(Public Pack)Agenda Document For

SOUTH HAMS DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE - WEDNESDAY, 16TH APRIL, 2014

Agenda, Reports and Minutes for the meeting

Agenda No Item

1. Agenda Letter (Pages 1 - 4)

2. Reports

Reports to DM:

a) SI Reports (Pages 5 - 6)

53/2889/13/F - Householder application for alterations and extension to dwelling – Hillesden, Kiln Lane, Stokenham

b) Land at Bantham Cross 11-0042 - 0045-14-F Combined report (Pages 7 - 30)

11/0043/14/F Erection of agricultural building (No.2, cold storage building). Resubmission of planning ref 11/1545/13/F, Land at SX 707 456, Bantham Cross, Churchstow, Kingsbridge, Devon TQ7 3QU

11/0044/14/F Erection of agricultural building (No3, cold store) Resubmission of planning ref 11/1546/13/F - Land at SX 707 456, Bantham Cross, Churchstow, Kingsbridge, Devon TQ7 3QU

11/0045/14/F Erection of agricultural building (No. 4, grading unit for potatoes) Resubmission of planning ref 11/1544/13/F - Land at SX 707 456, Bantham Cross, Churchstow, Kingsbridge, Devon TQ7 3QU c) 43/2567/13/F (Pages 31 - 44)

Erection of 1no. wind turbine (estimated output of 0.05megawatts) with 24.6 metres hub height, 34.2 metres tip height and associated infrastructure for agricultural use - Land at SX776419, Winslade Farm, Frogmore, Kingsbridge, TQ7 2PA

d) 56/0226/14/F (Pages 45 - 46)

Demolition of existing disused storehouse and replacement with one-storey dwelling and ancillary car parking for one car. Modification of stone wall to improve access to the site. - Land at SX8044 5996 West of Moat Hill House, Moat Hill, Totnes

e) 45/1843/13/F (Pages 47 - 58)

45/1843/13/F Retrospective application for change of use of land to accommodate 1 mobile home, 3 touring caravans and provision of utility room - Thorn Meadow, Stidston, South Brent, TQ10 9JT

f) 59/0202/14/F (Pages 59 - 62)

Householder application for vehicle access - 2 Preston Cottages , West Alvington TQ7 3BG

g) 62/3013/13/VAR & 62/3014/13/VAR (Pages 63 - 70)

62/3013/13/VAR Removal of condition 9 of planning approval 62/1461/13/RM - Land at Milizac Close, Yealmpton 62/3014/13/VAR Removal of condition 6 of planning approval 62/2948/11/O - Land at Milizac Close, Yealmpton

h) 56/2564/13/F (Pages 71 - 78)

Retrospective application for retention of existing toilets and construction of new storage unit M, together with alterations to existing car parking - Devon Ceramics, Station Road, Totnes TQ9 5JR

i) 56/2566/13/F (Pages 79 - 88)

Retrospective application for retention of existing car parking spaces 9- 16 (inclusive) - Devon Ceramics Ltd, Station Road, Totnes, TQ9 5JR

j) 56/2568/13/F (Pages 89 - 96)

Retrospective application for retention of existing kitchen and freezer room - Devon Ceramics Ltd, Station Road, Totnes, TQ9 5JR

3. Minutes (Pages 97 - 110)

2 3

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

8 April 2014 Dear Councillor

A meeting of the Development Management Committee will be held in the Council Chamber, Follaton House, Plymouth Road, Totnes, on Wednesday, 16 April 2014 at 10.30 am, when your attendance is requested.

Yours sincerely

Kathryn Trant Member Services Manager

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

AGENDA

1. Minutes - to approve as a correct record and authorise the Chairman to sign the minutes of the meetings of the Committee held on 19 March 2014 (pages 1 to 7);

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

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

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

5. Public Participation - The Chairman to advise the Committee on any requests received from members of the public to address the meeting;

6. Site Inspections:-

(a) to appoint the Group for site inspections to be held on Tuesday 6 May 2014 (page 8 only); (b) to receive a report in connection with the site inspection held on Monday 7 April 2014 in connection with:-

i). 53/2889/13/F - Householder application for alterations and extension to dwelling – Hillesden, Kiln Lane, Stokenham (pages 9 to 14);

7a. Planning Applications:

11/0042/14/F Erection of agricultural building (No1, washing), associated dwelling, new access road and site office. Resubmission of planning ref 11/1547/13/F - Land at SX 707 456, Bantham Cross, Churchstow, Kingsbridge, Devon TQ7 3QU 11/0043/14/F Erection of agricultural building (No.2, cold storage building). Resubmission of planning ref 11/1545/13/F, Land at SX 707 456, Bantham Cross, Churchstow, Kingsbridge, Devon TQ7 3QU 11/0044/14/F Erection of agricultural building (No3, cold store) Resubmission of planning ref 11/1546/13/F - Land at SX 707 456, Bantham Cross, Churchstow, Kingsbridge, Devon TQ7 3QU 11/0045/14/F Erection of agricultural building (No. 4, grading unit for potatoes) Resubmission of planning ref 11/1544/13/F - Land at SX 707 456, Bantham Cross, Churchstow, Kingsbridge, Devon TQ7 3QU (pages 17 to 39);

43/2567/13/F Erection of 1no. wind turbine (estimated output of 0.05megawatts) with 24.6 metres hub height, 34.2 metres tip height and associated infrastructure for agricultural use - Land at SX776419, Winslade Farm, Frogmore, Kingsbridge, TQ7 2PA (pages 40 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 107).

Members of the public may wish to note that the Council's meeting rooms are accessible by wheelchairs and have a loop induction hearing system Members of the public shall be permitted to record the proceedings of any meeting in sound and pictures and broadcast them whether by electronic means or otherwise, subject to receiving the prior approval of the Chairman of the Committee, in consultation with the Head of Paid Service (or Monitoring Officer in his/her absence)

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

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

ITEM ITEM REPORT OF THE SITE INSPECTION HELD MONDAY 7 APRIL 2014

53/2889/13/F Householder application for alterations and extension to dwelling – Hillesden, Kiln Lane, Stokenham

Present : Cllr R C Steer Cllr P Coulson Cllr K Cuthbert Cllr M J Hicks Cllr T R Holway Cllr J T Pennington Cllr J W Squire Cllr R J Vint Cllr S A E Wright

Also in attendance: Cllr J Baverstock – local Ward Member Cllr Rogers – Parish Council Representative Dan Lethbridge - Agent Ian Lloyd – Planning Officer Kathryn Trant – Member Services Manager

The Chairman began the site visit with introductions. The Planning Officer then reminded Members of the details of the application. He began at the front of the property and outlined the proposed alterations. The Site Inspection Group then proceeded to the rear of the property where the proposed extension was explained and the agent had marked out the relevant positions. He advised Members that some excavation would be necessary.

The local Ward Member indicated a bamboo that represented the ridge height of the proposed extension. The Planning Officer outlined the position of the eaves of the proposed extension. The agent then erected a ridge marker for the Site Inspection Group as a point of reference as the Group proceeded to the neighbouring property that would be most affected by the proposal. From the rear garden of the neighbouring property the position of the ridge height could be judged.

The local Ward Member advised Members that one of the primary concerns was the loss of light, particularly evening light, to the neighbouring property.

The Group proceeded to a public area to discuss the proposal. Members had asked a number of questions in relation to height and position of the rear extension. The Parish Council representative advised the Group that the Parish Council concerns related to unneighbourliness. Whilst they were pleased that the ridge height had been reduced from the original proposal there was still concern at the position of the extension as it could be placed at the other side of the bungalow and the harm caused would be limited.

The local Ward Member had nothing further to add, other than to thank the Members for their attendance.

The Chairman concluded the site visit by confirming that the next Committee meeting would take place on 16 April 2014 at 10.30am.

PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT

Case Officer: Miss Kati Owen Parish: Churchstow

Application Nos : 11/0042/14/F 11/0043/14/F 11/0044/14/F 11/0045/14/F

Agent/Applicant: Applicant: Daniel Lethbridge AJ Lidstone & Sons The Nest Galmpton Kingsbridge TQ7 3HA

Site Address: Land at SX 707 456, Bantham Cross, Churchstow, Kingsbridge, Devon TQ7 3QU

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

Development: 11/0042/14/F Erection of agricultural building (No1, washing), associated dwelling, new access road and site office. Resubmission of planning ref 11/1547/13/F

Recommendations: That authority to delegate conditional approval is given to the Head of Planning, Economy and Community for the erection of the agricultural building No. 1 (Washing), associated dwelling, new access road and site office subject to the completion of a s106 legal agreement to secure the following:-

• tie the proposed dwelling to the site office, agricultural buildings (Building No. 1 (Washing); Building No.2 (Cold Store), Building No.3 (Cold Store) and Building No.4 (Grading); • to tie the agricultural buildings 11/0042/14/F (Building No.1 Washing), 11/0043/14/F (Building No.2 Cold Store), 11/0044/14/F (Building No.3 Cold Store) and 11/0045/14/F (Building No.4 Grading) to each other; and • to ensure an appropriate phasing of development.

Con ditions: 1. Standard 3 year time limit; 2. Accord with plans; 3. Level of buildings; 4. Use applied for; 5. Drainage accord with approved details and implemented prior to commencement of use; 6. Noise controls; 7. No mud/debris onto highway; 8. Permanent closure of existing access; 9. Construction Management Plan; 10. Details external lighting; 11. Landscaping – strategic planting; 12. Landscaping 1yr inspection; 13. Protection of hedgerows; 14. Submission of Extended Phase 1 habitat survey; 15. Access and manoeuvring/turning areas complete prior to use of agricultural buildings; 16. Materials schedule/samples; 17. Removal of GDO rights for agricultural/business buildings; 18. Site office for use in connection with business only; 19. Agricultural tie on dwelling; 20. Removal of GDO rights on dwelling; 21. Drainage for dwelling complete prior to occupation; 22. Access to dwelling complete prior to occupation.

Development: 11/0043/14/F Erection of agricultural building (No.2, cold storage building). Resubmission of planning ref 11/1545/13/F

Recommendations: That authority to delegate conditional approval is given to the Head of Planning, Economy and Community for the erection of the agricultural building No. 2 (cold storage) subject to the completion of a s106 legal agreement to secure the following:-

• to tie the agricultural buildings 11/0042/14/F (Building No.1 Washing), 11/0043/14/F (Building No.2 Cold Store), 11/0044/14/F (Building No.3 Cold Store) and 11/0045/14/F (Building No.4 Grading) to each other.

10. Details external lighting; 11. Landscaping – strategic planting; 12. Landscaping 1yr inspection; 13. Protection of hedgerows; 14. Submission of Extended Phase 1 habitat survey; 15. Access and manoeuvring/turning areas complete prior to use of agricultural buildings; 16. Materials schedule/samples; 17. Removal of GDO rights for agricultural/business buildings.

Development: 11/0044/14/F Erection of agricultural building (No3, cold store) Resubmission of planning ref 11/1546/13/F

Recommendations: That authority to delegate conditional approval is given to the Head of Planning, Economy and Community for the erection of the agricultural building No. 3 (cold store) subject to the completion of a s106 legal agreement to secure the following:-

Conditions: 1. Standard 3 year time limit; 2. Accord with plans; 3. Level of buildings; 4. Use applied for; 5. Drainage accord with approved details and implemented prior to commencement of use; 6. Noise controls; 7. No mud/debris onto highway; 8. Permanent closure of existing access; 9. Construction Management Plan; 10. Details external lighting; 11. Landscaping – strategic planting; 12. Landscaping 1yr inspection; 13. Protection of hedgerows; 14. Submission of Extended Phase 1 habitat survey; 15. Access and manoeuvring/turning areas complete prior to use of agricultural buildings; 16. Materials schedule/samples; 17. Removal of GDO rights for agricultural/business buildings.

Development: 11/0045/14/F Erection of agricultural building (No. 4, grading unit for potatoes) Resubmission of planning ref 11/1544/13/F

Conditions: 1. Standard 3 year time limit; 2. Accord with plans; 3. Level of buildings; 4. Use applied for; 5. Drainage accord with approved details and implemented prior to commencement of use; 6. Noise controls; 7. No mud/debris onto highway; 8. Permanent closure of existing access; 9. Construction Management Plan; 10. Details external lighting; 11. Landscaping – strategic planting; 12. Landscaping 1yr inspection; 13. Protection of hedgerows; 14. Submission of Extended Phase 1 habitat survey; 15. Access and manoeuvring/turning areas complete prior to use of agricultural buildings; 16. Materials schedule/samples; 17. Removal of GDO rights for agricultural/business buildings.

Reason item is being put before Committee The Ward Member, Councillor Bramble, shares the local residents’ concerns.

Key issues for consideration: The proposed developments (as proposed under planning applications 11/0042/14/F – 11/0045/14/F) for the relocation of this business do merit support. It is accepted that the developments as a whole will have an impact on the protected landscape and, that the business activities, eg traffic generation, will change the character of the site. However, the extent of this harm is limited to a localised area and, the economic benefits of permitting the relocation of the established business carries significant weight and should be a material consideration when assessing the planning balance. It is considered that the impacts of the developments can be assimilated by appropriate planning conditions and legal agreement.

Site Description The application site lies within open countryside, to the west of the village of Churchstow. It is situated adjacent to the A381, approximately 100 metres south east of Bantham Cross, the roundabout junction between the A379 from Modbury/Aveton Gifford, the A381 from Churchstow to Malborough/Salcombe and the C Class road to Bantham village and beach.

The application site measures approximately 1.9 hectares (4.75 acres) in area and is enclosed by Devon hedgebanks to all boundaries. The land is currently maintained as grass and slopes up slightly towards the centre of the site, however, there is a difference of less than 2 metres in level across the site. There is an existing field access onto the A381 in the north west corner of the site. The site is bordered by open fields to the north, east and south and, the A381 lies immediately west of the site, beyond which lies further open fields.

The closest residential properties within the village of Churchstow are those at Woodlands and Woodlands Close, a cul-de-sac development on the southern edge of the village. These lie approximately 200 metres away at the closest point to the site. The proposed Village Housing Initiative site, which has been submitted as a full application under ref. 11/0046/14/F, lies approximately 170 metres north east of the site. Other nearby residential development includes Tredayson, Rawhiti and Beechcroft, which lie approximately 200 - 250 metres north of the site; Offields, approximately 300 metres to the north west; Elston Farm/Elston Park, approximately 375 metres to the south west; Elston Cottages, approximately 350 metres to the south; Pullybanks Farm and Poole, approximately 450 metres to the east and, Higher Holditch, approximately 630 metres south east of the site.

The nearest Listed Buildings are within the village of Churchstow. These include the Grade II* St Mary’s Church, approximately 420 metres north east of the site; the Grade II Church House Inn public house, approximately 370 metres north east of the site; Grade II Rose Cottage, opposite the public house, approximately 390 metres north east of the site; and Home Farm and Home Farm Cottages, in the east of the village, approximately 400 metres east of the site.

Background Information The development relates to the re-location and expansion of the existing premises of A. J. Lidstone and Son Ltd. from their current premises in Galmpton to a new site at Bantham Cross. It consists of the erection of four agricultural buildings, an associated site office, dwelling and new access.

A.J.Lidstone & Son Ltd. is mainly a potato growing and distribution business, which owns a total of 280 hectares (700 acres) throughout the South Hams, of which approximately 160 hectares (400 acres) is used for growing potatoes. The majority of the potato growing land lies to the south west of the A379 between Modbury and Aveton Gifford and south west of the A381 between Churchstow and Malborough.

The potatoes are harvested between the months of June and October inclusively and the applicant produces approximately 10,000 tonnes. Currently the potatoes are harvested and transported, by tractor and trailer, to the business’s current base in Galmpton, where they are graded into sizes and placed into timber crates ready for cold storage. Due to the limited cold storage at the Galmpton site, the crates are then transported, by articulated lorry, to other cold storage facilities. As and when there is a market for the potatoes, they are transported back to Galmpton, by articulated lorry, where they are washed and packed. They are finally transported to a variety of purchasers throughout the country in a variety of large commercial vehicles. The business context is further expanded later in this report.

The purpose of this application is to obviate the need to “outsource” the cold storage of the applicant’s crop and to provide such storage at one site, along with the washing and grading processes, to centralise the position of the agricultural buildings within the growing area and, to reduce overall traffic movement and the associated carbon footprint of the business.

The Proposals

Application 11/0042/14/F seeks planning permission for the erection of an agricultural building (Building No.1 - Washing), an associated dwelling, new access road and site office.

Building No.1 (Washing) Building No.1 (Washing) would be situated to the north of the proposed new access and would lie to the north west of the courtyard that would be created centrally within the site for vehicular circulation. The building would lie between approximately 20 and 34 metres from the A381 and, would be situated beyond a proposed new bank/bunding It would run almost parallel to the road, being orientated north/south along its pitch and, would measure approximately 36 metres in length by 16 metres in width. The building would have an internal floor area of 540 square metres. The external eaves height of the building would be approximately 7.5 metres and the ridge height approximately 8.5 metres.

The building would be clad in timber, over composite insulated panels, to the north, west and south elevations and, the east elevation, facing onto the courtyard, would be clad in timber along half its length and contain 3 full height roller shutter doors.

The washing/packing machinery that would be installed in the proposed building would have a similar capacity to the machinery used at the current site, but would be an up-graded model.

Proposed Dwelling The proposed dwelling would be situated in the north eastern part of the site. It would consist of two- storey and single storey elements and linked garage. Access to the dwelling would be via the courtyard and a new private drive. The dwelling would be separated from the adjacent buildings by a newly planted hedge and orientated with the main outlook towards the south. Residential curtilage would be provided to all aspects of the dwelling

The dwelling would have an internal domestic floorspace of approximately 154 square metres, which has been reduced in scale following the comments made on the previous withdrawn application by the Council’s Agricultural Advisor. The dwelling would provide a kitchen, utility room, dining room, living room, small office, shower room, plant room and boot room at ground floor level and, would be linked to the three bedrooms, one with en-suite facilities, and family bathroom at upper floor level by a staircase and lift. The proposed dwelling would be clad in render and set under a slated roof. Windows and doors would be framed by powder coated aluminium clad composite timber, in a colour which has yet to be agreed.

New Access A new access to serve the site is proposed towards the south of the site. This new access would serve a large courtyard area, enclosed by the proposed buildings, and would provide circulation space for the articulated lorries.

Site Office The proposed site office would lie on the southern side of this courtyard, approximately 45 – 50 metres from the road. It would be single storey in height, finished in render and set under a pitched, slated roof. Windows and doors would have uPVC frames. The building would have a floor area of 75 square metres and provide an office area, meeting room, kitchenette and W.C.

Application 11/0043/14/F seeks planning permission for the erection of Building 2 (Cold Store).

Building 2 (Cold Store). This building would be situated to the north of the courtyard. It would lie approximately 10 metres south of the northern boundary of the site and would run parallel to the boundary, being orientated east/west along its pitch. It would measure 43 metres in length and 19 metres in width and would have a floor area of 1,175 square metres. The building would have a ridge height of approximately 8.85 metres and an eaves height of approximately 7.6 metres. The building would be clad in timber, over composite insulated panels, and contain 2 full height roller shutter doors on the south elevation, facing onto the courtyard.

Application 11/0044/14/F seeks planning permission for the erection of Building No.3 (Cold Store).

Building No.3 (Cold Store). This building would be situated to the east of the courtyard, approximately 100 metres from the road. The building would be orientated north/south along its pitch and would measure approximately 47 metres long and 18 metres wide, with a floor area of 960 square metres. The building would have a ridge height of approximately 8.85 metres and an eaves height of approximately 7.6 metres. The building would be clad in timber, over composite insulated panels, and contain 2 full height roller shutter doors on the west elevation, facing onto the courtyard.

The cold storage would be increased from 1,300 square metres at the current site in Galmpton to 2,135 square metres. The buildings’ heights would also enable an increase in the number of crates that could be stored on top of each other. The buildings would be substantially sub-divided to ensure management of the refrigeration process. Each section is proposed to be refrigerated using an air source heat pump (reversed) and these would be situated on the courtyard elevations of the buildings.

Application 11/0045/14/F seeks planning permission for the erection of Building No.4 (Grading).

Building No. 4 (Grading) This building would be situated to the south east of the courtyard. It would measure 40 metres in length and 32 metres (22 metres at inset) in width, with a floor area of 1,140 square metres. The building would be set under a double pitched roof with an eaves height of approximately 7.6 metres and ridge height of approximately 8.85 metres. The building would be clad in timber, over composite insulated panels, and contain 4 full height roller shutter doors and two small windows on the north elevation, facing onto the courtyard and one small window on the west elevation. These windows would serve the staff break room/kitchen and W.C.s. The grading machine that would be installed in the proposed Grading Building would have a similar capacity to the one used at the current site, but would be an up-graded model.

Landscaping The applications include additional proposed planting to all boundaries and the creation of banks/bunding to the south, west, north and part of the east boundaries. They also include the lowering of existing site levels by approximately 2 metres.

Drainage In terms of surface water drainage, the access and internal road have been designed to ensure that there is no surface water run off onto the highway. The courtyard will feature self draining surfaces and, where this is not possible due to vehicle loads, surface water will discharge to soakaways. Run- off from the buildings’ roofs will be collected in underground rainwater harvesting tanks and used in the potato washing process. A dry swale with sediment fore bay will be used to catch sediment from the water outflow from the potato washing process. The surface water network would be designed to a maximum 100 year storm event with an allowance for 30% climate change as required by the NPPF. The foul drainage would be dealt with by a private treatment plant.

