater levels of public benefit (over and above the near 50% affordable housing provision and potential biodiversity benefits), such as the creation of a new footpath to the village at a quoted cost of £150,000. It is considered that for a developer to fund such a project beyond the site boundary, when there are clear alternative and safe routes for residents to use would be onerous and contrary to the requirements of a Section 106 Agreement (especially in light of the identified affordable housing provision being made). Furthermore, such additional demands could make the scheme undeliverable, which would ensure the identified affordable housing may never be delivered to the long term detriment of social sustainability of the village.

West Alvington Parish Council has also stated that, in its opinion, the development would be environmentally incongruent. The suggestion that the development would be environmentally incongruent (i.e., dissimilar to its surrounds) is questioned. The development would physically link to the existing urban layout of the village with permeable boundaries and footpath extensions (albeit permissive), In addition, the scheme would reflect the radiating density of built development from the centre of the village, as seen elsewhere in the settlement (with greater density nearer the centre of the village). Furthermore, the site which is one of monoculture would, if the development were permitted, enable the creation of greater numbers of habitat types yet continue to protect the character and setting of the natural, built and historic environment (as prescribed by paragraph 7 of the NPPF).

Impact on Ecology: Objections have stated that the development could have a detrimental effect on ecology at the site. The site has no statutory ecological constraints restricting development and is predominantly grass pastureland (monoculture).

The submission has identified that site could provide ‘medium quality foraging habitat’ for bats, and that prior to the commencement of development, suitable bat surveys would be needed to ensure there would be a negligible effect in relation to such foraging. Bat surveys were subsequently undertaken, with the findings reported in the ‘Bat Activity Survey’ (reference: GLE33/2013). The survey report identified low bat activity and concluded that the development would have a negligible negative impact on bats.

However, in the interests of biodiversity enhancement, it has been recommended that, if planning permission is granted, a ‘Prior to Commencement’ planning condition be included requiring the submission of bird and bat box details and locations be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

In light of the above, it is not considered that the development would be to the detriment of the areas ecology.

Departure Site: Objectors have argued that, as the planning application has been advertised as a departure from the Development Plan, as such it should be refused. For clarity, the proposal has been advertised in accordance with the requirements detailed in the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009.

In this instance, if the Committee is minded to approve this proposed development, the Local Planning Authority would not need to inform the Secretary of State of its intention as the site does not meet the requisite criteria (in that the site is not in a Green Belt; is not a large retail / office / leisure use outside a town centre; does not affect the setting of a World Heritage Site; would not result in the loss of playing fields; and is not in a flood risk area).

Therefore, the Local Planning Authority must consider the planning application on its merits,recognising that the site is a departure from the Development Plan.

Impact on Private Wall: An objection has cited potential impact of the development on a private wall and that the developer should enter into an agreement to repair the structure, should it be damaged as a result of the development.

The wall in question forms the boundary of a private residence beyond the site boundary (and so not in the control of the applicant). Should damage to the wall result from works involved in implementing this development proposal, then this would be a civil matter to be resolved between the owner of the wall and the applicant/developer. Furthermore, as the wall does not form part of the public highway, works to repair could not be secured by way of a Section 38 Agreement or Section 106 Agreement.

Knowing the above, such a requirement, were it requested, would be both onerous and unreasonable on the applicant and could be reasonably expected to be legally challenged.

Alternative and More Suitable Sites Elsewhere: Some objections have suggested that the planning application should be refused as there are better alternative sites in / around the village that could accommodate the level of development proposed as part of this scheme.

What needs to be considered in this instance is whether such sites are the subject of a current planning application/s (and so by default indicating that such sites are deliverable and viable as detailed in paragraph 173 of the NPPF). At present, there are no formal planning applications that have been submitted to this Planning Authority seeking planning permission to develop comparable sites that could deliver the levels of housing as proposed in this current planning application in or near the village (in that they could assist in supporting the long-term sustainability of existing village services).

Therefore, it is not considered the submission should be recommended for refusal on the suggestion that there are possibly ‘better’ sites that have not been submitted for consideration by means of a formal planning application.

Safety (Personal): The Devon and Cornwall Constabulary Crime Prevention Officer (DCCCPO) has provided comment in relation to the design of the proposal, suggesting the retention of the PRoW and the permeability of the site to non-residents could result in increased opportunities for crime and / or criminal activity.

What is noted (and as advised by the DCCCPO), is that the design is proposing gated only access / egress from plots 8, 9 and 10. In addition, where planning permission to be approved, a ‘prior to commencement’ planning condition requiring details of gated access to the rear gardens of plots 13 and 14 can be included (this being seen as reasonable).

In relation to gated access, DCCCPO also identified a potential ‘dark spot’ between plots 4 and 5. As with gates to the rear of plots 13 and 14, the requirement for a gate and details of such a gate can be secured by way of a ‘prior to commencement’ planning condition.

Concerns relating to the gable end of plot 7 are noted. However, the positioning of car parking, the difference in levels and through fall of foot traffic from the PRoW are considered sufficient to deter problematic ball use or use for graffiti in this location.

Ownership and maintenance of the PRoW will remain ‘as is’. Land to the west of plots 9 and 10 will be maintained by a Management Company, to be secured way of the requisite Section 106 Agreement. Although the area may not be directly over looked, it is considered there will be a degree of natural surveillance of this area by users of the PRoW (which will potentially increased by residents to the site).

As such, the concerns identified by DCCCPO are not considered sufficient in this instance to support a recommendation for refusal, knowing the mitigation proposed (and that can be secured by way of planning condition), self-regulation of activity and increased usage of the PRoW.

The Overall Planning Balance In summary, the proposed development would conflict with Development Plan policy. It would result in residential development outside the development boundary, adjoining the Conservation Area and heritage assets, and the loss of a field that is part of the South Devon AONB.

However, there is a shortfall in the District’s housing provision, which must be addressed urgently. The proposed development would go some way towards addressing that shortfall. It would provide much-needed open market and affordable housing, which would help to support a range of community facilities within the village. It is within acceptable walking distance of local facilities and in close proximity to public rights of way.

Whilst material considerations weighing against the proposal include the harm caused by building on a field outside the development boundary and the resultant reduction in the natural beauty of the AONB, it is the firm opinion of officers that, neither the extent of such harm to the AONB nor any other material considerations are sufficient cumulatively to outweigh the factors in favour of permitting the proposed development, primarily the clear and pressing need to address the shortfall in the District’s provision of open market and affordable housing.

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

Planning Policy Development Plan South Hams LDF Core Strategy DPD (December 2006) CS1 Location of Development CS2 Housing Provision CS6 Affordable Housing CS7 Design CS8 Infrastructure Provision CS9 Landscape and Historic Environment CS10 Nature Conservation CS11 Climate Change

South Hams LDF Development Policies DPD (July 2010) DP1 High Quality Design DP2 Landscape Character DP3 Residential Amenity DP4 Sustainable Construction DP5 Conservation and Wildlife DP6 Historic Environment DP7 Transport, Access & Parking DP8 Open Space, Sport and Recreation DP11 Housing Mix and Tenure DP15 Development in the Countryside

Non-Development Plan South Hams and West Devon Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) (March 2009)

West Alvington: SH_59_04_08

South Devon AONB Management Plan 2014-2019

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

Case Officer: Patrick Whymer Parish: Dartmouth

Application No : 15/2252/14/F

Agent/Applicant: Applicant: Andrew Renshaw Sheyenne Ltd Mr M Featherstone 87 Fore Street Salcombe TQ8 8BY

Site Address: Development site at SX 8651 5145 Site at Collingwood Road, Dartmouth.

