November 2016

North & Torridge Joint Local Plan Examination Hearing Statement on behalf of Chichester Homes Developments Ltd Matter 6: Town Strategies ()

Pre-hearing statement on behalf of Chichester Homes Developments Ltd - Matter 6 (Braunton)

1.0 Introduction

1.1 This hearing statement is submitted on behalf of Chichester Homes Developments Ltd. Chichester Homes Developments Ltd has submitted duly made representations in response to various consultation stages of the draft Plan and welcomes the opportunity to participate in the examination hearings.

1.2 Those representations contained objections to the proposed housing requirement of the Plan, the scale of development directed towards Braunton in comparison to other settlements and the non-allocation of land east of South Park, Braunton, in which Chichester Homes Developments Ltd has an interest.

2.0 Proposed strategy for Braunton

2.1 In particular, those representations argued that the proposed distribution of housing between settlements is unjustified. Other Main Centres, such as , Northam, and Great Torrington and Holsworthy are proposed to have significantly higher apportionments of the overall housing requirement than Braunton.

2.2 The proposed housing apportionment for Braunton/Wrafton does not reflect its role and function relative to other Main Centres. Paragraph 10.147 of the Plan states that Braunton is “one of the larger settlements in northern Devon and is an important local service centre providing a range of retail, education, health and community facilities and employment opportunities”. Paragraph 10.148 goes on to state that its population has increased by less than 4% between 2001-10, lower than rates of growth elsewhere in . Meanwhile, house prices are above average for North Devon and it is a priority area for the delivery of affordable housing. This is highlighted in the North Devon Council Affordable Housing Delivery Plan 2012-2017.

2.3 The Table in Appendix 1 of the Settlement and Distribution Strategy Topic Paper (May 2016) very clearly illustrates the disparity between the level of growth proposed in 2

Pre-hearing statement on behalf of Chichester Homes Developments Ltd - Matter 6 (Braunton)

Braunton/Wrafton in comparison with the other Main Centres. Only 9.5% growth is proposed compared with over 20% in all the other Main Centres, some of which (Holsworthy and South Molton) have over 50% growth proposed. In terms of allocations within the plan, as proposed this will deliver only 6.5% growth in Braunton compared with much higher levels in all the other Main Centres.

2.4 However, the function and level of services in Braunton is similar to or greater than those of the other Main Centres. Section 4 of the Settlement and Distribution Strategy Topic Paper explains that there are a variety of factors which have influenced settlement-specific variation in levels of growth including existing commitments, availability of suitable sites, environmental constraints, settlement size and community aspirations for growth. The reason existing commitments in Braunton is low is as a result of the low level of housing directed towards the settlement during the last Plan period and which has contributed to the high affordable need within Braunton.

2.5 The stated reasons for rejecting a higher housing apportionment at Braunton/Wrafton are the environmental constraints that are said to restrict potential for growth. However, none of the constraints listed affect the site at South Park, Braunton which is not the subject to any designations that would be a constraint to its development, as is confirmed by the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) Update December 2014 (ref: SHA/BRA/108) which describes the site as being suitable, available and achievable and therefore developable and concludes,

“Development of this site is a logical extension to the east side of Braunton”.

2.6 An application for full planning permission (LPA ref: 61139) proposing a residential development of 55 dwellings (including 19 affordable homes) and associated works on land at South Park, Braunton was submitted on 29 April 2016. The 13 week statutory deadline for a decision was 29 July 2016. It was eventually reported to the Council’s planning committee on 12 October with an officer recommendation of approval but a decision was deferred. The proposed layout is attached as APPENDIX 1 and the officer report is attached

3

Pre-hearing statement on behalf of Chichester Homes Developments Ltd - Matter 6 (Braunton)

as APPENDIX 2 which confirms officers’ view that it is a suitable site for a housing development. A non-determination appeal was submitted on 21 October (PINs ref: APP/X1118/W/16/3161459).

2.7 The disproportionate level of growth proposed in Braunton compared with other Main Centres is therefore not justified given that there is a site suitable for development on the edge of the settlement which has not been identified in the Plan.

2.8 The situation is exacerbated by the uncertainty over the delivery of the allocated site at Wrafton Glebefield which, as has been pointed out in previous representations has been allocated previously for housing across numerous previous Plan periods without a deliverable planning permission having yet been achieved. Given this uncertainty, the scale of housing proposed for Braunton is effectively even lower than is stated in the Plan.

3.0 Soundness issues

3.1 Given its status as a priority area for the delivery of affordable housing, the level of housing proposed in Braunton is considered to be unsound in that it has not been positively prepared to meet the housing needs of Braunton, it is not justified (i.e. it is not based on sound evidence and not the most appropriate strategy when considered against other reasonable alternatives) and it is not consistent with the national policy imperative to boost significantly the supply of housing. As Chichester Homes Developments Ltd’ s representations also contend that insufficient housing is being proposed within the Plan generally, the remedy to this soundness issue would be to allocate the land at South Park, Braunton for housing within the Plan.

3.2 The site is within the control of a developer with a proven track record of delivering housing in North Devon. The planning application/appeal scheme referred to above includes 19 affordable homes which would make a very important contribution to delivering affordable housing within a priority area and the site is certainly capable of assisting with the Council’s five year housing land supply.

4

Pre-hearing statement on behalf of Chichester Homes Developments Ltd - Matter 6 (Braunton)

3.3 We look forward to discussing these issues at the Braunton hearing session on the afternoon of Wednesday 30 November.

5

Pre-hearing statement on behalf of Chichester Homes Developments Ltd - Matter 6 (Braunton)

APPENDIX 1

6

Eaves 34.02

29.40 29.27

House Ridge 38.88 Eaves 36.08 Eaves 36.22

Ridge 38.43

House 28.81 28.87 Eaves 35.26

Eaves 35.23 Ridge 38.15

28.28

House Eaves 35.07 Pipits Eaves 35.05

Ridge 37.48

FR

32.70 27.70 House 27.72 Eaves C 34.40 Ridge Ridge 37.15 37.16 Ithaca

Ridge Ridge ELP C 35.37 36.08 Eaves 34.37

Ridge Eaves House 37.18 Eaves 26.24 Eaves 34.40 34.40 26.12 33.54 Eaves Btm of Bank El Sub Sta 32.77 25.90 26.89

South 26.86

26.29 Eaves 26.12 33.53 Wall 25.91 ELP Nairn View

26.46 Ridge 32.55 Milland 26.46 249700E 249750E 249800E 249850E

House Ridge 26.11

35.43 26.05

Eaves 32.69

27.05 136300N 136300N 136300N

26.65

26.85 Ash 27.03 26.89 Track 26.85

Winchcombe 25.21 9 25.20 Liscawne 26.72 1.8m CB 26.55 26.64

Hedge Bank 8 Hedge of

26.51 Btm

26.45 Eastway 26.56

26.37

House 26.34 1.0m

24.82 7 24.78 26.23 1.8m 26.15 PW Hedge CB 26.28 Fence 6 26.09 26.10 26.15 26.0 1.0m 25.35 26.0 25.99 Wall 26.07 26.0 Ash Hedge Retaining 26.0 25.90 5 25.98 25.60 25.77 1.0m 25.93 1.8m Wall CB Retaining 25.05 25.83 24.11 24.17

1.0m 25.61 Wall Oak

Retaining 25.57 4 25.65 FL 25.75 24.80 Hawthorn 25.53 25.55 25.56 25.66FL 25.50 25.69 25.59 25.62 25.62

25.54 25.48 25.43 1.0m Wall Fence Retaining 25.34 25.24 3 24.65 25.49 CB 1.8m 2 23.94 25.26 23.86 25.25 FL 24.91 1:15 25.06 1.0m 25.1325.18 25.06 Wall C 1 25.06 25.01 25.0 25.0 25.0 Retaining 24.91 25.148 25.01 25.09 25.04 24.27 25.0 1:12 25.02 25.15 25.0 24.91 25.05 Service 24.20 1:151:12 25.0 25.05 FL 24.81 24.865 24.879 24.88 Service Fangrove 24.80 24.774Service Survey of 1:12 24.30 24.683 Ash Site at 24.802 24.816 24.592 24.61 24.80

23.15 Lower Park Road 24.30 A FL 24.42 24.642 23.22 24.636 C 24.501 Private 24.512 24.711 Braunton FL 24.33 24.739 B 1:12 24.410 24.529 24.33 24.620 24.753 Road 24.370 24.320 24.438

Chichester Developments 24.58 24.36 CB 24.49 24.43 24.456 D 24.559 1.8m FL 24.46 24.2624.41 24.339 07/15 1:200@A1 PJL 24.26 24.229 24.257 24.347 24.375 24.517 24.28 24.29 0.6m 24.30 FL 24.46 22.77 24.32 KR 24.138 24.31

10 22.65 Service 24.32 24.047 24.428 24.1524.16 24.166 24.284 24.45 136250N 136250N 24.12 136250N 24.075 1.0m 24.194 24.0 23.984 24.0 24.103 24.0 1:12 Service 24.0 24.274 PW Ridge 24.388 FL 24.50 24.45 24.012 28.57 23.956 24.334 24.0 KR 0.6m 1.8m 23.865 CB KR Service 22.52

22.47 24.0 23.77 23.921 0.6m House 1:12 23.893 KR 23.992 Service FL 24.35 Eaves 5641 A03 26.04 23.959 1:15 23.802 25 17 0.6m 23.757 28.58 Service Ridge C 23.897 24.035 Service 18 24.035 5641 South Park Braunton Rev A.dwg 23.93 24.28 23.80 23.830 24.035 Ash 1:20 23.932 23.75 23.69 Ridge 1 23.834 23.62 1.8m

House 30.23 23.899 23.60 Service 23.662 CB 23.62 1:15 Private 23.837 23.680 23.64 23.59 23.57 C 23.739 23.64 Turning 22.23 23.43 Road 23.774 23.54 23.555 Service 23.738 23.872 23.599 22.18 23.66 CB 1.8m 23.839 Head Wall 23.777 23.591 23.678 23.53 1:15 23.714 CB 1.8m 23.610 11 1:15 23.37 1:15 23.47 Kerb 20 23.65 KR 0.6m 23.36 23.425 23.10 23.362 21.89 23.34 23.32 1:15 23.33 MH Hedge 23.47 KR 16 23.24 FL 23.45 23.321 23.0 23.26 0.6m 23.22 23.381 1.0m Wall 23.19 23.68 DK K 23.25 A R 23.18 23.11 23.076 23.259 H P 23.18 23.0 23.10 U T 23.32 23.00 S O 23.202 22.98 23.0 PW Kerb DK 23.28 FL 23.50 23.0 23.05 RG 23.03 SV 23.139 22.96 23.12 23.47 21.51 22.99 FL 23.70 22.94 Wall 23.0 FL 23.35 22.74 23.22 23.024 22.964 23.09 23.22

CB Kerb 22.91 FL 23.70 22.903 SC Wall 22.98 23.0 23.19 FL 23.20 23.21 22.854 1:12 Oak

1.8m Wall 22.791 22.85 23.18 22.917 22.33

21.17 CB 22.666 21.19 CB 1.8m 22.512 23.06 21 19 1.8m KR 0.6m 22.606 Service KR 0.6m Eaves CB 1.8m 25.05 22.505 22.71 22.54 22.568 22.027 20.94 22.45 22.631 CB 22 22.39 22.249 House 20 22.29 22.365 A 22.0 Ridge Service 22.25 22.565 1.8m 27.93 22.29 22.27 Turning 22.18

21.77 22.10 20.78 22.35 21.93 FL 22.60 22.415 12 1.8m 22.282 Head CB 22.282 22.0 24 1.8m 22.282 20.75 CB 22.0 21.599 22.0 15 21.892 21.709 1:12 FL 21.70 22.150 21.778 22.0 FL 21.71

20.54

22.069 21.31 VP 21.996 21.986 21.825 21.933 Service Ridge 21.49 26.89 VP FL 21.95 PW Birch 22.02 VP 1:12

20.33 FL 21.71 1.0m Fence 21.67 FL 21.75 21.82 21.71 21.781 21.62 21.56 21.57 21.56 21.48 21.48 21.34

21.59 21.711

VP 21.69 21.69 CB 4000 D 20.35 SOUTH 21.534 21.42

20.23 House 21.590 1.8m 21.400 21.489 PARK Hedge 21.23 34 1.8m 21.465 FL 21.43 23CB Service I 21.275 A 21.28 1:12 21.425 21.310 FL 21.54 FL 21.50 D 21.0 33 21.340 20.95 21.150 20.14 21.238 CB 136200N Eaves 20.94 136200N 24.12 34 2 bed 21.215

Ridge 26.89 21.0 21.20 1.8m B 21.386 21.060 20.80 20.03 32 21.176 21.0 21.446 Eaves 24.13 20.94 20.97 21.09 20.97 21.00 21.280 21.01 Service CB FL 21.21 20.965 21.11321.04 20.917 20.85 21.090 21.07 21.0 4000 20.71 1:15 21.12 20.997

21.10 21.155 1.8m 21.1321.12 21.13 20.840 1:20 20.728 20.75 Hedge 21.0 31 21.030 20.87 20.854 20.58 19.64 29.6m 2 bed 20.934 21.0 19.67 Ridge 27.10 24 20.791 33 19.26 Hedge CB FL 20.90 20.658 23.28 Eaves 30 20.431 19.25 20.87 1:15 B 14 13 18.94 Bank 1.8m 20.595 20.44 of 19.03 Btm 20.77 18.67 FL 20.48 29 20.354 1:20 18.58

20.53 18.42 27 26 20.291 Hawthorn 41 1:12 43 2 bed 28 18.45 32 20.078 D House 20.25 35 18.42 20.0 CB Service 19.82 20.35 19.934 19.997 18.40 1:15 1.8m FL 20.26 1:12 CB KR 0.6m Ash 1.8m 20.16 20.33 20.25 18.16 20.39 20.04 FL 19.9519.91 D Eaves 20.22 FL 20.45 m 20.37 10 20.0 Ridge 23.24 20.36 27.10 20.22 17.65 CB 1:15 19.82 19.577 19.640 19.719 25 20.0 2 bed 19.69 FL 20.23 1.8m 20.01 FL 20.23 Ash KR 0.6m 20.0 3 bed 31 1:15 19.283 19.283 (SO) 18.81