Consultations

• County Highways Authority No objections subject to conditions relating to no mud/debris onto road; permanent closure of the existing access; and requiring a Construction Management Plan.

• Environmental Health Section No objections subject to a condition to secure noise protection measures.

• Drainage Section No objections are raised following the receipt of revised drainage plans.

• Agricultural Advisor The Council’s Agricultural Advisor supports the application.

• Natural Environment and Recreation Section No objections are raised subject to conditions to secure the implementation of the landscaping and the submission of an Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey.

• AONB Unit The South Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) team OBJECTS to the development for the following reasons:- • The development will be readily perceptible from the A379 from the north and from the approach along the A381; • Concern about the scale of the proposed development and resulting harm to, and industrialisation of, the AONB: • The scale, bulk and massing of the development cannot be effectively shielded despite the extensive planting scheme and excavation of the site; • Lack of detailed LVIA, which should include photomontages of the buildings in-situ and map of where these have been taken from; photomontages indicating how the planting would shield the development, including in autumn and winter months, over a timeframe, such as 3 and 15 years; and views of the site from the visibility splay. • Lack of reference in the LVIA to characteristics of the landscape, heritage or cultural landscape features and, no information offered as to how the assessor reached conclusions. • Lack of suitable justification for the siting of the development in this prominent location.

• Parish Council Churchstow Parish Council OBJECTS to the proposed development for the following reasons:- • Lack of Noise Survey; • Concern about impacts on nearby dwellings, including the VHI site; • Concern about visual and landscape impacts in AONB; • Concern over potential pollution and light pollution; • Concern about whether the roads are suitable for the development and resulting traffic increase; • That the development should be treated as industrial not agricultural development; • That trees will not grow on the site due to the prevailing winds; • Concern over lack of clarity of the plans regarding the earth banking; and • That details of the equipment to generate the refrigeration for the cold store have not been included.

Representations The application has attracted both letters of objection and support.

47 letters of OBJECTION have been received for the following summarised reasons:-

• Large scale and height of buildings; • Negative visual impact and harm to AONB; • Prominent site for development; • Inappropriate industrial use in the AONB; • Destruction of wildlife habitats; • Landscaping will not grow on the exposed site; • Harm to road and pedestrian safety from increase in volume of traffic; • Harm to road and pedestrian safety from new access; • Increase of traffic through the bottleneck at Churchstow; • Concern over 24 hour use; • Noise and light pollution; • Pollution from vehicles and plant; • Proximity to existing development and Churchstow and proposed Village Housing Initiative site; • Questioning the adequacy of surface water drainage and the disposal of mud/dirt washed off the potatoes; • Concern raised about potential expansion of the business at the site; • Questioning the need for a dwelling without an agrictultural tie; • That the development should not have been submitted as four separate applications; and • That the development should have been regarded as EIA development requiring an Environmental Statement.

14 letters of SUPPORT for the application have been received for the following summarised reasons:-

• Importance of the business to the wider farming community; • The development will support local economy and provide local jobs; • Traffic associated with the business already travels through Churchstow; • The development will reduce overall traffic movement and reduce carbon footprint; • It is a more appropriate site than existing site in Galmpton, which is accessed via narrow country lanes; • The site is centrally located within growing area and with good transport links; • The business would justify the need a dwelling.

Although not formally consulted by the Council, comments have also been received from Malborough Parish Council and Aveton Gifford Parish Council. Both Parish Councils SUPPORT the proposed development for the following reasons:-

• Keeps traffic on larger roads, away from built up areas and within the middle of the applicant’s potato growing area;

• The development will allow a successful local business, employing local people, to grow and reduce costs; • The development will sustain local employment; • The development will benefit farming in the area; and • The development will not intrude visually.

All letters of representation can be viewed on the Council’s website.

Relevant Planning History 11/2739/12/PRESUP Pre-application enquiry for relocation of agricultural buildings, Bantham Cross, Churchstow

General support was expressed for the proposal and consultation was undertaken with the Council’s Landscape Officer, Devon County Council Highway Authority and Malborough Parish Council.

This pre-application enquiry was submitted along with a separate pre-application enquiry regarding the proposed re-development of the existing site at Galmpton for residential. The funding for the project is reliant upon this re-development.

11/1544/13/F Erection of Potato Processing Building (Grading Unit) – WITHDRAWN

11/1545/13/F Erection of Cold Storage Building – WITHDRAWN

11/1546/13/F Erection of Cold Storage Building – WITHDRAWN

11/1547/13/F Erection of Agricultural Building, Associated Dwelling, New Access Road and Site Office – WITHDRAWN

There are 3 other applications which, alongside the application subject to this report, comprise the overall scheme.

11/0043/14/F Erection of Agricultural Building (No 2 Cold Storage Building) – resubmission of application 11/1545/13/F

11/0044/14/F Erection of Agricultural Building (No 3 Cold Storage Building) – resubmission of application 11/1546/13/F

1/0045/14/F Erection of Agricultural Building (No 4Grading Unit for Potatoes) - resubmission of application 11/1544/13/F

ANALYSIS The development relates to the re-location and expansion of the existing premises of A. J. Lidstone and Son Ltd. from their current premises in Galmpton to a new site at Bantham Cross. It consists of the erection of four agricultural buildings, an associated site office, dwelling and new access.

Business Context A.J.Lidstone & Son Ltd. is mainly a potato growing and distribution business with other root crops grown as the need arises to rotate crops to maintain the quality of the land. The business owns a total of 280 hectares (700 acres) throughout the South Hams. Due to the need for crop rotation approximately 160 hectares (400 acres) is used for growing potatoes. The agent has submitted a map of all the areas where land is owned or rented by the applicant. The locations range from between Kitterford Cross and California Cross in the north, near to Holbeton in the west, north of Stokenham in the east and Soar and South Pool in the south. The majority of the land lies to the south west of the A379 between Modbury and Aveton Gifford and south west of the A381 between Churchstow and Malborough. The potatoes are harvested between the months of June and October inclusively and the applicant produces approximately 10,000 tonnes.

Currently the potatoes are harvested and transported, by tractor and trailer, to the business’s current base in Galmpton. Here the potatoes are graded into sizes and placed timber crates ready for cold storage. The cold storage ensures that the crop becomes “dormant” so it can then be released throughout the year. Although only harvested between June and October, there is a year round demand for the crop. Due to the limited cold storage at the Galmpton site, the crates are then transported, by articulated lorry, to other cold storage facilities. Some of these storage facilities are within South Hams, but some are as far afield as Doncaster, Hereford and East Anglia. As and when there is a market for the potatoes, they are transported back to Galmpton, by articulated lorry, where they are washed and packed. They are finally transported to a variety of purchasers throughout the country in a variety of large commercial vehicles.

The purpose of the relocation of the business is to obviate the need to “outsource” the cold storage of the applicant’s crop and to provide such storage at one site, along with the washing and grading processes, to centralise the position of the agricultural buildings within the growing area and, to reduce overall traffic movement and the associated carbon footprint of the business.

The proposed arrangement would involve the potatoes being harvested and transported, by tractor and trailer, to the proposed site, where they would be graded into sizes, stored, washed and packed at the site and, transported to their destinations in a variety of large commercial vehicles.

The business currently occupies a location within the countryside, close to the small settlement of Galmpton and is accessed via the narrow country lanes leading through Galmpton towards Hope Cove. The business involves a large number of vehicular movements due to the need to “outsource” a large proportion of the cold storage required for the crop because of a lack of storage space at the current premises. The re-location of the business will enable on-site cold storage and would reduce the number of vehicular movements associated with the business and thus reduce the carbon footprint. It would also provide a more centrally located base for the business.

With regard to the proposed dwelling, the Council’s Agricultural Advisor has accepted that, given the existing business is well established, a functional need is justified, although the need on the site could not be considered to truly be justified until the agricultural buildings are substantially complete. Officers are conscious that the dwelling should not be occupied until a time when the buildings are substantially complete and this timing is set out in the s106 agreement.

The business is considered a valuable asset to the local economic base of the area and, in line with paragraph 28 of the NPPF, “support should be given to promoting a strong local economy by supporting the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, both through conversion of existing buildings and well designed new buildings.”

Officers consider that there is a strong business case for the re-location of the current premises and on-site dwelling and, that this would be consistent with the support for such development as contained in the NPPF. Officers have carefully considered the “planning balance” that needs to be addressed for all issues associated with the proposed developments. These are considered as follows.

Principle of Development/Sustainability The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) seeks to deliver sustainable development and Policy CS1 of the Local Development Framework (LDF) seeks to strictly control development in the countryside, unless it can be delivered sustainably and in response to a local demonstrable need. Policy DP15 of the LDF permits development in the countryside where it requires a countryside location and supports the essential needs of agriculture.

The proposed development is intrinsically linked with the applicant’s large scale agricultural crop growing throughout the South Hams and the proposed agricultural buildings are considered to support the essential needs of the agricultural enterprise. The Council’s Agricultural Advisor has offered wholehearted support for the development. The buildings/business could not be located within a settlement and requires a rural location. The site has good transport links, lying immediately adjacent to the main road network and is close to a settlement, being approximately 200 metres from the outer edge of Churchstow. The location of the site is reasonably sustainable considering its rural context.

The agent has advised that the proper functioning of the enterprise is dependent upon the applicant, Mr D Lidstone, being resident at the site for the purposes of managing the operation and monitoring the machinery to ensure no loss of produce and, for the purposes of security. The Council’s Agricultural Advisor has accepted this and there is support for the principle of an agriculturally tied dwelling, as explained above, which is considered to be development that supports the essential needs of agriculture. The Council’s Agricultural Advisor had previously raised concern about the size of the proposed dwelling, which has now been reduced to 154 square metres internal floorspace. This is now considered to be commensurate with the size of the agricultural business.

For the above reasons Officers consider the proposed development (as proposed under planning applications 11/0042/14/F – 11/0045/14/F) to be consistent with the aims of sustainable development, as set out in the NPPF and Policies CS1, CS11 and DP15 of the LDF.

Design/Landscape The site lies within the South Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), where paragraph 115 of the NPPF ensures that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty. It states how Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty.

Paragraph 116 of the NPPF states that “Planning permission should be refused for major developments in these designated areas except in exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated they are in the public interest. Consideration of such applications should include an assessment of: the need for the development, including in terms of any national considerations, and the impact of permitting it, or refusing it, upon the local economy; the cost of, and scope for, developing elsewhere outside the designated area, or meeting the need for it in some other way; and any detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape and recreational opportunities, and the extent to which that could be moderated.

Design The proposed agricultural buildings have been designed to sit around a central vehicular circulation courtyard. They would be large in scale and utilitarian in their form. However, the buildings would be clad in timber, which would appear less stark and more sympathetic to the rural context of the site than if clad in a more industrial profiled sheeting. To an extent, this will better assimilate the buildings within the agricultural landscape. The height of the buildings has been determined by the need to allow the 1 tonne crates of potatoes to be stored 6 high. The eaves heights of approximately 7.5 metres and ridge heights of approximately 8.85 metres are considered, particularly in combination with the large footprints of the buildings, to result in large scale buildings. However, in order to reduce the impact of the scale of the buildings, the site level would be reduced by approximately 2 metres.

The design of the proposed agricultural buildings is considered acceptable and the scale, although large, is considered to reflect the operational requirements of the proposed business. With the reduction in site levels, construction of bunding around the boundaries and implementation of planting, the proposed agricultural development is considered to represent good design.

The design of the proposed dwelling reflects a contemporary approach to traditional forms and proportions. The dwelling is articulated through the use of two storey and single storey sections and would be finished in materials that reflect the local vernacular, including render and slate. The dwelling would be set within its own residential curtilage, enclosed by new planting and would be seen within the context of the adjacent proposed buildings. The proposed dwelling is considered to represent good design.

The design of the proposed site office reflects is function – being a simple, rendered building set under a slated roof.

There are no objections to the design of the proposed development (as proposed under planning applications 11/0042/14/F – 11/0045/14/F) and, as such, they are considered to accord with the aims and objectives of LDF Policies CS7 and DP1 and the NPPF.

Landscape Character The site is situated close to the intersection of 3 Devon Character Areas, specifically within DCA 04 Bigbury Bay Coastal Plateau but close to DCA 49 – Salcombe and Kingsbridge Estuary (200m to SE) and DCA 37 – Mid Avon and West Dart Valleys and Ridge (750m to E). It is within SHDC Landscape Character Type (LCT) 1D and Landscape Description Unit 792b.

In reviewing the Landscape Character assessments there are no significant and direct conflicts with the special qualities and features of DCA-04 ( Bigbury Bay Coastal Plateau ) because the site is located a distance away from the main elements of this character area, which are principally focused along the coastline. The site is close to the inland boundary edge of DCA 04 ( Bigbury Bay Coastal Plateau ) so is influenced to an equal degree by the adjacent Devon Character Areas. There are other local developments of similar form and scale, including the industrial units within Churchstow and similarly, clusters of agricultural barns serving adjacent farmland at Elston Park and Higher Holditch. These are identified as current forces for change within DCA 37 ( Mid Avon and West Dart Valleys and Ridge ) with the proposal further adding to this pressure. However, within this context, the proposed buildings are not considered to be visually dominant in light of the proposed mitigation through landscape works and planting.

Whilst the overall proposal is broadly acceptable, minor adverse impacts on the landscape character and protected landscape (AONB) are acknowledged, but are considered to be limited in nature and extent and, to be at a local level.

Visual Impact The proposed development would be visible as a new ‘built’ element within a rural landscape, particularly from close distances on passing the site, but their visual impact would be more limited in the wider landscape due to the restriction of views from roadside hedgebanks and the broadly plateau area on which the proposal sits.

There is one key elevated view across to the site from a public highway to the south, along the A381 at Bowringsleigh Wood. When travelling northwards, the buildings would be visible from the northern edge of the wood until the site is passed. The buildings would also be visible on approach from the north, along the A381 when travelling southwards. However, due to the orientation of the road and existing roadside hedges, the proposed development would only be visible as the roundabout is approached and, only seen over a short distance.

Views of the proposed development from the lane between Bantham and the Bantham Cross roundabout are limited due to the existing roadside hedges. From the A379 between Churchstow and Bantham Cross roundabout, the development would be perceptible but, would be seen beyond roadside hedges and at a distance of more than 120 metres. The development would also be perceptible from the back lane between Churchstow and Elston Cross, but views would be limited by the roadside hedges, topography and distance from which the buildings would be seen (over 100 metres). As such, from these views, the proposed development would not represent a dominant intrusion.

Whilst there would be some limited views where the development projects above the skyline, they would be restricted and fragmented by new and existing vegetation. The landscape works and new planting seek to mitigate these views by further encompassing the development, with particular emphasis in areas where there are key viewpoints into site.

The ground levels of the existing site would be excavated by approximately 2 metres to further mitigate the height of the proposal and with the implementation of the proposed planting, which includes larger ‘standards’, the visual impact is considered to be slight overall, with the single view from the A381 at Bowringsleigh Wood as moderate.

Impacts on AONB The AONB Unit has objected to the proposed development. The Unit has raised concern about the prominent nature of the site and, despite the site being well screened by hedges, considers the development would be readily perceptible from both the approach along the A379 from the north (road leading from Aveton Gifford) and from the approach from the south along the A381. The unit has expressed concern about the large scale of the buildings and area of site, industrial nature of the buildings, being utilitarian in design and, possible resulting amenity issues from noise and traffic. The Unit has also been critical of the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment undertaken, which has not included reference to the baseline characteristics of the landscape, heritage or cultural landscape features. In conclusion, the AONB Unit considers that the development will be far more intensive than other forms of agricultural enterprise and the likely traffic flows, noise, and physical impact of the site will serve to industrialise this section of the AONB in an unsustainable location within the open countryside.

It is fully accepted by Officers that there will be inevitable impact on the protected AONB landscape. However, Officers do not share the strong concern about harm to the AONB. The scale of the development is large and, from close up views, the developments will be readily perceptible. However, the extent of the impact is limited to a small number of viewpoints within a localised area. Officers are confident that the special qualities and natural beauty of the AONB would be conserved by the development.

With regard to the concern about the industrialisation of the landscape, the buildings will fall within the B2 Business Use Class of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order as well as an agricultural use. This is because Buildings No1 (Washing) and Building No.4 (Grading) involve an element of processing. However, for the reasons set out above, the buildings are considered to have been sympathetically designed and, to be well enclosed through ground level reduction, creation of new bunding and additional planting. This will help to screen the views of the buildings and to reduce their visual impact on the landscape.

With regard to paragraph 116 of the NPPF, which restricts major development within AONBs to that which is in the public interest, the proposed development would bring benefits to the local economy, a reduction in traffic movements and a reduction of the carbon footprint of the business within the wider local area. These aspects are considered to be in the public interest. With regard to the scope for siting the development outside the protected landscape, the site has been chosen as it is situated centrally within the applicant’s growing area and close to the main road network. Alternative sites that would meet the functional need of the business are equally likely to be within the AONB.

Furthermore, the existing premises of the business are already within the AONB. It is important to recognise that the AONB is a living and working landscape and that it is important to support social and economic benefits to the area when this is compatible with its conservation.

The comments of the AONB Unit have been taken into account. They offer a specialized view of the impacts on the landscape protected area, without taking account of other factors. Officers consider that, although there would be some limited adverse impact on the natural beauty of the AONB, the extent of this harm is outweighed by the public interest represented by the benefits to the local economy, reduction in traffic movements and reduction of the carbon footprint of the business that the proposed developments would achieve.

Conditions are proposed to restrict external lighting, to ensure that landscaping groundworks are done prior to the construction of the building, to protect existing hedgerows through development phases and, to manage all planting within an agreed maintenance schedule.

For the above reasons, on balance, the proposed development (as proposed under planning applications 11/0042/14/F – 11/0045/14/F) is considered to accord with the aims of the NPPF and LDF Policies CS7, CS9, DP1 and DP2.

Historic Environment Paragraph 132 of the NPPF states that “When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional.

Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional. ” Policies CS9 and DP6 echo the need to conserve and enhance the quality of the historic environment.

Due to the separation distance between the site and the nearest Listed Buildings, there would be no impact on them or their settings. The settings of the residential Listed Buildings do not extend close to the site and are unaffected. Consideration has been given as to whether the proposed development would affect the setting of the Grade I Listed church. Historically, church spires and towers represent visually dominant features within the landscape and consideration has been given to potential competition between the church tower at Churchstow and the proposed development. Officers are satisfied that, although there be occasions where the church tower can be viewed in combination with the proposed development, due to the separation distance between the proposed buildings and the church and, the lack of public vantage points where the development would be seen competing with the church tower, there would be an insignificant harmful impact on the setting of the Listed Building.

The proposed development (as proposed under planning applications 11/0042/14/F – 11/0045/14/F) is considered to accord with the aims of the NPPF and Policies CS9 and DP6 of the LDF.

Neighbour Amenity Paragraph 123 of the NPPF states that “Planning policies and decisions should aim to avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development and, mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on health and quality of life arising from noise from new development, including through the use of conditions”. Policy DP3 of the LDF echoes this protection of residential amenity by ensuring that development does not have an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of occupiers of nearby properties from, amongst others, noise.

The proposed development would involve the use of plant and machinery and would introduce a concentration of vehicular movement at the site. Concern has been raised by local residents about loss of amenity from noise and light pollution and the possible 24 hour a day operation of activities.

In terms of noise, there has been ongoing liaison with the Environmental Health Service in order to assess the potential impacts on nearby residential properties and their occupants. Additional information has been requested and reviewed during the consideration of the applications. This information has related to the noise generated by the potato washing machine, grading machine and ventilation system for the cold store buildings. The Environmental Health Service is confident that the plant and machinery associated with the use will not have a materially harmful impact on the amenity of nearby occupiers. In order to ensure that the amenity of these residents is protected, the Service has requested that a condition be attached to any approval, requesting the following:-

“A scheme of noise control for any plant and equipment to be installed on site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of development. The approved scheme shall be implemented before the plant and machinery is brought into operation and the approved noise protection measures shall thereafter be retained.”

In terms of disturbance from vehicular movement on site, the agent has advised that the majority of movements would be between the hours of 0800 and 1800 hours, with occasional extended working days during the busy harvesting season. The courtyard arrangement of buildings will enclose any headlight pollution during hours of darkness and there is no external lighting proposed, with the exception of low level bollards at the corners of buildings. External lighting is to be conditioned.

Given the separation distance of approximately 200 metres between the site and nearest residential dwellings, traffic noise and general noise created by the increased activity on the site, is not considered to result in a materially harmful effect on residential amenity. Consideration has also been given to the possible development of a Village Housing Initiative scheme on a field to the north east of the site and the potential effects of the proposed development on the prospective occupiers of these houses. The site of the VHI scheme lies approximately 170 metres from the site and approximately 250 metres from the nearest agricultural building. With regard to the recommended planning condition, the occupiers of this development, if built, would not suffer undue noise disturbance from the activities and vehicular movements at the site.

The development would also result in a change to the outlook from certain existing properties, in particular Offields, Tredayson, Rawhiti and Beechcroft. However, due to the combination of the topography of the land, the creation of bunding and additional planting to be undertaken and, the separation distance between the site and residential properties, the impact on the outlook from these properties would be limited and would not be so harmful as to warrant refusal of the application.

On balance, the proposed development (as proposed under planning applications 11/0042/14/F – 11/0045/14/F) is considered to have an acceptable impact on the residential amenity of occupiers of nearby properties and the proposal is considered to accord with the aims of the NPPF and LDF Policy DP3.