Development: Construction of 7 dwellings (following refusal of planning application 15/2265/12/F for construction of 8 dwellings)

Scale 1:2500

This map is reproduced from the Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (c) Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. South Hams District Council 100022628. 2014. Scale 1:2500 For internal reference only – no further copies to be made

Reason item is being put before Committee Councillor Cooper has requested that the application be considered by the Development Management committee on the basis that the trees are not worthy of retention; the development will improve the visual appearance of the area and the scheme has the support of the Town Council.

Recommendation: Refusal

Reasons for refusal 1. The proposed development would result in the loss of an important and recognised area of trees that are the subject of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO 869). This important landscape element in the context of its urban setting provides distinction to the local character and acts as a dynamic screen to the commercial development on land to the south, both locally and within the wider environment. Loss of this feature would have a substantial adverse impact on landscape and visual amenity. As such the development is contrary to LDF Development Policy DP1 and the advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

2. The proposal, by virtue of its design, scale and form comprising a four storied terraced development is considered to be visually out of keeping with the character and scale of the residential development that adjoins the site. The development therefore fails to take the opportunity of improving the character and quality of the area and is contrary to LDF Development Policy DP1 and the advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

3. The proposed development does not make adequate provision for the parking of vehicles within the site and would therefore be likely to encourage parking on the highway, with consequent additional danger to all users of the road contrary to LDF Development Policy DP17 and the provisions within the National Planning Policy Framework.

Key issues for consideration: The site is within the Development Boundary where the construction of additional dwellings is acceptable in principle. The key issues to be considered relate to the loss of the protected trees, access and parking arrangements, impact on neighbouring properties, and the scale/design of the proposal.

Financial Implications (Potential New Homes Bonus for major applications): It is estimated that this development has the potential to attract New Homes Bonus of £7248 per annum, payable for a period of 6 years. Members are advised that this is provided on an information basis only and is not a material planning consideration in the determination of this application.

Site Description: This application seeks to erect 7 dwellings on a sloping site adjacent to the Collingwood Road and Mayflower Close junction. The application site is essentially in two elements; the northern section is steeply sloping land rising up from Mayflower Close. On this section is a group of trees that is the subject of a Tree Preservation Order. The southern section of the site forms part of a parking area for the adjoining commercial premises.

The site is on the boundary between commercial development to the south and a residential area to the north. There is residential development bordering the site to the east and opposite to the north. Immediately to the south is a large commercial building.

The residential area has a mixture of styles and designs with a variety of heights and external materials and finishes. The dwellings immediately to the east of the site are rendered two storey dwellings whilst the dwellings on the opposite side of the road are also two storey and have a brick and tile finish and are set at a lower level than the road.

The Proposal: The development is for a contemporary terrace of seven, three bedroom houses with three floors of living accommodation over a proposed car port/parking space on the ground floor. This gives the appearance of four storey development when viewed from Mayflower Close with the top floor accommodation within the roof. Due to the slope of the site, from the south only the top two floors would be visible.

Small rear gardens / patio areas are provided to the rear of the dwellings for those fronting Mayflower Close at the second floor level and a side garden is provided for the unit fronting Collingwood Close, which will be concealed by the brick wall, which also has a retaining function.

Although the design is contemporary the external finishes are commensurate with the surrounding development, principally comprising brick facings with tiled roofs. Render on the end unit and the use of vertical projecting elements provide a vertical emphasis to the elevations. The use of render on the end unit and on the projecting elements has been used to reflect the use of render on the neighbouring houses

To mitigate the loss of trees on the site, it is proposed to plant a line of Populus tremula erector trees within the gardens of the houses. This species of tree has the characteristics of being fast growing (up to 2m a year), and has an extremely upright and narrow habit, with a canopy of 2.5-3m when fully grown. These trees can reach 20 metres in height and could quickly break up the mass of the building beyond while creating minimal impact on the proposed development below.

Small areas of planting are proposed along the Mayflower Close. These are proposed to be in bands of a single species shrub, lavender. The aim is to break up the hard landscape and provide colour a larger area of planting is proposed in front of the end unit which turns the corner from Mayflower Close to Collingwood Road. This planting serves an important purpose of breaking up the plinth of the proposed housing above.

Due to the constrained site, the gardens to the rear of the development are compact. Consequently they will be predominantly hard in nature with raised planters running along 3 sides. This provides each garden with a small growing space, the walls will be surfaced in a white render and fences will be constructed from a light softwood. The proposed paving to the rear courtyard is a high quality pre cast concrete and will be laid to be permeable in nature. The specimen trees will be planted in log retaining walls with evergreen planting around the base of the trees.

The boundary to the south of the development is proposed to be formed by a close boarded fence and the line of proposed poplar trees. The eastern boundary will have a trellis fence to aid light into the garden. The bank along this boundary will be stabilised, made good and seeded with wild flower seed mix.

Consultations :

• County Highways Authority – Initial concerns raised regarding inadequate visibility from the site onto the highway and insufficient parking. Revised plans have been received that overcome the concern regarding visibility.

• Environmental Health Section - Conditions requested

• Dartmouth Town Council - Recommend approval with the proviso that the Section 106 payment be invested in the local community

• South West Water – There is a public sewer in the vicinity and no development will be allowed within three metres of the sewer. Should the development encroach within the three metre easement the sewer will need to be diverted at the expense of the applicant

• SWW will only allow foul drainage to be connected to the public foul or combined sewer.

• Drainage Engineer – Holding objection pending more information, this has been supplied and the concern can be addressed with a planning condition.

• SHDC - Ecology Officer – No Objections, conditions requested.

• SHDC – Natural Environment and Recreation Team – Objection to loss of TPO trees and failure to contribute to Open Space, Sport and recreation.

Representations: Seven letters of support have been received in connection with this matter setting out the following points: • Support the applicant in his endeavour to continue to improve the industrial site, has transformation of his existing commercial property into a thriving asset for the town. • The applicant continually demonstrates his long-termism and attention to detail. • The development will fulfil a housing need. • The land is not in use and is not in an area of natural beauty,

Relevant Planning History Planning permission was refused in 2013 for the construction of 8 dwellings (15/2265/12/F). The application was refused for three reasons; the adverse impact on neighbouring dwellings due to a ramped and overbearing form of development; the impact on highway safety and the loss of a group of TPO trees.

ANALYSIS

Principle of Development/Sustainability: The application site falls within the Development Boundary belonging to Dartmouth and is therefore considered sustainable in terms of its location.

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

Affordable Housing and other Financial Contributions The application is for seven dwellings which is above the Councils adopted threshold for the provision of or contribution towards affordable dwellings, open space and sport/recreation. The applicant has submitted a viability report that suggests that the scheme is not sufficiently viable to provide any financial contributions.

In additional to the issue of viability, on the 28 November the government issued revised guidance within the Planning Practice Guidance that sets out that contributions should not be sought from developments of 10 units or less, and which have a maximum floor space of 1000 sqm. In some circumstances the threshold can be reduced to five (where the site lies within an AONB or where the site is within a designated Rural Area). This particular site would have the higher threshold of over 10 units. The comments from the Natural Environment Team were made prior to the change in the guidance.

In light of the above no contributions can be sought.