Eaves 19.43 17.19 22.02 19.0 Ridge 19.283 House 25.94 18.94 1.8m 19.21 19.11 36 19.31 CB 18.989 PW Ridge 19.33 25.93 Eaves 18.98 FL 19.44 19.47 22.33 19.52 1:15 19.54 19.0 19.61 FL 19.44 55 FL 19.38 1.0m 19.37 600mm 18.926 Survey of Bank 18.861 19.29 2 bed Site at

19.0 FL 18.99 16.98 18.632 South Park 2 bed (SO) 0.6m Braunton

KR FL 18.60 18.569 18.506 17.77 Oak (SO) 18.0 19.0 MILL 600mm Bank 26 19.0 19.63 16.77 18.275 Chichester Developments Eaves 27 17.88 600mm 07/15 1:200@A0 PJL 21.43 Bank 18.212 18.06 3 bed 18.14 Hedge 18.21 Ridge 18.76 1:12 18.30 0.6m 25.34 3 bed 18.0 18.149 18.42 16.67 KR 18.5554 House Ridge 37 24.29 CB 18.61 17.917 1 bed PW Ridge 18.67 25.33 1.8m 18.0 17.854

28 Btm Eaves 1.2m 1.0m 23.97 1.5m Wall Hedge of Wall Hedge Retaining LANE Bank 29 Retaining 17.791 FL 17.45 53 17.560 17.0

18.12 1.5m 1:12 18.0 30 16.55 Wall 17.497 Retaining Ash 5641 A01 52 16.13 5641 South Park Braunton Rev A.dwg 17.203

Hedge 0.6m 17.322 17.368 17.0 16.08 1.2m KR Turning 16.82 16.63 Wall 17.140 16.98 17.04 Retaining 17.16 136150N 136150N FL 16.74 17.27 136150N 17.44 16.846 1.2m 17.54 Ridge 17.65 17.0 23.03 Head CB Wall 17.243 Retaining A 17.084 16.783 Eaves 1.8m D 19.86 16.538 17.024 PW 18.054 16.73 17.163 FL 16.30 16.720 19 16.0 17.0 17.13 1.0m 16.475 16.328 16.964 15.76 Ridge 23.02 House 16.678 15.72 16.412 16.618 0.6m 16.217 16.265 16.34 15.44 FL 16.24 KR 16.558 16.0 FL 16.37 15.73 Ash 16.29 15.94 15.86 1:12 16.155 16.04 17.33 16.154 16.202 16.12 38 16.27 17.15 16.092 16.0 16.57 16.37 Eaves 19.87 Ridge 23.02 16.092 16.01 16.030 16.091 16.118 1.8m 16.97 CB 16.32 16.029 39 Wall 16.23 15.967 38 17.10 Kerb 1:12 15.76 15.30 16.029 VP 15.96716.0 KR 0.6m 15.905 3 bed ( SO) Kerb

16.60 Wall 15.904 15.966 15.842 39 15.0 BT VP Ash 16.49 15.842 15.904 15.618 16.59 15.799 35 16.44 16.22 15.97 16.15 SV SV SV 15.779 15.841 FL 15.2015.00 14.88 15.69 14.66 BT 16.41 16.22 15.95 VP 15.05 15.19 15.01 DK 15.21 15.10 40 16.53 16.42 A15.66 15.779 16.18 LP 15.736 15.30 15.0 CB 1.8m 15.72 0.6m 15.39 15.45 KR FL 15.77 Kerb 15.731 15.716 15.58 15.72 16.29 15.118 15.19 15.673 FL 15.70 VP Private 15.00 Ash 15.0 FL 15.20 40 15.89 15.70 15.29 15.760 KR 15.96 A 16.12 LP SC 3 bed ( SO) 15.67 Road 15.76 15.67 K 0.6m A R DK KR 47 H P RG O U T 0.6m 1:15 15.98 15.75 S 15.67 KR 15.0 0.6m 15.62 15.75 15.65 Kerb 15.68 1:15 14.618 1:12 RG 15.40 46 BT 15.65 15.83 15.86 14.69 15.56 15.59 Wall 1.8m 15.61 MH 45 CB PW 15.76 DK BT 14.543 Invert 12.73 15.59 Wall 15.59 SC SC 41 14.14 13.87 15.55 Kerb 15.30 15.55 14.21 15.44 15.64 42 1.0m MH 14.21 14.51 14.65 15.59 48 14.0 Catchpit 15.63 43 14.51 Wall 14.55 14.42 14.16 44 Kerb RG 14.61 Footpath 14.30 14.23 15.56 15.51 C 15.70 15.42 15.28 DK 15.619 15.70 FL 15.41 14.0 15.35 Wall 14.37 14.29 15.44 FL 14.52 Goat Willow 4914.0 14.64 15.20 15.38 FL 15.31 FL 14.52 FL 14.65 14.29 Kerb 14.19 CB bal 15.35 14.0 1:15 15.13 SC Ridge DK SC 19.71 1.1m FL 14.30 15.26 1.8m 14.24 15.07 Wall Eaves CB 14.64 Kerb 17.21 15.17 House Fence 14.99 13.64 13.73 13.66 13.57 LEGEND 15.14 Eaves 1.8m 2 bed Goat Willow PARK Ridge 17.26 FL 14.30 Wall 18 CB 15.18 19.71 13.51 Ridge 2 bed House 13.50 FL 14.65 1:12 19.96 13.67 1.8m 13.56 13.53 bal Eaves CB CB 13.73 16.89 47 1.8m 1.1m CB CB Ridge 1.8m 2 bed 1.8m Site area = 2.12ha SOUTH 13.50 CB 19.92 14.19 1.8m Ridge 2 bed 2 bed 41 19.20 1.8m House 13.93 46 1.1m 42 Greenfield run-off rates FEH Method bal CB 13.0 FL 14.20 43 13.18 13.0 13.14 13.26 13.70 13.0 13.11 13.77 Goat Willow 1.8m 44 1.8m bal CB 1 bed Qbar = 22.0l/s 1.1m 12.92 Stile 136100N136100N 13.51 Foul drainage from site to 12.93 50 1 bed 1:1 year = 17.16l/s 51 12.59 Fence 12.62 12.58 45 12.65 B 12.68 12.57 12.66 Hedge 12.58 12.75 12.81 13.29 12.65 13.09 12.67 connect to existing public 13.0 1:10 year = 32.78l/s Gate 12.65 12.81 12.57 12.50 12.0 Hedge 12.53 foul sewer manhole 12.48 1:30 year = 42.90l/s 12.39 11.94 12.01 12.09 12.33 11.84 12.22 11.98 Gate 13.30 11.93 13.14 1:100 year = 53.46l/s 12.98 Ref: MH7102 11.79 12.55 B 12.55 12.77 11.93 Meadow/ Wildlife 0.6m CL 15.600 KR 12.346 12.05 Area ( Uncut Lane inaccessible 12.01 12.42

Meadow Grass) 12.28 Indicates proposed impermeable areas IL 12.730 12.0 11.94 12.20 12.14 Hedge 11.96 11.86 12.30 11.84 11.91 discharging into surface water attenuation of Bank Top 11.94 11.88 tank Total area = 9'185m² (0.9185ha) 11.95 12.04 12.0 11.90

11.97 11.69 12.19 12.46 Proposed public foul sewer 11.81 11.93 Equipped Play 11.74 12.00 11.88 11.66 0.6m 12.12Area KR Proposed public surface water sewer 11.88

12.08 11.74 11.86 11.78 35m Surface11.87 water Proposed highway sewer attenuation basin 12.03

11.75 11.67 11.76 Large diameter surface water attenuation pipe

Hedge 11.79 11.85 11.96 12.08 to accomodate 1 in 30 year design storm and

0.6m 11.81 11.72 offered for adoption to South West Water Ltd 12.0 KR Public Open Space

12.0 35m 4000m2 11.95 11.69 11.54 11.59 Indicates Sewer Easement 11.58

12.12

11.99 4m

11.75 11.88 11.92 11.53 11.38

12.01 136050N Indicates location of plastic egg crate type 11.62 11.43 structures to attenuate balance of 1 in 30 year 12.18

Hedge 12.0 storage up to and including 1 in 100 year +

11.81 12.12 40% climate change allowance (140.352m³). 11.35 12.02 11.87

12.00 11.64

11.56

11.47 12.22

12.0

12.09

11.89 12.15 11.33

11.86 11.94

11.62 11.67

12.23

12.0 12.11

12.21

11.46 11.77

11.32

11.92

11.68

11.61 11.93

12.19

12.14 12.07

11.43 11.75

12.0

11.69 11.30 Survey of 11.83 11.95 Oak & Goat Willow 12.0 12.04 11.95 11.66 11.76 Site at 12.03 South Park

11.68 Braunton Control chamber to limit site discharge to; 11.45 11.64 Ash Chichester Developments 11.70 Ash 11.70 11.76 07/15 1:200@A0 PJL 1 in 10 (32.78l/s) 11.33 11.63 11.76 11.51 Hedge 11.41 136000N 1 in 30 (42.90l/s) & 11.51 136000N 1 in 100 year (53.46l/s) 11.53

for 1 in 10, 1 in 30 & 1 in 100+40% 11.50 5641 A02 climate change allowance storm events 11.39 5641 South Park Braunton Rev A.dwg by using multiple flow controls at varying249700E 249750E 249800E 249850E heights with control chamber

Surface water from development to be discharged at greenfield run-off rates via new headwall into Knowl Water

The Old Stables, Annery, Monkleigh, Bideford, North Devon, EX39 5JN T 01237 474398 www.fearnleylottarchitects.co.uk Email - [email protected] Project: Residential Development , Land Off Lower Park Road , Braunton Scale Bars 1 2 3 4 5 Client : Chichester Homes Developments Ltd 1:50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Drawing no : 15 101 06 Site Overlay Layout ( Planning) 1:100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 5 10 15 20 Scale: 1:1250 @ A1 1:200 1:500 Date: August 2016 These drawings must not be copied or reproduced without the permission of Fearnley Lott Architects.

Pre-hearing statement on behalf of Chichester Homes Developments Ltd - Matter 6 (Braunton)

APPENDIX 2

7

Planning Committee - 12 October 2016 Report Index

PART 1

There are no deferred applications reported for this agenda

PART 2

Parish App. No. Location Dec. Page ILFRACOMBE 59766 FORMER LEE BAY HOTEL LEE A106 3

BRAUNTON 61139 LAND EAST OF SOUTH PARK, BRAUNTON A106 50

INSTOW 61552 THE OLD STABLES QUAY LANE, APPC 99

LANDKEY 61754 PROSPECT GARDENS BLAKES HILL ROAD, APPC 103

Total 4

Please note that applications shall normally be considered in the numerical order as shown above. However, the order does change from time to time with the agreement of the Chairman and the consent of the Committee.

Schedule of Planning Applications for Consideration

In the following order:

Part 1) Deferred Applications

Part 2) New Applications

With respect to the undermentioned planning applications responses from bodies consulted thereon and representations received from the public thereon constitute background papers within the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985.

ABBREVIATIONS USED THROUGHOUT THE TEXT :

AGLV - Area of Great Landscape Value AONB - Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty ASAC - Area of Special Advertisement Control CA - Conservation Area CDA - Critical Drainage Area CPA - Coastal Preservation Area CPO - Chief Planning Officer DCC - Devon County Council EA - Environment Agency ES - Environmental Statement ENP - Exmoor National Park GPDO - General Permitted Development Order HC - Heritage Coast LPA - Local Planning Authority LB - Listed Building NDLP - North Devon Local Plan NPPF - National Planning Policy Framework PC - Parish Council PROW - Public Right of Way SSSI - Site of Special Scientific Interest TPO - Tree Preservation Order

Page 1 of 106

PART 1 DEFERRED APPLICATIONS

NO DEFERRED APPLICATIONS REPORTED FOR THIS AGENDA.

Page 2 of 106

PART 2 NEW APPLICATIONS

1 App. No.: 59766 Reg. : 10/08/2015 Applicant: ACORN BLUE L. Bldg. : Expired: 09/11/2015 Agent : PLANNINGSPHERE LTD Parish : ILFRACOMBE Case Officer : Mr. R. Pedlar

Proposal: DEMOLITION OF EXISTING HOTEL & PUBLIC WC BLOCK; ERECTION OF 20 DWELLINGS; FORMATION OF NEW PUBLIC OPEN SPACE; EXTENSION TO EXISTING CAR PARK; ERECTION OF CAFE & WC BLOCK; & ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPING, DRAINAGE & HIGHWAY WORKS (FURTHER AMENDED PLANS & INFORMATION) Location: FORMER LEE BAY HOTEL LEE ILFRACOMBE EX34 8LR

INTRODUCTION

The application was the subject of a site inspection by Planning Committee on 6 th October 2016.

It is recognised that the 21 day period for public comment does not expire until one day after the full Planning Committee meeting.

However, the amendments as requested by officers have been submitted by the applicant on the basis that “This revised plans change is an expedient offer on behalf of Acorn Blue, who are concerned about holding costs and further delay, and is contingent upon the application being reported to the 12th October 2016 meeting of the Council’s Planning Committee.

PROPOSAL

The application has recently been amended through the omission of 4 detached dwellings in the northeast corner of the site and is a residential led scheme which proposes:

• Demolition of existing hotel and public WC Block. • Erection of 20 dwellings. The agent states that ‘ The proposed buildings are all of a traditional form while also including some modern features. The roadside elevation is predominantly traditionally detailed to provide a natural feeling of progression in line with the existing buildings in the area. The rear (valley side) elevations employ some contemporary elements including larger glazed openings to embrace the views that the context offers. These openings also bring light into what are effectively single aspect buildings in terms of sunlight. The proposed materials include natural rubble stone walls. Vernacular materials such as rough cast render and natural slate echo the existing material palette in the area with some timber also included in places where a lighter touch will add interest. ’ The terrace is split into two parts and is a mix of 3 and 4 bed houses. An ‘arrival’ building similar in scale to that of the original hotel (pre-70’s extension to the east) is proposed. This accommodates a mix of 2, 3 and 4 bed maisonettes, apartments, and penthouses.