Highways/Access The Highway Authority has commented on the application. The Authority refers to preliminary discussions undertaken with the applicant (as part of the pre-application enquiry 11/2739/12 ) about the proposed access point into the site from the A381 and refers to an independent speed survey that was undertaken at the point of the proposed access, which demonstrates that adequate visibility can be achieved by setting back the roadside hedge to create a splayed entrance. The Authority has also confirmed that adequate parking and turning is available on the site to cater for the development.

The Authority has requested conditions be attached to any approval in relation to the following:- 1) No mud/stone/water or debris shall be deposited on the public highway from the site; 2) Details of how the existing site access is to be permanently blocked up and shall remain closed in perpetuity; 3) Requirement for Construction Management Plan, to include:- a) Timetable of the works; b) Daily hours of construction; c) Any road closure; d) Restriction of hours of delivery and construction vehicles to 0800 – 1800 hours Mondays – Fridays, 0900 – 1300 hours on Saturdays and none on Sundays or Bank Holidays;

e) Number and sizes of vehicles; f) Compound/location of storage for construction materials; g) Areas on-site for lo9ading/unloading construction materials – none to park on County highway; h) Hours that no construction traffic will be present; i) Means of enclosure of site during construction; j) Details of proposals to promote staff car sharing; k) Wheel washing facilities and obligations; l) Route of any construction traffic exceeding 7.5 tonnes; and m) Details/amount of worker parking

The Authority has also raised a non-overriding sustainability objection should there be no justification for the location of the development. Given that Officers are satisfied with the justification for the development and its site, this objection is clearly overridden.

The re-location of the business would result in fewer vehicular movements associated with the business through the inclusion of adequate cold storage and elimination of the need to transport cops to alternatives storage sites. Furthermore, the majority of traffic that currently attends the existing site passes by the proposed site. As such, there would be no material increase in traffic on the local road network and concerns about an exacerbation of the existing bottleneck within Churchstow are not considered to be justified.

For these reasons the proposed development, (as proposed under planning applications 11/0042/14/F – 11/0045/14/F) is considered to accord with the aims of the NPPF and Policy DP7 of the LDF.

Ecology Paragraph 118 of the NPPFstates that local planning authorities, when determining planning application, should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity. This is echoed in Policies CS10 and DP5 of the LDF, which seek to maintain and, where appropriate, conserve and/or enhance biodiversity.

An Ecology Assessment has been submitted with the application. It assessed the site for protected species including dormice, breeding birds, especially Cirl Buntings and bats, including the removal of the roadside hedgerow. The survey found no evidence of Dormice, no evidence of Cirl Buntings, which are unlikely to be found in the improved grassland at the site and surroundings and, little evidence of breeding birds. There are no records of bat activity at the site.

The development includes additional planting, which can be considered as a biodiversity gain.

Therefore, the proposed development (as proposed under planning applications 11/0042/14/F – 11/0045/14/F) would have a negligible impact on ecology and would maintain the biodiversity of the site and surroundings and the proposed development would accord with the aims and objectives of LDF Policies CS10 and DP5 and the NPPF.

Drainage The proposed drainage details have been amended during the life of the application further to initial objection raised by the Council’s Drainage Engineers, who are now satisfied that an adequate drainage scheme is provided.

In terms of surface water drainage, the access and internal road have been designed to ensure that there is no surface water run off onto the highway. The courtyard will feature self draining surfaces and, where this is not possible due to vehicle loads, surface water will discharge to soakaways. Run- off from the buildings’ roofs will be collected in underground rainwater harvesting tanks and used in the potato washing process. A dry swale with sediment fore bay will be used to catch sediment from the water outflow from the potato washing process. The surface water network would be designed to a maximum 100 year storm event with an allowance for 30% climate change as required by the NPPF. The foul drainage would be dealt with by a private treatment plant. No technical objection to this has been raised.

For the above reasons the proposed development (as proposed under planning applications 11/0042/14/F – 11/0045/14/F) is considered to accord with the objectives of the NPPF and the aims of Policy CS8 of the LDF.

Other The agent has submitted a proposed phased programme of building works at the request of officers. This has been requested to prevent the dwellinghouse being built and occupied before the proposed agricultural buildings have been built. The agent has set out the following phasing of construction:-

1. Form New Site Entrance (11/0042/14/F) 2. Carry out site excavation and form bunds (11/0042/14/F – 11/0045/14/F) 3. Carry out infrastructure works (drainage, services etc) (11/0042/14/F – 11/0045/14/F) 4. Construct Washing Building (Building No. 1) (11/0042/14/F) 5. Commence construction of one smaller Cold Store (Building No. 3) (11/0044/14/F) 6. Move out of dwelling at Galmpton to allow demolition for re-development. 7. Commence construction of dwelling (11/0042/14/F) 8. Complete construction of smaller Cold Store (Building No. 3) (11/0044/14/F) 9. Construct Grading Building (Building No.4) (11/0045/14/F) 10. Complete and occupy dwelling (11/0042/14/F) 11. Construct second Cold Store (Building No. 2) (11/0043/14/F)

This phasing will form part of the s106 agreement that will tie the agricultural buildings to each other and tie both the dwelling and site office to these buildings.

The agent has also referred to a current planning application relating to the residential re- development of the site of the existing business premises in Galmpton. The intention of this is to provide substantial financial investment for the new enterprise. This is not a matter for consideration under this application.

With regard to the objections raised in the letters of representation, the concerns expressed regarding harm to the AONB landscape, prominent siting, large scale/height of the buildings, exposed location, inappropriate industrial use in the AONB, harm to road and pedestrian safety, effect on the residents of Churchstow, destruction of wildlife habitats and drainage are addressed within the sections of analysis above.

Concern has also been raised about potential expansion of the business at the site. The agent explains below that there is no intention of this and does not own land immediately around the site.

Furthermore, the Local Planning Authority would have full control over development at the site and “permitted development” rights that may be enjoyed are to be removed by planning condition.

With regard to concern that the development should not have been submitted as four separate applications, this report sets out how the development proposed has been considered as one large scheme, consisting of contributing elements on each application.

In terms of whether the development should have been regarded as EIA development requiring an Environmental Statement, this has been carefully assessed by Officers. The development would not have a significant impact on the environment in terms of its character (size/use of natural resources/production of waste/pollution/nuisance/risk) and, although located within the South Devon AONB, can be satisfactorily assimilated within the landscape and would have limited impact on in terms of both geographic area and size of population affected.

Agent’s Response to Representations The agent for the applicant has offered a written response to the concerns raised in the letters of objection.

• Application Format In response to the concern raised that the development has applied for permission by way of 4 separate applications, the agent has explained how this approach was agreed with the previous Case Officer and that is not an uncommon approach. He explains how all the applications have been cross-referenced in documentation and details and how the determination period has been extended (from 8 weeks to 13 weeks) to that required of “major development” in order to allow the development to be considered in its entirety. The agent also refers to the fact that the applications have been accompanied by far more substantial information than recent applications for agricultural buildings at Holditch Farm, Churchstow and Warcombe Farm, Kingsbridge.

• Pre-Application Consultation The agent has addressed the allegations that the application is misleading for referring to a particular meeting held during the pre-application enquiry process, has corrected the venue referred to for this meeting and stresses that the pre-application advice remains pertinent to the consideration of the current applications.

• Building Use The agent has confirmed that the operations proposed at the site will be the same as those carried out at the existing site in Galmpton, with the exception of the increased cold storage. He has explained how the Local Planning Authority has accepted that the use of the buildings is for agricultural purposes, rather than introducing industrial processing.

• Potential Expansion of the Buildings/Site In response to concern that the business would expand, the agent has explained that no land outside the site is within the ownership or control of the applicant and that there would be insufficient space remaining on the site to add further buildings.

• Business Plan Concern has been raised that crops from other growers around the country would be brought to the site to be processed. The agent has explained that it is only crops grown by the applicant and business partners that would be dealt with at the site. The main aim is for the applicant to deal with his crop from initial harvest to final sale in one location in order to avoid transport costs and reduce carbon footprint.

• Size of Buildings In response to concerns raised about the size and height of the buildings, the agent explains how the buildings would be set approximately 20 metres from the main road, how ground levels would be reduced by approximately 1.86 metres to lessen the height of the buildings, that the buildings would be in the region of 20 metres from the main road and, that perimeter bunds and planting will help to provide screening. The agent also compares the heights of the proposed buildings to recently approved agricultural buildings at Holditch Farm, Churchstow, which have a ridge height of approximately 8.75 metres.

• Local Economy The agent explains how the development would bring employment opportunities beyond the 6 full-time and other seasonal part-time staff by preventing the need to outsource the majority of cold storage, how it would benefit the local farming community and how this is acknowledged in letters of support.

• Times of Operation Following concerns referring to the potential 24 hour a day operation of the site, the agent has explained how it is only the cold storage aspect of the use that will run 24 hours a day and that this will only occur when the crop demands it. The agent has explained that, whilst the applicant’s personal working hours are considerably longer, including management and administration of the business, the core business activities would operate between 08.00 and 18.00, but that during busy harvest times there may be occasions when the crop is transported to the site later than 18.00.

• Traffic Flow The agent has explained how the majority of existing traffic movements associated with the business already travel through the Bantham Cross roundabout and how the development would substantially reduce overall traffic movement currently generated by the need to transport crops to alternative cold storage. The agent ahs also referred to the Highway Authority’s satisfaction with the scheme, following their involvement with pre-application discussions.

• Noise In response to concerns raised about potential noise disturbance from the development, the agent has referred to the fact that “permitted development” rights enable the installation of an air source heat pump on a dwelling, provided that it does not create more than 42dB of noise and is a minimum of 1 metre from the boundary of the site. The agent has also confirmed that he is unaware of any complaints about the activities at the current site in terms of noise and stresses how the applicant’s own dwelling would not be situated so close to the proposed buildings if it would result in noise nuisance to the occupants.

• Lighting In response to concern about light pollution, the agent has confirmed that the activities at the site would take place within the confines of the buildings, that the only external lighting would be low level “convenience lighting” such as bollards marking the corners of buildings and, that no external lighting is proposed. He also explains how light from vehicles’ headlights would be screened by the courtyard buildings and perimeter bunding.

• Dwellinghouse The agent states how it has always been accepted that the dwelling would be subject to an agricultural tie, as the existing dwelling at the Galmpton site is subject to such a tie. He confirms the support expressed by the Council’s Agricultural Consultant for the justification of the dwelling and states how the size of the dwelling has been reduced following concern raised by him.

Conclusion The proposed agricultural development and erection of farm dwelling for the relocation of this business do merit support. It is accepted that the developments as a whole will have an impact on the protected landscape and, that the business activities, eg traffic generation, will change the character of the site. However, the extent of this harm is limited to a localised area and, the economic benefits of permitting the relocation of the established business carries significant weight and should be a material consideration when assessing the planning balance. It is considered that the impacts of the developments can be assimilated by appropriate planning conditions and legal agreement.

As such, the applications for the erection of Building No1 (Washing), associated dwelling, site office, new access, Building No.2 (Cold Store), Building No.3 (Cold Store) and Building No.4 (Washing) are recommended for approval.

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

Planning Policy

National Planning Policy Framework Planning Policy Guidance

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 DP2 Landscape Character DP3 Residential Amenity DP5 Conservation and Wildlife DP6 Historic Environment DP7 Transport, Access & Parking DP15 Development in the Countryside

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 Edward Brown Parish: Frogmore & Sherford

Application No : 43/2567/13/F

Agent/Applicant: Applicant: Alex Perraton Perraton Partners Winslade Farm Frogmore Kingsbridge TQ7 2PA

Site Address: Land at SX776419, Winslade Farm, Frogmore, Kingsbridge, TQ7 2PA

Development: Erection of 1no. wind turbine (estimated output of 0.05megawatts) with 24.6 metres hub height, 34.2 metres tip height and associated infrastructure for agricultural use.

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. 2013. Scale 1:5000 For internal reference only – no further copies to be mad

Reason item is being put before Committee

The Ward Member would like to application to be discussed at Development Management Committee due to support from Frogmore Parish Council.

Recommendation:

Refusal.

Reasons for refusal:

The proposed wind turbine is situated within the open countryside forming part of the South Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Due to the scale of the turbine and its prominence within a sensitive landscape, the development would be detrimental to the character of this area and is therefore contrary to LDF Core Strategy CS9, Development Policy DP2 and the NPPF.

Key issues for consideration:

Careful consideration has been given to the impact of the wind turbine in terms of visual / landscape impact, ecology / wildlife, residential amenity, renewable energy, development in the countryside and policy including the NPPF, the Councils Interim Renewable Energy Guidance and Local Development Framework.

The Councils Landscape Officer, Ecologist and Environmental Health Officer have all been consulted. An objection has been raised by the Landscape Officer. In addition the South Devon AONB Unit has objected to the proposal.

Whilst the proposal would offer benefits in terms of the production of electricity from a renewable source and improve the economic performance of the farm, it is considered that the turbine would not conserve or enhance the designated landscape (AONB) and that the localised benefits of the scheme are outweighed by the greater harm to the visual quality and landscape character of this section of the AONB.

For these reasons the proposed wind turbine is considered not to accord with the Development Plan, Local & National Guidance, and recent Ministerial Statements.

Site Description:

The application site is located in a field which forms part of Winslade Farm. The field lies on the top of a hill above Winslade farm house and farm buildings. The centre of Frogmore village is located 0.75km to the north of the location belonging to the proposed wind turbine.

Winslade Farm currently sustains a 250 dairy herd. The applicants also farm 115 head of beef (of all ages).

The farm is located within the open countryside which farms part of the South Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. This is a national landscape designation.

The Proposal:

The application seeks to erect a single wind turbine at Winslade Farm. The wind turbine has a hub height of 24.6metres (m) and a tip height of 34.2m. The turbine has three blades and a hub that are situated on top of a solid mast. The measurement from the centre of the hub to end of blade tip is 9.6m.

The application advises that the energy generated will allow the farm to help offset its energy demand with any surplus energy being fed back into the local distribution network.

Consultations :

• County Highways Authority – no highway related issues.

• Environmental Health Section – suggests noise conditions in relation to neighbouring properties and the applicant’s property.

• Landscape Officer - objection

• South Devon AONB Unit – objection

• Ecology – no objection

• RSPB – no objection

• The site lies within Frogmore & Sherford Parish Council which supports the application. Neighbouring Parish Councils at South Pool object to the application with Stokenham Parish Council raising no objections.

Representations:

At the time of writing the report approximately 50 letters of objection and 30 letters of no objection/support had been received.

In summary the letters of objection raise the following concerns:

• Impact upon the landscape & AONB. • Impact upon ecology (birds & bats). • Impact upon the economy & tourism. • The farm already has solar panels which are visually less obtrusive. There are other ways to create power should be considered. • Local people will not be used to build or maintain the wind turbine. • Contrary to planning policy. • Will set an unacceptable precedent if approved. • Wind turbines are inefficient. • The applicant is only proposing a wind turbine because of subsidies. • No ecological survey has been provided. • Wind turbine is large in scale. • Un-neighbourly impact upon local residents. • Impact upon Listed Buildings (namely Molescombe House). • Renewable energy will benefit farm and not the local community. • Health & safety risk of collapsing. • Impact upon house prices.

In summary the letters of no objection/support make the following points:

• Wind energy will help to meet the energy requirements of the business making it more resilient to energy price rises. • Renewable energy should be supported. • Will help support the local economy. • The country should move its dependence away from fossil fuels. • Wind turbine is for a local farm and not for a large company. • Complies with planning policy. • The proposed development is wholly reversible once no longer required. • Whilst the wind turbine can be seen this does not mean that it is visually unacceptable. • Wind turbine is small in scale. • Holiday makers will continue to visit even if the wind turbine is erected. • The structures can be removed once it is no longer required. • Hardly any noise is created by wind turbines. • Wind turbines are part of the evolution of modern farms. • A wind turbine is less obtrusive than a field of solar panels. • Farmers manage the countryside and should be supported.

At the time of writing this report, all the letters of representation are available to view on the Councils website along with Frogmore & Sherford Parish Council response of support. This is the parish in which the application falls within.

Relevant Planning History

There is no relevant planning history.

ANALYSIS

Background

Winslade Farm currently has a modest area of ground mounted photovoltaic panels, which help reduce its dependency on the national grid. However, the panels do not produce enough electricity to meet the farm businesses energy demands through the year and during different times of the day.

Principle of Development/Sustainability

The NPPF in paragraph 98 does not make it a requirement for Local Planning Authorities to ask for the output of the turbine in question.

When determining planning applications local planning authorities should not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy and also recognise that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

The Council has a raft of policy considerations that allow for this application to be thoroughly considered and assessed in terms of material planning considerations. In addition the Council has interim renewable energy guidance published in July of last year and recent Ministerial Statements.

Should the wind turbine no be longer required a condition can be attached to achieve its removal. The removal and any recycling will be carried out by the land owner and relevant parties, and not the Council.

Whilst there are other renewable energy technologies available it is not up to the Council to dictate which of these technologies the applicant should use. Instead the Council must consider whether the particular scheme submitted is acceptable.

Landscape/ Visual Impact

The Councils Landscape Officer has visited the application site and surrounding area. His comments can be found on the Councils website.

The landscape character of the site is complex. However, it is noted that the distinctive characteristics in the area surrounding the site include tidal estuary waters which are juxtaposed with steep valley sides and plateau landscapes to the north and east. The farmland on the rounded ridges as demonstrated at Winslade farm is divided by hedgebanks that emphasise the convex slopes. The settlement of Frogmore at the head of an estuarine creek forms an important element within this landscape area and is intrinsic to the setting and overall quality.

The Landscape Visual Impact Assessment submitted by the applicant is noted but provides no real or useful analysis of the effects of the proposed development on landscape character or visual amenity. Therefore SHDC officers have undertaken a separate appraisal in order to better inform the decision.

On this basis, and in summary, officers have concluded that the proposed development would overall result in an unacceptable impact on the landscape character and is therefore contrary to the relevant government guidance, NPPF and SHDC policies.

Overall officers consider that the effects on landscape character are moderate to substantial, with particular concern over the effects on Frogmore creek.

The submitted visual impact assessment is noted, including the photomontages and Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV). In accordance with current guidance and best practice, a study area of 2.5 km is considered given the nature and scale of the proposed wind turbine. However, the ZTV clearly indicates that there is potential to see the proposed wind turbine over a larger area accepting the size to tip (34.2m), and the presence of landscape elements which may reduce this. Whilst the proposed development has been located near to the existing farm, the views where the wind turbine will be seen in combination with the existing buildings are limited to the north. It is also officers opinion that the wind turbine will be seen from within Frogmore and therefore contrary to the submitted assessment; this is in fact confirmed by the applicant’s ZTV.

From the appraisal it is acknowledged that from certain viewpoints the visual effects are slight given the size and scale of the wind turbine but overall officers consider the effects on visual amenity are moderate to substantial. Again, there are particular concerns over the effects on Frogmore creek and highly sensitive receptors within the valley where the wind turbine will be seen on the skyline; these effects have not been considered in the submitted assessment.

The proposed development will be located within the South Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the comments of the AONB unit are noted.

The NPPF gives ‘great weight’ to this highly sensitive landscape designation and from the appraisal undertaken by officers, the effects of the proposal do not sufficiently conserve or enhance the designation and is harmful to its setting, landscape character and visual quality.

Officers have considered the cumulative impacts of other similar forms of other wind turbines in the area, but conclude overall that the resulting impacts are limited in nature.

Officers consider that the landscape and visual impacts of the proposed development on the landscape surrounding the site, the AONB and the adjacent creek will result in a moderate to substantial adverse effects. The visual impact of the turbine is considered to be intrusive, uncharacteristic and in this location, and out of scale from sensitive views.

In terms of landscape character, the qualities affected would include a diminished sense of natural and high scenic quality in relation to the designated landscape. The resulting impact of these adverse effects would be contrary to planning policy.

These objections have been echoed by, the South Devon AONB unit which has provided detailed comments following a site visit of the farm and surrounding area. An objection was made which can be seen in full in the Councils website.

It is evident that the works will be situated in the context of an undulating landscape characterised by fields of quite regular form and with a sparse road and settlement pattern. The main character of the ridgelines in this section of the AONB are sporadic copses of mature trees which cap the hills with agricultural development and settlement pattern hugging the lower parts of the hills and nestling against the lower reaches of the creek and estuary.

The proposed works due to their siting, location, nature and scale would be visually intrusive and adversely impact upon the landscape character of this section of the AONB. It is not considered that this impact can be overcome by way of landscaping. It is understood that a smaller turbine would not generate sufficient energy to meet the needs of the farm and repositioning the turbine is not possible due to the reduced efficiency that would result.

It is appreciated that the turbine would support the agricultural unit, however it is considered that the turbine would not conserve or enhance the designated landscape and that the localised benefits of the scheme are outweighed by the greater harm to the visual quality and landscape character of this section of the AONB.

Neighbour Amenity

As part of the consultation process the Councils Environmental Health officer has considered the proposals and notes that local residents are concerned about noise from the turbine.