Landscape and Visual Impact: The site is within an urban area and is covered with a small woodland copse; this is protected by TPO 869. This important landscape element in the context of its urban setting provides distinction to the local character and acts as a dynamic screen to the commercial development on land to the south, both locally and within the wider environment. Loss of this feature would have a substantial adverse impact on landscape and visual amenity unless mitigated through new landscape screening and planting elsewhere.

The current landscape scheme will see 8 new Poplar trees planted within the small courtyard areas to the rear of each of the flats. Whilst the strategy may be understood, the solution is not a realistic one as there are clear foreseeable issues with establishment, management and longer term retention of these trees. Whilst its positive attributes are acknowledged, officers have strong reservations about its appropriateness for this proposal, in particular as it will not satisfactorily compensate for the loss of woodland or the amenity it currently offers.

Trees The trees are subject to TPO No: 869, W1 – woodland preventing felling. The planted woodland has a strong coherent, wooded character. Acknowledging the condition of some of the individual specimens, the woodland has a strong overall integrity that can be sustained in the long term through appropriate woodland management. Loss of these trees will diminish local character and the dynamic and natural screening value they offer to existing residences. Overall, the crowns from a consistent natural feature and offer visual amenity in line with the objectives of the TPO.

The original tree survey has been re-submitted and therefore unchanged from the previous application. Whilst the content of the report is noted, there is disagreement over the expected life of the alders; appropriate and intelligent management could see them retained long term and certainly longer than ten years.

Neighbour Amenity : The impact on neighbouring dwellings was one of the reasons for refusal of the previous application for eight dwellings. The proposal revises the design and improves the relationship with the neighbouring dwellings to the extent that it no longer dominates the neighbour’s properties. On balance the relationship of the proposal with the neighbouring properties is acceptable.

Highways/Access: The Highway Officer has raised concerns regarding the parking provision and visibility from accesses onto the highway. Revised plans have been submitted that overcome the concern regarding visibility.

In terms of the parking provision the Highway Authority notes there are now single parking bays for each dwelling set underneath each unit. These bays exit directly onto Mayflower Close, each unit is 3 bedrooms in size. The first concern of the Highway Authority is that a single parking space for each 3 bedroom unit is an insufficient amount of parking. It is noted that Mayflower Close is on a regular 15 and 30 minute bus route. Having taken feedback from local residents the Highway Authority is concerned that the available space on the public highway for parking is such that the space remaining is available for a bus to safely negotiate its way around the estate. It should not be assumed that because the site is well served by public transport the future residents of the proposals will not own more than one car and nor should it be assumed that the residents will not receive visitors which will inevitably increase demand on the public highway. The Highway Authority is therefore again recommending refusal on lack of parking grounds.

In response to the concerns of the Highway Authority the agent has advised that the applicant owns the adjoining employment units which are let to a variety of tenants and it will be possible for occupiers with more than 1 car to use the parking available at the site at evenings and weekends.

In respect of on street parking, the agent states that the bus service is one way around this part of the estate and the reason for refusal that you give – the temporary delay to the bus service that the Highway Officer witnessed further down Mayflower Close is not a regular occurrence. The agent argues that one case of poor parking is hardly sufficient to justify the NPPF test that development should only be prevented on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of the development are severe. Elsewhere on the estate parking tends to be provided in large car parks which are not generally well used rather than on plot parking which is being proposed. Some residents choose to park on street rather than in the designated parking areas.

In response to the above comments, the offer of additional parking cannot be secured by condition as it is outside of the application site and it would only be available for limited times so would have limited benefit. The Highways Officer has maintained the objection to lack of parking.

Design The development is for a contemporary terrace of seven, three bedroom houses with three floors of living accommodation over a proposed car port/parking space on the ground floor. This gives the appearance of four storey development when viewed from Mayflower Close with the top floor within the roof. The use of vertical projecting elements emphasises a vertical appearance to the repetitive main elevation.

The scale of the development is out of context with the two storey dwellings to the east and west, as demonstrated on the contextual north elevation on drawing AP(2)2006 and with the two storey dwellings that are at a lower level to the north of Mayflower Close as shown on the contextual east and west elevations on drawing AP(2)2006. The development is visually out of scale with its surroundings, failing to take the opportunity of improving the character and quality of the area resulting in a scheme that will harm the visual character of the area.

Planning Balance The provision of additional dwellings on this site, which is within the development boundary, is in accordance with planning policy and guidance and the proposal is therefore acceptable in principle.

There are however a number of material considerations that have to be taken in to account.

The development of the site would result in the loss of a small woodland area that is protected by a Tree Preservation Order. The woodland has a strong overall integrity that can be sustained in the long term through appropriate woodland management. And the loss of these trees will diminish local character. The loss of the trees would be contrary to established planning policy.

The development is for seven, three bedroom properties each of which has a single parking space. The Highways Officer has objected to the application on the basis that the parking provision is insufficient and will lead to parking on the highway which is to the detriment of the safe free flow of traffic on the highway.

The Application is for a terrace with accommodation on four floors, on a site between and opposite two storey dwellings. The scale design, scale and form of the proposed is considered to be out of context with its surroundings and would be harmful to the visual character and appearance of the area.

It is concluded that although he development is acceptable in principle the material considerations, as set above, raise issues that cannot be overcome by the imposition of planning conditions and refusal is recommended.

This application has been considered in accordance with Section 38 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004

Planning Policy NPPF

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

Development Policies DPD DP1 High Quality Design DP2 Landscape Character DP3 Residential Amenity DP5 Conservation and Wildlife DP7 Transport, Access & Parking

South Hams Local Plan SHDC 1 Development Boundaries

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

SOUTH HAMS DISTRICT COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE Wednesday, 14 January, 2015 PLANNING APPEALS UPDATE (01-Dec-2014 to 01-Jan-2015)

APPLICATION NO : 49/0853/14/F APPELLANT : Boringdon Golf Club PROPOSAL : Erection of a single wind turbine (estimated output of 500kw) with a 50m hub height , 77m tip height with associated infrastructure and formation of access track LOCATION : Proposed Wind Turbine at SX 5332 5789, Boringdon Park, Plympton, Plymouth APPEAL STATUS : APPEAL LODGED APPEAL START DATE : 1-Dec-2014 APPEAL DECISION : APPEAL DECISION DATE :

APPLICATION NO : 32/2437/13/F APPELLANT : Mr & Mrs G & J Burner PROPOSAL : Erection of temporary agricultural workers dwelling LOCATION : Riverside Farm, Loddiswell, TQ7 4DB APPEAL STATUS : APPEAL DECIDED APPEAL START DATE : 1-Sep-2014 APPEAL DECISION : Dismissed - (REFUSAL) APPEAL DECISION DATE : 03-Dec-2014

APPLICATION NO : 47/1379/14/F APPELLANT : Mr J Wood PROPOSAL : Householder application to enlarge existing dormer window LOCATION : 18 Links Court, Thurlestone, TQ7 3JS APPEAL STATUS : APPEAL LODGED APPEAL START DATE : 11-Dec-2014 APPEAL DECISION : APPEAL DECISION DATE :

APPLICATION NO : 47/1377/14/F APPELLANT : Mrs C Washington-Smith PROPOSAL : Householder application to enlarge existing dormer window LOCATION : 17 Links Court, Thurlestone, TQ7 3JS APPEAL STATUS : APPEAL LODGED APPEAL START DATE : 11-Dec-2014 APPEAL DECISION : APPEAL DECISION DATE :