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 3

• Formation of new public open space. Proposed public open space is extended from the bay into the grounds of the former hotel in the form of a stone paved terrace, benches and low walls to deter parking. • Extension to existing car park. The existing car park will be upgraded with improved landscaping, access and additional spaces added. • Erection of café and WC block. This café would sit alongside the car park, elements of the gardens, and the new toilet facilities to the east of the car park. The proposed building is a low level (single storey) building, using traditional materials. • Associated landscaping. Proposed new footpaths running through the site will connect the northern residential and southern public spaces. Japanese Knotweed will be removed and a central meadow and woodland provided. The stream where running through an existing culvert at the west end will be opened up and bank steepness reduced. The grounds will be maintained by a management company. • Drainage. Following discussions with the Local Lead Flood Authority, Devon County Council, and the Environment Agency, surface water flows will be limited to the current existing greenfield runoff rates. The excess volumes of water generated by the restricted discharge flow rates will be contained within cellular storage tanks which will be located outside of the 100 year flood plain to the existing watercourse. The existing car park to the south of the watercourse will be revised in terms of layout and will be reconstructed using permeable materials that will allow water to percolate direct to ground. The site will be served by a new foul package treatment plant located beneath the car park area to the south of the watercourse. In order to be able to drain the houses to the north of the watercourse to the proposed treatment plant to the south, it will be necessary to provide a small private pumping station due to the level differences and the need to pass under the watercourse. The station will be a pre-fabricated unit conforming to the requirements of Building Regulations and will be located outside of the 100 year flood plain to the watercourse. • Highway works. A new pavement along the north side of the site will be provided. Residents parking access/egress will have visibility splays of 25 metres in both directions. • Bat boxes will be located at the south east corner of the site. • Construction Methodology, Waste Management and Site Protection. Proposals are included to deal with these matters. • Contributions to Education and Public Open Space provision. • Viability Assessment. The application is accompanied by a VA that has been independently checked.

The amended plans are submitted on the basis that: • Removal of the previously agreed affordable housing commuted sum offer on the basis that the proposed floor space of 2,589 sqm is less than the existing floor space of 2,748sqm, and is therefore negated by the application of Vacant Building Credit. • A recalculation of the education contribution based on the revised scheme of 20 No. units. • A recalculated POS contribution based on the revised scheme of 20 No. units less the construction costs of the provision of the onsite public open space.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE subject to a Section 106 Agreement and conditions.

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 4

SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

The existing site comprises an imposing empty hotel building which has been unused as such since 2005 that previously provided accommodation in 56 guest rooms, plus ancillary facilities. The main building is primarily arranged over three floors and is sited on the north side of the site, linear in footprint, looking out on to extensive grounds which have now become overgrown and contains Japanese Knotweed. Immediately to the east is a car park. The grounds are divided by a stream and pond. On the south side of the grounds, are a former open-air swimming pool and a car park, used by the public.

The site is located at the bottom of a valley next to the sea, to the west of Ilfracombe. The application site is located within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Coastal Preservation Area, Heritage Coast and Lee Conservation Area. At the northwest corner of the site on the opposite side of the road is a grade 2 listed building.

A number of dwellings are located on higher ground to the north of the hotel and there is also a cluster of properties along the seafront to the west. To the south of the site on the valley side is an area of woodland. Further dwellings and commercial premises are located to the east, in the main part of the village.

The principal access to the site is from Ilfracombe, with minor routes to and . The runs between the hotel site and the sea and a public footpath linking the sea front with the village, runs to the south of the site.

REASON FOR REPORT TO MEMBERS

This is a ‘major’ application that has attracted comment both in support and objection, which the Chief Planning Officer considers should be determined by Planning Committee.

POLICY CONTEXT

Development Plan

North Devon Local Plan 2006 DVS1 Design DVS1A Sustainable Development; DVS2 Landscaping DVS3 Amenity Considerations DVS4 Public Health and Safety DVS6 Flooding and Water Quality DVS7 Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems ENV1 Development in the Countryside ENV2 Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty ENV3 Heritage Coast ENV5 Coastal Preservation Area ENV8 Biodiversity ENV9 International Nature Conservation Sites, ENV10 SSSI ENV11 Protected Species ENV12 Locally Important Wildlife or Geological Sites

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 5

ENV16 Development in Conservation Areas ENV17 Listed Buildings ENV18 Locally Important Buildings TRA1A Promoting Sustainable Transport Choices TRA6 General Highway Considerations TRA7 Non Residential Parking TRA8 Residential Parking TRA8A Safeguarding Public Car Parks ECN15 Renewable Energy REC5 Public Open Space

Devon County Waste Local Plan W4 Waste Prevention W21 Making Provision for Waste Management

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan

The National Planning Policy Framework and its associated technical guidance are material considerations, as is the National Planning Practice Guidance.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

It should be noted that the consultation responses set out below were received in connection with the original scheme and an earlier amendment to design which proposed 24 dwellings and that the further amended scheme is currently out for public consultation, which will formally expire on 13 th October 2016.

Ilfracombe Town Council: Following an ITC planning committee meetings as held at Lee Memorial Hall: Members voted to recommend APPROVAL. Additional comments - to be included with Ilfracombe Town Council's response -

'to recommend approval subject to the planning authority investigating and addressing the concerns raised by residents, including those concerns set out in a statement made by the committee of the Lee and Lincombe Residents association'

(24/03/16) The members listened to a presentation by Duncan Powell from Acorn Blue and comments from Eric Coulings (Chair of Lee Residents Association). Other members of the public spoke both for and against the amendments. Taking these comments into consideration the members moved to approve the applications with the following caveats: That some of the materials and surfaces be looked at by the developers again. That the community benefit needs is clarified. That the hours of working during the construction phase need to be defined with regard lighting and noise impact. That assurance from NDC is gained that this application will be addressed by the full planning committee and not by delegated authority. That all residents’ comments (including already submitted comments) be taken into account by the NDC planning committee before final decision is made.

The application was moved for approval. With 1 member against and 1 abstention the motion was carried.

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 6

Response to amended scheme Comments awaited.

Designing Out Crime Officer: I have noted the reference to designing out crime in the Design and Access statement.

There were some concerns in relation to the public toilets and their sustainability but following a conversation with the agent Chris Beaver to a degree this has been resolved.

The toilet will be closed to the public when the cafe is closed, and the materials within the toilet will ideally be stainless steel to combat any potential vandalism.

The cafe is vulnerable to crime out of working hours due to the remote location; enhanced security including a monitored alarm is the minimum recommended security.

The police are happy to advise further should the applicant wish it.

Response to amended scheme I refer to previous contact from this office dated 25th August 2015 in which concerns were raised in relation to the vulnerability and sustainability of the public toilets and cafe.

The following positive response in relation to those concerns has been received from the agent.

1. Toilets being closed to public when cafe is closed. (The replacement WC will become a private facility managed by the café operator. It will only be open when the café itself is open. Outside these hours we consider that demand for toilet facilities in this location will be low. Ilfracombe Town Council who own and operate the existing public toilet are fully in support of this element of the application proposals). 2. Materials used in public toilets i.e. stainless steel. (Agreed) 3. Enhanced security, including monitored alarm system for the cafe due to remote location. (Agreed)

Strategic Planning Children’s Services: Further to your recent correspondence regarding the above planning application I write to inform you that a contribution towards education infrastructure via a Section 106 agreement is sought.

The proposed 24 family-type dwellings will generate an additional 6 primary pupils and 3.6 secondary pupils.

Devon County Council will seek a contribution towards additional education infrastructure at local primary school that serve the address of the proposed development and also a sum towards primary and secondary school transportation costs due to the nearest secondary school with available capacity being further than 2.25 miles from the proposed development.

As new primary provision is required in Ilfracombe this would be at our New Build rate of £13,329.50 per additional pupil. This makes a total primary contribution of £79,977. In addition, as a new primary school is required, we would also need to request a proportionate land contribution of 10sqm per family-type dwelling. Based upon a land

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 7 value of £400,000 per hectare, this land contribution would equate to £9,600 and would be used to assist in the procurement of the new school site. There would also be an additional request towards primary school transport as Ilfracombe Junior School is further than 1.5 miles from Lee and not on a safe walking route. The cost would be: -

6.00 primary pupils £63.00 per day x 190 academic days x 7 years = £83,790

The designated secondary school is Ilfracombe Academy; there is currently spare capacity at the school and consequently a contribution towards secondary education provision. Devon County Council will however likely seek a contribution towards secondary school transport due to the proposed development site being further than 2.25 miles from Ilfracombe Academy. The costs required are as follows: -

4.00 secondary pupils £15.92 per day x 190 academic days x 5 years = £15,124

In addition to the contribution figures quoted above, the County Council would wish to recover legal costs incurred as a result of the preparation and completion of the Agreement. Legal costs are not expected to exceed £500.00 where the agreement relates solely to the education contribution.

However, if the agreement involves other issues or if the matter becomes protracted, the legal costs are likely to be in excess of this sum.

Should you require any further information regarding either of the above please do not hesitate to contact me.

*These contributions should be adjusted on the date of payment in accordance with any increase in Building Cost Information Service (BCIS) all in tender price index.

Response to amended scheme Comments awaited.

Environment Agency: We have no objections to the proposal providing development proceeds in accordance with the submitted Flood Risk Assessment. Development within the site is appropriately located within the designated flood zones and there is significant betterment provided by ‘opening-up’ the existing section of culverted watercourse. There would be no in principle objections to the development proceeding, but it is suggested that the following points are considered to further inform the design and ensure that the flood risk assessment is comprehensive:

• The standard of defence offered by the sea wall at the north west extremity of the site should be defined, in order to provide greater clarity on the risk of any overtopping scenarios which may pose a risk to the development, particularly in terms of flood resilient design to account for projected debris. • A culverted section of watercourse will remain at the downstream end of the site post development. Any limiting impacts should be considered in the flood risk assessment, in particular surcharging of capacity and blockage scenarios. • The watercourse passing through the site is classed as ‘Non-Main River’ and any associated flood defence consenting requirements will be administered by the Lead

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 8

Local Flood Authority, in this case Devon County Council. Consentable activities will include the opening-up of the watercourse, the provision of crossing points and control structures for the ornamental lake.

It is not immediately clear whether the ornamental lake is an ‘on-line’ or ‘off-line’ feature. Concern would be raised that an ‘on-line’ design may give rise to the feature becoming a silt trap requiring frequent maintenance, so it would be recommended that a bypass channel to convey the watercourse should be constructed.

(23/03/16) Development within the site is appropriately located within the designated flood zones and there is significant betterment provided by ‘opening-up’ the existing section of culverted watercourse. We therefore have no objections in principle to the proposed development. We advise that the comments contained within our letter dated 18 August 2015 (attached) remain appropriate to this amended design.

Response to amended scheme Comments awaited.

Flood and Coastal Risk Management Team: In accordance with Devon County Council’s SuDS Design Guidance the use of above ground storage and drainage features is encouraged. This site has an existing watercourse and lake however the SuDS proposals, other than discharging direct to them, do not take full advantage of these features. The drainage strategy does not indicate whether this has been considered and therefore should be reviewed to include for such an option and any reason for it being discounted. The use of an open SuDS facility in this location would also provide improved amenity value and biodiversity.

The proposed surface water management for the site is made up of four cellular storage tanks all of which have discharge values lower than the recommended 5 l/s. Values lower than this are prone to blockage due to the size of the orifice and/or flow control. It is recommended that the storage facilities are reconsidered to enable combining the discharges to more appropriate values.

It is not clear whether the storage tanks are to be sealed or whether some infiltration will occur. If the latter, then the northernmost cellular tank, if drawn to scale, appears to be very close to the building. It is recommended that any cellular storage tank is a minimum of 5m from any building.

The storage figures appear to be based on the greenfield runoff rates for the 100yr plus 30% for climate change however there is no indication of long term storage provision. Further information should be provided to indicate how this is to be included in the SuDS proposal.

If the cellular systems are to be used then a robust maintenance regime should be provided to show how and when the storage units are to be inspected and cleaned and give a clear indication of who will be responsible for organising and funding these works.

In Summary – It is believed that an above ground SUDS scheme would be more appropriate for this site in terms of surface water management, water quality, amenity and

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 9 biodiversity and recommend this is explored further or evidenced why this is not being proposed.

(24/03/16) Although we have no in-principle objections to the above planning application at this stage, the applicant will be required to provide some additional information now, as outlined below, to demonstrate that all aspects of the surface water drainage management plan have been considered.

Section 6.2 of the Flood Risk Assessment, Drainage and Hydraulic Modelling Report (Report Ref. R/C14641/001.04, Iss. 4, dated 9th February 2016) states that due to the site’s topography and ground conditions, infiltration is not a feasible means of surface water disposal, but it is proposed that the existing car park to the south of the watercourse will be reconstructed using permeable materials. The applicant must therefore further clarify the drainage arrangements for this car park by specifying the type of permeable materials proposed and demonstrate that infiltration is viable on this part of the site. Once the applicant has provided this additional information, and if the Planning Case Officer is minded to grant planning permission in this instance, I require the following pre- commencement planning conditions to be imposed:

• No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until a detailed permanent surface water drainage management plan is submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, with consultation with Devon County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority. This detailed permanent surface water drainage management plan will be in accordance with the principles of sustainable drainage systems, and those set out in the Flood Risk Assessment, Drainage and Hydraulic Modelling Report (Report Ref. R/C14641/001.04, Iss. 4, dated 9th February 2016).

Reason: To ensure that surface water from the development is managed in accordance with the principles of sustainable drainage systems.

Response to amended scheme Comments awaited.

SWW: No objection.

(10/03/16) No comment (on amended plans).