A Noise Assessment completed by Anthony Best Acoustics dated 18 th February 2014 has been considered by the Environmental Health Officer. The report concludes that the predicted noise levels from the turbine will be as follows at the nearest noise sensitive dwellings with wind speeds of up to 10m/s:

Property Wind tu rbine noise ETSU Criteria, L A90 Difference (dB) level, L A90 (dB) (dB) Winslade Manor 35.0 35.0 0.0 Molescombe Farm 28.5 35.0 -6.5 Molescombe House 28.2 35.0 -6.8 Pool Farm 27.7 35.0 -7.3 North Pool Cottages 26.1 35.0 -8.9 North Pool House 26.2 35.0 -8.8 North Pool Farm 26.0 35.0 -9.0 Barn Winslade Farm 41.8 45.0 -3.2 (financially involved receptor)

All the predicted noise levels are within the limits recommended by ETSU-R-97 The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms (the current government guidance recognised by the Planning Inspectorate) which states that “for single wind turbines or wind farms with very large separation distances between the turbines and the nearest properties a simplified noise condition may be suitable. We are of the opinion that, if the noise is limited to an L A90, 10 min of 35dB(A) up to wind speeds of 10m/s at 10m height, then this condition alone would offer sufficient protection of amenity, and background noise surveys would be unnecessary. We feel that, even in sheltered areas when the wind speed exceeds 10m/s on the wind farm site, some additional background noise will be generated which will increase background levels at the property….The Noise Working Group recommends that both day- and night-time lower fixed limits can be increased to 45dB(A) and that consideration should be given to increasing the permissible margin above background where the occupier of the property has some financial involvement in the wind farm.”

In light of the above predicted noise levels and ETSU-R-97 guidance, the Environmental Health Officer recommends that the following conditions are placed on any permission given:

1) The wind turbine permitted under this planning permission shall not produce noise that exceeds 35dB(A) L A90, 10 min during wind speeds of up to 10 metres per second when measured at the curtilage of neighbouring properties (except Winslade Farm). Measurements shall be carried out according to guidance contained in ETSU-R-97 The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms. 2) The wind turbine permitted under this planning permission shall not produce noise that exceeds 45dB(A) L A90, 10 min during wind speeds of up to 10 metres per second when measured at the curtilage of Winslade Farm. Measurements shall be carried out according to guidance contained in ETSU-R-97 The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms.

Highways/Access

The highway engineer has no objections. Access is through the existing farm.

Ecology/Biodiversity

Following the submission of the application a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) was submitted at the request of the Councils Ecologist. This assessment has been passed to the Councils Ecologist for comment.

The PEA concludes that the proposed turbine does not pose a significant risk to bats (including high risk species) based on: - Meeting the 50m standoff between blade tip and habitat features (as per Natural England guidance) - The field and proposed turbine position being within an elevated, exposed position - The management of the field reducing the appeal to bats for foraging.

The conclusions within the appraisal are well reasoned, including the recommendation for future management of the hedgerows.

The Appraisal concludes that the wind turbine in its proposed position is unlikely to pose any significant threat to bird populations, this opinion is consistent with the RSPB response.

Historic Environment

Concerns have been raised in letters of objection with regards to impact upon Molescombe House being a Grade II Listed Building. The barns adjacent to the House are also Grade II Listed. Molescombe House is approximately 550 metres to the east of the proposed wind turbine siting.

The proposed wind turbine will be visible from Molescombe House, but not in its entirety. The upper section of the structure will be visible. In terms of setting, there is a sense of separation between the house and adjacent barns and the outlook from the site is of fields (with mature hedges) and individual trees and wooded areas. The trees and rolling landscape would soften the impact of the proposed turbine, having a relatively small impact on the house and adjacent barns.

The Senior Planning and Conservation Officer raises no objection. Molescombe House has the closest relationship to the proposed wind turbine. Other historic features have been considered including Chillingtons Conservation Area and Listed Buildings, Listed Buildings at Frogmore and Scheduled Monuments in-between East Charleton and West Charleton. However, due to the topography and distances involved, it is considered that the proposed wind turbine will not adversely impact the setting of these historic features. Owing to the position of the Conservation Area and Listed Buildings at South Pool, the proposed wind turbine would not be visible from this hamlet. This is also the case with the Listed Buildings at Kernborough.

Tourism

Concerns have been raised regarding the impact upon tourism and the local economy. The effect on tourism and the local economy will be limited in consideration of the single proposed wind turbine.

Other Matters

Comments have been made regarding whether local people will be employed to erect and maintain the proposed wind turbine. In response to this point the planning system can not control who is employed to carry out these operations.

In response to concerns regarding precedent, the Council determines each application on its own merits.

With regards to comments suggesting the real incentive is financial benefit rather than renewable energy, this is not a planning matter. This is the same when considering comments made in relation to subsidies going to large companies that are not local.

In relation to concerns over the risk of collapse, the topple zone is the same as the height of the wind turbine being 34.2m from ground to blade tip. The nearest field boundary is approximately 60m away. Behind this field boundary is a road. The falling distance will not impact upon public land.

Finally, in response to impact upon house prices, it is important to note that this is not a material planning consideration.

Planning Policy

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that, if regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the Planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

National Planning Policy Framework

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

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

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

Sustainable development has been made a core principle underpinning government planning guidance which is considered to be central to the economic, environmental and the social success of the country. These three principles are to be pursued in an integrated manner to provide for solutions and deliver multiple goals. The Framework considers that there need not be an inherent contradiction between achieving increased levels of development and protecting and enhancing the environment, provided that development is planned and undertaken responsibly and the planning system is expected to take an active role in guiding development to sustainable solutions.

Core planning principles Paragraph 17 sets out the core land-use planning principles which should underpin decision- taking which include

• always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings;

• take account of the different roles and character of different areas, promoting the vitality of our main urban areas, protecting the Green Belts around them, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it;

• support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate… and encourage the use of renewable resources (for example, by the development of renewable energy)

• contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment and reducing pollution. Allocations of land for development should prefer land of lesser environmental value, where consistent with other policies in this Framework;

• conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of this and future generations

Climate change & renewable energy Section 10 of the NPPF relates to “Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change”.

Paragraph 93 states that “Planning plays a key role in helping shape places to secure radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimising vulnerability and providing resilience to the impacts of climate change, and supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure. This is central to the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development.”

Paragraph 97 states that to help increase the use and supply of renewable and low carbon energy, local planning authorities should recognise the responsibility on all communities to contribute to energy generation from renewable or low carbon sources. They should:

● have a positive strategy to promote energy from renewable and low carbon sources; ● design their policies to maximise renewable and low carbon energy development while ensuring that adverse impacts are addressed satisfactorily, including cumulative landscape and visual impacts; • consider identifying suitable areas for renewable and low carbon energy sources, and supporting infrastructure, where this would help secure the development of such sources; ● support community-led initiatives for renewable and low carbon energy, including developments outside such areas being taken forward through neighbourhood planning;

Paragraph 98 states that, when determining planning application local planning authorities should not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy and also recognise that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions

Conserving and enhancing the natural Environment Section 11 of the guidance relates to conserving and enhancing the natural environment.

Paragraph 109 states that “the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:- • Protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils; • Recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services; • Minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government’s commitment to the halt of the overall decline in biodiversity, including establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures;

Paragraph 115 deals with designated areas stating that great weight should be given to protecting landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. The conservation of wildlife and cultural heritage are important considerations in all these areas, and should be given great weight in National Parks and the Broads.

Residential amenity

Paragraph 123 deals with the issue of noise. The paragraph states that planning policies and decisions should aim to: • avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development; • mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on health and quality of life arising from noise from new development, including through the use of conditions; • identify and protect areas of tranquillity which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason.

Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

Section 12 of the NPPF deals with conserving and enhancing the historic environment.

Para 131 states – “In determining applications, local planning authorities should take account of:- • The desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of the heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; • The positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and • The desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness” Para 132 states – “When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional.”

National Guidance Other national guidance includes:- • the Companion Guide to PPS22 – Renewable Energy; and • PPS5 Historic Environment Practice Guide. • the Department for Energy and Climate Change’s Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN – 1) and National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN – 3);

National Energy Policy contained within the National Policy Statement (NPS) EN-1 and EN3 have been subject to public consultation and Parliamentary scrutiny and published as national policy in respect of renewable energy infrastructure since July 2011.

Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1): The Overarching Energy Infrastructure Policy NPS-RN1 sets out the national need for the different types of energy infrastructure required over the next 10 – 15 years in respect of reducing emissions, with a government target is for around 30% of electricity to be generated from renewable sources. This will primarily be from wind generation (on-shore and off-shore) with smaller amounts of solar and ‘bio-energy.’ It also sets out five key principles which are:

• If the development contributes to meeting the need and is in accordance with the NPS, then consent should be given;

• Regard should be had to local impact reports (produced by local authorities) and other matters considered relevant and important;

• National, regional and local benefits (environmental, social and economic) should be taken into account;

• Adverse impacts should be considered within the context of longer term and cumulative impacts together with proposed mitigation; and;

• If the adverse impacts (after mitigation) outweigh the benefits, then consent should be refused.

If the development contributes to meeting the energy need and is in accordance the NPS- EN1 then consent should be given. The Overarching Energy Policy NPS-EN1 must be read in conjunction with the technology specific NPS (in this case EN3), relevant to wind energy infrastructure development in England and Wales, and, is likely to be a material consideration in decision making on applications that are determined under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) or Section 36 of the Electricity Act (DECC applications). In the event of a conflict with existing planning policy, the NPS should be followed.

National guidance includes:- • the Companion Guide to PPS22 – Renewable Energy; and • PPS5 Historic Environment Practice Guide. • the Department for Energy and Climate Change’s Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN – 1) and National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN – 3); • Climate Change Act 2008 • English Heritage wind energy and the historic environment document • The Devon Landscape and Renewable Energy Advice Note 2 • SHDC Interim Renewable Energy Guidance • Secretary of State’s Ministerial Statement 6 th June 2013

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 DP2 Landscape Character DP3 Residential Amenity DP4 Sustainable Construction DP5 Conservation and Wildlife DP6 Historic Environment DP7 Transport, Access & Parking DP15 Development in the Countryside

Case Officer: Mr Chris Mitchell Parish: Totnes

Application No : 56/0226/14/F

Agent/Applicant: Applicant: Miss C Froud Miss C Froud Minerva Minerva Cherry Cross Cherry Cross Totnes Down Hill Totnes Down Hill Totnes Totnes TQ9 5EU TQ9 5EU

Site Address: Land at SX8044 5996 West of Moat Hill House, Moat Hill, Totnes

Development: Demolition of existing disused storehouse and replacement with one- storey dwelling and ancillary car parking for one car. Modification of stone wall to improve access to the site.

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

Case Officer: Debbie Crowther Parish: South Brent

Application No : 45/1843/13/F

Agent/Applicant: Applicant: Mr John Brownless Mr John Brownless Thorn Meadow Thorn Meadow Stidston Stidston South Brent South Brent TQ10 9JT TQ10 9JT

Site Address: Thorn Meadow, Stidston, South Brent, TQ10 9JT.

Development: Retrospective application for change of use of land to accommodate 1 mobile home, 3 touring caravans and provision of utility room.

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 Local Ward Member supports South Brent Parish Council’s views on this application.

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Conditions 1. Accord with plans 2. Use of the site (Gypsies and Travellers) 3. Foul sewerage details/scheme to be submitted and approved within 3 months of decision and timescale for implementation 4. One mobile home and one touring caravan limit 5. No external floodlighting 6. No commercial vehicles above 3.5 tons unladen 7. Closure of existing access 8. Details of new access 9. Landscaping details 10. Maintenance of cesspool

Key issues for consideration: The applicants are Romany Gypsies and their habit of lifestyle means that they fall within the definition of “gypsies and travellers” for the purposes of assessing the development against planning policy.

Weighing in favour of the scheme is the proximity to South Brent, small scale nature of the proposal which will not dominate the hamlet of Stidston. Furthermore it is considered that the development will have an acceptable impact with regard to residential amenity and highways. The site does not lie within any landscape designated areas and it is considered that the development would have a low impact on the character of the landscape.

The limited harm caused to the environment, and hence to the public interest, by the proposed development, has to be weighed against the significant weight in favour of the scheme due to the lack of available sites to meet general accommodation need for Gypsy/Travellers.

Site Description: The application site lies to the south of the hamlet of Stidston on the minor road that runs between New Cross and Stidstone Cross. The site is immediately to the south of the A38 and approximately 1.5km to the east of South Brent. An underpass to the A38 lies between the application site and the residential properties at Stidston. The land is within the open countryside, outside any settlement development boundary. The site lies outside any landscape designated area.

The nearby settlement of South Brent is a large village on the southern edge of Dartmoor. The village has a good range of community facilities including shops/services, primary school, village hall and community centre.

The Proposal: The planning application seeks planning permission for residential use of land for a single pitch Gypsy static site. The development comprises the siting of one static mobile home, three touring caravans and a utility room on the land.

The application is part retrospective in that the applicants already live on the land in a touring caravan and a bore hole tank, utility room/kitchen is already sited on the land.

The application proposes to regularise the residential occupation of the land and replace the existing touring caravan with a static mobile home and three touring caravans.

When questioned about the need for three touring caravans, the applicants stated that two of these units were proposed for future use by their children.

Consultations :

• County Highways Authority Non overriding sustainability objection. Recommends conditions attached to any approval.

• Natural Environment and Recreation Team No objection

• Environmental Health No objection

• Drainage Engineer No objection. Recommends condition attached to any planning permission.

• Environment Agency Requested further information on the non-mains foul drainage system.

• Plymouth & Devon Racial Equality Council Support

• South Brent Parish Council Refusal. This development is isolated from the community and not sustainable; the development is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework. It is an unwarranted intrusion into the countryside and is inappropriate at this close proximity to the A38 Devon Expressway. There are concerns about the health implications of the abstraction of water without the approval of the Environment Agency. A second access point is shown on the plan.

Representations:

3 letters of representation have been received from third parties which raise the following concerns:

• Impact on listed buildings • Out of keeping with National Park setting • Out of character with the area • Undesirable change of use of land, brownfield site would be more suitable • Unsuitable location due to proximity of A38 and proximity of pylons

Relevant Planning History There is no planning history relevant to the application site.

ANALYSIS

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Other material considerations include the National Planning Policy Framework (and its Technical Guidance) and Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS) together with the District Council’s approach to dealing with the immediate need and the demand/need for sites and detailed development management matters relating to sustainability, highways, amenity, flooding and landscape.

The main issues that will be considered in this section are: 1. General need for and availability of gypsy sites 2. Sustainability considerations 3. The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the landscape and visual impact 4. Impact on nearby neighbours 5. Highway safety 6. Whether any conflict with policy or other harm identified is outweighed by the benefits of the scheme, i.e. the planning balance.

Need for Gypsy and Traveller Sites within the South Hams Government guidance, published in March 2012 at the same time as the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), “Planning Policy for Traveller Sites,” set out a requirement for locally set pitch targets rather than criteria. The document states that where Local Planning Authorities cannot show a 5 year land supply of gypsy traveller sites this will be a significant material consideration in application assessment.

Within South Hams there are currently only seven approved permanent pitches (at three different locations). A further site at Broadley Park for a 16 pitch transit site (11 sites allocated for Plymouth City Council and five allocated for South Hams), is at the time of writing this report awaiting issue following completion of a S106 agreement pursuant to Development Management Committee resolution to grant permission. There are no allocated pitches and overall there is a substantial and recognised shortfall in provision with the District which contrasts with a need for 51 residential pitches and 5 transit pitches identified within the 2006 Needs Assessment. This was a minimum figure only up to 2011, after which a 3% per annum growth is anticipated. The assessment formed part of the now abandoned South West Regional Spatial Strategy. An updated Gypsy and Traveller Needs Assessment is currently in preparation. This will inform a pitch requirement in the new Local Plan. Although Development Policies Development Plan Document Policy DP10 was directly linked to the RSS and was intended to provide for Gypsy and Traveller Sites which are proposed outside of the requirement identified in the RSS Assessment, site selection criteria laid down within DP10 in respect of sustainability of location with good access to essential services and facilities, and conformity with other plan policies, particularly having regard to landscape character, design, access and safety and amenity are still considered relevant.

Although the transit site shortfall would appear to have been addressed, the shortfall in permanent pitches is significant and whilst accommodation for the settled community is increasing substantially in the South West, there is still little provision for Gypsy and Traveller families. It is apparent therefore that the current proposal would contribute positively to meeting demand for permanent pitches in South Hams.

The latest Government guidance “Planning Policy for Traveller Sites 2012,” requires that Local Housing Strategies should demonstrate how accommodation needs, including those of gypsies and travellers, will be met, and requires Development Plan Documents to identify suitable/appropriate sites. As South Hams has not identified such sites as part of the Local Development Framework process, the application site must therefore be determined having regard to its planning merits in the context of need and site sustainability and suitability.

The lack of available sites to meet general need for Gypsies/Travellers is a matter that should be afforded significant weight.

Location and Sustainability Issues Due regard must be given to the sustainability of the site being provided. Although the site lies outside the Development Boundary for South Brent, the National Planning Policy Framework states that sustainable development should be allowed and an assessment needs to be made, irrespective of the site’s position outside the Development Boundary, of the sustainability of the site. The site lies directly adjacent to the A38. The site is approximately 1.2 miles from South Brent Primary School and a similar distance to the shops, businesses, village hall and community centre offered by the village. Officers acknowledge that the detached location of the site from South Brent is likely to result in journeys to the village by car rather than on foot.

Whilst lying within the hamlet of Stidston and being physically detached from the main village centre, officers consider that the site is nevertheless in very close proximity to good roads and the settlement of South Brent where Gypsy/Traveller families can benefit from fundamental services including health, education, shopping facilities, rescue services, public transport and employment opportunities.

The site is in a relatively accessible location which would not conflict with the requirement in Planning Policy for Traveller Sites for gypsy sites to be strictly limited in open countryside away from existing settlements. Policy C of Planning Policy for Traveller Sites deals with sites in rural areas and the countryside. Policy C states that when assessing the suitability of sites in rural and semi-rural settings, local planning authorities should ensure that the scale of such sites does not dominate the nearest settled community. The proposal is for a small scale permanent residential site for one Gypsy family. The development will conform to the requirements of Policy C by reason of its small scale nature.

The planning officer view is that on balance this particular site on the outskirts of a large settlement offers a suitable position for a rural exception site to meet a local gypsy need. This view is supported by the Plymouth & Devon Racial Equality Council.

Comments from Plymouth & Devon Racial Equality Council Plymouth & Devon Racial Equality Council supports the planning application. The following is a summary of the comments made: • The applicants meet the definition of having ‘gypsy status,’ they are both from Romany families and have lived in mobile accommodation all their lives. • The applicants now intend to settle for the purpose of education of their two children. • The older child (born in 2007) is registered at South Brent Primary School and the younger child (born in 2010) is at the pre-school. • Both children have settled in very well and their parents are keen that they succeed in education. Without a permanent base, and if the family had to move from site to site, the children’s education would be disrupted. • The family are registered with their local GP surgery in South Brent and are therefore able to access health services. • The site itself is in a sustainable location as it is within very easy reach of the primary and pre-schools, shops, and other services in the village of South Brent. There is a regular bus route very near by.

Landscape Character and Visual Impact The proposed development will be very well screened by both the landform and surrounding trees, with the only external views being to the A38. However, these views are negligible due to the high speed of the A38 and the landform changes between it and the site.

Notwithstanding the submitted information, a landscaping scheme is considered to be necessary which consists of hedge planting along the roadside boundary of the development site. This will help to screen the close-quarter views from the road immediately to the south of it.

The proposed application site is considered suitable in terms of impact on the landscape. The site is outside any national or local protected landscape area. The low density of the development, and its layout and position within the landscape will not result in any significant harm to the landscape character of the area. It is not considered that the development causes any significant harm to the streetscene or the visual amenities of the local area.

Given the distance from listed buildings, and the position of the site in relation to the listed buildings, officers consider that the development would have a neutral impact on the setting of the nearby listed buildings which are located on the opposite side of the underpass to the A38.

Impact on Neighbours: Due to existing screening offered by mature vegetation and the distance of the proposed development from adjacent neighbouring properties, the proposal will result in an acceptable neighbour relationship.

There are no other overriding material planning considerations in relation to detrimental impact on adjacent neighbours.

Officers are of the opinion that the development is of a small enough scale so as not to impact unacceptably on residential amenity. The small scale development will not dominate the hamlet of Stidston.

Highways/Access: The Highway Authority notes the proposals are for a mobile home, 3 touring caravans and utility area for a gypsy family. The Highway Authority would therefore raise a non overriding sustainability objection to this application.

It is noted the access is to be moved to a more appropriate position. The Highway Authority is happy the new proposed access provides adequate visibility.

If the Planning Authority is minded to approve the application the Highway Authority recommends the conditions are attached to any planning approval relating to the stopping up of the existing access and details of the new access.

Other Matters:

A condition is recommended to control external lighting given the site’s location within the countryside.

In terms of drainage, following comments from the Environment Agency, the applicant has carried out percolation tests which have shown that the only feasible means of sewerage disposal is by cesspool. The Council’s Drainage Engineer has raised no technical objection to the application and has recommended a drainage condition is attached to any planning permission. Should Members be minded to approve this retrospective application, officers recommend that a condition is imposed requiring submission of drainage details within 3 months of the date of the planning decision and agreement of a suitable timescale for implementation.

In terms of the borehole for water supply, Environmental Health officers have stated that a private water supply is acceptable as long as it complies with the Private Water Supply Regulations 2009. The advice from the Environmental Health officer is that there is sufficient space on site to enable an adequate separation distance between any septic tank and the borehole so as not to interfere with the operation of the borehole.