APPLICATION NO : 39/1062/14/F APPELLANT : Mr P Sena PROPOSAL : Installation of 4kW solar PV array for domestic use. Change of use of farm track for residential access and parking.. LOCATION : Cider Barn, Higher Velwell, Dartington, TQ9 6AD APPEAL STATUS : APPEAL DECIDED APPEAL START DATE : 12-Sep-2014 APPEAL DECISION : Upheld (Conditional Approval) APPEAL DECISION DATE : 15-Dec-2014

Dev Management 14.01.15

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE HELD AT FOLLATON HOUSE, TOTNES, ON WEDNESDAY, 14 JANUARY 2015

Members in attendance * Denotes attendance * Cllr H D Bastone * Cllr T R Holway * Cllr J Brazil (pm only) * Cllr J A Pearce * Cllr P K Cuthbert * Cllr J T Pennington * Cllr R J Foss (Vice Chairman and * Cllr J W Squire acting Chair for this meeting) * Cllr P W Hitchins * Cllr R C Steer * Cllr J M Hodgson * Cllr S A E Wright

Other Members in attendance Cllrs Carson, Coulson, Gilbert, Hannaford, Rowe, Tucker and Vint

Item No Minute Ref or App. No. Officers in attendance and below refers participating All agenda Development Manager, Planning Officers, items Highways Officer, Solicitor and Member Services Manager 03/2163/14/O Landscape Officer, Strategic Planning Officer, Environmental Health Officer/Environmental Health Technician 46/2401/14/F Landscape Officer 59/2482/14/F Housing Enabling and Development Officer

DM.49/14 MINUTES

The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 3 December 2014 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

DM.50/14 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

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

Cllr Bastone declared a personal interest in application 15/2252/14/F: Construction of 7 dwellings (following refusal of planning application 15/2265/12/F for construction of 8 dwellings) – Development site at SX8651 5145 Site at Collingwood Road, Dartmouth, by virtue of being a member of the Dartmouth and Kingswear Society who had sent a letter of representation on the application. He remained in the meeting and took part in the debate and vote thereon; Dev Management 14.01.15

Cllr R C Steer declared a personal interest in application 03/2163/14/O: Outline application with some matters reserved (access to be considered) for residential development of up to 75 no. dwellings – Land at Great Court Farm, Berry Pomeroy, Totnes, by virtue of knowing the tenant farmer and his family. He remained in the meeting and took part in the debate and vote thereon;

Cllr R J Foss declared a personal interest in application 59/2482/14/F: Erection of 17 mixed tenure dwellings with associated access road, parking, hard/soft landscaping and farm access – Residential development at Home Field, West Alvington, by virtue of the landowner being a distant relative. He remained in the meeting and took part in the debate and vote thereon;

Cllr S A E Wright also declared a personal interest in application 59/2482/14/F: Erection of 17 mixed tenure dwellings with associated access road, parking, hard/soft landscaping and farm access – Residential development at Home Field, West Alvington, and he remained in the meeting and took part in the debate but abstained from the vote.

DM.51/14 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

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

 03/2163/14/O: Objector – Mr Scott Atkins: Supporter – Mr Alistair King Smith: Parish Council Representative - Cllr Dr Roberts: Town Council Representative – Cllr Carol Wellwood: Outline application with some matters reserved (access to be considered) for residential development of up to 75 no. dwellings – Land at Great Court Farm, Berry Pomeroy, Totnes;  56/2564/14/F: Objector – Mr Chris Wright: Supporter – Mr Christopher Mudge: Change of use of top floor of garage to create residential flat (resubmission of 56/0892/14/F) – Ridgeside, Jubilee Road, Totnes;  46/2401/14/F: Objector – Mrs Gill Holt: Supporter – Mr William Ireland: Parish Council representative – Cllr Jo Hocking: Development and extension of hotel to provide 56 bedrooms, 3 staff and 1 owners accommodation, new parking facilities plus new restaurant, bar, lounge and function room – The Cottage Hotel, Hope Cove, Kingsbridge;  59/2482/14/F: Objector – Mr John Stevenson: Supporter – Mr Andrew Lethbridge/Mr Mark Harding: Parish Council representative – Cllr Robin Ladkin: Erection of 17 mixed tenure dwelling with associated access road, parking, hard/soft landscaping and farm access – Residential development at Home Field, West Alvington;  15/2252/14/F: Objector – Ms Pip Rubery: Supporter – Mr Mark Featherstone: Construction of 7 dwellings (following refusal of planning application 15/2265/12/F for construction of 8 dwellings) – Development site at SX 8651 5145 Site at Collingwood Road, Dartmouth. Dev Management 14.01.15

DM.52/14 SITE INSPECTIONS

There were no site inspections referred from the previous meeting.

DM.53/14 PLANNING APPLICATIONS

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

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

a) In respect of application 03/2163/14/O: Outline application with some matters reserved (access to be considered) for residential development of up to 75 no. dwellings – Land at Great Court Farm, Berry Pomeroy, Totnes, the Planning Case Officer introduced the application and advised that there were updates in respect of revised plans that had been received in relation to the pedestrian access to Parkfield Close and Highway works at the junction of Blackpost Lane and Courtfields. A late letter had been received from Totnes and District Society which raised concerns over new legislation relating to the ability to alter the percentage of affordable homes and therefore requesting that the 44% affordable homes offered as part of this application be further secured with a separate binding contractual arrangement in addition to the s106 agreement. It was the view of officers that this was not a reasonable request.

The Case Officer continued with the presentation. Aerial views were shown, along with plans that indicated the relationship between the application site and the development boundary and AONB. A plan showing which of the existing agricultural buildings was included in the application site was shown. The Case Officer reiterated that this application was an outline application only, to include details of access arrangements. He then identified each vehicle and pedestrian access, and confirmed that the land required for the pedestrian access to Parkfield Close was in the ownership of Devon and Cornwall Housing who had agreed in principle to sign the s106 agreement to allow the access. He also confirmed that, following discussion at the site visit, it had been confirmed that the opposite hedge along Blackpost Lane would be moved to widen the road and the pavement would be positioned outside the existing tree at the junction of Blackpost Lane and Courtfields. The Landscape Officer then commented on this matter and confirmed that the hedgerow could be moved successfully and re-established. The Case Officer then advised of the other highway works that had been proposed as part of the application. A number of photographs were shown. The Case Officer proceeded to show a number of slides to set out in more detail the aspects of the application. Dev Management 14.01.15

He concluded his presentation by advising that the officer recommendation was of Conditional Approval as per the presented report, but revised plans had been received in accordance with the recommendations of the County Highways Officer and in respect of the s106 Agreement, that there was an aim to complete within three months, with delegated authority being granted to the Development Manager in consultation with the Chairman of the Development Management Committee to assess reasons if the s106 was not completed within three months and determine if there was a need to refer the matter back to Committee. There were two additional conditions suggested that were not included in the published report relating to the provision of landscape details and the footpath link towards Courtfield and an additional clause in the s106 Agreement relating to the footpath link to Parkfield Close.

In response to questions from Members, the following points were made:

 In respect of the Housing Land Supply, the Council had published a housing position statement which demonstrated a five year land supply for rural areas. This information was included at an appeal hearing for a site in Kingsbridge, and was not agreed by the Planning Inspector, particularly in respect of windfall sites. He drew the conclusion that the Council could not demonstrate a five year land supply.

 In respect of the holding objection from the Highways Authority, it was confirmed that this had now been lifted and it had related to the need for suitable drainage to be demonstrated.