Response to amended scheme South West Water has no comment.

Project and Procurement Officer Parks, Leisure and Culture: Please find attached the initial POS calculation for the above scheme (£105,477.40). There is a significant area of informal open space to be provided on-site - please could you confirm the size of this area so I can look to offset it against the current requirement.

I will then be in a position to review the contribution.

(17/03/16) I attach my email of 17/8/15, in response to a consultation request for this application. In order to provide an accurate POS calculation, please can you provide me

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 10 with the specific POS provided on-site? I can then look to offset this against the current contribution requested.

Secondly I note that Planning Sphere's letter of 25th February 2016 details a contribution of £85,477.40 as an offsite POS contribution (£20,000 less than the proposed contribution). As noted above, I can look to offset the on-site POS provision against the contribution opposed to deducting a pre-set un-agreed figure.

Could you also confirm that the informal open space will be publicly accessible to allow for the request off-setting, and also confirm the maintenance of the site proposed (management company or town council for example).

Response to amended scheme The revised POS off site contribution calculation based on the updated accommodation schedule (20 units), all being open market is £84,038.78, taking account of the 164 sqm of POS to be provided on site.

PROW: Thank you for consulting me on this application, I make the following observations:

• The main impact on the public rights of way network by the proposed development is at the beach access to the public car park area, where Ilfracombe Footpath 36 leaves the road and runs through to The Grampus. This is a very well used public footpath, referred to in the supporting documents and the Design and Access Statement. Not only is it used by people moving between the village centre and the car park / beach, it is also used to connect into the footpath network in Borough Valley, with walkers using the car park / toilet facilities here. • Should the development go ahead in line with the submitted plans, measures must be put in place to protect users of the footpath at the access point by the sea wall from site traffic. All contractors and delivery vehicles should be pre-warned that members of the public may be walking here, and reinforced with onsite safety signs. Should it be necessary to close the public right of way at any stage during the development (for example the laying of tarmac as outlined in the submitted documents) then a formal temporary closure must be in place. This can be obtained from Devon County Council if required. • I cannot determine from the plans and documents whether the footpaths across the site, mentioned in the Design and Access Statement, will be designated as public footpaths connecting to the public highways etc, or will be restricted to use by residents. If routes are to be made public, they will need to be the subject of an adoption process as part of any highway measures agreed, and/or a creation agreement in the case of unmetalled surfaces. Could this be clarified by the applicants please? • Also I cannot determine whether there will be any direct link from the line of Ilfracombe Footpath 36 into the site in the area of the proposed café and toilet block, as the public toilets are currently accessed directly off the footpath here. Could this be clarified by the applicants please?

I have copied this response to my colleague in Highway Development Control, as any future corporate responses on reserved matters etc would be coordinated through that section.

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 11

Response to amended scheme Comments awaited.

Devon Fire & Rescue: The Fire Authority do not have any observations with regards to the proposed works to be carried out at the former Lee Bay Hotel, Ilfracombe.

Response to amended scheme The access route to the proposed development for fire appliances along the public roadway is restricted; the provided plans are unclear as to available access for fire appliances into the site for access to each type of property.

The fire authority consider that matters regarding provision of access for fire fighting vehicles and provision of fire hydrants are given full consideration, to ensure that adequate access to both property and water supplies can be provided within the proposed development.

Currently the roadway to the northwest and west of the site is provided with fire hydrants. The fire authority considers that due to the constricted vehicle access along the public roadway to the site, further provision of hydrant facilities should be considered to meet the requirements for fire fighting for premises to the north eastern area of the proposed development.

The fire authority will comment on these matters as part of the statutory consultation process under the Building Regulations 2010

Sustainability: The supporting information appears to provide no information with regard to sustainable design and construction targets. The application should make specific reference to the design targets required for all elements of the development.

• A 15% reduction in carbon emissions beyond current Building Regulations from the development as a whole either through on-site design efficiency (measured against SAP (DER/TER) or through on-site low carbon technologies

Further information should be conditioned for reserved matters:

• Within 3 months of the final dwelling being occupied a post-construction report shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority demonstrating that at least a further 15% reduction in regulated carbon emissions beyond current Building Regulations has been provided by either on-site renewable technologies or fabric efficiency measured against SAP (DER/TER). (Reason: To ensure the development meets sustainability requirements).

The amended Sustainability Statement dated January 2016 states contains the following statement and is therefore supported in terms of Policy ECN15 and DVS1A.

• 3.4 Energy (Fuel and Power) Performance Targets for the Development:

• The development will achieve a 15% reduction in carbon emissions beyond current Building Regulations either through on-site design efficiency options as described

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 12

within the Paragraphs above (measured against SAP (DER/TER) or through on-site low carbon technologies.

• As part of the above target, the client will commission and submit to the Local Planning Authority a post-construction report demonstrating that the 15% reduction in regulated carbon emissions beyond current Building Regulations has been provided by either on-site renewable technologies or fabric efficiency measured against SAP (DER/TER).

Response to amended scheme Comments awaited.

Economic Development: Further to our conversation yesterday, I would just like to reiterate some of our concerns about the residential development of the Lee Bay Hotel from an economic development point of view.

Whilst we understand that the site as it stands needs addressing, we also feel that it is important to identify the right scheme for this very sensitive location. We need to consider the possibility that the proposed scheme does not enhance the existing tourism offering at Lee, but also detracts from it.

The previous scheme discussed in 2010 was for tourism use, and although this was not consented at the time, we would still like to see some form of tourism use of the site.

Having read the market report by Colliers, we are still not convinced that some element of tourism use is not possible on the site.

I can go into more detail about our reservations about this scheme, but for the time being we would like to object to the application as it stands.

(10/11/15) The main concern with this site is its sensitivity given the location. We feel that a large housing scheme in this location will detract from the attractiveness of this village and this part of the coast. This in turn will have a negative effect on the tourism economy for the local area, and for North Devon.

A visitor profiling survey by Experience Market Research identified that the main reasons that people visit the South West is for the countryside and seaside / beaches. From a tourism point of view these are our assets, and we need to protect them.

The survey also identified the main market sector interested in visiting the South West as being "Discovery Families" - those looking for learning, discovery, exploration and enriched experiences, rather than pure entertainment. Again, the kind of experiences offered by north Devon's countryside and beaches - in particular at Lee Bay.

Walking and active tourism also make a considerable contribution to the north Devon tourism economy. The South West Coast Path runs along the side of the road adjoining the front of the hotel site, so consideration for walking as a tourist activity should be taken into account - and any negative effects on this.

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 13

Map here shows location: http://gis.devon.gov.uk/basedata/viewer.asp?DCCService=footpath

In my previous email I suggested that some element of tourism use may be possible on the site. I would like to use Tunnels Beaches as an example of how an older, run down site could be renovated and become a success. The Tunnels Beaches wedding venue holds in excess of 150 wedding per year, with close to 10,000 wedding guests staying for a minimum of two nights in the local area.

The main selling point for Tunnels is its coastal location - which is on a par with Lee Bay. The South West is currently the most popular region of for weddings.

My point here really is that the tourism market has evolved beyond the traditional hotel model, with people holidaying in different ways, and looking for different experiences, and other markets (such as weddings etc.) emerging. I would like to see more exploration of alternatives for this site.

I hope this helps - I am happy to discuss further if needed.

Information can be found here: https://english-wedding.com/2013/09/marriages-in- england-all-the-wedding-statistics-you-need-to-know/ http://www.swtourismalliance.org.uk/research-facts-and-figures/regional-tourism-data/

(08/03/16) I have had a look at the revised plans and documents relating to the above planning application, and our views remain unchanged.

Whilst the scheme has been reduced marginally, and the replacement of the kiosk with a cafe is a nod towards some kind of tourism offering, we don't feel that the changes go far enough to address our initial concerns.

Response to amended scheme Comments awaited.

Housing Market Balance: Following the removal of the Vacant Building Credit and Affordable Housing Threshold in August 2015, the 24 residential units would now all require the provision of affordable housing. Most importantly the provision should be on- site; I see absolutely no reason for any off-site contribution. Looking at the last minutes of the Lee and Lincombe Resident's Association Dec 14, residents are already concerned about the number of second homes leaving certain areas of the village almost desolate at time and state that "Affordable housing is very important to many people in the village, including xx, who has a family and a job in but cannot afford a house in his own village."

As per my consultation response to the initial pre-application enquiry (C109151) in 2013 I requested between 25-50% AH (as brownfield 'other unlisted rural settlement') dependent on viability. Andrew Austen (Planning Policy) and I discussed this back then and both agreed that affordable housing should be required on site as above to avoid making the development a second home/holiday home haven. At the time I requested a viability assessment as the scheme was not policy-compliant. The emerging Local Plan (which at present holds little weight as has not yet even been submitted to Examination in Public) would require 30%.

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 14

I would therefore again request a viability to establish the level of affordable housing that is viable. A policy compliant scheme on a rural, brownfield site being at present between 25-50% depending on viability; equating to between 6 and 12 units on the current total of 24 units. This would be reviewed by the District Valuer at the applicant's cost.

10% - 1-bed, 60% - 2-bed, 24% - 3-bed and 6% 4-bed. At least 75% social rent and the remainder intermediate housing for sale or rent.

It may well be worth carrying out a Housing Needs Survey on this - I will discuss it with our Rural Housing Enabler - it is normally at the applicant's cost but there are funding pots available for such work such as "Awards for All". This would be a great scheme for the Parish Council to get involved with so that they are involved in the development of the affordable housing scheme. Some rural Parish Councils decide to work with the Devon Rural Housing Partnership to set up a Community Land Trust to manage the affordable homes; this may be an option they would like to look into to ensure some control over the homes.

(10/03/16) I have looked through the amendments and they still do not seem to be offering any on-site affordable housing. My consultation response dated 10th September 2015 still applies and a viability assessment to be submitted externally for review at the applicant's cost would still be required.

Response to amended scheme Comments awaited.

Natural England: Landscape The proposal is within the North Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and Heritage Coast. It is also adjacent to the South West Coast Path National Trail (SWCP NT).

Natural England recognises that this is an opportunity to remove a derelict building and eyesore. However, the location of the site within the AONB makes it very sensitive to change and great care needs to be taken to ensure that any redevelopment does not itself detract from the quality and character of its landscape and conflict with the statutory purpose of the AONB.

We would draw particular attention to the proposed height of the buildings and the extent of the new development and question whether the scheme as currently presented might be too dominant within this intimate narrow valley setting. We would recommend that, given the need to respect local character, the proposed use of modern materials and contemporary design should be considered carefully, including with regard to the AONB Management Plan and Local Plan policies dealing with ‘local vernacular’.

We would strongly advise you to seek the view of the AONB Partnership and their advice should be given careful consideration. Their knowledge of the location, its role within the AONB, its location on the South West Coast Path National Trail and the relevance of the aims, objective and policies in the AONB Management Plan will be crucial to a fully informed determination of the scheme. This information can also help to inform any amendment to the proposals that may be required to make the scheme more acceptable.

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 15

We would also draw your attention to Paragraph 115 and 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 2012)2.

Designated sites – Marine Conservation Zones (MCZ) Based upon the information provided, Natural England’s advice is that the proposal is unlikely to affect any terrestrial statutorily protected sites.

However, the development site is in close proximity to the proposed Bideford to Foreland Point Marine Conservation Zone (MCZ), with a stream connecting the development site directly to the MCZ.

All public authorities have a legal duty to further the conservation objectives for MCZs as far as is consistent with the proper exercise of their functions. MCZs are a material consideration in the determination of planning applications.

Any new discharge into the stream that crosses the MCZ has the potential to impact intertidal features of the MCZ if it significantly alters the nutrient load of the stream. We would not want to see any obvious increase in eutrophication of the foreshore. Of particular concern would be areas of intertidal rock in direct contact with the stream where there is the potential for increased nutrient loads to result in changes to algal communities. We would like to clarify how this risk has been assessed in the development of the proposal.

We note that the proposal is for wastewater to be processed by a Package Treatment Plant (PTP) which will discharge directly to the stream which flows through the intertidal. We would like to understand more clearly why the effluent arising from this development cannot be discharged to ground or through a sustainable drainage system (SuDS).

Natural England would look to the Environment Agency to appropriately condition any discharge consent to ensure the quality of the effluent from the development was of high enough quality to ensure that no eutrophication of the foreshore occurs.

In light of the risk highlighted above, we would encourage the applicant to set aside and plant up a SuDS to receive the effluent around the PTP before it enters the stream. This should use native species of local provenance, to increase the value for biodiversity, and should have an appropriate management plan.

Sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) can contribute towards green infrastructure by increasing biodiversity and amenity value. Further guidance on the design of SUDs for wildlife by the RSPB can be found at www.rspb.org.uk/sustainabledevelopment and further useful information on the benefits of sustainable drainage systems, including case studies, can be found at http://www.susdrain.org

Protected species We have not assessed this application and associated documents for impacts on protected species.

Natural England has published Standing Advice on protected species. You should apply our Standing Advice to this application as it is a material consideration in the determination of applications in the same way as any individual response received from Natural England following consultation.

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 16

The Standing Advice should not be treated as giving any indication or providing any assurance in respect of European Protected Species (EPS) that the proposed development is unlikely to affect the EPS present on the site; nor should it be interpreted as meaning that Natural England has reached any views as to whether a licence is needed (which is the developer’s responsibility) or may be granted.

If you have any specific questions on aspects that are not covered by our Standing Advice for European Protected Species or have difficulty in applying it to this application please contact us with details at [email protected].

Biodiversity enhancements Your authority should consider securing measures to enhance the biodiversity of the site from the applicant, if it is minded to grant permission for this application. This is in accordance with Paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Additionally, we would draw your attention to Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006) which states that ‘Every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity’. Section 40(3) of the same Act also states that ‘conserving biodiversity includes, in relation to a living organism or type of habitat, restoring or enhancing a population or habitat’.

All new development should create high quality locally distinctive places where people want to live and work. Green infrastructure is increasingly recognised as an essential component of any truly sustainable development and the most effective means of providing a wide range of ecosystem services for quality of life and health benefits. We welcome the retention and enhancement of the open space as part of the proposal and the naturalisation of the stream running through the valley.