The close proximity of the site to the A38 will result in a certain impact on amenity of the occupants by virtue of road traffic noise etc. However, it is recognised that lack of available land for gypsies/travellers means that such sites need to be considered and their negative points balanced against the need to provide land for gypsies/travellers. Environmental Health officers have raised no technical objection to the residential use of the site by Gypsies/Travellers. On the matter of proximity of the site to power lines, officers are mindful that there is no legal separation distance between residential use and power lines.

Officers consider that the residential use of the site should be restricted to one static mobile home and one touring caravan. It is the applicants desire to obtain planning permission for a further two touring caravans for their children. However, the children are at present aged approximately 7 and 4 years old. It will be many years before there is a necessity to provide them with their own accommodation. Given the site’s location in the countryside where development is strictly controlled and given the need to ensure that the development does not dominate the existing hamlet, officers consider it necessary to impose a condition on the planning permission to limit the use of the site to one family unit. Given the age of the children, the proposal for an additional two touring caravans is considered to be premature. Once the children are of an age that requires them to have their own accommodation then this matter can be revisited through a further planning application and their personal need to be taken into consideration and balanced against other material planning considerations. However, if planning permission were granted now for an additional two touring caravans this could potentially result in additional families using the site and consequent concerns about scale of the development in relation to the small hamlet of Stidston.

Conclusion Due regard has been given to the objections that have been raised which raise pertinent material planning considerations and these have to be balanced against material planning issues which are in favour of allowing development on the site.

Planning Balance

The site lies outside any landscape designated area, development of the site would have a low impact on the wider countryside setting. The limited harm caused to the environment, and hence to the public interest, by the proposed development, has to be weighed against the significant weight in favour of the scheme due to the lack of available sites to meet general accommodation need for Gypsy/Travellers. Also weighing in favour of the scheme is sustainability of the location and the acceptable impact of the development with regard to residential amenity and highways.

Planning officers consider that the proposal would go some way to meeting the identified need for permanent Gypsy and Traveller sites in the South Hams. The location of the site on the edge of a large village and adjacent to the A38 is considered to be suitable in terms of both sustainability and visual impact on the landscape. It is considered that there is no overriding material planning consideration to justify withholding planning permission and therefore the recommendation for this application is conditional approval.

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

Planning Policy

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

National Guidance

The National Planning Policy Framework The National Planning Policy Framework sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. The policies in the NPPF, taken as a whole, constitute the Government’s view of what sustainable development in England means in practice for the planning system. There are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. These dimensions give rise to the need for the planning system to perform a number of roles: ● an economic role – contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation; and by identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure; ● a social role – supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being; and ● an environmental role – contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; and, as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity, use natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy.

Communities and Local Government (CLG) – Planning policy for traveller sites March 2012 (Replaces Circ 01/2006 Planning for Gypsies and Travellers & Circ 04/2007 Planning for Travelling People). To be read in conjunction with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Policy A: Using evidence to plan positively and manage development - local planning authorities should use a robust evidence base to establish accommodation needs to inform the preparation of local plans and make planning decisions.

Policy B: Local planning authorities should ensure that traveller sites are sustainable economically, socially and environmentally. Local planning authorities should, therefore, ensure that their policies:

1. promote peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community 2. promote, in collaboration with commissioners of health services, access to appropriate health services 3. ensure that children can attend school on a regular basis 4. provide a settled base that reduces the need for long-distance travelling and possible environmental damage caused by unauthorised encampment 5. provide for proper consideration of the effect of local environmental quality (such as noise and air quality) on the health and well-being of any travellers that may locate there or on others as a result of new development 6. avoid placing undue pressure on local infrastructure and services 7. do not locate sites in areas at high risk of flooding, including functional floodplains, given the particular vulnerability of caravans 8. reflect the extent to which traditional lifestyles (whereby some travellers live and work from the same location thereby omitting many travel to work journeys) can contribute to sustainability.

Para 3 The Government’s overarching aim is to ensure fair and equal treatment for travellers, in a way that facilitates the traditional and nomadic way of life of travellers while respecting the interests of the settled community.

Para 4 In decision taking Government aims in respect of traveller sites:

• to increase the number of traveller sites in appropriate locations with planning permission, to address under provision and maintain an appropriate level of supply • to reduce tensions between settled and traveller communities in plan-making and planning decisions • to enable provision of suitable accommodation from which travellers can access education, health, welfare and employment infrastructure • for local planning authorities to have due regard to the protection of local amenity and local environment.

Policy C: Sites in rural areas and the countryside

Para 12 When assessing the suitability of sites in rural or semi-rural settings, local planning authorities should ensure that the scale of such sites does not dominate the nearest settled community.

Policy H: Determining planning applications for traveller sites

Para 20 Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Para 21 Applications should be assessed and determined in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development and the application of specific policies in the National Planning Policy Framework and this planning policy for traveller sites.

Para 22 Local planning authorities should consider the following issues amongst other relevant matters when considering planning applications for traveller sites:

• the existing level of local provision and need for sites • the availability (or lack) of alternative accommodation for the applicants • other personal circumstances of the applicant • that the locally specific criteria used to guide the allocation of sites in plans or which form the policy where there is no identified need for pitches/plots should be used to assess applications that may come forward on unallocated sites • that they should determine applications for sites from any travellers and not just those with local connections

Para 23 Local planning authorities should strictly limit new traveller site development in open countryside that is away from existing settlements or outside areas allocated in the development plan. Local planning authorities should ensure that sites in rural areas respect the scale of, and do not dominate the nearest settled community, and avoid placing an undue pressure on the local infrastructure.

Para 24 When considering applications, local planning authorities should attach weight to the following matters:

• a. effective use of previously developed (brownfield), untidy or derelict land • b. sites being well planned or soft landscaped in such a way as to positively enhance the environment and increase its openness • c. promoting opportunities for healthy lifestyles, such as ensuring adequate landscaping and play areas for children • d. not enclosing a site with so much hard landscaping, high walls or fences, that the impression may be given that the site and its occupants are deliberately isolated from the rest of the community

Para 25 Subject to the implementation arrangements at paragraph 28, if a local planning authority cannot demonstrate an up–to-date five-year supply of deliverable sites, this should be a significant material consideration in any subsequent planning decision when considering applications for the grant of temporary planning permission.

Para 26 Local planning authorities should consider how they could overcome planning objections to particular proposals using planning conditions or planning obligations including:

• a. limiting which parts of a site may be used for any business operations, in order to minimise the visual impact and limit the effect of noise • b. specifying the number of days the site can be occupied by more than the allowed number of caravans (which permits visitors and allows attendance at family or community events) • c. limiting the maximum number of days for which caravans might be permitted to stay on a transit site.

Annex 1

1. For the purposes of this planning policy “gypsies and travellers” means:

Persons of nomadic habit of life whatever their race or origin, including such persons who on grounds only of their own or their family’s or dependants’ educational or health needs or old age have ceased to travel temporarily or permanently, but excluding members of an organised group of travelling showpeople or circus people travelling together as such.

Communities and Local Government (CLG) – Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites Good Practice Guide 2008.

PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT

Case Officer: Mr Matthew Jones Parish: West Alvington

Application No : 59/0202/14/F

Agent : Applicant: Joe Owen Technical Drawing Mr G Dean 1 Barnfield 2 Preston Cottages East Allington West Alvington Totnes TQ7 3BG TQ9 7QR

Site Address: 2 Preston Cottages , West Alvington TQ7 3BG

Development: Householder application for vehicle access

Scale 1:4800

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. 2013. Scale 1:4800 For internal reference only – no further copies to be made

Reason item is put before Committee:

The ward member has requested this application be added to the committee agenda as the proposed access falls short of the recognised standard of safety.

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Conditions

Standard Time Limit Accord with plans Completion of landscaping prior to use of access Additional details – surface water drainage Construction Environment Management Plan prior to commencement No gates within 6m of the public highway Hard surface construction for first 6m

Key issues for consideration:

The main issues are the visual impact of the proposed development and highways safety. The two existing dwellings and Preston View Farm share what officers consider to be a highly unsafe vehicular access.

Although the proposed access, in isolation, does not meet safety standards, it will lead to a reduction in use of the existing access, which falls well short of safety guidelines. This is considered to lead to a net improvement for highways safety. Great weight is given to the professional advice of the highways officer who supports this scheme and states it represents a ‘ significant improvement’ .

Site Description:

No.2 Preston Cottages is one of two semi detached former agricultural workers dwellings located in an isolated position adjacent Preston View Farm within the parish of West Alvington. The dwellings currently share an access at the brow of the hill. The existing vehicular access on to the A381 has poor visibility for both vehicles exiting and approaching the site and is considered by officers to be hazardous. The dwelling’s curtilage follows the highways and runs in a northerly direction downhill.

Further northwards is an existing vehicular access serving Preston View Farm which was granted planning permission in 2011 under application reference: 59/2938/11/F. The application site is within designated countryside and within the South Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

The Proposal:

Planning permission is sought for a new vehicular access off the main road (A381) which runs between the settlements of Kingsbridge and Salcombe. The new access is located to the northern edge of the residential curtilage of the property.

Access will be direct from the highway and will lead to a turning area beyond which will be located a gateway and drive which will lead to the existing parking area. Indigenous planting is proposed surrounding the turning area.

Consultations :

• County Highways Authority

No objection – Request four conditions (full response within file)

• West Alvington Parish Council

Objection for the following reasons –

• Inadequate visibility for vehicles leaving the proposed access • Inadequate visibility for vehicles using the main stretch of road • There could be three access points in a short stretch of road • Serious speed issues on this stretch of road which have resulted in fatal accidents • Has Devon highways Conducted a speed survey?

This is an exceptionally dangerous stretch of road and while the present access is wholly unacceptable to users safety adding an additional exit does not make it right

Representations:

None received at the time of writing this report

Relevant Planning History

59/2938/11/F - Field adjacent to Preston Cottages, Malborough, Kingsbridge - Farm access track - Conditional approval

59/2137/13/PREHH - Pre - application enquiry for proposed entrance from road to dwelling for vehicle access - Officer support forthcoming

Analysis

The existing vehicular access which serves the two dwellings and Preston View Farm is considered by officers to be highly dangerous and unsatisfactory. Although officers have suggested that an holistic approach from the three separate landowners to share a new access would be the best long term solution, officers cannot enforce such an agreement. The applicants have pursued the option of a private access onto their land. This application has been submitted following an extended pre-application enquiry with both planning and highways officers which culminated in the offer of officer support.

Visual impact

With regard to the visual impact, the application utilises landscaping to minimise the impact of the development. Rough, indigenous planting is proposed in order to reflect the existing character of the roadside. Planting is also proposed immediately behind the access in order to retain the continuity of the boundary vegetation and prevent an incongruous and noticeable opening. This application is therefore considered to accord with the objectives of landscape and design policies DP1, DP2, CS7 and CS9.

Highways safety

The Devon County Highways Officer raises no objection to this proposal, requesting instead a number of planning conditions. It is important to acknowledge that the proposed access does fall below the recognised standard for safety. However, it is also considered to represent a safer alternative to the existing, dangerous access. The opinion of the highways officer is that this new access represents a ‘ significant improvement’ with regard to highways safety.

For this reason the highways officer has proactively supported this application. Unfortunately the closing of the existing access is not possible as it is shared with the occupants of No1 Preston Cottages and Preston View Farm.

Although the concerns of the Parish Council are acknowledged, the professional advice of the specialist highways officer has concluded that the proposal will lead to an overall safer environment for road users.

For the reasons outlined above this application is considered acceptable and in accordance with the relevant development plan policies. This application is therefore recommended for approval subject to appropriate conditions.

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

Planning Policy

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 DP5 Conservation and Wildlife DP7 Transport, Access & Parking DP15 Development in the Countryside

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.

Application Nos. 62/3013/13/VAR & 62/3014/13/VAR

Site Address: Land at Milizac Close, Yealmpton

Development:

(i) Removal of condition 9 of planning approval 62/1461/13/RM (ref: 62/3013/13/VAR)

(ii) Removal of condition 6 of planning approval 62/2948/11/O (ref: 62/3014/13/VAR)

Applicant: Taylor Wimpey

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: These applications are being placed before the Committee at the request of the Ward Member who disagrees with the officer recommendation and concurs with the opinion of the Parish Council.

Recommendation: Conditional approval for both applications.

Condition to be attached to both approvals. 1. Accord with Code of Practise document “Control of Pollution & Noise from Demolition & Construction Sites”

Key issues for consideration: The conditions in question are similarly worded and were attached to an original hybid application consent and subsequent approval of reserved matters. They require the construction of a temporary access road to the north of the phase 1 residential development. The purpose of this temporary road was to allow construction traffic to access the phase 2 part of the site, as and when development of phase 2 eventually commenced, without having to travel through the phase 1 residential development.

The applicant has submitted these application because it is considered that there no longer remains an overriding need for these conditions bearing in mind circumstances have changed since the imposition of the conditions. At the time of granting the hybrid permission (consisting of detailed consent for phase 1 of the residential development and outline consent for phase 2) and the subsequent reserved matters approval for the phase 2 residential development, it was envisaged that Phases 1 and 2 would be carried out at separate times. Both phases are now being carried out as one building operation programme so access for construction vehicles can enter phase 2 land via the phase 1 development access roads. The applicant has stated that heavy construction traffic usage through the phase 1 site will cease by the end of June 2014, with only lighter contractor vehicles/vans accessing via phase 1 site thereafter.

The Parish Council has objected to the removal of these conditions on grounds of detriment to residential amenity for occupiers of the phase 1 dwellings. Whilst phase 2 of the development has commenced immediately post phase 1 construction, many of the phase 1 properties have been sold and are occupied. The Parish Council is of the opinion that the temporary construction access route should be constructed to separate heavy construction traffic from residents of the phase 1 units.

No objections have been raised by DCC Highways.

SHDC’s Natural Environment & Recreation Team has raised no objection.

The Environmental Health Officer has raised no objections to the applications in terms of satisfactory measures having been submitted to deal with potential disturbance by way of noise, dust and mud.

The Proposal: Condition 6 of the original outline/hybrid approval (i.e giving detailed consent for 60 residential units in phase 1 and outline approval for about 45 units in phase 2), which is proposed for removal, is as follows:

Prior to commencement of any works to construct the residential units within Phase 2 of the development hereby permitted, a temporary construction access road shall have been provided to the north of the Phase 1 residential development and within the approved employment/business (Use Classes B1, B2 or B8) area to enable all construction traffic to travel to and from the Phase 2 residential site without having to access the Phase 1 residential part of the site. This temporary construction access road shall be provided in accordance with details previously submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, such details to include siting, means of hardening and drainage of said road. Following completion, or prior to occupation, of the last dwelling (whichever is the earlier)of the phase 2 development, (or such other timetable as may be previously approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority), the temporary construction access road on the land identified as “Relocated Allotments” and “Ecological Mitigation Area” on the approved drawing no CD986.EX.P01 Rev H shall have been removed in its entirety and the land made good and used in perpetuity in accordance with the requirements of any other conditions attached to this permission.

Reason: In the interests of public safety and convenience.

Condition 9 of the subsequent approval of reserved matters for 45 residential units comprising phase 2, which is proposed for removal, is as follows:

Prior to commencement of any works to construct the residential units within Phase 2 of the development hereby permitted, a temporary construction access road shall have been provided to the north of the Phase 1 residential development and within the approved employment/business (Use Classes B1, B2 or B8) area to enable all construction traffic to travel to and from the Phase 2 residential site without having to access the Phase 1 residential part of the site. This temporary construction access road shall be provided in accordance with details previously submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, such details to include siting, levels, topographical survey, means of hardening and drainage of said road and cross sections. Following completion, or prior to occupation, of the last dwelling (whichever is the earlier)of the phase 2 development, (or such other timetable as may be previously approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority), the temporary construction access road on the land identified as “Ecological Mitigation Area” on the approved drawing SHDC1 shall have been removed in its entirety and the land made good and used in perpetuity in accordance with the requirements of any other conditions attached to this permission.

Reason: In the interests of public safety and convenience.

Consultations : DCC Highways Engineer does not object to the removal of these conditions.

SHDC’s Natural Environment & Recreation Team offers no objection. SHDC’s Environmental Health Officer raises no objection subject to adherence to a Code of Practise document submitted by the developer entitled “Control of Pollution & Noise from Demolition & Construction Sites.”

Representations: Yealmpton Parish Council recommends objection. The Parish Council is of the opinion the condition should be retained to protect the safety and privacy of occupants of the Phase 1 development. Builders traffic through the phase 1 development is unacceptable to the Parish Council, hence its opinion that the temporary construction access road to Phase 2 should still be constructed.

The application was advertised in the local newspaper and by way of site notices. No third party representations have been received by the Council. However, the Ward Member advises that he has received several objections from residents in phase 1. An anonymous objection from a resident in phase 1 has been forwarded to the case officer by the Ward Member stating the main concern to be the interaction between residents and the developer; conflict between large lorries and parked cars; and phase 1 roads not being kept washed down on a daily basis by the developer.

Relevant Planning History 62/2948/11/O. Hybrid planning application for mixed use development comprising: Full application for 60 residential units, allotments, public open space and other associated works (phase 1) ; Outline application comprising 2,500sqm employment development (Use Classes B1, B2 or B8) and a further phase of residential development (u p to 45 units) (phase 2) with means of access to be approved at this stage. Conditional approval. 12/09/2012.

62/1461/13/RM. Reserved Matters Application for the approval of 45 residential dwellings with associated parking, access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale pursuant to outline planning permission 62/2948/11/O (to include discharge of conditions 7 (foul drainage), 10 (materials), 11 (boundary treatments), 13 (surface water management) and 22 (protection of trees) of outline planning permission 62/2948/11/O). Reserved matters approval. 27/09/2013.

Analysis Two separate applications have been submitted to remove the two conditions in question. Whilst this single report has been prepared to cover both applications, the Committee is requested to note that it will be required to make two separate decisions as applicable to both the applications to remove the two conditions.

A letter dated 11 th December 2013 has been submitted by the agent as part of these application submissions. It sets out reasons why the agent considers that conditions 6 and 9 can be construed as ultra vires and do not meet all the tests required for the imposition of planning conditions as set out in Circular 11/95 and the NPPF and subsequent High Court decisions.

Reference has been made to uncertainty that the temporary construction access can now be delivered as it extends beyond land now owned/controlled by the applicant. There is therefore the question of enforceability and reasonableness in pursuing such conditions.

Officers have had regard as to whether it is reasonable and necessary to retain these conditions. Circumstances have changed in that phase 2 was initially intended to be carried out sometime after completion of phase 1, thus meaning phase 1 residents would have become “established” and settled within their environment. The temporary construction access road would have allowed heavy construction traffic in particular to access the phase 2 site whilst avoiding the road network in phase 1, thus reducing any undue inconvenience and detriment to the residents.

However, phase 2 has commenced immediately following construction of the phase 1 dwellings and many of the phase 2 dwellings are at foundation and slab level. The developer anticipates that the majority, if not all, heavy construction traffic to the phase 2 site will have ceased by end of June 2014. Therefore, the question arises as to the reasonableness and necessity in requiring the developer to construct the temporary road and how expedient it would be for the Council to initiate enforcement action to construct the temporary road if these current applications are refused permission.

Initially, it had not been considered necessary to carry out consultation with statutory bodies because access to Phase 2 is proposed over land currently being developed, rather than any “Greenfield” area. However, mindful of the objection from the Parish Council, subsequent consultation has taken place with DCC Highways, SHDC’s Natural Environment & Recreation Team (NERT) and SHDC’s Environmental Health Officer (EHO).

DCC Highways Engineer has offered the following advice:

My understanding is the roads leading through the site would have been tracked for a refuse lorry and therefore would in theory practically allow construction traffic to pass any parked cars. I note from the S38 drawing that the road is wider than 4.8m from the main road through to Phase 2. Manual for Streets 2007 specifies a lorry can pass a car at this width.

My understanding is whilst Phase 1 Roads are intended to become Highway Maintainable at the Public Expense the S38 Agreement currently remains unsigned and therefore the roads are private.

So whilst I may think the alternative route is a good idea, unfortunately thinking something is a good idea would not hold any weight at appeal.

I could therefore not object to the removal of the condition.

In addition, concern has been raised by the agent about the impact of such a temporary construction road on the approved ecological mitigation area, together with the costs of providing the road (as opposed to the alternative of using the access road for construction traffic through the Phase 1 development currently being constructed) and then removing it and restoring the land for ecological mitigation. In response, the NERT Team does not consider that this to be a compelling reason not to provide the temporary road, particularly as a temporary storage compound has been provided elsewhere on the land which, post construction, will be used as an ecological mitigation area. On the other hand, there is no overriding reason from a landscape and ecological perspective as to why the road should be provided, hence NERT offers no particular comment or objection about these applications.

The objections raised by the Parish Council have been forwarded to the Council’s EHO for consideration. The EHO has raised no objections in principle subject to the strict implementation of a Construction Management Plan controlling the activities of construction traffic through the phase 1 development. In response, the agent has made the following comments:

For the duration of Phase 2 at Yealmpton all access for operatives, material and other deliveries will be accessed via the entrance off of Milizac Close.

Taylor Wimpey are aware of the interface with members of the public in already occupied units from Phase 1 and therefore have adopted the following control measures.