 The representative of the Highways Authority gave a detailed explanation of the reason for there being no objection and concluded that, on balance, the Highways Authority had taken the view that the impact of the additional vehicle journeys created by the proposal was not considered to be severe.

 The Case Officer confirmed that the dwellings would be built to sustainable code level 3 and the application included a condition for Lifetime homes.

The Parish Council representative advised Members of the strength of feeling against the application and stated that it had been unanimously opposed when presented to the Parish Council meeting. He spoke about the forthcoming reduction in bus service and the application further burdening an already congested road.

The Town Council representative was extremely concerned about the increase in traffic and the pollution and impact on air quality. She questioned the sustainability of the application as there were no shops, employment opportunities or schools within walking distance. Dev Management 14.01.15

One local Ward Member was concerned that the number of affordable homes may be altered as often developers stated after permission had been granted that schemes were no longer viable and the number of affordable homes had to be reduced. The site had not been included in the Local Plan and nothing had changed since then so it should not be included now. This was productive agricultural land and the last dairy farm remaining in that area. Dairy farmers needed support. All the local councils had objected and the Committee should listen to the local residents. The removal of the Devon hedge was also a concern. Children from the site may need to attend Berry Pomeroy primary school but that would have to be by car. Residents would not walk to Totnes for their shopping as they would be unable to carry it up the hill. Many residents from Bridgetown already travel to the Willows in Torquay for their shopping as it was easier than getting into Totnes. This application would result in more congestion and was not supporting the economy of the town. This site was not sustainable and should be refused.

Another local Ward Member stated that the residents of South Hams were in a vulnerable position as a result of the Inspector decision relating to the five year land supply. However, the Localism Act stated that local people ‘should have the power to influence’. All local councils have recommended refusal of this application, and the proposal is unwanted by the community. The Member was exasperated that the Highways Authority had not raised any objections to the application.. There were already issues of site traffic in the vicinity for the Riverside site and materials would be carried by large vehicles through Totnes and up Bridgetown Hill. There were also concerns over the reduction in bus service. There were land ownership concerns in relation to the proposed pedestrian access through to Courtfields. Due to the proximity of local amenities, residents of this proposed site would have to use cars. The nearest secondary school was at least a 45 minute walk away and there was no infrastructure in Bridgetown, not even a bottlebank, so the proposed site was entirely reliant on Totnes town. Affordable homes would help those on low incomes, but it would be a necessity to have a car. This site was unsustainable and had been objected to by local residents.

In response to concerns regarding air quality, the Environmental Health Technician advised the Committee that the amount of traffic generated by this proposal did not justify asking for further air quality assessment.

During discussion, the following points were raised:

 One Member immediately moved refusal of the application and quoted the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in his reasons. The purpose of the NPPF was to contribute to sustainable development but this was not sustainable development as it did not satisfy the economic, social or Dev Management 14.01.15

environmental role. It was working land and in the wrong place to be developed. It was an unallocated site and there was no infrastructure to support the application;

 Another Member was concerned at the implications of the Planning Inspectors decision in relation to the five year land supply. He was also concerned that the Highways Authority had raised no objection;

 At this point, the Development Manager reminded Members that the Council did have an obligation to provide more housing. In addition, the loss of the diary farm was not a material planning consideration. However, if Members were minded to refuse the application then reference to para 7 of the NPPF was correct and there would be a need to demonstrate that the application was in a non sustainable location;

 One Member stated that this was an important site and a significant location. There was an identified need for affordable housing in this area but echoed the comments whereby this site would be car dependent and outside the town centre so would not be sustainable. Without an A385 highway management plan, it was not possible to judge larger sites but in this case children would not be able to walk to school and that led to issues with obesity and diabetes in young children. Sustainable Code level 3 was the minimum and there was no evidence of use of solar energy. In terms of biodiversity, it was not possible to just shift a Devon bank. In terms of economic interest there was a wider impact in respect of food production. Visitors to the area expected to see livestock in the landscape, not housing estates;

 The Strategic Planning Officer advised Members at this point that this site was not turned down for allocation in the Local Plan but had a medium or neutral assessment and therefore was not allocated but was not regarded as unsuitable;

 Another Member stated that not having a five year land supply was an issue. If this application was in the open countryside then perhaps it could be argued that it was unsustainable but as it was adjacent to other developments it would be difficult to demonstrate that it was unsustainable. She went on to say that if Members were minded to approve the application then there should be a reduction in time for the Reserved Matters application to come forward and similarly for work to start. Reducing this deadline would help to demonstrate that sites had come forward and support the five year land supply figures. The Case Officer responded that he had no objection to the reduction in time however that may have an adverse impact on the tenant;

 One Member stated that if there was a Neighbourhood Plan for this area then this should be taken into account, even if it was in the early stages. Dev Management 14.01.15

Members then concluded the debate.

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

“That application 03/2163/14/O be refused”

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

“That application 03/2163/14/O be conditionally approved in line with the officer recommendation, subject to inclusion of the two additional recommendations relating to the provision of landscape details and the footpath link towards Courtfield and an additional clause in the s106 Agreement relating to the footpath link to Parkfield Close”. b) In respect of application 46/2401/14/F: Development and extension of hotel to provide 56 bedrooms, 3 staff and 1 owners accommodation, new parking facilities plus new restaurant, bar, lounge and function room – The Cottage Hotel, Hope Cove, Kingsbridge, the Development Manager introduced the application and advised that the Landscape Officer would present some of the slides in the presentation for this application.

He commenced the presentation with a slide showing the position of the neighbouring properties. He then showed a slide that listed the main issues. He confirmed that the design had been influenced by business decisions. He also confirmed that the current proposal had no overriding Highway concerns. There was no objection to the proposal in relation to drainage matters. Currently surface water ran into the foul water sewer which caused problems but this would change if the proposal were approved which would be a benefit. He then advised that he would discuss heritage, neighbour impact, design and scale and the planning balance. In terms of updates, Natural England had raised an objection and its concerns were shared by the South Devon AONB Unit.

137 letters of representation supporting the application had been received, and 52 letters of objection. There had been much local interest and 1 additional letter had been received the previous day.

Plans were then shown identifying the existing and proposed footprint, including the position of the car parking. Distances to neighbouring properties were given and the proposed position of the restaurant as a flat roof extension to the front of the building was explained. The position of the coastal footpath was shown. The existing entrance to the hotel would be retained and a new two deck parking area with a service access was proposed. New layout slides were shown with the existing footprint in indicated in red, for each floor from the ground floor up. The application stated that construction would take place in phases and a plan showing the phasing, 4 phases in total, was shown. Dev Management 14.01.15

A series of elevations was then shown with distances to neighbouring properties identified including West View, Atlantic Lodge and Old Colonial House. The new wing was shown as sitting into the rising land so would be higher further forward. A number of cross sections of the building were shown. Photo montages were also shown.

In terms of heritage, the impact on Bolt Tail had to be assessed for the significance of harm. There was considered to be no harm to the setting of the Listed Buildings and it was a matter of judgement whether there was significant harm to the ancient monument. Slides showing views were presented. The slides concluded that there would be an interruption to the view of Bolt Tail but it could still be seen in the wider vista. On balance, there was not considered to be significant harm to the ancient monument, Bolt Tail.