We have produced green infrastructure guidance which is available to planners, developers and others to download at http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/35033?category=9002 The Town and Country Planning Association’s publication ‘Biodiversity By Design’ provides further information on this issue.

We welcome the proposal to deal with invasive species such as Japanese knotweed. Devon County Council have provided comprehensive advice for dealing with Japanese knotweed which can be found at http://www.devon.gov.uk/japanese_knotweed.htm The use of alternative roofing (turf, aggregate, brown and green roofs) can make a significant contribution to biodiversity, attenuation of rainfall, and energy efficiency as they can provide a high degree of insulation and we would encourage the applicant to consider this for the proposed café/toilet block.

We referred to the use of SuDS in the designated sites section of this letter. SuDS should be capable of delivering a high quality multi-functioning approach that provides high water quality (e.g. pollution control measures, use of reed beds, etc.), quantity (flood alleviation, run-off, etc.), and ecological and amenity value.

Any design layout for the site should work towards a net gain in biodiversity in line with paragraph 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 17

Additional matters In accordance with Section 4 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, Natural England expects to be consulted on any additional matters, as determined by North Devon Council, that may arise as a result of, or are related to, the present proposal. This includes alterations to the application that could affect its impact on the natural environment. Natural England retains its statutory discretion to modify its present advice or opinion in view of any and all such additional matters or any additional information related to this consultation that may come to our attention.

SSSI Impact Risk Zones The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, which came into force on 15 April 2015, has removed the requirement to consult Natural England on notified consultation zones within 2 km of a Site of Special Scientific Interest (Schedule 5, v (ii) of the 2010 DMPO). The requirement to consult Natural England on “ Development in or likely to affect a Site of Special Scientific Interest ” remains in place (Schedule 4, w). Natural England’s SSSI Impact Risk Zones are a GIS dataset designed to be used during the planning application validation process to help local Planning authorities decide when to consult Natural England on developments likely to affect a SSSI. The dataset and user guidance can be accessed from the gov.uk website.

(09/03/16) Thank you for your email dated and received 4 th March 2016 regarding the above proposal and further information/amended plans.

We note the response (technical note eg14632) to Natural England’s comments dated 15 th September 2015 (ref: 163052). We welcome the proposal to create a wetland to receive the discharge from the package treatment plant before it enters the stream. This removes our concerns about any possible eutrophication of the foreshore and the now designated Bideford to Foreland Point Marine Conservation Zone.

Response to amended scheme Based on the amended plans and information submitted, Natural England does not have any additional comment to make further to our advice of 15 th September 2015 (ref 160352) and 9 th March 2016 (ref 180597) copies of which I have attached to this email for ease of reference.

AONB: I am writing on behalf of the North Devon Coast AONB Partnership in relation to the above planning application. This is a major application for a very important site within the AONB. It is in a prominent location, within the Lee Conservation Area and adjacent to one of the most beautiful bays on the North Devon coast. As a result, our response is a detailed and carefully considered one.

Proposal The proposal is for the demolition of the existing Lee Bay Hotel and its replacement with a comprehensive scheme that includes:

• An apartment block on the site of the hotel; • Development of terraced and detached houses on the road side; • Restoration and management of the hotel grounds – not open to the public; • Improvement and enlargement of the existing public car park;

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 18

• Development of a small café and public toilets.

There are a number of issues that are of concern to the AONB that are detailed in this response to the application.

• The previous use of the site was as a hotel, as such it met many of the aims of the AONB Management Plan. The permanent loss of the hotel would, in our opinion, have an effect on the sustainable economy of the local area and would need to be considered carefully. • Paragraph 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires planning permission for major development to be refused in designated areas (such as the AONB) except in exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated that they are in the public interest. Thus, an understanding of public interest benefits of the proposal is critical to its assessment. • Lastly, a consideration of the impact of the proposal on the landscape and scenic beauty of the AONB locally.

SUSTAINABLE ECONOMY The permanent loss of a hotel on the site would be detrimental to policies G3 and G5 of the AONB Management Plan (support for sustainable tourism opportunities and a sustainable tourist economy). However, the opening of a new café business, if it were to be a permanent addition to the locality, would mitigate the loss of the hotel slightly. The application documents include a detailed study that concludes that the retention of tourist accommodation on the site (either as a hotel or holiday apartments) is not financially viable. The report concentrates, however, on the financial viability of alternative uses that include refurbishment of the existing building – there is no assessment of their viability in a scenario where the existing building is demolished. It remains the case that the permanent change of use would represent an overall loss of sustainable tourism opportunities and a knock on detrimental effect on the local economy as a result of the proposals.

EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES Paragraph 116 of the NPPF requires that an assessment of exceptional circumstances should take account of need, the scope for development elsewhere and the environmental impact of the proposals.

There is a need across the district for more homes (evidenced by the lack of a 5 year housing land supply in North Devon). However, there is also ample scope for that need to be met outside the AONB (for example, in Ilfracombe, where sites for nearly 1500 new homes have been identified in the emerging local plan). No affordable or local needs housing is identified on site as part of the proposal. AONB Management Plan Policy I2 supports the maintenance and development of sustainable communities. The inclusion of an affordable element within this development would contribute towards that policy.

There is, however, a need to find a sustainable use for the existing building and grounds, which have fallen into disrepair since the closure of the hotel. The applicants state that open market housing is the only viable use for the site. A number of benefits would be delivered as part of the proposal, these being restoration and management of an important area of landscape within the Lee valley; improvement and long term management of a public car park ; improvement and management of public toilets and creation of a new café business. The car park, café and toilets would contribute to AONB

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 19 management polices related to access and recreation, including H1, H2 and H4. These benefits would, however, need to be secured.

The existing toilets are not reliably open, due possibly to a lack of resources. There is an existing café in the bay (adjacent to the car park entrance). Currently it is open seasonally (the café / bar that was part of the hotel has been closed for several years). It may well be that there is only enough business for one café here and that a permanent, year round café business is not viable in this location, if that is the case then a significant part of the benefit of the scheme would be diminished. Elsewhere in the country, financially insecure facilities have been supported via a cross subsidy from enabling development and that would seem like a model that could be considered here. It is noted that such a cross subsidy is not included in the draft heads of terms for the Section 106 agreement.

Our concerns about the long term viability of the café enterprise are compounded by its siting. The proposed building would be sited at the village end of the car park, distant from the beach and with no access from the path to the village. We recommend that it is given a more prominent location, related to the beach, the car park and the existing footpath access to Lee village so as to maximise footfall and increase its viability.

Members and advisors to the AONB partnership have experience in the design and management of café and toilet facilities. Their advice is that the management of the café block could be improved so as to reduce management costs by the inclusion of a dedicated staff toilet in the café and by changing the toilet block design to a unisex cubicle design, such as that used by NDC in Woolacombe or by Exmoor National Park at Blackmoor Gate.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT The application is accompanied by a landscape and visual impact assessment, which concludes that the development will offer considerable benefits to the landscape character and quality of the AONB, Heritage Coast and Lee Bay Conservation Area. While we agree that there is much to commend the scheme (such as the long term management of the prominent valley landscape and re use of a currently dilapidated site) we do have some concerns over matters of detail design. These relate to the impact of the development on the character of the conservation area, rather than its broader landscape impacts.

Paragraph 115 of the NPPF states that the conservation of cultural heritage is an important consideration in the AONB and that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in these areas. The character of the conservation area obviously contributes to the cultural heritage of the area and plays a part in the scenic beauty of the AONB in the developed part of Lee. A Draft Conservation Area Appraisal is at an early draft stage. It is likely to emphasize how important the topography is and how the open spaces between and around buildings are important (particularly the valley floor). It will also note that the buildings of Lee are a selection of varying shapes, sizes and styles. Landscape The proposal makes a positive contribution towards the overall landscape of the valley and the management proposals for the hotel grounds are broadly welcomed. There are some matters of detail that, if addressed, would improve the proposal: The car park seems too large for normal circumstances and constitutes a much-increased area of hard surfacing when compared to the existing arrangement. Anecdotal evidence

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 20 suggests that it would only ever be full at peak weekends. That being the case, the area under hard surfacing could be reduced and the overflow car park could be treated with a reinforced grass surface.

The existing public square, on the north-west elevation, was originally well related to the public bar/café in the hotel. The proposed public space has no relationship to the café or car park and is not well related to the main beach access.

A pavement is proposed in front of the apartment block and terraced houses. This is an uncharacteristic feature in the context of the village and could contribute to suburbanization of the character of the conservation area. Care is needed in the detail design and choice of materials for the pavement, garden boundary walls, surfacing and planting on this elevation. The footpath is not of general benefit to the village, as it stops either side of the development. Apartment Block Treatment of the western elevation of this building will have a profound effect on the character of the seafront. The current proposal involves a large semi-circular garden area with an imposing 2.9m high wall adjacent to the road. The character of the public realm will be profoundly affected by the presence of the wall and the design of the garden area is unsympathetic to the pattern of built form in the area around the bay. Beyond the garden, the western building elevation contains a large palette of different materials and large areas of glazing. The design has little that reflects or responds to the character of the beach or other buildings in the conservation area and detracts from the character of the village. Terraces and Detached Houses A characteristic of the conservation area is the individual character of buildings. The proposed elevation for the terrace is very uniform, by comparison, with the same pattern of doors and windows, orientation and roof design repeated across the terrace. This will be particularly noticeable to the north east (road) elevation. Combined with the addition of a pavement, this will lead to an uncharacteristic suburbanization, out of character with the rest of the conservation area.

SUMMARY 1. The permanent loss of a sustainable tourist facility on this location will be detrimental to policies G3 and G5 of the management plan. The applicants have put forward evidence that market housing is the only viable use for the site. The lack of affordable housing in the proposal does not help to maintain the sustainability of the local community. 2. There are clearly benefits to the local environment in the landscape and management proposals for the valley, as well as improvements to access through the enlargement and restoration of the car park (policies H1, H2, H4 of the Management Plan). The proposed benefits to access and facilities as a result of the café and toilets may not be long lived unless they are supported by financial subsidy from the housing development. 3. There are some matters of detail design which detract from the scheme as it stands and would have a detrimental impact on the character of the conservation area.

Overall, The AONB supports the proposal, subject to the following matters being resolved:

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 21

• An element of affordable housing to contribute to the maintenance of Lee as a sustainable community • Long term subsidy of a café business to enable café and toilets to remain open all year round. • Amended design to the seaward elevation of the apartment block and north east elevations of the terraced houses.

(15/03/16) We have reviewed the amended plans and information submitted in relation to this planning application and have the following comments to make.

The amendments to the arrivals building elevations and the detail design of the terrace and detached housing on the street elevations are welcomed as an improvement on the original proposals submitted. Our comments in relation to other, more minor, matters of detail design, not addressed in these amendments still stand (as per our letter of September 2015). However, we believe that these issues (in particular detailed design of the toilet block and design and materials for the pavement) could be dealt with by condition.

Finally, since application was submitted, the waters around Lee Bay have been designated as a part of the Foreland to Bideford Marine Conservation Area (MCZ), we would ask therefore that should the Council be minded to approve this planning application, they satisfy themselves that the treatment of waste water from the site is to the highest possible standard.

Response to amended scheme Having reviewed the latest amended plans and information submitted in relation to this planning application we have the following observations:

In our opinion, the removal of units 1 - 4 will reduce the impact of the proposal on the lane leading from Lee village and it will reduce the potential for a suburbanising impact as a result of the development (as outlined in our letter of September 2015). However, the revised information has done nothing to address our previously stated concern over the long term viability of two cafe businesses which lie in close proximity (particularly as the submitted statement implies that there is little commercial interest in a catering offer in the valley).

The North Devon AONB Management Plan policies G3, G4 and G5 aim to support a sustainable local economy, based on tourism and utilising the AONB’s natural resources. There is nothing in the submitted documents to indicate that there is sufficient demand for 2 cafe businesses in the locality nor any indication that a management operator has been identified. We fear a situation where both businesses may fail as a result of the cafe proposal- leading to a loss of amenity for visitors to the area.

In addition, we believe that the proposed lobby style toilet block design presents management problems in an unsupervised context and could encourage anti-social behaviour (even in an idyllic setting such as Lee Bay) and we can foresee a situation where the toilets are closed when the cafe is not in operation, again reducing the amenity of the area for visitors and restricting access to the coast for many.

Our comments in relation to other, more minor, matters of detail design, not addressed in these amendments still stand (as our letter of September 2015 which is enclosed).

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 22

Lee & Lincombe Residents Association: Attached is the formal Statement of the Committee of the Lee & Lincombe Residents' Association (LLRA), as a Consultee to the planning application, in connection with planning application No. 59766 for the redevelopment of the Lee Bay Hotel site. This is the Statement which Ilfracombe Town Council (ITC), as a Consultee also, refers to in its amended decision dated 15 September 2015. The only significant change from the Statement given to ITC is the addition of the introductory paragraph referring to ITC’s decision.

The LLRA would like to stress the importance of the National Planning Policy Framework provisions (as set out in the appendix) when Planning is considering and arriving at a decision on this planning application.

The LLRA would like to speak at the full NDC Planning Committee meeting considering this planning application and it would be grateful for notification when this is scheduled to take place.

Response to amended scheme Comments awaited.

Heritage & Conservation Officer : The core of the Lee Bay Hotel, meaning the building to the west of the present site, dates back to 1871, when it was built as the Manor House for Charles Drake Cutcliffe. The building was sold and extended by four bays to the east in the late 1890's, and used as a hotel. In the 1920s and 1960s what had become known as the Lee Bay Hotel was further extended to the east, to occupy the present site. The extensive grounds to the south, covering the valley floor, appear always to have been part of the property, and form an open and spacious setting for the hotel. The whole stands within the Lee Conservation Area.