1. Deliveries only allowed between the hours of 8.30am and 6.00pm Mondays to Fridays inc.; 9.00am to 1.00pm Saturdays, and no such vehicular movements taking place on Sundays and Bank/Public Holidays

2. All deliveries to phone a minimum of half an hour before arrival to site to ensure that the site can accommodate the delivery. Delivery to wait away from site if no access

3. Once on site, deliveries to report to the gateman at the site entrance. All deliveries to be banked through the existing development to the site entrance. All deliveries to then be banked off of the development.

4. Speed limit to be maximum 10mph

5. Pedestrian access via footpaths

6. All site operatives to park within the confines of the site

7. All suppliers and subcontractors of Taylor Wimpey have been made aware of the above site restrictions and told they must adhere to them at all times. This has been expanded upon in a Code of Practise document entitled “Control of Pollution & Noise from Demolition & Construction Sites” which is on the website for perusal. The EHO confirms that this deals with the potential disturbance by way of noise, dust and mud in a satisfactory manner and should be conditioned accordingly.

Conclusion The reasoning behind originally proposing the conditions has now changed. Whilst the objections of the Parish Council are noted, Officers are of the opinion that there is now no overriding need to construct the temporary access road. It is recommended that both planning applications be granted planning permission allowing the conditions in question to be removed accordingly, but with a new condition attached to these permissions requiring strict adherence to the submitted and agreed site access construction plan.

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

Planning Policy South Hams LDF Core Strategy CS1, CS2, CS3, CS6, CS7, CS8, CS9, CS10, CS11.

Development Policies DPD DP1, DP2, DP3, DP4, DP5, DP6, DP7, DP8, DP9, DP11, DP14, DP15.

South Hams Local Plan SHDC 1

Case Officer: Mr Ian Lloyd Parish: Totnes

Application No : 56/2564/13/F

Agent/Applicant: Applicant: Martyn Ward Mr V Gaye Pinnacle Architects Ltd Devon Ceramics The Studio Station Road Breakwater Court Totnes Berry Head Road TQ9 5JR BRIXHAM Devon TQ5 9AG

Site Address: Devon Ceramics, Station Road, Totnes TQ9 5JR

Development: Retrospective application for retention of existing toilets and construction of new storage unit M, together with alterations to existing car parking

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. 2013. Scale 1:2500 For internal reference only – no further copies to be made

Reason item is being put before Committee: Referred by Local Member Cllr Alan Gorman so that the Committee have an opportunity to weigh the importance of Devon Ceramics to the local economy against other material planning considerations, together with the mitigating steps already undertaken by the applicant.

Recommendation: Conditional approval Delegated authority is sought for the wording of appropriate conditions, including those identified below.

Conditions: 1. Time limit (12 months) 2. In accordance with approved plans 3. Store used for storage purposes ancillary to business and not a separate business 4. Removal of unauthorised structures 5. Materials 6. Landscaping 7. SUDS drainage 8. 10 year temporary consent

Key issues for consideration: Issues including the commercial needs of the business for the development and the highways parking/ turning arrangements; Flood risk issues; Character and visual amenity impacts; neighbouring amenity impacts;

Summary: While business support is high on the Council's agenda, this is not and cannot be to the total exclusion of all other material planning considerations. In the circumstances of the case, as submitted, the proposal would result in the replacement of some of the unauthorised storage (and associated decking) with alternative storage in a more appropriate form and location. It would also regularise an unauthorised toilet block. However, the new storage building, located on the approved parking area, would result in loss of potential parking. The initial layout proposed inappropriate spaces and inadequate turning and would interfere with the wider car park circulation. The parking layout has been amended accordingly. The proposal aims to balance the competing demands of the business for storage and parking. This is, to a great extent, the business decision of the applicant – whether the need for parking or storage is greatest. It must be noted that other current submissions involve retrospective applications for the retention of unauthorised works to the car park and for unauthorised extensions to remain, which, if refused, may result in enforcement action and the possible further reduction in available parking.

It is also a consideration that very recently, part of the Devon Ceramics premises have been advertised for lease and must be surplus to requirements. This begs the question as to why, if parking demands are so great, can part of the hard surfacing area be given over to further storage, when there is capacity within the existing building. Again, it may be a matter for the business owner, but by continually introducing new business to the site and thereby intensifying the uses, parking and storage demands may increase. At some point a site will reach its capacity.

Officers consider that the proposal, involving as it does the removal of some of the unauthorised structures and storage, and the limited loss of potential parking, can, on balance, be recommended for approval in the interests of the business. However, this is a finely balanced recommendation, particularly in the light of the recent circumstances outlined above.

In the event Members take a different view, the expediency of enforcement action against the unauthorised structures should therefore be considered. With regard to those structures, in view of the loss of functional flood plan, river bank and landscaping and the sub-standard workmanship, it is considered expedient to enforce and seek redress for the harm caused by the unauthorised works.

Site Description: The application site is part of the car park and servicing area of Devon Ceramics. Devon Ceramics is a commercial enterprise incorporating retail and service uses including cafe. There are other units within the area, a wine Merchant, veterinary practice and brewery, whose staff and customers use the wider available parking on an allocated basis.

The part of the car park the subject of the application forms part of Devon Ceramics' operations.

It is proposed to remove unauthorised storage buildings and the structures upon which they reside and reconfigure the site to create a new store for goods, amended servicing area and revised car parking layout. The car parking layout has been revised during the course of consideration to avoid conflict with car parking/turning arrangements within the wider car park.

The wider car park has been extended southwards, encroaching onto what was a landscaped area and part of the bank of the watercourse it abuts. A number of trees (subject to a Group TPO) have been felled, vegetation removed and the land excavated to accommodate the works. In December, part of the extended car park was dug up and removed.

What happens in this area is the subject of another application, but any approved layout has a direct bearing on the proposed and approved parking arrangements and vice versa.

The Proposal: This application is part retrospective as it relates to the retention of the existing toilets and part proposal as it relates to the construction of a new storage unit M, together with proposed alterations to the existing car parking. The proposed plans indicate the removal of other unauthorised storage and supporting structures and this aspect of the scheme is considered to be positive and is welcomed.

The existing toilet block has been in situ some time, located to the North Eastern edge of the building, within an area of unauthorised extended patio. It is claimed that the patio has been in place longer than 4 years, although no Certificate of Lawfulness has been sought to regularise this.

There is a question about the proximity of the public sewer to the toilet block, but while SWW expressed concerns, they are not pursuing this matter.

The new storage building is located on part of the approved parking area. The building is limited in size and while of a temporary nature and appearance, is inoffensive.

Consultations :

• County Highways Authority Standing advice no comment

Town/Parish Council: All 3 applications were considered by the Town Council who comment as follows: The business owner was present and outlined the history of the site from his perspective. Cllr Wellwood raised the concerns from the Environment agency regarding the impact on the waterway and the removal of trees without permission. Cllrs consider the application in stages as follows:

1. The retention of some of the additional car parking – this was agreed in principle subject to the removal of the 8 structurally unsound spaces and the remaining spaces being proven to be safe for use, a rail being added for safety and replanting of the removed trees. 2. The relocation of storage M – this was agreed in principle. 3. The retention of buildings A to E was agreed subject to them not causing a detrimental impact on the river bank and being structurally safe.

Others: Environment Agency (EA) No objections in principle to this proposal, however you may wish to obtain further details from the applicant on how the building has been designed to minimise the consequences of flooding before the application is determined.

Whilst we agree that the development could be deemed appropriate in Flood Zone 3 outside of the functional flood zone, the increase in use and storage space does, in fact, increase flood risk. The flood risk assessment states that the “building has been constructed to minimise the consequences of flooding” however no evidence of this has been supplied.

• South West water (SWW) advise they will not permit any construction over the sewer and a sewer diversion is required. Only foul drainage will be permitted to the foul or combined sewer. SUDS will be required.

Representations: None

Relevant Planning History 56/1641/09/F COU of part of building to veterinary practice and wine retail outlet etc, Granted 11.2.2010. The approved parking layout is PIN810(10)02 for 32 spaces in this area.

TPO No. 60 3.8.2009

There are 2 other current applications for retrospective/ proposed development.

ANALYSIS:

Principle of Development/Sustainability: The premises are within the settlement boundary for Totnes, where development is acceptable in principle and could be said to generally accord with Core Strategy policy CS1 strategic objective SO17 regarding the location of development and retention of existing services and SO16 supporting the role of market towns.

The purpose of the proposal is an attempt to increase authorised storage space, remove some unauthorised storage and associated supporting structures and minimise the loss of parking provision to meet the needs of the business. With the success of the Devon Ceramics business and the other businesses, demands for storage has increased and with the introduction of a wine warehouse, veterinary practice and brewery, both storage needs and demand for parking has increased

Unacceptable unauthorised storage development will be removed as part of the proposals. However, this may still need to be the subject of enforcement action, about which more will be said below.

Policy DP14 seeks to protect employment land. While this is not an allocated employment site, the explanatory text supporting the policy advocated the Council's support to ensure that employment sites continue to be appropriate for employment uses.

There is support for the continued use of this site for employment generating purposes and workable storage and parking arrangements are part of that. Notwithstanding this support, there are other relevant material planning considerations.

CS1 S09 seeks to secure high quality, locally distinct economic development. The removal of the unauthorised storage and supporting structures are required due to policy conflicts for reasons described in detail below.

It should be noted that an area within Devon Ceramics current operational floorspace has very recently been advertised as surplus to requirements and available for lease. This throws into further question the alleged urgent demand for additional storage. Whether further storage development is considered to be sustainable in the light of this recent change of circumstances is debatable.

Design/Landscape: Policy DP1 requires high quality design. The standard of storage development undertaken to date, essentially wooden sheds built on decking cantilevered out over the watercourse bank, erected on wooden stilts in a shanty-type form development is considered to be unsustainable, inappropriate in terms of local character, distinctiveness or any other design criteria and cannot be supported. Furthermore the nature of the construction raises issues in relation to flood risk, undertaken as it is within the functional flood plain. The removal of these unauthorised structures is considered to be of significant importance, both in terms of reducing flood risk and restoring the environmental potential of the river bank. The proposed replacement with building 'M' is considered acceptable in principle (notwithstanding the recent advertisement of part of the business for lease as surplus to requirements).

Externally, use is to be made of part of an existing rendered block wall. The remainder is to be horizontal timber boarding, with a mono pitch felt roof. Majestic wine has horizontal timber boarding albeit at the upper level and a condition is recommended to ensure a close match so that there is some element of cohesion with the main host building.

The toilet block is housed within a structure with the appearance of a wooden shed. This is located on unauthorised decking. This structure and decking preceded the later kitchen and other unauthorised storage structures. It is further from the watercourse and therefore raises fewer issues in relation to flood risk and the loss of watercourse bank.

While not of the type of quality of permanent development expected within South Hams, in this instance, given the lack of a public view of the toilet and decking, that the removal of other unauthorised structures forms part of the proposals and having regard to the business needs of the applicants, on balance no objections are raised to the retention of the toilet block. Building M is of a temporary form of construction and should therefore be only the subject of a temporary consent. Ten years is recommended. Landscaping details will be required and required to be implemented at the earliest opportunity and conditions are recommended to reflect this.

Neighbour Amenity: Unauthorised development has denuded the bank of trees, shrubs and foliage which screened the site car park from the view of neighbours fronting Priory Drive on the opposite side of the watercourse. In doing so and extending the car park closer to those neighbours and erecting the unauthorised storage sheds, the amenities of occupiers have been adversely affected as a result.

This application affords the opportunity to redress the situation. Sheds will be removed which are nearer to the neighbouring occupiers and replaced with development further away. The removal of supporting structures of shanty-like appearance will result in an improved relationship and there is also an opportunity to restore the landscaped area/ watercourse bank with a landscaping scheme which will help re-instate the screen over time. However, this also depends in part upon the outcome of other applications and possible enforcement action.

Highways/Access: The LPA considers the approved parking layout to be as shown on Drawing No. PIN810(10)02 for 110 spaces arising from the approval of application reference 56/1641/09/F granted 11.2.2010. The plan shows 4 parking spaces adjacent to where building M is proposed, with 2 spaces opposite, parallel with the vets.

The 5 spaces indicated on the layout originally submitted were unworkable, interfering with access and turning arrangements for the wider car park. The revised plan now shows 5 spaces adjacent to building M with no spaces adjacent to the vets. The layout shows a total of 110 spaces.

Unauthorised works undertaken in 2013 resulted in revised parking arrangements which are the subject of a separate application and possible enforcement action. The proposed layout needs to be consistent with the approved layout and any subsequent amended plan to be approved. The revised plan achieves this.

The proposal aims to balance the competing demands of the business for storage and parking. The site may be approaching its capacity. The greater the number of businesses, the greater the storage and parking demands may be likely to be. It is noted that recently a part of Devon Ceramics has been advertised for lease as surplus to requirements. This may have a bearing on the claimed need for further storage and parking.

Other Matters: Sustainable construction/ flood risk - development within Flood zone 3 outside the functional flood zone could be appropriate in principle. Increased storage use does increase risk. The proposal claims construction will minimise the consequences of flooding but as no evidence of how this is achieved has been supplied a condition is necessary. In this way, sustainable drainage, the risk of sediment and contaminated material entering the watercourse and flood risk, can be addressed.

Foul/sustainable drainage – SWW are concerned about the proximity of development to the sewer and foul discharge only to be to the public foul or combined sewer. Sustainable drainage to deal with surface water is also required.

Timing – In view of the harm caused by this development it is proposed to ensure the wording of conditions will result in early implementation, both to remove unauthorised structures and enable the implementation of landscaping as soon as practical.

Conclusion/Summary : Retrospective permission for the toilet block and permission for the proposed new purpose built storage building will assist the commercial operation. The removal of some of the unauthorised storage and the cantilevered structures are considered to be significant positive aspects of this proposal, including reducing flood risk and overcoming visual harm. The revised parking layout is consistent with the authorised layout in this part of the car park and circulation space is not compromised. The recent advertisement of a significant part of the existing commercial premises as surplus to requirements and available for lease calls into question the validity of the demand for increased storage. In view of the removal of unauthorised structures by agreement and the benefits to the business from the additional development, despite an apparent recent surplus capacity of floorspace within the existing building, on balance, approval is recommended. In the event this application is refused, consideration will need to be given to the expediency of enforcement action against the unauthorised works including the cantilevered decking, storage structures and WC.

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

Planning Policy NPPF: Economic, social and environmental role to sustainable development (para 7); presumption in favour of sustainable development (para 14); core principles include always seeking to ensure high quality design and conserving the natural environment (para 17); building a strong economy and support for businesses (para 21); requiring good design (paras 60, 64); meet the challenge of flooding (para 103); conserving and enhancing the natural environment (paras 101, 103, 103, 109, 118, 120, 121, 123, 125); determining applications (paras 196, 197).

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

South Hams Local Plan SHDC 1 Development Boundaries

Case Officer: Mr Ian Lloyd Parish: Totnes

Application No : 56/2566/13/F

Agent/Applicant: Applicant: Mr Martyn Ward Mr V Gaye Pinnacle Architects Ltd Devon Ceramics Ltd The Studio Station Road Breakwater Court Totnes Berry Head Road TQ9 5JR BRIXHAM Devon TQ5 9AG

Site Address: Devon Ceramics Ltd, Station Road, Totnes, TQ9 5JR,

Development: Retrospective application for retention of existing car parking spaces 9- 16 (inclusive)

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. 2013. Scale 1:1250 For internal reference only – no further copies to be made

Recommendation - Refusal: As this is a retrospective application, in the event of a refusal there will be a need to consider the expediency of enforcement action. In view of the loss of functional flood plan, river bank and landscaping, the visual impacts, including the relationship with and impacts on neighbouring occupiers and the sub-standard workmanship, it is considered expedient to enforce and seek redress for the harm caused by the unauthorised works.

Reasons for refusal: The extended car park, by reason of encroaching into a landscaping area, the bank of a watercourse and functional flood plain, its sub-standard construction, its appearance and its proximity to neighbouring residential occupiers, has resulted in the loss of trees (the subject of a Group Tree Preservation Order) and natural vegetation, impacted upon the bank of the watercourse, increasing flood risk, detracting from the character and visual amenities of the area, its biodiversity value and the outlook and amenities of neighbouring occupiers, contrary to policy CS1 SO9 of the South Hams Local Development Framework Core Strategy December 2006, policies DP1, DP2 , DP3 , DP4 , DP5 and DP7 of the South Hams Local Development Framework DPDPD July 2010 and advice in the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraphs 14, 17, 60, 64,109, 118, 120, 121, 123, 125, 196, 197).

Summary: While business support is high on the Council's agenda, this is not and cannot be to the total exclusion of all other material planning considerations. In the circumstances of the case the flood risk, other environmental and neighbour impacts are considered to significantly outweigh any small commercial benefit from the additional tandem parking spaces for staff that might be discerned from the revised parking arrangements. The extended hardstanding is considered to be entirely unsatisfactory and the benefits (of creating what amounts to very few additional parking spaces) perceived by the applicant are not considered by the Local Planning Authority to outweigh harmful impacts include the erosion of the quality of the local environment and the attendant flood risk issues arising from the loss of functional flood plain and river bank, through the creation of the additional parking spaces, many of which are in tandem, an arrangement considered unsuitable to a fluid commercial environment. Overall the development is considered to be sub-standard and any commercial benefits wholly disproportionate to the negative impacts of the proposals.

Legal action has already been taken by the Environment Agency and the site owners prosecuted as a result of the works to extend the adjacent area of car park. It is understood further action to secure the removal of this unauthorised area car park, has been initiated and is pending. Though related to the same development, that matter falls for consideration under a different regulatory regime. If removal is secured by the EA, enforcement action by the Local Planning Authority may not be necessary. However, the applicant would have a right of appeal in the event of a refusal and the expediency of enforcement action should therefore be considered.

Site Description: The application site is part of the car park and former landscaped area of Devon Ceramics, together with the bank of the adjoining watercourse. Devon Ceramics is a commercial enterprise incorporating retail and service uses including cafe. There are other units within the area, including a wine Merchant, veterinary practice and brewery, whose staff and customers use the wider available parking on an allocated basis.

The part of the car park the subject of the application forms part of Devon Ceramics' operations. For the purposes of calculating car parking numbers, the area between the Veterinary unit and the river has been used to calculate numbers.

The car park has been extended southwards, encroaching onto what was a landscaped area and part of bank of the river it abuts. A number of trees (subject to a Group TPO) have been felled, vegetation removed and the land excavated to accommodate the works.

The river bank upon which the car park has been extended is functional flood plain.

In December, part of the extended car park was dug up and removed. The applicant has been prosecuted by The Environment Agency for those unauthorised works.

The Proposal: The proposal seeks retrospective permission for the retention of the existing car parking spaces 9 -16 (inclusive) as shown on the submitted plan. This drawing also shows parking spaces to the East, purporting to accord with car parking approved under application reference 56/1963/98/F.

As recognised in the Design & Access Statement 1.0 Introduction, the approved parking layout arises from the change of use (COU) of part of one of the buildings building to veterinary practice and wine retail outlet etc. (Ref 56/1641/09/F) granted 11.2.2010. The approved parking layout is shown on Drawing. No. PIN810(10)02 for 32 spaces in this area.

Measurements taken on-site indicate that the Eastern-most 8 spaces extend further when measured on site, than indicated on the submitted plan, which is inaccurate in this regard. However, at a site meeting attended by the applicant and his advisers, planning, enforcement and EA officers, it was agreed that the discrepancy is minor – a matter of tens of millimetres – and provided agreement can be reached about the reinstatement of the bank and replacement planting, this minor discrepancy can be overlooked.

Barriers to the car park are also proposed to prevent vehicles from inadvertently entering the watercourse. No details are supplied, but would inevitably reduce the length of the bays available for parking, 9 of which are already below standard. However, in the event the application is approved, the safety of users should take precedence and a condition be imposed requiring the submission and approval of barriers.

Consultations :

• County Highways Authority - Standing advice

• Town/Parish Council - All 3 applications were considered by the Town Council who commented as follows: The business owner was present and outlined the history of the site from his perspective. Cllr Wellwood raised the concerns from the Environment agency regarding the impact on the waterway and the removal of trees without permission. Cllrs consider the application in stages as follows:

• Environment Agency: Objection to the current proposal on flood risk grounds. The development is contrary to the NPPF which makes it clear that this type of development should not be permitted within Flood Zone 3b (functional floodplain). The works also increase flood risk by destabilising the bank, increasing sediment transport and debris on the downstream culvert screen. They further have the potential to result in the deterioration in the ecological status of the watercourse contrary to the Water Framework Directive (WFD).

The reasons for this position are set out in the analysis section of this report.

• SWW No objections

Representations: None

Relevant Planning History 56/1641/09/F COU of part of building to veterinary practice and wine retail outlet etc. Granted 11.2.2010. The approved parking layout is PIN810(10)02 for 32 spaces in this area.

TPO No. 60 3.8.2009

There are two other current applications for retrospective/ proposed development.

ANALYSIS:

Development Policies DPD Policy DP14 seeks to protect employment land. While this is not an allocated employment site, the explanatory text supporting the policy advocates the Council's support to ensure that employment sites continue to be appropriate for employment uses.

There is support for the continued use of this site for employment generating purposes and workable parking arrangements are part of that. Notwithstanding this support, there are other relevant material planning considerations.