A number of photographs were shown to assess neighbour impact. There was an impact on Atlantic Lodge but given the wider views this was not a reason to refuse the application in itself. In terms of Old Colonial House, there were wider views so the harm was not so significant to justify refusal of the application. For the property West View the outcome was different. There was a significant interruption of existing views and the increase in volume of the proposal had an unneighbourly impact on the property.

The Landscape Officer then addressed the matter of landscape character. He presented a number of slides to clarify and emphasise the issues and principles. The key issue to consider was the scale and massing of the proposal within the landscape setting. Slides were shown to explain landscape character types and photos were shown. This area was an important historic landscape and well within the AONB. The Coastal Footpath was of national importance and these areas were sensitive receptors. It was important to consider how people interact with the landscape. Photos were shown, along with slides showing the scale and massing of the proposal. There was a need to conserve and enhance the landscape character. In conclusion, he had raised an objection to this proposal.

The Development Manager concluded his presentation with a summary slide and advised the recommendation for this application was Refusal.

The Parish Council representative advised the Committee that the Parish Council was supporting the application and there was support for the application within the local community. The parish had been losing businesses for many years and this Hotel provided much needed employment. It was open throughout the year and the family who owned it had a proven track record. Tourism was the life blood of the south coast. The applicant would continue to support local suppliers. Upgrading the tourist accommodation was in line with local and national trends; businesses had to be allowed to change. Dev Management 14.01.15

There was massive support from the local community and a sense that the proposal sat and blended well. Three years ago the community had objected to another application nearby, however this time the community was supportive. She went on to quote from the NPPF and concluded by requesting that, in the event of the Committee approving the application, an additional condition be included whereby the roof of the proposed building be kept red.

In response to questions, the Parish Council representative confirmed that the application referred to from three years ago related to the Sun Bay Hotel which the Parish Council had recommended refusal on the grounds of design, neighbour impact and being out of keeping.

One local Ward Member stated that decisions relating to the AONB were always difficult. The existing hotel was vital to overall tourism and the Cottage Hotel lay at the heart of the community. The impact of the scale and massing of the proposal seemed to be a reason for refusal, yet it was a major building and already visible as it stood. The proposed increase in scale and massing were proportionately no greater than permitted by this Committee at the Sun Bay Hotel. It did not break the skyline. Loss of view was not a material planning reason for refusal. The applicant had gone to great lengths to ameliorate the impact. There was no loss of light. The impact on the Scheduled Ancient monument was less than substantial. He strongly recommended that the Committee gave due weight to the views of the community. The good from this proposal would far outweigh the harm and the application should therefore be approved.

The other local Ward Member began by thanking Members for attending the site visit which had been instructive in showing the extent of the proposal. This was a really hard decision and she was torn. She joined the groundswell of local opinion in favour of the hotel being able to run its successful business and recognised the need to continue to improve and be viable. The hotel was in obvious need of updating. However, it was the Committee’s duty to balance decisions against planning policy. The best way to articulate the balance was with two paragraphs at the start of the NPPF document which she then quoted. The handicap of this proposal was the unneighbourly impact on properties. West View would be hemmed in and Atlanntic Lodge would face a blank elevation. The wall would be three storeys high. Those who attended the site visit could tell from standing on the terrace at Atlantic Lodge the scale of the likely impact. To both properties, the impact of the proposal was unneighbourly and contrary to DP3. The scheme had been discussed at two Design Panel meetings. The architect had come up with an overbearing solution. It was argued that the design was led by the business case but this evidence was not submitted, not even confidentially, to Members of the Committee. The landscaping scheme was scant and would do no favours to the residents of Hope Cove. Dev Management 14.01.15

The applicant wanted construction to take place in the low season but commonsense dictated that drilling etc. would take place at other times in the year. In conclusion, she was tempted by the officer recommendation but wanted to hear the debate.

One Member stated that in terms of the extent of the impact, it was their view that these proposals constituted over development. She therefore agreed with the officer report and would therefore be objecting to the application.

Another Member stated that this proposal was a decision to be taken in accordance with para 7 of the NPPF between the economic and environmental role and a choice had to be made. One Member stated that there was an economic value to this proposal for Hope Cove. She had recently visited the hotel and there were people there on what was a cold and windy January day. This hotel meant tourists visited Hope Cove for 52 weeks of the year rather than 16. She felt that she had to support the application and was worried that the long term viability of Hope Cove would suffer greatly without this proposal being approved. .

Another Member stated that when he first saw the proposal he thought it was courageous and bold, and that it would stand out. The decision was a stark choice between supporting the local economy and preserving the local environment. He had listened to the speakers and recognised that this was an extremely important hotel. It was in need of renovation and bringing up to date. It was a courageous application and he proposed its approval and would request inclusion of a condition that the roof tiles remained red.

Another Member stated that his immediate reaction had been to support the application, but having gone to the site he had second thoughts. He did not see why this could not be developed in a sympathetic way. There was the opportunity to build an iconic building in an iconic place to enhance Hope Cove. He was struggling to support this as he would always think an opportunity had been missed to develop a more sympathetic proposal. . He had asked the applicant if he was receiving support from the Local Enterprise Partnership. There were grants available to support businesses. He was still torn on this application but the support of the local community was an important consideration.

One Member stated that the site visit had been important. The proposal was enormous in its scale, but he had been astonished at the passion from the supporters of the project. The visual impact was enormous but only from certain views and he questioned whether this outweighed the economic gain.

Another Member advised that he understood the concerns and was in favour of a viable business. However, caution was needed in this particular situation and he was weighing up the question of economy versus environment. Dev Management 14.01.15

The Member acknowledged that the proposals were very dominant in the landscape. He wanted to see coastal areas developed in a sympathetic manner and there was a requirement to enhance the area and the Committee should be mindful of this point. As a compromise, the Member considered that some accommodation could be made to have a viable business, but lessen the impact in this protected landscape. He was in a dilemma over this application and on balance would like to see a different design. If that could not be achieved then he would come down in favour of protecting the landscape and support refusal of this application.

One Member who was also Chairman of the Audit Committee advised Members that a recent report by the External Auditors, Grant Thornton, had suggested that the Council was not performing as well as other authorities in supporting the tourist industry.

At this point, the Development Manager stated that he had listened to the debate and understood the direction of travel. He advised Members that the recommendation of refusal was for two reasons, the AONB landscape and the neighbour impact. Members needed to consider if the neighbour impact was acceptable. One Member responded by referring again to para 7 of the NPPF and stated that the economic benefit of this proposal would enhance the area. There was a social benefit to the village and this proposal was for the greater public good.

The Solicitor reminded Members that para 115 and 116 of the NPPF required exceptional circumstances to override the protection of the AONB. Members may feel that the economic and social benefits of this application were satisfactory in this regard. However, there was a need to address the neighbour impact to ensure the application was properly considered. A local Ward Member suggested two properties were actually affected, whilst the recommendation related to only one property, West View.

The Development Manager added that he would need to understand the reasoning and there had to be consideration to the neighbour impact and a clear statement was needed.

One Member stated that loss of view was not a material planning consideration, but queried as to whether loss of amenity was a sufficient reason The Development Manager responded that the concerns of officers were that loss of view in its own right was not material but this proposal was unduly overbearing. The Member responded that Atlantic Lodge was built into the hillside but another Member corrected that the concern was with West View. Another Member stated that para 116 of the NPPF could be used as it stated planning permission should be refused except in exceptional circumstances but this application was in the public interest. Dev Management 14.01.15

A Member then advised that the Members who were in support of the application had to mention neighbour impact. The Member who proposed the application then stated that there was no loss of light, the building was set down, there was a reasonable view and reasonable distance. Another Member stated that the scale was still an issue and the applicant should reconsider revising their proposals and then the Committee would not be having such difficulty with the decision. A Member responded to this suggestion by stating that the Members had to make a decision on the proposal that had been submitted, there had been an extensive site visit and assessment of the application.