The Lee Bay Hotel closed in 2005 and since then the site and buildings have not been maintained. They now appear overgrown and in a poor condition. Even with this neglected appearance, the building and its grounds make, on balance, a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

The westernmost element of the Hotel is of some architectural and historic interest. It retains features and characteristics which are distinctive of the arts and crafts period, in its style, massing and detailing. The Hotel has been much altered, and because of this would probably not meet the listing criteria. It does, however, retain sufficient merit to justify categorisation as a non designated heritage asset, under the terms of paragraph 135 of the NPPF. To clarify, the easternmost block of the hotel, dating from the 1960's, the infilled loggia structure to the south elevation, and the small flat roofed extension to the north- west corner are later alterations which do not add positively to the interest or significance of the core building.

The grounds in which the hotel is set are extensive, and have been laid out to include lawns, tennis courts, ponds and various small garden structures. These open spaces have a scale which reflects the comparatively large proportions of the existing building. They are of value in their own right, allowing views over the valley floor from the northern and southern slopes of the hills adjacent, and from the beach-side road. There is a semi-public paved area to the extreme west of the site, which incorporates some seating within the stone walling. This again is a positive contributor to the character of the Conservation Area, albeit the appearance of this area is capable of enhancement.

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 23

We have previously approved a scheme which retained the significant core of the Hotel, and proposed new build elements within the grounds. It was felt that this scheme, given permission in 2012, balanced the need for income-generating development with the need to retain and enhance valued aspects of the site.

The proposal now put forward involves the demolition of the hotel building and its replacement with a three and a half storey apartment block, with a further set of 7 terraced houses and 4 detached houses beyond to the east. A single storey cafe and public toilet building on the south side of the site is also proposed.

In general terms, my view is that the proposal will not preserve the character or appearance of the Conservation Area as is indicated to be desirable under paragraph 72 of the principal Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Nor does it preserve the setting of the adjacent grade II listed Old Mill; section 16 (2) of that Act reminding LPAs to have 'special regard' to the desirability of preserving listed buildings or their settings. The reasons for this are:

• the historically and architecturally significant core of the hotel is removed, together with its distinctive features including local stone walling, dressed sandstone window and door surrounds, hoodmoulds, quoins etc., half timbered gables, leaded windows incorporating stained glass, varied and distinctive roofline incorporating flush and projecting gables of varying sizes, decorative fish scale slate hanging • the positive contributions that the hotel makes to the streetscape, including the sense of enclosure along its north frontage, and the domestic two storey proportions of the elements closest to the Old Mill are not maintained. In particular the proposed new west elevation is significantly taller, at three and a half storeys as opposed to the existing two, and is likely to intrude on the setting of the Old Mill due to the increased bulk. The new building, with its uniform treatment of bays, gables and fenestration has the uniform appearance of a block of apartments, a type of development uncharacteristic of this Conservation Area. The token use of some traditional features such as the fishtail slate hanging and the 'feature' chimney at the east end does not succeed in rooting the building in the vernacular. • the use of the terraced form, in the apartment block and more particularly in the terraced houses and the detached houses, introduces a sense of uniformity, urbanity and intensity of development which is entirely alien to the character of Lee. This is a village of individual houses and cottages, built at different times, with different interpretations of prevailing styles. This eclectic and well spaced mix is a fundamental feature of the village, and is a strong factor in its unique sense of place. The proposed groupings of uniform, three storey terraced houses is unlikely to sit comfortably within the existing character, and is likely instead to provide a disconcerting and detrimental contrast. • the heights and bulk of the new buildings are a significant increase upon the size of the existing building. This increase of built form will not preserve the character of the Conservation Area, though it is noted that the valley floor has largely been kept clear, which is a positive feature.

As stated above, it is my view that the proposal does not meet the requirements of the principle Act. In terms of the NPPF, my view is that it would involve the complete loss of significance of a non- designated heritage asset (paragraph 135), less than substantial harm to a designated asset (p134) in the effect on the setting of the grade II listed Old Mill,

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 24 and a high degree of less than substantial harm (p134) to a designated heritage asset in terms of the effect on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The public benefits of the proposal should therefore be weighed into the balance during the decision making process. There is undoubtedly a public benefit associated with the scheme, in the improved condition of the site, and enhanced public seating and toilet facilities. In my view, however, the previous scheme demonstrated that these benefits could be gained by a different, more acceptable scheme, and I do not see that they would outweigh the harm caused by the current proposals.

(21/04/16) I made substantive comments on this application in my email dated 15.9.15. Since then, the application has been resubmitted as now presented. Having compared the drawings of the application as originally submitted, and those presented now, I find the following differences:

Detached Houses – Unit 4 now 2 storey instead of 3

North Terrace street elevation – frontage now faced in natural stone on number 8, weatherboard and recessed ground frontage on number 9.

Apartments south elevation – two of the gables removed and replaced with rooflights, ridge height of western end reduced by 1.2 metres, associated redesign of gable.

In my original response I expressed a high level of concern about the effect that the proposed scheme would have on both the character and appearance of the Lee Conservation Area, on the significance of the undesignated heritage asset that is the Lee Bay Hotel, and on the setting of the grade II listed Old Mill. The alterations noted above do not alter the basic elements of the proposal, or address the concerns I raised in any meaningful way. Therefore, the comments I made in my email of 15.9.15 still stand.

Response to amended scheme Comments awaited.

Historic England: Summary The proposed development site is a substantial former hotel and associated gardens situated within the heart of the idyllic Lee Conservation Area. The site is a key contributor to the transitional section of land that links Lee Bay with the main settlement. The proposals is for the complete demolition of the Arts and Crafts hotel and significant intensification of development on the site along the north-east boundary, with an increase in scale and massing and a repetitive form and design that conflicts with the existing character of the conservation area.

We are not adverse to potential sympathetic regeneration within the site that responds to the existing character and appearance and greater reflects the density, massing and form of the existing settlement. We would be pleased to offer further advice in order to achieve a more appropriate and sensitive scheme within this important site within Lee. However, at present, Historic England considers the scheme will result in detrimental harm to the conservation area and would object to the proposal as they do not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area (Section 72, P(LBCA)A 1990).

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 25

Historic England Advice Significance Lee Village nestles within the sheltered lush green combe above the secluded bay of the same name. The striking rocky coastline of the cove provides a picturesque backdrop to the conservation area, contributing to an isolated character associated with the local maritime and smuggling tradition held within the bay.

The village of Lee has a tightly developed core of incremental vernacular properties, whose positioning amongst the valley slopes within established gardens provides the settlement with an enclosed and sheltered domestic character.

Between the village core and the cove, the character changes to a much looser grain, predominantly consisting of moderate sized properties situated within substantial plots, intermixed with open farm land and bordered by the plantation of Winkle Wood, which provides a picturesque rural quality to the area.

The cove has a slightly more intimate quality, with functional vernacular properties, anchored into the rugged landscape and clustered along the edge of the bay. The main exception to this is the Arts and Crafts Lee Bay Hotel, which is the subject of this application. Its prominent location, scale and massing, with the additional modern extension, means that the current building has a level of discord with the existing character and appearance of the Lee Conservation Area.

Although the existing building conflicts with aspects of the area’s character, it is a key focal point within the valley, retaining some aesthetic value within the original structure, through its use of architectural features and detailing, as well as the sensitive use of complimentary materials. The site holds an illustrative role with the changing social and economic dynamics of the conservation area, from its origins as a functioning harbour and agricultural landscape, through its development into a small isolated tourist destination and the subsequent growth in popularity in the mid-20 th century, which may also result in some communal value.

The surrounding curtilage to the hotel contributes significantly to the conservation area, covering much of the valley around the bay and stretching back towards the village. It remains largely open, although unmaintained, with only limited low level interventions, such as car parking and tennis courts. The contribution of the site and arguably its importance has been captured within the Design and Access Statement, which reads

“arguably the most important area of landscaping within Lee as it occupies the majority of the valley floor within its grounds, whilst the former hotel building is one of the principle focal points in the valley .” This relatively open nature of the site contributes to the character and appearance of the conservation area.

Impact The current proposal looks to demolish the existing hotel in its entirety and significantly intensifying the level of development within the plot by replacing it with 24 dwelling, consisting of two blocks of 3 to 4 storey terraces and 4 detached units, 3 storey’s each, built in a line that runs along the elevated north-eastern boundary of the site, which would also include associated car-parking for the new units. The scheme would also provide a new car park for the cove, public conveniences and facilities on the opposite side of the valley, along the south-western boundary.

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 26

Historic England would raise significant concern regarding the complete loss of the Arts and Crafts core of the existing structure and the proposed intensification of development on the site, in terms of the numbers of properties as well as the proposed increase in scale and massing. We would highlight the harmful impact that this level of development would have on the character and appearance of the conservation area, which is based upon a loose grain and modest sized properties nestling into the surrounding rural topography.

The scale and massing of the existing hotel is significantly bigger than any other structure within Lee, largely due to the inappropriate later extensions to the south-east. However, we would argue that it has retained some aesthetic quality in the Arts and Crafts aspects of its design, through its use of gables, choice of materials and architectural detailing to help modulate and break up the façades.

The 1960s extensions are not considered to be the most sympathetic additions with particular note being given to the south-eastern end of the hotel and the addition to the south-western elevation, holding little to no architectural or historic merit. One area, where this is not the case is the addition to the western end of the hotel that fronts the cove, its modest design helps to soften the overall bulk of the existing structure by addressing the topography through modulation in height as well as harmonising with the choice of architectural features and materials, resulting in a later addition that compliments the Arts and Crafts character of the core building.

The current replacement building tries to utilise a similar bulk and massing as the principle section of the hotel (west end including 1960s additions), however, due to its uniform silhouette, its increase in scale from three to four stories, its insufficient consideration of the surrounding topography and the repetitive nature of the long façades, the proposal creates an austere and overbearing façade within the cove. The form neither reflects the existing incremental development of the village or the stand alone structures seen within the wider hinterland. The repetitive nature of the town house is a largely alien feature within the conservation area. We note the vernacular terrace approach taken along the lane, but again this design is not common place within Lee, whose buildings have a more individual architectural style, with only one row of designed terraced properties, which in itself retains a modest vernacular character.

As we have identified, the scale and massing of the existing hotel structure is not a typical feature within the conservation area, therefore, by losing this structure, we would question what the justification is for a similar scaled building, as it clearly conflicts with the existing character and appearance of the conservation area. In terms of the proposed new development at the eastern end of the site, this greatly intensifies the level of development seen within the conservation area, which has retained an idyllic rural character. The proposed levels of development will significantly erode the open context and character of the valley, restricting views through the site and enclosing the adjacent access road that leads down to the bay. The level of development raises significant concerns, which is further exacerbated by the choice of architectural form of terraced units and detached properties designed in close proximity to each other. This restrictive layout will limit the current open sense of space appreciated from the access road across the valley. We would raise similar concerns with regards to scale, massing, and the repetitive nature of the design as we have done with the proposed replacement for the hotel, as it further intensifies the scale and extent of development proposed again conflicting with the character and appearance of the conservation area.

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 27

We appreciate the steps that have been taken within the design to break up the mass of the proposed blocks, however, the does not sufficiently mitigate our concerns with regards to the potential impact and further erosion of the special interest of the conservation area. Consequently, we consider the proposal will result in a significant harmful impact of the designated heritage asset, conflicting with its distinct character and appearance and resulting in a significant change that could alter the character of the area significantly.

With regards to the development on the south-western side, we understand the aspiration for this section of the conservation area and are generally supportive of the improved visitor facilities and the contemporary approach that has been taken. With regards to the extent of the proposed car parking, we would question the justification behind the significant enlargement of the car park. At present the site is tucked away and allows the area to retain its rural quality. By increasing the size so significantly, we would have concerns regarding the potential visual impact this may have on views along and across the valley. We feel that the approach taken might be less intrusive if the landscaping and the layout of the car park was less visually stark in appearance. Historic England is aware that this important site within the heart of Lee has suffered through a lack of maintenance and neglect in recent years. We understand the important contribution the site makes to Lee and the desire to find a sustainable use for it, which is an aspiration we would support; however, any regeneration needs to carefully consider its surrounding context and address it in a sensitive manner, which we do not consider has been done under the current application.

Policy As the application affects a conservation area, there is a statutory requirement to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area (s.72, 1990 Act), and this must be taken into account by the local planning authority when making its decision.

Under the NPPF it is a core planning principle to 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 (para.17 NPPF). The NPPF looks to achieve sustainable development, seeking economic, social and environmental gains jointly and simultaneously through the planning system. The planning system should play an active role in guiding development to sustainable solutions. (para.8 NPPF). Pursuing sustainable development involves seeking positive improvements in the quality of the built, natural and historic environment (para.9 NPPF).

Planning authorities should look for opportunities for new development within conservation areas and within the setting of heritage assets to enhance or better reveal their significance. Proposals that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to or better reveal the significance of the asset should be treated favourably (para.137 NPPF).

As we have identified the level of impact of the proposal would result in harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. No other planning concern is given a greater sense of importance in the NPPF. 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

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 28 clear and convincing justification (para.132, NPPF). The onus is therefore on the planning authority to rigorously test the necessity of any harmful works.

The loss of a building (or other element) which makes a positive contribution to the significance of a conservation area should be treated either as substantial harm or less than substantial harm under paragraphs 133 and 134 of the NPPF as appropriate, taking into account the relative significance of the element affected and its contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area as a whole (para.138 NPPF).

We have identified that sensitive redevelopment of the site would be a positive addition to the conservation area, however, we would raise significant questions over the current scheme, as we do not consider that it preserves or enhances the special qualities of the conservation area. We would suggest that the proposal is in clear contradiction to the core policies of the NPPF (Para 17).

Following analysis, we have identified that the proposal would result in “ less than substantial ” harm in the terminology of the NPPF, however, this does not mean that the harm is justified and we would highlight the severity of the potential impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area. The proposal will have a significant and detrimental impact on the conservation area, having the potential to fundamental change the very existing character within this section of valley. Therefore, the public benefit of the scheme need to significantly outweigh the potential harm to this picturesque section of the conservation area, as identified in Para 134 of the NPPF.