The purpose of the application proposal is an attempt to secure retrospective permission for works undertaken to increase parking provision to meet the needs of the business. With the success of the Devon Ceramics business together with the introduction of a wine warehouse, veterinary practice and brewery, demand for parking has increased. The assertion is that the parking requirements were beyond the capacity of the site to cope and the parking area was extended in order to meet the demand from staff and visitors. Policy DP7 Part 1 of Transport, Access and Parking, advises development should: a, provide priority to pedestrians, cyclists and users of public transport, over the private car. This will be achieved, in part, through the creation of links between new development and existing pedestrian, cyclist and public transport networks; b. provide for safe, easy and direct movement for those with mobility difficulties; c. have safe and adequate means of access, egress and internal circulation/turning arrangements for all modes of transport relevant to the proposal; d. not materially impair highway safety or traffic movement; and e. not detract or conflict with the transport function of the road.

Comment - Having regard to the above, the emphasis is clearly on provision for the car. The approved car parking layout has been revised without permission to substantially increase parking capacity. This is achieved partly through the creation of sub-standard spaces, partly through the loss of landscaping and through the unauthorised extended area, used to provide tandem parking. A tandem parking layout for commercial use is largely unworkable. It is claimed the tandem spaces will be used by staff. Such use is also difficult to manage. The spaces are not designated (although could be), but then when not in staff use, would be under-utilised, defeating the objective to increase the level of available parking for visitors for the benefit of the business.

Part 2 of policy DP7 requires that: The level of car parking should be in accordance with the parking standards set out in appendix 5. These, together with residential parking and the level of cycle parking, will be assessed on a flexible site by site basis depending on the provision of public transport and access to local facilities.

Comment - Maximum parking standards for non food retail are 1 space per 20 sq. m. For land uses not covered in these standards, the most stringent regional or local standards should apply.

The Devon Ceramics building, including the wine store and the cafe conservatory additions has a footprint of approximately 1100 sq. m. There is also a mezzanine level and the veterinary practice/ brewery is approximately 350 sq. m. The retail area excluding mezzanine would generate a maximum 55 spaces.

The approved layout (Ref 56/1641/09/F) is for 107 cars (Drwg No. PIN810(10)(02) Rev C; The layout as existing (unauthorised) is for 118 cars (Drwg No. PIN916(10)(02); The application (Ref 56/2566/13/F) is for 118 cars (Drwg No. PIN916(10)(02); Current application (Ref 56/2564/13/F) is for 110 cars, with Building M, excluding the tandem parking (Drwg No. PIN912(10)(02) Rev B dated 26.09.13.

There is not known to be a travel plan or any encouragement for non car travel. The layout ties up 8 spaces in tandem, for staff parking. Overall the approach to parking, one of maximising numbers, even at the expense of sub-standard spaces and with an element of tandem parking, is not consistent with good practice or the principles of sustainable development.

Policy CS1 strategic objective S09 seeks to secure high quality, locally distinct economic development, with which the proposal conflicts for reasons described in detail below.

Design/Landscape: Development Polices DPD Policy DP1 requires high quality design. The standard of development, with car park surfacing already showing indications of subsidence, is not considered to be of a sufficient design quality, expected of new development in South Hams.

The unauthorised felling of trees subject to a Group TPO, building out over and denuding the former landscaped area and watercourse bank is not only not of the expected quality but seriously harmful to the local environment and is considered to be wholly unacceptable. The local distinctive character arose largely from the tree lined, heavily vegetated watercourse bank, which has been destroyed to accommodate the car park. It is necessary to consider whether, in retrospect, there is anything that can be done to satisfactorily redress matters.

Where the extended car park has been taken back, there is some capacity for replacement planting. However there is inadequate capacity for meaningful and effective replacement planting where tandem parking spaces have been introduced. This loss of functional flood plain presents significant problems both in terms of flood risk and for the further erosion of the bank, causing problems of silting and potentially water quality issues. A vegetated bank would act to filter particles from car park run-off before entering the river. A reduced and denuded bank offers no such opportunities.

The proposal is contrary to policy DP1 (a), failing to be based upon a good understanding of the site context, involving the removal of protected trees with public amenity value and affecting the natural environment of the river. The proposal is contrary to DP1 (c, e and f) in failing to create an attractive, safe and stimulating environment for users and neighbours, detracting from and failing to enhancing views, largely denuded as the land now is of trees and once dense screen foliage and ground cover vegetation.

For similar reasons to those above, the proposal also conflicts with policy DP2 (b, c, d, and e) and DP5 (3) relating to the loss of protected trees.

Barriers are proposed, though no details have yet been supplied as to their appearance and therefore visual impacts cannot be assessed. From a site meeting, if to be approved, a light touch is preferred, using timber rails to a height not exceeding 1m.

Neighbour Amenity: The development has largely denuded the bank of trees, shrubs and foliage which once screened the car park from the view of neighbours fronting Priory Drive on the opposite side of the watercourse. In doing so and extending the car park closer to those neighbours, the amenities of existing and future occupiers have been adversely affected through a loss of outlook and visual amenities, increased noise and nuisance from car engines, users, exhausts and headlights , including impacts outside daylight hours.

The proposal lacks any consideration for the amenities of residential neighbours and is contrary to policy DP3 (, 2 a, b, d and e).

Highways/Access: The LPA considers the approved parking layout to be as shown on Drawing No. PIN810(10)(02) for 107 spaces arising from the approval of application reference 56/1641/09/F granted 11.2.2010.

Unauthorised works undertaken in 2013 resulted in a layout of 118 spaces, 16 of which were in tandem. This layout replaced the 107 approved spaces. Since the initial unauthorised works, further works to remove 8 of the unauthorised spaces has taken place, completed in December 2013. Consequently 118 spaces (of which 8 are in tandem) are now proposed. In summary, an additional 11 spaces have been achieved (8 of which are in tandem), within an entirely unsatisfactory layout, as a result of the unauthorised works.

All of the works have been carried out with the aim of improving the level of off-street car parking provision. In this aim, the proposal is an unmitigated failure. The pre-existing approved car parking layout for 107 spaces functioned to meet the high parking demand from the businesses now operations from the site, within what allowed for an attractive landscaped setting. The layout now provides for 118 spaces within a sub standard layout, spaces 9-16 of which are in tandem and largely unmanageable.

The proposal is considered contrary to policy DP7 (1 b and c).

To date there is no adequate means to prevent vehicles overshooting the spaces and ending up in the watercourse. Proposed barriers would address this. This would further shorten the bays fronting the watercourse. The visual impact of barriers in such close proximity to neighbours is also a consideration.

Each case is determined on its own merits. However, it should be noted there is also a current application, in part for a new storage building, building M, which proposes a layout with 110 spaces.

Regardless of the outcome of this or the other applications, it is considered that the unplanned expansion and alterations to the car park, have resulted in considerable increased flood risk, environmental damage and amenity impacts, without in any way significantly improving parking provision on the site or contributing to the ease with which customers access spaces.

SUSTAINABLE CONSTRUCTION/ Flood Risk The proposal has denuded the watercourse bank, with rubble waste left still left strewn over the bank from the construction at the time of the last site visit. This increases the risk of sediment and contaminated material entering the watercourse, increasing flood risk. Notwithstanding the submitted structural calculations, the stability of the structure and whether it is fit for purpose is an issue, subsidence being evident already, with water gathering where the tarmac has sunk in some spaces, notably at the Western end. Increased impermeable hard surfacing within the functional flood plain is unacceptable on flood risk grounds. The Environment Agency object on flood risk grounds and, having recently prosecuted the business for contraventions are pursuing further legal action independently of the planning process to secure the removal of the additional unauthorised car park for which this retrospective planning permission is sought. The development is considered to be contrary to policy DP4 (2, 3, 4, 5 and 7).

The Environment Agency comments are:

Flood Risk: Part of the site is defined as functional floodplain and the development type proposed is neither ‘water-compatible’ nor ‘essential infrastructure’. The NPPF makes it clear that this type of development should not be permitted within functional floodplain.

Parts of the development not in the functional floodplain are however still part of Flood Zone 3a (high probability of flooding). Whilst the site benefits from the Malt Mill Lake flood storage area upstream (maintained by South West Water) this does not change the flood risk classification for development planning purposes. Some improvements to the dam structure are likely to be required when the threshold for coverage by the Reservoirs Act is lowered. This has factored in our consideration of the flood risk on the site.

The development increases flood risk by destabilising the bank, increasing sediment transport and debris on the downstream culvert screen. The proposals to protect the bank would not be required had the constraints on the site being properly considered.

Permeable paving should be used for any increase in hard standing within the car park.

Water Framework Directive: The proposal may lead to a risk of deterioration in the ecological status of the watercourse and we remind the local planning authority that they also have a duty to have regard to the requirements of the WFD.

The application does not follow good design principles and removes a 2m width of riparian corridor within central Totnes which leads to a deterioration of the of the river which contravenes WFD.

Flood Defence Consent: The works are subject to Flood Defence Consent. Such works could only be consented if they did not lead to an increase in flood risk, which could be mitigated, and no risk of deterioration in ecological status under the water framework directive. The EA recommend that planning approval for the works should only be given once the requirements for Flood Defence Consent have been met.

Biodiversity : Whilst not a protected site, the Council is charged with protecting existing habitats and species, which includes safeguarding networks through linked corridors. The embankments of watercourses fulfil help this requirement. In this regard, the proposal is contrary to policy DP5(1 c, e, f) and DP5(3) in relation to the loss of trees protected under a Group TPO.

Enforcement : In the event the retrospective application is refused permission, consideration will need to be given to the expediency of enforcement action. While it is possible the Environment Agency will secure the removal of the unauthorised car park extension through legal action instigated under a separate control regime, nevertheless enforcement proceedings are considered to be necessary in the event a planning appeal may be lodged.

Conclusion/ Summary: Devon Ceramics and the other businesses operating from the site offer employment and valued local services. There is strong policy support and Guidance aimed at promoting prosperity in sustainable locations. This location is considered to be sustainable, close as it is to the town centre and public transport.

However, this support cannot be at the expense of all other material planning considerations. The local townscape has been significantly adversely affected by the loss of trees, foliage and the destruction of the embankment which is functional floodplain and also acted as a buffer to screen the car park from the gardens of dwellings opposite. Tandem parking is not supported and the layout proposed fails to provide an acceptable balance between the parking needs of the businesses and the flood risk, character, visual and residential amenities of the area. Importantly, the erosion of the bank and its substitution with hard surfacing increases flood risk and the impacts of this cannot be set aside in the interests of additional parking, ostensibly for use by staff. The harm arising from the works carried out significantly outweigh any benefits arising from the proposal and accordingly refusal is recommended. In the event the retrospective application is refused permission, consideration will need to be given to the expediency of enforcement action. While it is possible the EA will secure the removal of the unauthorised car park extension through legal action instigated under a separate control regime, this cannot be relied upon and nevertheless enforcement proceedings are considered to be necessary in the event a planning appeal may be lodged.

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

Planning Policy National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF): Economic, social and environmental role to sustainable development (para 7); presumption in favour of sustainable development (para 14); core principles include always seeking to ensure high quality design and conserving the natural environment (para 17); building a strong economy and support for businesses (para 21); requiring good design (paras 60, 64); meet the challenge of flooding (para 103); conserving and enhancing the natural environment (paras 101, 103, 103, 109, 118, 120, 121, 123, 125); determining applications (paras 196, 197).

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

South Hams Local Plan SHDC 1 Development Boundaries

Case Officer: Mr Ian Lloyd Parish: Totnes

Application No : 56/2568/13/F

Agent/Applicant: Applicant: Mr Martyn Ward Mr V Gaye Pinnacle Architects Ltd Devon Ceramics Ltd The Studio Station Road Breakwater Court Totnes Berry Head Road TQ9 5JR BRIXHAM Devon TQ5 9AG

Site Address: Devon Ceramics Ltd, Station Road, Totnes, TQ9 5JR,

Development: Retrospective application for retention of existing kitchen and freezer room.

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. 2013. Scale 1:1250 For internal reference only – no further copies to be made

Reason item is being put before Committee : Referred by Local Member Cllr Alan Gorman so that the Committee have an opportunity to weigh the importance of Devon Ceramics to the local economy against other material planning considerations, together with the mitigating steps already undertaken by the applicant.

Recommendation – Refusal: As this application is a retrospective application, in the event of a refusal there will be a need to consider the expediency of enforcement action.

Reasons for refusal: The extensions, by reason of their sub-standard form of construction, appearance and siting, encroaching into a landscaping area, the bank of a watercourse and functional flood plain, has resulted in the loss of natural vegetation, impacted upon the bank of the watercourse, increasing flood risk, detracting from the character and visual amenities of the area and biodiversity value contrary to policy CS1 SO9 of the South Hams Local Development Framework Core Strategy December 2006, policies DP1, DP2, DP4, DP5 and DP7 of the South Hams Local Development Framework DPD July 2010 and advice in the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraphs 14, 17, 60, 64,109, 118, 120, 121, 123, 125, 196, 197).

Key issues for consideration: Issues including the commercial needs of the business for the development; Flood risk issues; Character and visual amenity impacts; neighbouring amenity impacts;

Summary: While business support is high on the Council's agenda, this is not and cannot be to the total exclusion of all other material planning considerations. In the circumstances of the case, as submitted, the proposal would result in the retention of some of the unauthorised kitchen and freezer room storage (and associated decking), in effect regularising this unauthorised development. The proposal aims to secure approval in the business interests of this commercial operation. Notably, the kitchen and freezer room, relocated from within the building in order to expand the capacity of the cafe, are considered by the applicant to be of significant importance to the continued success of the business. The competing demands of the business for increased working and storage space must be balanced against the impacts of the unauthorised development. It must be noted that as the current submission is retrospective, seeking approval for the retention of unauthorised works, namely the kitchen and freezer room additions and the decking they sit on, if refused, consideration will need to be given to the expediency of enforcement action.

It is also a consideration that very recently, part of the Devon Ceramics premises has been advertised for lease and must be surplus to requirements. This begs the question as to why, if demands for space continue to be so great, the facilities cannot be relocated within the space being advertised for lease, when there is capacity within the existing building. Again, it may be a matter for the business owner, but by continually introducing new business to the site and thereby intensifying the uses, parking, storage and demands for space may increase. At some point a site will reach its capacity.

Officers consider that the proposal, involving as it does the retention of some of the unauthorised structures, accommodation and storage which have a detrimental impact on flood risk and the local environment, is unacceptable. Notwithstanding the impacts on the business that relocating the kitchen and freezer facilities will have on the business, there is clearly capacity on site to accommodate them and given the identified harm, refusal is recommended

Consideration will need to be given to the expediency of enforcement action against the unauthorised structures. With regard to those structures, in view of the loss of functional flood plain, river bank and landscaping and the sub-standard form of construction, it is considered expedient to enforce and seek redress for the harm caused by the unauthorised works, which is considered to be disproportionate to and outweighs any commercial benefits.

Site Description: The application site is part of the former apron of the Devon Ceramics building, together with the bank of the adjoining watercourse. Devon Ceramics is a commercial enterprise incorporating retail and service uses including cafe. There are other units within the area, a wine Merchant, veterinary practice and brewery, whose staff and customers use the wider available parking on an allocated basis.

The part of the site the subject of the application is at the rear and not visible in public views. The bank-side vegetation has been removed entirely and the buildings erected on wooden stilts, cantilevered out over the bank. There is visible evidence of erosion around the base of the supporting stilts, which can only worsen over time, increasing risks.

The kitchen is a wooden shed. The freezer room is partially open to the elements. Both structures sit on top of the cantilevered decking, linked to the rear walkway behind the building.

The Proposal: Retrospective permission is sought for the retention of the unauthorised existing kitchen and freezer rooms.

Consultations :

• County Highways Authority - Standing advice no comment

Environment Agency: Object to the current proposal on flood risk grounds. The development is contrary to the NPPF which makes it clear that this type of development should not be permitted within Flood Zone 3b (functional floodplain). The development also restricts access to the top of the river bank for maintenance and increases flood risk by destabilising the bank, increasing sediment transport and debris on the downstream culvert screen. They further have the potential to result in the deterioration in the ecological status of the watercourse contrary to the Water Framework Directive (WFD).

The reasons for this position are set out in the analysis section of this report.

Representations: None

Relevant Planning History 56/1641/09/F COU of part of building to veterinary practice and wine retail outlet etc, Granted 11.2.2010.

TPO No. 60 3.8.2009

There are 2 other current applications for retrospective/proposed development.

ANALYSIS:

The purpose of the proposal is an attempt to regularise unauthorised building development. With the success of the Devon Ceramics business and the introduction of a wine warehouse, veterinary practice and brewery, demand for storage space has increased beyond the capacity of the site to cope.

Policy CS1 seeks to secure high quality, locally distinct economic development, with which the proposal conflicts for reasons described in detail below.

Development Policies DPD Policy DP14 seeks to protect employment land. While this is not an allocated employment site, the explanatory text supporting the policy advocated the Council's support to ensure that employment sites continue to be appropriate for employment uses. There is support for the continued use of this site for employment generating purposes and workable storage and other ancillary accommodation are part of that. Notwithstanding this support, there are other relevant material planning considerations.

It should be noted that an area within Devon Ceramics current operational floorspace has very recently been advertised as surplus to requirements and available for lease. This throws into further question the alleged urgent demand for the retention of this unauthorised development, which could be accommodated within the area currently being advertised for lease as surplus to current requirements. Whether retrospective permission is acceptable and considered to be sustainable in the light of this recent change of circumstances is debatable.

Design/Landscape: Development Policy DPD Policy DP1 requires high quality design. The standard of development, particularly the unsustainable sub-standard form of construction, is of insufficient design quality expected of new development in South Hams. Essentially wooden sheds and covered decking built on a structure attached to the walkway behind the building cantilevered out over the watercourse bank, erected on wooden stilts in a shanty-type form development, is considered to be unsustainable, inappropriate in terms of local character, distinctiveness or any other design criteria and cannot be supported. Furthermore the nature of the construction raises issues in relation to flood risk, undertaken as it is within the functional flood plain. The removal of these unauthorised structures is considered to be of significant importance, both in terms of reducing flood risk and restoring the environmental potential of the river bank.

The local distinctive character arose from the naturalised watercourse bank, which has been largely destroyed to accommodate the development, a significant part of which now sits beneath the cantilevered structure. It is necessary to consider whether, in retrospect, there is anything that can be done to satisfactorily redress matters. If the structures are removed, there is some capacity for replacement planting and reinstatement of the bank to reduce the risk of further erosion and redress the issues relating to flood risk.

The proposal is contrary to policy DP1(a), failing to be based upon a good understanding of the site context and affecting the natural environment of the watercourse.

Neighbour Amenity: The development has denuded the bank of vegetation. Views from the nearest neighbouring residential properties are oblique and screened to a degree by vegetation on the Northern bank. Neighbours fronting Priory Drive on the opposite side of the watercourse are not therefore considered to be significantly affected by this part of the unauthorised development.

While not of the type of quality of permanent development expected within South Hams, given the lack of a public view and being located further away from neighbouring residential occupiers than the other development application concurrently under consideration and recommended for refusal, officers consider there are no significant residential amenity issues arising from this particular application.

Highways/Access: It is apparent from the other current applications and unauthorised works to extend parking capacity that the various uses generate occasional significant peak demand for parking (notably at Christmas). The additional floorspace increases the capacity of the commercial use and generates a demand for parking. The parking area does not form part of the current application and highways issues are addressed through the other submissions.

This is a central location, sustainable in transport terms and no objections are raised to this application on highways grounds.

Sustainable Construction/ Flood Risk: the proposal, within the functional flood plain, takes up storage capacity, increases flood risk and has denuded the watercourse bank, with rubble waste left strewn over the bank/ under the cantilevered building from the construction. This increases the risk of sediment and contaminated material entering the watercourse, impacting on the environment and potentially water quality. There is a question as whether the structures are fit for purpose or will remain so into the future. Erosion around the base of the posts is evident already, The Environment Agency objects on flood risk grounds and, having successfully pursued legal action relating to part of the car park, are presently engaged in further legal action relating to the remainder of the extended car park. These actions are being taken independently of the planning process. There is a risk, given the form of construction and the location of the development within the functional flood plain, that in the event of a flood, the structure could be swept away, with the attendant risks, including to anyone in the buildings and arising from damage and pollution from the debris entering the river. The development is considered to be contrary to policy DP4(2, 3, 4, 5 and 7).

The Environment Agency’s detailed comments are:

Flood Risk: Part of the site is defined as functional floodplain and the development type proposed is neither ‘water-compatible’ nor ‘essential infrastructure. The NPPF makes it clear that this type of development should not be permitted within functional floodplain.

The development is too close to the river bank and does not secure a maintenance and access corridor to the top of the river bank . There should be no development within 7m of the top of the river bank.

The increased runoff from any new roofs must also be managed.

The application does not follow good design principles and removes a 2m width of riparian corridor within central Totnes which leads to a deterioration of the of the river which contravenes WFD.

Flood Defence Consent: The works are subject to Flood Defence Consent. Such works could only be consented if they did not lead to an increase in flood risk, which could be mitigated, and no risk of deterioration in ecological status under the water framework directive. The Environment Agency would recommend that planning approval for the works should only be given once the requirements for Flood Defence Consent have been met.

Biodiversity : Whilst not a protected site, the Council is charged with protecting existing habitats and species, which includes safeguarding networks through linked corridors. The embankments of watercourses fulfil help this requirement. In this regard, the proposal is contrary to policy DP5(1 c, e, f) and the impacts currently and into the future in terms of the bank side erosion and increased flood risk cannot be countenanced.