A Member then stated that he accepted the dwellings had sea views and even with reduced views the properties would still be an attractive proposition. Another Member noted that some Members did not feel there was an issue of the proposal being overbearing. A local Ward Member asked that Atlantic Lodge be included in the decision but another Member noted that the reasons for refusal only related to concerns about West View. The Development Manager advised that Atlantic Lodge could be added to the recommended reason for refusal if Members considered the relationship to be unacceptable.

The Development Manager then stated that the reasons were clear and advised Members of proposed conditions if the application were to be approved.

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

“That application 46/2401/14/F be conditionally approved”

Reasons:

Members of the Development Management Committee when determining this planning application have had due regard to the provisions of the NPPF and local planning policies and all representations received. Careful consideration has been given to para 115 NPPF provisions and the need to give 'great weight' to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in the AONB. It was considered that the proposal presented an exceptional opportunity and the planning balance has fallen in favour of the economic benefits and the wider public interest considered to be derived from the proposal, presenting a sustainable tourist development. Due consideration has also been given to the neighbour impacts resulting from the development. It is considered that whilst some views may be impaired the proposed development would not result in an unacceptable or overbearing relationship with adjoining dwellings resulting in significant loss of residential amenity. Dev Management 14.01.15

Conditions

1. Time 3 years 2. Accord with plans 3. Construction Management plan 4. Drainage/surface water conditions 5. Landscaping 6. Parking Spaces 7. Unsuspected land contamination 8. Lighting details 9. Ecological mitigation and enhancement measures 10. Stonework 11. Materials 12. Glazing details 13. No additional windows

c) In respect of application 15/2252/14/F: construction of 7 dwellings (following refusal of planning application 15/2265/12/F for construction of 8 dwellings) – Development site at SX 8651 5145 Site at Collingwood Road, Dartmouth, the following motion was PROPOSED and SECONDED and on being put to the vote declared CARRIED:-

“That a site inspection be held”

DM.54/14 PLANNING APPEALS UPDATE

The Committee received and noted the updated list of applications that had gone to appeal.

(Meeting commenced at 10.30 am and concluded at 6:10 pm)

______Chairman Dev Management 14.01.15

Voting Analysis for Planning Applications – DM Committee 14 January 2015 Application No: Site Address Vote Councillors who Voted Councillors who Councillors who Voted Absent Yes Voted No Abstain 03/2163/14/O Land at Great Court To Refuse Hodgson, Holway, Pennington, Bastone, Cuthbert, (0) Brazil (1) Farm, Berry Pomeroy, Squire, Wright (5) Foss, Hitchins, Pearce, Totnes Steer (6) 03/2163/14/O Land at Great Court To Approve Bastone, Cuthbert, Foss, Hitchins, Hodgson, Holway, (0) Brazil(1) Farm, Berry Pomeroy, Pearce, Steer (6) Pennington, Squire, Totnes Wright (5) 56/2564/14/F Ridgeside, Jubilee To Approve Bastone, Cuthbert, Foss, Hitchins, Hodgson (1) (0) Brazil(1) Road, Totnes Holway, Pearce, Pennington, Squire, Steer, Wright (10) 56/2941/14/F Totnes Bowling Club, To Approve Bastone, Cuthbert, Foss, (0) (0) Brazil (1) Borough Park Road, Hitchins, Hodgson, Holway, Totnes Pearce, Pennington, Squire, Steer, Wright (11) 46/2401/14/F The Cottage Hotel, Hope To Approve Bastone, Cuthbert, Foss, Hitchins, Hodgson, Squire, Brazil (1) (0) Cove, Kingsbridge Holway, Pearce, Pennington, Steer (3) Wright (8) 59/2482/14/F Residential Development To Approve Bastone, Brazil, Cuthbert, Foss, Hodgson, Pennington Squire, Wright (2) Steer (1) at Home Field, West Hitchins, Holway, Pearce (7) (2) Alvington 15/2252/14/F Development site at SX Site Bastone, Cuthbert, Foss, (0) Brazil, Pearce, Hitchins, Steer (2) 8651 5145 Site at Inspection Hodgson, Holway, Pennington, Wright (3) Collingwood Road, Squire (7) Dartmouth Dev Management 14.01.15

APPENDIX A

03/2163/14/O Outline application with some matters reserved (access to be considered) for residential development of up to 75No. dwellings - Land at Great Court Farm, Berry Pomeroy, Totnes, TQ9 6LB - The Trustees of Lord Seymour's 1971 Settlement

Berry Pomeroy Parish Council

Parish Council’s Views – Berry Pomeroy Parish Council – Objection

 Totnes Town Council – Objection

 Stoke Gabriel Parish Council – Objection

Officer Update – We have received revised plans in connection with the pedestrian access on to Parkfield Close and the of-site highway works which will be shown as part of this presentation. A further letter of representation has been received from the Totnes and District Society who express disappointment at the recommendation - the main point raised relates to the provision of affordable housing. The 44% affordable housing provision that has been negotiated is welcomed but concern is raised that under the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013 developers have the ability to renegotiate this level if the development becomes unviable. It is suggested that as well as the S106 agreement that the 44% level be further secured by a separate binding contractual commitment under which the site owner shall enter into a direct contractual obligation with the council to meet the 44% notwithstanding the provisions of the growth and infrastructure act. A further concern is the maintenance of the public open space in perpetuity, residents of the estate alone cannot be expected to fund this cost and this is an on-going problem at Weston Lane/Steamer Quay. In response to these concerns: I do not consider it either necessary or reasonable to enter a further contract provide the 44% act affordable – my colleagues in Affordable housing undertook a robust viability assessment of the proposal and we are completely satisfied that the development can provide this level, as such I would not anticipate any application being submitted to vary the level of affordable homes. Furthermore I do not believe that we can insist that a land owner enters a contract that sets aside the provisions of the Growth and Infrastructure act. The maintenance of the open space is to be agreed with the Council and I am sure that the landscape/recreation team will ensure that the mechanism agreed ensures that there are satisfactory arrangements made.