Chapter 7 within the NPPF establishes the parameters for new design, identifying that it should look to reinforce and promote local distinctiveness and integrating new development into the historic environment by reflecting its local surroundings (para.58 & 61 NPPF). However, permission should be refused because of concerns about incompatibility of development with an existing townscape, where the concern relates to a designated heritage asset and the impact would cause material harm to the asset or its setting which is not outweighed by the proposal’s economic, social and environmental benefits (para.65 NPPF).

Position The current proposal would result in significant harm to the conservation area, with the potential to fundamentally change the existing character and appearance, through the intensification of development within what is currently a substantial and largely undeveloped plot. The increased scale and massing restricts the open quality the area currently retains, while the repetitive nature of the design conflicts with the incremental and vernacular quality held within the built form of Lee and the associated bay.

At present the application does not pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area (S72). Although, we have identified the scheme as less than substantial , we do not consider that there is clear and convincing justification for the proposed level of development, which conflicts with a core principle of the NPPF (Para 17). We would also question, whether the public benefits of the proposal outweigh the significant harm caused to the conservation area.

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 29

Historic England therefore objects to the current proposal, as the level of harm caused by the intensification of development would be detrimental to this rural and picturesque conservation area.

Recommendation Historic England objects to the current proposal for the redevelopment of the former Lee Bay Hotel site, situated within the heart of the Lee Conservation Area, due its detrimental impact to the character and appearance of the area. We appreciate the need for the sensitive and sympathetic redevelopment of this important but neglected site and would be pleased to offer further advice to find a scheme that would more appropriately address the constraints of the conservation area and its associated context.

(12/04/16) From our assessment of the new information submitted the changes to the scheme are limited and do not address our principal concerns regarding the potential to fundamentally change the existing character and appearance of Lee Bay, through the intensification of development in what is currently a substantial and largely undeveloped plot. The increased scale and massing restricts the open quality the area currently retains, while the repetitive nature of the design conflicts with the incremental and vernacular appearance held within the built form of Lee and the associated bay.

Consequently, the advice in our previous letter still stands and Historic England maintains its objection.

We would like to re-emphasis that we appreciate the need for the sensitive and sympathetic redevelopment of this important but neglected site. Historic England would be pleased to offer further advice to find a scheme that would more appropriately address the constraints of the conservation area and its associated context. We consider that there may be alternative approaches to developing the site that could address our concerns regarding the impact of the proposal on the conservation area and would be pleased to discuss these options further.

Please contact me if we can be of further assistance. We would be grateful to receive a copy of the decision notice in due course. This will help us to monitor actions related to changes to historic places.

Response to amended scheme Comments awaited.

Development Management (Highways): Can you please obtain confirmation from the applicants of the proposed visibility to be provided at both accesses to the car parks.

Response to amended scheme Comments awaited.

Environmental Health: I have reviewed this application in relation to Environmental Protection matters and comment as follows:

Should approval be granted, I recommend conditions be imposed (see Recommendation) in respect of:

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 30

• Contaminated Land Desk Top Condition • Contaminated Land Reactive Condition • Construction Management Plan Condition • Demolition / Construction Times Condition • Asbestos Condition

Response to amended scheme Comments awaited.

Countryside & Landscape Officer : As long as we have some further clarity over potential impacts on the unidentified tree/scrub area within the northeast corner of the site and potential for areas of private gardens to impinge/encroach into areas of shared space, I would be reasonably happy with a pre-commencement condition to cover the submission and approval of a detailed TPP and AMS.

I would still wish to see detailed landscape and ecological management proposals for the site.

Response to amended scheme Comments awaited.

REPRESENTATIONS

At the time of preparing this report 71 letters of objection, 15 letters of comment and 8 letters of support have been received relating to the application (copies of all the letters have been made available prior to the Planning Committee meeting in accordance with agreed procedures).

Main Issues

Objection • Scale of occupation 150-200 holiday occupants. • Access. • Out of character with Lee Bay and Conservation Area. • Increase in square footage. • No overriding social or economic benefit. • Imbalance of second home owners. • Not the only viable economic development. • Remove detached houses, style more in keeping, move restaurant to front of site opposite Mill House. • Increase in height has a dominating effect. • Not in keeping with existing properties. • The village needs more permanent dwellings. • Would prefer it not to be housing. • Predominance of holiday homes/holiday lets undesirable. • Largely deserted outside holiday season. • Little involvement with village. • Should be restricted to C3 use (examples in case law cited). • Weatherboarding is out of character and impracticable.

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 31

• Stainless steel chimneys out of character – no provision for log stores. • Apartments too high. • Misleading portrayal of public opinion. • Too sprawling, restrict to original hotel footprint. 15% higher, 100% longer (75 to 155m). • Loss of significance of designated heritage asset. • Overwhelming. • Enormous. • Looming four storey block of flats at sea end. Densely packed terraces and detached houses. • Detracts from area. • Unsustainable economically. • Tourist accommodation not needed. • Disregard for old footprint – low rise on old footprint required. • Inappropriate to AONB/Conservation Area/HC/CPA. • Redevelopment should be for holiday purposes only. • No demand for cafe/increased car parking. • Based on developers greed. • New residential development should not be allowed in AONB. • Traffic congestion on inadequate roads. • Too large. • Urban corridor created. • Visual impact significantly greater due to 3 storeys and extension uphill. • Blocking off more views than are opened up. • Traffic generation will be greater due to change from coach to car journeys. • Central stream/lawn will be private, no longer accessible to the public. • Lack of affordable housing. • Properties will not sell. • Cafe will not be available. • Too much reliance on glass and stainless steel. • Finances need to be fully scrutinised. • Unsustainable development (para 14). Paras 58, 115, 116,126, 130, 133. • Formulaic approach to architecture. • Should stay as a hotel and provide jobs. • Only economic benefit will be to Acorn Blue. • A village within a village. • Roofline overlooking bay and Old Mill Cottage 1.5m higher than current – overbearing, dominant, out of keeping, additional height and mass. • Designated for hotel use in the past. • Apartment building line too high. • Footprint increase of 4.5%, floor area 17.1%, height 1.5m. • Purely commercial development detrimental to the village. • Too many holiday homes already. • Intentional neglect of hotel. • Sewage works need attention anyway, responsibility of land owners. • No coherent plan for village. • No account of public representations. • Unable to view financial arguments. Business plan needs scrutiny.

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 32

• Lack of public benefits. • Salvageable parts of hotel should be retained. • Fails NPPF on sustainability, conserve AONB. • Urban appearance. Lighting, landscaping, parking, pavements. • Presumption in NPPF against the development, substantial harm to AONB. • No substantial public benefits. • AONB ‘exceptional circumstances’ and ‘in the public interest’ not met. • Lack of adequate assessment of continued hotel use and related viability. • Lack of affordable housing and viability assessment. • Hotel not derelict. • Figure 9.4 viewpoint has no visualisation or verified view. • Ultra modern design. • Public space is small. • Impact on bats. • Scattered nature of dwellings in Lee. • Loss of trees and inappropriate replacements. • Parking problems are overstated.

Observations • Height of apartments should be lowered. • Dwellings too close. • Too many units. • NT gift shop would affect existing retail units – only refreshments should be sold. • Buildings should be in keeping with local style. • Cafe a little small and should be closer to sea front. • Road will need improvement after construction. • Disruption during construction. • Too large 15-18 would ease dominance and traffic flow. • Acorn Blue have no figures about pricing and costing. • Disappointing that affordable housing is no longer included. • As many trees and hedges should be retained as possible. Trees on north side replanted. • Use herringbone stone walls. • At least 40% should be permanent homes. • Reference to NT commitment should be removed from documents as misrepresentation. • Toilets will not be available all year round (NT would need subsidy). • New consultation required. • SW elevations should be retained. • Public access required to communal areas. • Eradication of knotweed was already in hand. • Queries adequacy of water supply. • Proper operating plans required for construction period – 7.30 to 7.30, access kept open, advance closure advice, damage remedied promptly. • Cafe ridge height should be as low as possible. • Utility services need to be kept open. • There is no bridleway on south side. • Use natural materials.

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 33

• Residents from Lincombe & Lee should have free parking permits.

Support • Improved vistas down the valley. • Well thought out and attractive cafe. • Car park extension will stop parking along sea wall. • Will not generate enough traffic to be an issue. • Access to the toilets all year round would be good if possible. • Well thought out compromise. • Could encourage further appropriate investment in the bay. • On road parking and blocked accesses should be restricted and bus turning area marked out. • Something has to happen to the site. • Compelling economic argument. • Welcome car park, refreshment and toilet facility, POS, pavement, retention of open view down valley, design of buildings. • Offers the best compromise. • Cafe will be an attractive destination. • Only viable option is housing. • More sensitive than previous scheme. • The hotel is an eyesore. • Will bring back life to the valley. • Added value to the village.

See attached list for representation names and addresses.

PLANNING HISTORY

Decision Reference Proposal Decision Date ND AD 153 Proposed advertisement sign CC 21.11.62 ND AD 257 Proposed advertisement sign R 15.09.67 ND 945 Proposed erection of Public Conveniences W ND 1065 Proposed Public Conveniences CC 19.12.62 ND 1279 Proposed swimming pool, cubicles & pump house CC 25.02.64 ND 1403 Proposed extension to hotel UC 08.12.64 ND 1426 Proposed staff quarters UC 19.10.64 ND 1517 Proposed sewage disposal works CC 21.07.65 ND 1557 Proposed car parking facilities & improved access CC 02.07.65 ND 1673 Proposed garages & store CC 21.02.66 ND 1746 Proposed car park CC 26.10.66 ND 1870 Proposed conversion of shop & flat to CC 24.05.67 dwellinghouse ND 1874 Proposed covering & enlarging outside passage CC 23.05.67 ND 2572 Proposed hardening of footpath for public use on R 23.02.71 OS 2239 & engineering works on part OS 2233 ND 2615 Proposed provision of private footpath for public W 06.04.71 use through amenity area & provision of service access to Chapel Cottage

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 34

Decision Reference Proposal Decision Date ND 3286 Proposed private drive & pond (Chapel Cottage) CC 13.09.73 74/0002/34/3 Proposed construction of 2no. tennis courts CC 08.05.74 75/257/34/3 Proposed fire prevention work CC 04.03.75 75/394/34/5 Proposed illuminated single sided box sign W 75/445/34/5 Proposed single sided illuminated box sign CC 12.11.75 77/120/34/3 Proposed conversion of store to form 2no. CC 02.03.77 bedrooms, shower room and toilet 77/748/34/3 Proposed foul drain to serve 4no. dwellings and CC 17.06.77 discharge to existing sewage works within grounds of Lee Bay Hotel, OS 2546, 3144 & pt 2851 79/188/34/3 Proposed additional staff accommodation R 26.06.79 Appeal Allowed 28.01.80 79/1315/34/3 Proposed alterations and extension to existing CC 06.02.80 hotel 0/1040/34/3 Proposed revised entrance (amendment to CC 07.07.80 2/79/1315/34/3) 83/1924/34/3 Proposed enclosure of existing swimming pool W together with the provision of additional leisure facilities and alterations to access 84/845/34/3 Proposed alteration to existing access CC 28.08.84 84/1685/34/3 Proposed swimming pool extension to existing CC 20.02.85 premises 85/293/34/3 Proposed conversion of gift shop to form dwelling R 10.06.85 85/2043/34/3 Proposed alterations and extension to existing CC 27.03.86 swimming pool 86/1516/34/3 Proposed store for garden machinery R 16.09.86 86/2161/34/3 Proposed replacement car park kiosk and change R 15.01.87 of use to sale of beach goods from Easter to end of September each year 2104 Proposed conservatory CC 13.10.87 2105 Proposed replacement of LPG storage tanks CC 26.11.87 7423 Proposed glazed covered walkway link between R 04.01.89 hotel and proposed leisure complex for disabled persons 7424 Proposed extension to hotel to form 7no. double R 07.03.89 bedrooms with en-suite facilities for disabled persons and new reception area 7425 Proposed erection of building to enclose existing R 07.03.89 swimming pool and to provide leisure complex 11800 Proposed demolition of stone wall and re-building CC 25.06.90 of same 11801 Conservation Area Application: Proposed CC 25.06.90 demolition of a non-listed wall in a Conservation Area 12096 Proposed temporary siting of 6no. caravans for R 10.07.90 staff accommodation

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 35

Decision Reference Proposal Decision Date 28983 Notification of works to trees situated in a CC 11.05.00 Conservation Area in respect of felling of 4no. Sycamore & 1 no. Oak trees (Lee Manor) 29579 Proposed formation of tennis court (Chapel W 27.07.00 Cottage) 35198 Proposed formation of tennis court for community CC 12.08.03 use (amended plans) (Chapel Cottage) 45227 Extension & alterations including minor W 18.12.07 demolition, slate terracing & formation of turning area (amended & additional plans) 49712 Redevelopment of redundant hotel complex to FDO 15.11.12 form 19 shared ownership holiday apartments, 5 further new build holiday apartments in grounds together with associated cafe/bistro/bar, restaurant, spa, pool complex, kiosk & associated works (amended drawings & flood risk assessment)

SUMMARY OF ISSUES

• Planning Policy • Housing • Landscape • Design • Heritage • Amenity • Ecology • Drainage • Transport • Other issues • S106

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

Planning Policy In terms of the adopted North Devon Local Plan, Lee Bay has not been specifically identified as a settlement where growth should take place. It is one of a number of 'unidentified' settlements that the Local Plan describes as do not generally have the services, scope or need to develop further. However, limited new development may be acceptable in these unidentified rural settlements, provided it meets a justified economic or social need.

Additionally it must be recognised that this is not a greenfield site but previously developed land. The NDLP states ‘The Plan aims to maximise the reuse of previously developed sites and the existing building stock in order to promote urban regeneration and minimise the loss of countryside. Generally, all forms of development will be encouraged

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 36 to make use of previously developed land and buildings where appropriate and practical to their circumstances in preference to using greenfield sites’.