Conclusion/ Summary: Retrospective permission for the kitchen and freezer storage building would assist the commercial operation, being important to the cafe business. The recent advertisement of a significant part of the existing commercial premises as surplus to requirements and available for lease, calls into question the validity of the need for these unauthorised structures. The Council are supportive of businesses that generate employment and bring local prosperity while providing local services and amenities, supported by Development Plan policies and Guidance. However, in view of the development taking place within the functional flood plain, increased flood risk, the environmental damage and the unacceptability of the structures themselves, notwithstanding the commercial considerations, development of this nature and design quality cannot be supported. Officers consider that harm to flood risk and the environment significantly outweighs the benefits of the proposal to the commercial operation. Despite the business implications from having to relocate the facilities, refusal of this is recommended. In the event this application is refused by Members consideration will need to be given to the expediency of enforcement action against the unauthorised works including the cantilevered decking, kitchen and freezer storage structures.

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

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

South Hams Local Plan SHDC 1 Development Boundaries

Dev Management 16.04.14

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE HELD AT FOLLATON HOUSE, TOTNES, ON WEDNESDAY, 16 APRIL 2014

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

Other Members in attendance Cllrs K J Baldry, J H Baverstock, I Bramble, A S Gorman and R J Tucker

Item No Minute Ref or App. No. Officers in attendance and below refers participating All agenda Development Manager, Planning Officers, items Solicitor and Member Services Manager

DM.54/13 MINUTES

The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 19 March 2014 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

DM.55/13 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

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

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

 53/2889/13/F: Householder application for alteration and extension to dwelling – Hillesden, Kiln Lane, Stokenham, Kingsbridge;  11/0042/14/F: Erection of agricultural building (No1, washing), associated dwelling, new access road and site office. Resubmission of planning ref 11/1547/13/F - Land at SX 707 456, Bantham Cross, Churchstow, Kingsbridge, Devon TQ7 3QU;  11/0043/14/F: Erection of agricultural building (No.2, cold storage building). Resubmission of planning ref 11/1545/13/F, Land at SX 707 456, Bantham Cross, Churchstow, Kingsbridge, Devon TQ7 3QU;  11/0044/14/F: Erection of agricultural building (No3, cold store) Resubmission of planning ref 11/1546/13/F - Land at SX 707 456, Bantham Cross, Churchstow, Kingsbridge, Devon TQ7 3QU;  11/0045/14/F: Erection of agricultural building (No. 4, grading unit for potatoes) Resubmission of planning ref 11/1544/13/F - Land at SX 707 456, Bantham Cross, Churchstow, Kingsbridge, Devon TQ7 3QU; - 82 - Dev Management 16.04.14

 43/2567/13/F: Erection of 1no. Wind turbine (estimated output of 0.05megawatts) with 24.6 metres hub height, 34.2 metres tip height and associated infrastructure for agricultural use - Land at SX776419, Winslade Farm, Frogmore, Kingsbridge, TQ7 2PA. Cllr Foss also declared a personal interest by virtue of the applicants for this application being known to him; and  59/0202/14/F: Householder application for vehicle access - 2 Preston Cottages , West Alvington TQ7 3BG

Cllrs S A E Wright and J Brazil both declared a personal interest in the following applications:

 11/0042/14/F: Erection of agricultural building (No1, washing), associated dwelling, new access road and site office. Resubmission of planning ref 11/1547/13/F - Land at SX 707 456, Bantham Cross, Churchstow, Kingsbridge, Devon TQ7 3QU;  11/0043/14/F: Erection of agricultural building (No.2, cold storage building). Resubmission of planning ref 11/1545/13/F, Land at SX 707 456, Bantham Cross, Churchstow, Kingsbridge, Devon TQ7 3QU;  11/0044/14/F: Erection of agricultural building (No3, cold store) Resubmission of planning ref 11/1546/13/F - Land at SX 707 456, Bantham Cross, Churchstow, Kingsbridge, Devon TQ7 3QU;  11/0045/14/F: Erection of agricultural building (No. 4, grading unit for potatoes) Resubmission of planning ref 11/1544/13/F - Land at SX 707 456, Bantham Cross, Churchstow, Kingsbridge, Devon TQ7 3QU;

Cllr Wright declared his interests by virtue of his in-laws being residents of Churchstow and by virtue of the objector being known to him. Cllr J Brazil declared his interests by virtue of the objector also being known to him. Both Members remained in the meeting and took part in the debate and vote thereon.

Cllr Brazil also declared a personal interest in application 43/2567/13/F: Erection of 1no. Wind turbine (estimated output of 0.05megawatts) with 24.6 metres hub height, 34.2 metres tip height and associated infrastructure for agricultural use - Land at SX776419, Winslade Farm, Frogmore, Kingsbridge, TQ7 2PA by virtue of knowing the applicants. He remained in the meeting and took part in the debate and vote thereon;

Cllr R J Vint declared a personal interest in application 56/0226/14/F: Demolition of existing disused storehouse and replacement with one-storey dwelling and ancillary car parking for one car. Modification of stone wall to improve access to the site - Land at SX8044 5996 West of Moat Hill House, Moat Hill, Totnes by virtue of knowing the objector through a number of community groups. He remained in the meeting and took part in the debate and vote thereon.

- 83 - Dev Management 16.04.14

DM.56/13 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

The Chairman proceeded to announce that the following members of the public had registered their wish to speak at the meeting:-  11/0042/14/F: Erection of agricultural building (No1, washing), associated dwelling, new access road and site office. Resubmission of planning ref 11/1547/13/F - Land at SX 707 456, Bantham Cross, Churchstow, Kingsbridge, Devon TQ7 3QU; 11/0043/14/F: Erection of agricultural building (No.2, cold storage building). Resubmission of planning ref 11/1545/13/F, Land at SX 707 456, Bantham Cross, Churchstow, Kingsbridge, Devon TQ7 3QU; 11/0044/14/F: Erection of agricultural building (No3, cold store) Resubmission of planning ref 11/1546/13/F - Land at SX 707 456, Bantham Cross, Churchstow, Kingsbridge, Devon TQ7 3QU; 11/0045/14/F: Erection of agricultural building (No. 4, grading unit for potatoes) Resubmission of planning ref 11/1544/13/F - Land at SX 707 456, Bantham Cross, Churchstow, Kingsbridge, Devon TQ7 3QU; - For all of the above applications: Objector: Mr Richard Martin; Supporter: Mr Andrew Lethbridge;  56/0226/14/F: Objector – Mr Louis Victory: Supporter – Miss Caroline Froud: Demolition of existing disused storehouse and replacement with one storey dwelling and ancillary car parking for one car. Modification of stone wall to improve access to the site – Land at SX8044 5996 West of Moat Hill House, Moat Hill, Totnes;  62/3013/13/VAR Removal of condition 9 of planning approval 62/1461/13/RM - Land at Milizac Close, Yealmpton and 62/3014/13/VAR Removal of condition 6 of planning approval 62/2948/11/O - Land at Milizac Close, Yealmpton: Supporter – Mr Harry Sedman;  56/2564/13/F Retrospective application for retention of existing toilets and construction of new storage unit M, together with alterations to existing car parking - Devon Ceramics, Station Road, Totnes TQ9 5JR; and 56/2566/13/F Retrospective application for retention of existing car parking spaces 9- 16 (inclusive) - Devon Ceramics Ltd, Station Road, Totnes, TQ9 5JR; and 56/2568/13/F Retrospective application for retention of existing kitchen and freezer room - Devon Ceramics Ltd, Station Road, Totnes, TQ9 5JR: Supporter Mr Martyn Ward

DM.57/13 SITE INSPECTIONS

a) Applications deferred at this meeting

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

- 84 - Dev Management 16.04.14

b) Report of the Site Inspection Group held on 7 April 2014

(i) 53/2889/13/F: Householder application for alteration and extension to dwelling – Hillesden, Kiln Lane, Stokenham, Kingsbridge.

The Ward Member reminded the Committee that the reduced height of the proposed roof would still impact on the neighbours in terms of loss of light and evening sun.

Members who had attended the site visit then expressed their views that, whilst the extension on the other side of the property would be preferable, there were no material grounds to refuse the application. Mention was made of a further revision to the proposal which offered to fully hip the extension roof. Members agreed to support this proposal, but acknowledged that if revised plans were not received then the application before them would be approved.

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

That the application be conditionally approved, subject to receipt of revised plans.

Conditions: Time limit; in accordance; unsuspected contamination

DM.58/13 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 43/2567/13/F: Erection of 1no. wind turbine (estimated output of 0.05megawatts) with 24.6 metres hub height, 34.2 metres tip height and associated infrastructure for agricultural use - Land at SX776419, Winslade Farm, Frogmore, Kingsbridge, TQ7 2PA the following motion was PROPOSED and SECONDED and on being put to the vote was declared CARRIED:-

That a site inspection be held.

b) In respect of application 56/0226/14/F: Demolition of existing disused storehouse and replacement with one storey dwelling and ancillary car parking for one car. Modification of stone wall to improve access to the site – Land at SX8044 5996 West of Moat Hill House, Moat Hill, Totnes, the Case Officer introduced the application, outlined the planning history of the site and explained the proposal.

- 85 - Dev Management 16.04.14

A local Ward Member raised concerns that the site had not previously been used for car parking; however, the Highways Officer advised that as a site with planning permission for a residence and with an access, evidence of past use was not relevant. The local Ward Member then PROPOSED that a site inspection be held.

This proposal was SECONDED and on being put to the vote was declared LOST:-

That a site inspection be held.

Members went on to further discuss the application particularly with regard to: the access, highway safety, whether the Highways Agency raised no objection because they were led to believe the site was used for parking, the Highways Agency advising that refusal of the application with an existing access would be overturned by an Inspector, the conclusion that despite the access being poor it did not preclude the applicant from using it.

The local Ward Member also suggested an amendment to the condition relating to the roof materials to composite slate and this was agreed.

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

That the application be conditionally approved.

Conditions

 Time limit  Accord with plans  New wall to be built in reclaimed stone from existing wall  Timber cladding to be built in Western Cedar;  All new windows and doors to be constructed in dark grey UPVC;  The roof of the dwelling house will be built in composite slate.  No additional windows or doors to be permitted into the north wall of the proposed dwelling house  Removal of dwellings permitted development rights  Prior to development of the dwelling the boundary wall shall be altered and parking space hard surfaced together with access gates hung to swing onto the site  No development to commence until a programme of percolation tests is undertaken and a design for 1:100 storm and proposed soakaways is submitted and approved in writing by the LPA  Unsuspected Contaminated land condition

- 86 - Dev Management 16.04.14 c) In respect of application 59/0202/14/F: Householder application for vehicle access – 2 Preston Cottages, West Alvington TQ7 3BG the Case Officer introduced the application and a number of photographs were shown of the access and the main road. He outlined how dangerous the existing access for all three properties in the vicinity was, how the farm had now added an access at a safer position further down the road and that the applicants also wanted to create an entrance for their own use. He outlined preferred visibility distances for an access onto the highway, and also explained that this proposal fell short of the national guidelines for those distances.

The local Ward Member asked Members to consider the application carefully, as many local residents felt that a third access onto the main road would cause more accidents in what was already an accident black spot area.

The Highways Officer explained that the Highways Authority was not objecting to the application, despite it falling short of national guidelines, because it would reduce traffic movements from the existing access which was the most dangerous of all.

Members discussed this application and were disappointed that a more holistic approach could not be taken amongst the properties in the vicinity. Members also felt that it would be difficult to refuse the application on highway safety grounds if the Highways Authority had raised no objections.

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

That the application be refused.

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

That the application be conditionally approved.

Conditions

1. Standard Time Limit 2. Accord with plans 3. Completion of landscaping prior to use of access 4. Additional details – surface water drainage 5. Construction Environment Management Plan prior to commencement 6. No gates within 6m of the public highway 7. Hard surface construction for first 6m

- 87 - Dev Management 16.04.14

d) In respect of applications 62/3013/13/VAR: Removal of condition 9 of planning approval 62/1461/13/RM - Land at Milizac Close, Yealmpton and 62/3014/13/VAR: Removal of condition 6 of planning approval 62/2948/11/O - Land at Milizac Close, Yealmpton, the Case Officer began by introducing the development and showing a plan of the hybrid application. He outlined the reason for the application which included the bringing forward of Phase 2 of the development and, through use of the plan and photographs, he showed both the route that the construction traffic should be using, and the route that it actually was using.

The local Ward Member advised the Committee that the developer was in breach of his planning permission as a construction road had not been built. He advised that the route that was being used by the construction traffic clearly went past houses where children were living and residents were parking causing an issue of public safety.

The Development Manager advised Members that the developer was proposing a Code of Good Practice if the application to remove the previous conditions was approved. However, a number of Members felt that if the developer was not abiding by the conditions which had been applied to the original planning permission, then there was no reason to trust that they would abide by a Code of Good Practice.

Members were clearly not minded to approve the application and in discussing reasons for refusal the following were given:

The interests of public safety and convenience (as stated in the original permission); and Neighbour amenity

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

That the application be refused and enforcement action be sanctioned.

(Meeting commenced at 10.30 am and concluded at 4:30 pm)

______Chairman

- 88 - Dev Management 16.04.14

APPENDIX A

Churchstow Parish Council

Parish Council’s Views – Objection

Officer Update – Letter of support & Parish Council letter.

Recommendation – Conditional approval subject to S106 agreement

Recommended Conditions 1. Standard 3 year time limit; 2. Accord with plans; 3. Level of buildings; 4. Use applied for; 5. Drainage accord with approved details and implemented prior to commencement of use; 6. Noise controls; 7. No mud/debris onto highway; 8. Permanent closure of existing access; 9. Construction Management Plan; 10. Details external lighting; 11. Landscaping – strategic planting; 12. Landscaping 1yr inspection; 13. Protection of hedgerows; 14. Submission of Extended Phase 1 habitat survey; 15. Access and manoeuvring/turning areas complete prior to use of agricultural buildings; 16. Materials schedule/samples; 17. Removal of GDO rights for agricultural/business buildings; 18. Site office for use in connection with business only; 19. Agricultural tie on dwelling; 20. Removal of GDO rights on dwelling; 21. Drainage for dwelling complete prior to occupation; 22. Access to dwelling complete prior to occupation.

Committee Decision – Conditional approval subject to S106 agreement

- 89 - Dev Management 16.04.14

11/0043/14/F Erection of agricultural building (No.2, cold storage building). Resubmission of planning ref 11/1545/13/F, Land at SX 707 456, Bantham Cross, Churchstow, Kingsbridge, Devon TQ7 3QU, AJ Lidstone & Son Ltd. Churchstow Parish Council

Parish Council’s Views – Objection

Officer Update – Letter of support & Parish Council letter.

Recommendation – Conditional approval subject to S106 agreement

Committee Decision – Conditional approval subject to S106 agreement

11/0044/14/F Erection of agricultural building (No3, cold store) Resubmission of planning ref 11/1546/13/F - Land at SX 707 456, Bantham Cross, Churchstow, Kingsbridge, Devon TQ7 3QU - AJ Lidstone & Son Ltd.

Churchstow Parish Council

Parish Council’s Views – Objection

Officer Update - Letter of support & Parish Council letter.

Recommendation – Conditional approval subject to S106 agreement

Recommended Conditions - 90 - Dev Management 16.04.14

1. Standard 3 year time limit; 2. Accord with plans; 3. Level of buildings; 4. Use applied for; 5. Drainage accord with approved details and implemented prior to commencement of use; 6. Noise controls; 7. No mud/debris onto highway; 8. Permanent closure of existing access; 9. Construction Management Plan; 10. Details external lighting; 11. Landscaping – strategic planting; 12. Landscaping 1yr inspection; 13. Protection of hedgerows; 14. Submission of Extended Phase 1 habitat survey; 15. Access and manoeuvring/turning areas complete prior to use of agricultural buildings; 16. Materials schedule/samples; 17. Removal of GDO rights for agricultural/business buildings.

Committee Decision – Conditional approval subject to S106 agreement

Parish Council’s Views – Objection

Officer Update - Letter of support & Parish Council letter.

Recommendation – Conditional approval subject to S106 agreement

- 91 - Dev Management 16.04.14

15. Access and manoeuvring/turning areas complete prior to use of agricultural buildings; 16. Materials schedule/samples; 17. Removal of GDO rights for agricultural/business buildings.

Committee Decision – Conditional approval subject to S106 agreement

43/2567/13/F Erection of 1no. Wind turbine (estimated output of 0.05megawatts) with 24.6 metres hub height, 34.2 metres tip height and associated infrastructure for agricultural use - Land at SX776419, Winslade Farm, Frogmore, Kingsbridge, TQ7 2PA – Perraton Partners

Frogmore/Sherford Parish Council

Parish Council Views – The site lies within Frogmore & Sherford Parish Council which supports the application. Neighbouring Parish Councils at South Pool object to the application with Stokenham Parish Council raising no objections.

Officer Update - None

Recommendation – Refusal

Committee Decision – Site inspection

56/0226/14/F Demolition of existing disused storehouse and replacement with one-storey dwelling and ancillary car parking for one car. Modification of stone wall to improve access to the site. - Land at SX8044 5996 West of Moat Hill House, Moat Hill, Totnes – Miss C Froud

Totnes Town Council

Town Council’s Views – Objection

Officer Update – Roof of dwelling house to be built in slate effect tiles (Condition)

Recommendation – Conditional Approval

Recommended Conditions  Time limit  Accord with plans  New wall to be built in reclaimed stone from existing wall  Timber cladding to be built in Western Cedar;  All new windows and doors to be constructed in dark grey UPVC;  No additional windows or doors to be permitted into the north wall of the proposed dwelling house  Removal of dwellings permitted development rights  Prior to development of the dwelling the boundary wall shall be altered and parking space hard surfaced together with access gates hung to swing onto the site - 92 - Dev Management 16.04.14

 No development to commence until a programme of percolation tests is undertaken and a design for 1:100 storm and proposed soakaways is submitted and approved in writing by the LPA  Unsuspected Contaminated land condition

Committee Decision – Conditional approval

45/1843/13/F Retrospective application for change of use of land to accommodate 1 mobile home, 3 touring caravans and provision of utility room - Thorn Meadow, Stidston, South Brent, TQ10 9JT - Mr John Brownless

South Brent Parish Council

Parish Council’s Views – Refusal.

Officer Update – 3 letters of support & 1 of objection received

Recommendation – Conditional approval

Recommended Conditions 1. Accord with plans 2. Use of the site (Gypsies and Travelers) 3. Foul sewerage details/scheme to be submitted and approved within 3 months of decision and timescale for implementation 4. One mobile home and one touring caravan limit 5. No external floodlighting 6. No commercial vehicles above 3.5 tons unladen 7. Closure of existing access 8. Details of new access 9. Landscaping details 10. Maintenance of cesspool

Committee Decision – Conditional approval in line with officer recommendation

59/0202/14/F Householder application for vehicle access - 2 Preston Cottages, West Alvington TQ7 3BG - Mr G Dean West Alvington Parish Council

Parish Council Views – Objection

Officer Update - None

Recommendation – Conditional approval

Recommended Conditions 1. Standard Time Limit 2. Accord with plans 3. Completion of landscaping prior to use of access - 93 - Dev Management 16.04.14

4. Additional details – surface water drainage 5. Construction Environment Management Plan prior to commencement 6. No gates within 6m of the public highway 7. Hard surface construction for first 6m

Committee Decision – Conditional approval

62/3013/13/VAR Removal of condition 9 of planning approval 62/1461/13/RM - Land at Milizac Close, Yealmpton - Taylor Wimpey

Yealmpton Parish Council

Parish Council Views – objection

Officer Update - None

Recommendation – Conditional approval

Recommended Conditions 1. Accord with Code of Practise document “Control of Pollution & Noise from Demolition & Construction Sites”

Committee Decision – Refusal & authorisation of Enforcement Action

62/3014/13/VAR Removal of condition 6 of planning approval 62/2948/11/O - Land at Milizac Close, Yealmpton - Taylor Wimpey

Yealmpton Parish Council

Parish Council Views – Objection

Officer Update - None

Recommendation – Conditional approval Recommended Conditions 1. Accord with Code of Practise document “Control of Pollution & Noise from Demolition & Construction Sites”

Committee Decision – Refusal & authorisation of Enforcement Action

56/2564/13/F Retrospective application for retention of existing toilets and construction of new storage unit M, together with alterations to existing car parking - Devon Ceramics, Station Road, Totnes TQ9 5JR - Mr V Gaye Totnes Town Council

- 94 - Dev Management 16.04.14

Town Council’s Views – Agreed in principle.

Officer Update – None

Recommendation – Conditional approval

Recommended Conditions 1. Time limit (12 months) 2. In accordance with approved plans 3. Store used for storage purposes ancillary to business and not a separate business 4. Removal of unauthorised structures 5. Materials 6. Landscaping 7. SUDS drainage 8. 10 year temporary consent

Committee Decision – Conditional approval

56/2566/13/F Retrospective application for retention of existing car parking spaces 9- 16 (inclusive) - Devon Ceramics Ltd, Station Road, Totnes, TQ9 5JR - Mr V Gaye Totnes Town Council

Town Council Views – Agreed in principle

Officer Update - None

Recommendation – Refusal

Committee Decision – Refusal & authorisation of Enforcement Action

56/2568/13/F Retrospective application for retention of existing kitchen and freezer room - Devon Ceramics Ltd, Station Road, Totnes, TQ9 5JR - Mr V Gaye Totnes Town Council

Town Council Views – Agreed in principle

Officer Update - None

Recommendation – Refusal

Committee Decision – Refusal & authorisation of Enforcement Action

- 95 -