Typographical errors in the report Top of page 24 – it should say ‘ it is clear from the submitted documents that the application will result in the LOSS of the holding as a dairy business’ – which is made clear in the analysis of the proposal later in the report. Page 38 in the paragraph Environmental dimension balance I have incorrectly referred to the appeal site rather than the application site. Dev Management 14.01.15

Recommendation – Conditional Approval

Recommended Conditions 1 – 3 Standard Outline for submission of Reserved Matters and time limit for commencement. 4. Accord with Plans/Exclude Illustrative Drawings 5. Car Parking/garage retention 6. GPDO Exclusion 7. Contaminated Land Investigation. (submitted prior to commencement) 8. Contaminated land Verification Report (submitted and approved prior to occupation) 9. Unsuspected Contamination 10. Barn Owl survey to be undertaken (Details to be submitted and approved prior to commencement of the development). 11. On-site highway works (Details to be submitted prior to commencement). 12. Construction Management Plan (Details to be submitted and approved prior to commencement). 13. Phasing Plan (to be submitted prior to commencement). 14. Programme of Archaeological work (To be submitted and approved prior to commencement). 15. Surface water drainage layout and details (To be submitted prior to commencement and the approved details shall be completed and operational prior to occupation). 16. Parking strategy (To be submitted prior to commencement). 17. Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (To be submitted prior to commencement). 18. Arboricultural Impact Assessment, Tree Protection Plan and Arboricultural Methodology Statements. (To be submitted prior to commencement) 19. Lighting Strategy (To be submitted prior to commencement). 20. Details and provision of footpath links (details to be submitted prior to commencement) 21. Provision of fibre broadband ducting to each dwelling. 22. Renewable energy/energy efficiency (details to be submitted prior to commencement) 23. Lifetime homes

Committee Decision – Conditional approval as recommended subject to: (1) The imposition of two additional conditions in respect of the provision of landscape details and the footpath link towards Courtfield (2) An additional clause in the Section 106 Agreement relating to the footpath link the Parkfield Close (3) The revision to the standard time limit for the submission of Reserved Matters to 18 Months from the date of the decision and a revision to the standard time limit for commencement to 18 months from the date of the approval of the Reserved Matters (4) The completion of the Section 106 Agreement within 3 months, if the Section 106 is not completed within 3 months delegated Authority to the Development Manager in conjunction with the Chairman and Ward Members to assess why it has not been completed and consider whether this needs to be reported back to committee. Dev Management 14.01.15

56/2564/14/F Change of use of top floor of garage to create residential flat (resubmission of 56/0892/14/F) - Ridgeside, Jubilee Road, Totnes, TQ9 5BW - Mr & Mrs Mudge

Totnes Town Council

Town Council’s Views – No objection.

Officer Update – An error was made with the originally submitted drawings, incorrectly identifying plot orientation. The plans were corrected by the applicant and were shown to Committee.

References within the report to obscure glazing on the eastern elevation must be corrected to be that of the western elevation and the recommended condition is to be amended accordingly.

References within the report to insertion of windows on the northern elevation should be corrected to being on the southern elevation.

One letter was read out orally to the committee.

Recommendation – Conditional approval

Recommended Conditions 1. Time limit for commencement 2. In accordance with approved plans 3. Permitted development right restrictions 4. Obscure glazing to western elevation prior to commencement of works 5. No further windows without approval 6. Ground floor level solely as ancillary storage and not for habitable accommodation without approval 7. Parking provision prior to occupation.

Committee Decision – Conditional approval

56/2941/14/F Extension to conservatory - Totnes Bowling Club, Borough Park Road, Totnes, TQ9 5HW - Totnes Bowling Club

Totnes Town Council

Town Council’s Views – no objection

Officer Update - None

Recommendation – Conditional approval Dev Management 14.01.15

Recommended Conditions 1. 3 year time limit 2. Accord with plans 3. Materials to match existing

Committee Decision – Conditional Approval

46/2401/14/F Development and extension of hotel to provide 56 bedrooms, 3 staff and 1 owners accommodation, new parking facilities plus new restaurant, bar, lounge and function room - The Cottage Hotel, Hope Cove, Kingsbridge TQ7 3HJ – Mr Ireland, The Cottage Hotel

South Huish Parish Council

Parish Council’s Views – South Huish Parish Council : Strongly support, subject to qualification of use of roof materials

 Malborough Parish Council : Unanimously supports the application

Officer Update - Reported Natural England and AONB unit representations and update on other letters received in respect of highways issue associated with additional car park proposal.

Recommendation – Refusal

Reasons for refusal 1. The proposed development, by reason of its overall size, height and massing, would have an overbearing and bulky visual impact on the character and setting of Hope Cove village. Such development would in addition have a most significantly adverse impact on the wider landscape setting of the village within the South Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The proposal would be contrary to the provisions of the NPPF, LDF Core Strategy policies CS7 & CS9; South Hams Development Policies DPD policies DP1 &DP2; and AONB Management Plan policies Plan/P2, Lan/P1.

2. The proposed extensions, by reason of their scale, height, extent and close proximity, would have an unduly overbearing and unneighbourly impact on the adjoining dwelling ‘West View’. As such the development would be contrary to the provisions of South Hams Development Policies DPD policy DP3.

Committee Decision – Conditional approval

Conditions 14. Time 3 years 15. Accord with plans 16. Construction Management plan Dev Management 14.01.15

17. Drainage/surface water 18. Landscaping 19. Parking Spaces 20. Unsuspected land contamination 21. Lighting details 22. Ecological mitigation and enhancement measures 23. Stonework 24. Materials 25. Glazing details 26. No additional windows

59/2482/14/F Erection of 17 mixed tenure dwellings with associated access road, parking, hard/soft landscaping and farm access - Residential development at Home Field, West Alvington TQ7 3QQ - DCH Group

West Alvington Parish Council

Parish Council’s Views – West Alvington Parish Council– objection, although the Parish Council ‘continue to support in principle the development of affordable homes on the Home Field site’.

 Kingsbridge Town Council– support.

Officer Update - Additional letter of objection reported

Recommendation – Conditional approval

Recommended Conditions 1. Standard Time Limit 2. Accord with Plans 3. Unsuspected Contamination 4. Landscape / Boundary Treatment (Prior to Commencement (PTC)) 5. Gate Details 6. Drainage Details / Drainage Maintenance Plan (PTC) 7. Construction Management Plan (PTC) 8. Highways Details (PTC) 9. Flood Risk Assessment (accord with submitted details) 10. Ecology (Bird Nesting / Bat Roosting – provision of (PTC)) 11. Foul Water flows to be connected to the public sewer system (bespoke) 12. Provision and Retention of Parking. 13. Removal of Permitted Development Rights

Committee Decision – Conditional approval subject to:-  The completion of the Section 106 Agreement within 3 months, if the Section 106 is not completed within 3 months delegated Authority to the Development Manager in conjunction with the Chairman and Ward Members to assess why it has not been completed and consider whether this needs to be reported back to committee.  18 months to implement decision  Inclusion of Suds management/maintenance in S106 Dev Management 14.01.15

Extra conditions  External lighting  Life time homes  Broadband  Re-siting of bedroom window on Plot 7 to face South.

15/2252/14/F Construction of 7 dwellings (following refusal of planning application 15/2265/12/F for construction of 8 dwellings) - Development site at SX 8651 5145 Site at Collingwood Road, Dartmouth. - Sheyenne Ltd

Dartmouth Town Council

Town Council’s Views – Recommend approval with the proviso that the Section 106 payment be invested in the local community

Officer Update - One additional letter of representation was reported

Recommendation – Refusal

Reasons for refusal 1. The proposed development would result in the loss of an important and recognised area of trees that are the subject of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO 869). This important landscape element in the context of its urban setting provides distinction to the local character and acts as a dynamic screen to the commercial development on land to the south, both locally and within the wider environment. Loss of this feature would have a substantial adverse impact on landscape and visual amenity. As such the development is contrary to LDF Development Policy DP1 and the advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

2. The proposal, by virtue of its design, scale and form comprising a four storied terraced development is considered to be visually out of keeping with the character and scale of the residential development that adjoins the site. The development therefore fails to take the opportunity of improving the character and quality of the area and is contrary to LDF Development Policy DP1 and the advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

3. The proposed development does not make adequate provision for the parking of vehicles within the site and would therefore be likely to encourage parking on the highway, with consequent additional danger to all users of the road contrary to LDF Development Policy DP17 and the provisions within the National Planning Policy Framework.

Committee Decision – Site Visit