Our ref: APP/P1133/W/18/3205558 David Seaton Your ref: - Managing Director PCL Planning 13a-15a Old Park Avenue Exeter Devon 3 June 2020 EX1 3WD Dear Sir, TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78 APPEAL MADE BY ANTHONY, STEVEN & JILL REW LAND AT WOLBOROUGH BARTON, COACH ROAD, NEWTON ABBOT TQ12 1EJ APPLICATION REF: 17/01542/MAJ 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of Frances Mahoney MRTPI IHBC, who held a public local inquiry between 26 March 2019 and 10 July 2019 into your client’s appeal against the failure of Teignbridge District Council to determine your client’s application for planning permission for a hybrid proposal for the following development: • Outline proposal for mixed use development comprising circa 1210 dwellings (C3), a primary school (D1), up to 12650 sq m of employment floorspace (B1), two care homes (C2) providing up to 5,500 sq m of floorspace, up to 1250 sq m of community facilities (D1), a local centre (A1/A3/A4/A5) providing up to 1250 sq m of floorspace, open space (including play areas, allotments, MUGA) and associated infrastructure (Means of Access to be determined only); and • Full proposal for a change of use of existing agricultural buildings to hotel (C1), restaurant (A3) and bar/drinking establishment (A4) uses, involving erection of new build structures, construction of an access road and parking, plus other associated conversion and minor works. in accordance with application ref: 17/01542/MAJ, dated 9 June 2017. 2. On 3 July 2018, this appeal was recovered for the Secretary of State's determination, in pursuance of section 79 of, and paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 to, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Inspector’s recommendation and summary of the decision 3. The Inspector recommended that the appeal should be allowed and planning permission granted, subject to conditions. 4. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions, and agrees with her recommendation. He has decided to allow the appeal 1 and grant planning permission, subject to conditions. A copy of the Inspector’s report (IR) is enclosed. All references to paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to that report. Environmental Statement 5. In reaching this position, the Secretary of State has taken into account the Environmental Statement which was submitted under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 and the environmental information submitted during and after the inquiry. Having taken account of the Inspector’s comments at IR397, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the Environmental Statement and other additional information provided complies with the above Regulations and that sufficient information has been provided for him to assess the environmental impact of the proposal. Procedural matters 6. As set out at IR5, the proposal has been amended since the original planning application was submitted, with a decrease in the number of proposed dwellings and an increase in the amount of employment floorspace. The development description at paragraph 1 of this Decision Letter reflects this revised description, and the Secretary of State has made his decision based on this. 7. The Secretary of State notes that these alternative plans were available to all the main parties, including those who addressed the Inquiry (IR5). Given this, he does not consider that the revised description of development raises any matters that would require him to refer back to the parties for further representations prior to reaching his decision on this appeal, and he is satisfied that no interests have thereby been prejudiced. He agrees with the approach of the Inspector as set out in IR11 in respect of the plans produced for illustrative purposes. Matters arising since the close of the inquiry 8. The following applications for an award of costs were made (IR3): • An award of full of partial costs made by the appellants against the Council; • An award of full costs made by a Rule 6 Party against the appellants; • An award of partial costs made by the appellant against the Torbay and South Devon NHS Trust; and • An award of partial costs made by the Torbay and South Devon NHS Trust against the appellants These applications are the subject of separate decision letters issued at the same time as this Decision Letter. Policy and statutory considerations 9. In reaching his decision, the Secretary of State has had regard to section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 10. In this case, relevant elements of the development plan include the Teignbridge Local Plan 2013-2033, adopted 2014 (TLP), and the Abbotskerswell Neighbourhood Plan 2 2016-2033, made October 2017 (ANP). The Secretary of State considers that relevant development plan policies include those set out at IR15-18. 11. The Secretary of State notes that part of the appeal site is also covered by the Newton Abbot Neighbourhood Development Plan 2016-2033, made June 2016, but that no conflict with this plan was suggested (IR18). 12. Other material considerations which the Secretary of State has taken into account include the National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’) and associated planning guidance (‘the Guidance’). 13. In accordance with section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the LBCA Act), the Secretary of State has paid special regard to the desirability of preserving those listed buildings potentially affected by the proposals, or their settings or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they may possess. 14. In accordance with section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the LBCA Act), the Secretary of State has paid special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. Emerging plan 15. The emerging plan comprises the Local Plan Review 2020 - 2040. A draft version was published for public consultation on 23 March 2020 until 15 June 2020. Paragraph 48 of the Framework states that decision makers may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to: (1) the stage of preparation of the emerging plan; (2) the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies in the emerging plan; and (3) the degree of consistency of relevant policies to the policies in the Framework. As this emerging plan is still at a very early stage, with adoption not expected until summer 2021, the Secretary of State considers it can carry no weight in the decision making process for this appeal. Main issues 16. The Secretary of State notes that the element of this proposal seeking full planning permission for the conversion of the agricultural buildings into hotel/restaurant/bar uses, does not raise opposition in policy terms that would lead to a conclusion of refusing permission, but that it does require consideration against statutory heritage duties (IR368). This will be returned to in the “Heritage” section of this Decision Letter at paragraphs 19-24. For this reason, unless specified, this Decision Letter will primarily consider the impacts of the outline part of the proposal. Suitability of the location 17. The Secretary of State notes (IR369) that the principle of the outline element was not a disputed matter between the parties. TLP policy NA3 Wolborough allocates around 120ha of land for a sustainable extension for Newton Abbott, of which the appeal site makes up a large part (IR372). 18. For this reason, he agrees with the Inspector (IR374) that the determination of this appeal should not question the principle of a mixed-use development in this location, but, as the proposal contains a considerable outline element, it is necessary to consider the impacts 3 of the proposal in order to make a meaningful assessment of the proposal against LP Policy NA3 a) (IR373-375). Heritage 19. The Secretary of State has carefully considered the Inspector’s analysis of the impacts on the proposal on the heritage assets identified at IR376-388. 20. The Wolborough Hill Conservation Area (WHCA) lies to the east of the appeal site. For the reasons given at IR383, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the proposal would have a neutral impact on the character and appearance of the WHCA. 21. The Grade-II listed St Augustine’s Priory lies to the south of the appeal site. For the reasons given at IR384, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the significance and setting of the Priory would be preserved. 22. The Grade-I listed parish church of St Mary the Virgin lies to the north of the appeal site, and directly opposite the agricultural buildings that would be converted to hotel and restaurant uses in the full element of the proposal. With regards to the full element, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR382 that the removal of unsympathetic modern buildings, alongside the preservation and enhancement of the agricultural buildings, would preserve and enhance their relationship with the church. 23. With regards to the outline element, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector for the reasons given at IR380-382 that the outline element, and therefore the appeal proposal overall, would erode the setting of the church, and to a lesser extent its significance, by diminishing the association of the pastural land upon which the appeal development would be built (IR385). He agrees with the Inspector that, when taking all the identified evidence into account, there would not be a total loss of the church’s significance, and so the appeal proposal, as a totality, would lead to a less than substantial harm, albeit on the mid to upper level of a sliding scale (IR387).