The Economic Development Officer questions the exclusion of tourism use of the site and the impact of a large housing scheme on the attractiveness of the area and the tourist economy and the AONB team note that the permanent loss of a sustainable tourist facility in this location will be detrimental to policies G3 and G5 of the management plan, whilst recognising that if the new café business was permanent this would mitigate the loss of the hotel slightly.

It is worth noting that the last tourism led scheme proposed for the site including retention of the historic core of the hotel, did not materialise, despite a resolution to grant planning permission.

The applicants have put forward evidence that market housing is the only viable use for the site in a market report on the building’s potential for non-residential uses. This concludes that:

• Refurbishment / redevelopment of the hotel are an unrealistic aspiration or outturn. • The 2010 holiday apartments scheme, assuming planning permission had been granted, is not viable. • Alternative uses as set out above are like to prove ephemeral and unrealistic.

Whilst it is accepted that the loss of tourism use is regrettable, no alternative tourism based schemes have been submitted to the Council for consideration since the last planning application.

Housing In settlements such as Lee Bay, the NDLP policy is that the occupancy of any dwellings will be restricted to meeting the needs of the local community in accordance with the occupancy restrictions set out in paragraph 7.23 of the Plan. These settlements will be treated as falling within the countryside where, for example, Policies ENV1, HSG9, HSG9A, ECN4 and ECN5 apply.

Clearly the proposal is at odds with that approach, because the scheme is for 20 open market dwellings. Consequently, there is an understandable concern locally that the dwellings proposed will become second and holiday homes. The LPA does not have the ability to prevent this type of occupancy, whether in new or existing open market dwellings.

Based on government policy at the time of submission of the application, the Housing Officer sought affordable housing provision on-site of between 25 - 50% split 75% social rent and 25% intermediate, depending on viability.

Subsequently a Viability Assessment was submitted and has been subject to independent review. This review showed that it would be possible to seek a contribution of £200,000 towards affordable housing in addition to the contributions for education and public open space.

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 37

In the meantime the Written Ministerial Statement relating to thresholds for affordable housing contributions and more significantly in this case Vacant Building Credit, has been reintroduced.

On the basis that the hotel has not been ‘abandoned’ in planning terms, there will be no affordable housing requirement. This is because the existing floor space of 2,748 sqm (GIA) is greater than the cumulative proposed residential floor space across all 20 units of 2,545 sqm (GIA). The cumulative residential floor space is therefore 203 sqm (GIA) less than the total floor space of the former hotel building.

Whilst there is an argument that the WMS does not have to be followed in areas where there is a serious lack of affordable housing, this must be weighed in the balance against the benefits of the scheme.

Landscape The site is located within an area that is designated as Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Coastal Preservation Area and Heritage Coast. Consequently policies ENV2, ENV3 and ENV5 are relevant, as are paragraphs 115 and 116 of the NPPF.

Great weight should be given to conserving the landscape and scenic beauty.

The NPPF states at 116 that planning permission should be refused for major developments in the AONB except in exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated they are in the public interest, although it is doubtful this paragraph would apply in this case, given the context of the development.

It is worth noting that the last tourism led scheme proposed for the site including retention of the historic core of the hotel, did not materialise, despite a resolution to grant planning permission.

In terms of environmental impact, the AONB officer identifies some concerns about the impact of the development on the Conservation Area on the basis that the CA contributes to the AONB, rather than broader landscape impacts.

The AONB team recognise that there are clearly benefits to the local environment in the landscape and management proposals for the valley, as well as improvements to access through the enlargement and restoration of the car park (policies H1, H2, H4 of the Management Plan). But they are concernded that the proposed benefits to access and facilities as a result of the café and toilets may not be long lived unless they are supported by financial subsidy from the housing development.

Design Some criticism of design matter remain from the public and consultees, with the suggestion that this will have a detrimental impact on the character of the conservation area. Heritage issues are considered in the next section.

Part 7 of the NPPF establishes the parameters for new design, identifying that it should look to reinforce and promote local distinctiveness and integrating new development into the historic environment by reflecting its local surroundings (paragraphs 58 and 61).

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 38

However, permission should be refused because of concerns about incompatibility of development with an existing townscape, where the concern relates to a designated heritage asset and the impact would cause material harm to the asset or its setting which is not outweighed by the proposal’s economic, social and environmental benefits (65).

A summary of the design is set out in the Proposals section above, changes having been made to the detailed design in February 2016, as a result of initial representations.

The ‘Arrival Building’ comprising apartments, stands on the area occupied by the core of the existing hotel. The ridge of the roof will be for the most part 1.5 metres above that of the existing building. At the western end the new building is set 2.5 metres back from the site boundary, reducing impact on the listed building opposite.

The palette of materials used, which is reflected in the appearance of the apartment block, the terraced houses to the east and the café can be found in the village, although the use of timber cladding is less prevalent.

The overall appearance of the buildings in terms of detailing, arrangement of materials and proportions does not exactly reflect existing buildings in the village and has a distinctive style of its own. The merits or otherwise of this approach is to some extent subjective, but the existing hotel building is also unique in terms of the village, in its scale and appearance.

With regard policy relating to sustainable development and renewable energy as applied to the buildings to be constructed (Policy DVS1A and ECN15) and the amended Sustainability Statement, the Sustainability Officer is supportive and recommends a condition requiring a post construction report to verify the proposals.

The Crime and Disorder Officer has made comments about the proposed cafe/toilet building which have been agreed by the applicant.

Heritage

The responses of the Heritage & Conservation Officer and Historic England set out the historical background to the existing development.

Her view on the scheme which was originally submitted was that the proposal will not preserve the character or appearance of the Conservation Area as is indicated to be desirable under paragraph 72 of the principal Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Nor does it preserve the setting of the adjacent grade II listed Old Mill; section 16 (2) of that Act reminding LPAs to have 'special regard' to the desirability of preserving listed buildings or their settings. The reasons for this are set in full in the consultation reply, but can be summarised as:

• The historically and architecturally significant core of the hotel is removed, together with its distinctive features. • The positive contributions that the hotel makes to the streetscape, including the sense of enclosure along its north frontage, and the domestic two storey proportions of the elements closest to the old mill are not maintained.

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 39

• The use of the terraced form, in the apartment block and more particularly in the terraced houses and the detached houses, introduces a sense of uniformity, urbanity and intensity of development which is entirely alien to the character of lee. • The heights and bulk of the new buildings are a significant increase upon the size of the existing building.

“As stated above, it is my view that the proposal does not meet the requirements of the principle Act. In terms of the NPPF, my view is that it would involve the complete loss of significance of a non- designated heritage asset (paragraph 135), less than substantial harm to a designated asset (p134) in the effect on the setting of the grade II listed Old Mill, and a high degree of less than substantial harm (p134) to a designated heritage asset in terms of the effect on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area”.

Subsequent to this, the applicant submitted amendments to the design of the scheme on 1st March 2015 which included the following changes:

• Detached Houses – Unit 4 now 2 storey instead of 3 • North Terrace street elevation – frontage now faced in natural stone on number 8, weatherboard and recessed ground frontage on number 9. • Apartment’s south elevation – two of the gables removed and replaced with rooflights, ridge height of western end reduced by 1.2 metres, associated redesign of gable.

The HCO response was that the alterations noted above do not alter the basic elements of the proposal, or address the concerns raised in any meaningful way.

It will be noted that Historic England take a similar view and raise significant concern regarding the complete loss of the Arts and Crafts core of the existing structure and the proposed intensification of development on the site, in terms of the numbers of properties as well as the proposed increase in scale and massing. We would highlight the harmful impact that this level of development would have on the character and appearance of the conservation area, which is based upon a loose grain and modest sized properties nestling into the surrounding rural topography.

They go on to state that “As we have identified the level of impact of the proposal would result in harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. No other planning concern is given a greater sense of importance in the NPPF. 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 (para.132, NPPF). The onus is therefore on the planning authority to rigorously test the necessity of any harmful works”.

The amended plans referred to above have not addressed their principal concerns.

The ongoing concerns of the HCO and HE were put to the applicant, who was not inclined to alter the detail of the scheme further.

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 40

However, since then the scheme has been amended further to omit the four detached dwellings in the north east corner of the site, thereby reducing impacts on the Conservation Area both in terms of built form and the loss of views across the valley.

HE point out that ‘As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification (para.132, NPPF). The onus is therefore on the planning authority to rigorously test the necessity of any harmful works.

Therefore, the public benefit of the scheme need to significantly outweigh the potential harm to this picturesque section of the conservation area, as identified in Para 134 of the NPPF’.

At the time of writing this report, further consultation replies are awaited from the HCO and HE.

Amenity In consideration of environmental protection matters, the Environmental Health Officer recommends the inclusion of conditions relating to: Contaminated Land study and reaction; Construction Management Plan; Demolition/Construction Times; and Asbestos survey and removal.

With regard to Policy DVS3 it is not considered that the development will increase impacts on the occupiers of neighbouring residential property.

Ecology On the advice of Natural England, the proposal is unlikely to affect any terrestrial statutorily protected sites.

A concern was initially raised about potential impact on the Marine Conservation Zone, but this has been allayed by confirmation that the proposal includes creation of a wetland to receive discharge from the packet sewage treatment plant before it enters the stream.

A Protected Species survey has been undertaken which has identified the presence of bats. The loss of roosting habitat will be mitigated by the installation of bat boxes on new buildings, in existing trees and a dedicated roosting space over the café.

Slow worms have also been found on site, which will require translocation.

With regard to Biodiversity, Policy ENV8 of the North Devon Local Plan requires that losses to biodiversity must be minimised, fully mitigated and compensated for by the creation or enhancement of habitat and the Government policy set out at paragraph 109 of the NPPF is to minimise impacts on biodiversity and provide net gains.

Natural England welcome the retention and enhancement of the open space as part of the proposal and the naturalisation of the stream running through the valley and the proposal to deal with invasive species such as Japanese knotweed.

A Landscape and Ecological Management Plan will be required by condition to deal with these matters.

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 41

Drainage The EA advise that development within the site is appropriately located within the designated flood zones and there is significant betterment provided by ‘opening-up’ the existing section of culverted watercourse. Subject to some additional comments they raise no objection.

With regard to surface water drainage proposals the Flood and Coastal Risk Management Team (FCRMT) noted that the proposed surface water management of the site is made up of four cellular tanks. They have no in principle objections to the application at this stage, but require some further clarification and recommend a condition relating to the submission of a management plan (set out in the Recommendation).

Foul drainage requires improvement and it is proposed to site a new foul package plant beneath the car park to the south. This will need to include provision for some properties to the north of the hotel that link in to the existing hotel system. There are no objections from consultees.

Transport

The submitted Transport Statement in respect of the original development concludes:

• The parking needs of the proposed development can be readily accommodated on the site. A total of 48 ( now 44 ) parking spaces are proposed adjacent to the former Hotel building, spread across three new car parks. This provides each residential unit with two parking spaces. Visitors’ parking can be accommodated in the expanded public car park. In providing this level of parking, the area of existing hard standing located to the west of the Hotel use can be closed off to vehicular traffic which provides an overall planning benefit. • The existing car park accessed from the Sea Front will be resurfaced and rationalised to improve the quality of the parking area and to increase the number of spaces available to the general public from approximately 40 to 75 (including 3 spaces for disabled Drivers). This car park will also be extended to provide an additional 12 parking spaces for the operators / users of the café ( now omitted and replaced by a café service area ). This will help to reduce on-street parking in inappropriate locations. • The proposed access arrangements to the site involve the creation of two new priority junctions on the sites northern boundary to provide access to the two new car parks associated with the residential aspects of the scheme. Access to the publically accessible car park and the proposed commercial aspects of the scheme on the southern edge of the site will remain the same as currently exists. • Traffic flows associated with the proposed development have been shown to be considerably less than those that might otherwise be associated with the extant Hotel use of the site. This provides a considerable benefit to highway safety on the local roads in the vicinity of the site particularly given the removal of coach trips to and from the extant Hotel use.

No objections have been received from the Local Highway Authority.

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 42

The PROW officer requests protection is put in place for users of the public footpath adjoining the site during construction. This can be required as part of Construction Management Plan (CMP) condition.

Other Issues

New Homes Bonus. Section 143 of the Localism Act amends Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 so that when determining planning applications, Local Planning Authorities should also have regard to any local finance considerations so far as material to the application. Local finance considerations mean a grant or other financial assistance that has been, or will or could be provided to the relevant authority by a Minister of the Crown, or Sums that a relevant authority has received, or will or could receive, in payment or a Community Infrastructure Levy. In respect of this application consideration should be given to the New Homes Bonus that would be generated by this application.

S106

DCC as education authority have requested a contribution totalling £188,491plus legal costs in respect of primary school provision and transport costs in respect of both primary and secondary schools serving the site.

In consideration of Policy REC5, a revised contribution of £84,038.78 is requested by the Project and Procurement Officer Parks, Leisure and Culture, part of which could be offset against on-site POS. Details are also required to confirm how the site will be maintained .

CONCLUSION

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

Furthermore, applications for residential development should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The Council’s most recent Housing Land Supply Statement (April 2016) demonstrates that the Council has a 5 year housing land supply and on this basis the present application falls to be considered against the adopted Local Plan and the policies noted in this report.

It also follows that the decision should be taken in accordance with the adopted development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

This site comprises an empty hotel, grounds and car park located behind the beach at Lee Bay.

On the basis that the Council has a five year housing land supply the decision on this application should be taken in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Lee Bay is not identified as a settlement where growth should take place and is treated as countryside where Policy ENV1 applies. However, limited new development may be acceptable in these unidentified rural settlements, provided it meets a justified economic or social need. Additionally it must be recognised that this is not a greenfield site but

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 43 previously developed land. The Local Plan aims to maximise the reuse of previously developed sites and the existing building stock in order to promote urban regeneration and minimise the loss of countryside. Generally, all forms of development will be encouraged to make use of previously developed land and buildings where appropriate and practical to their circumstances in preference to using greenfield sites.

There are conflicts with the policies of the Local Plan, particularly in terms of those relating to the AONB (ENV2), HC (ENV3) and CPA (ENV5). Additionally there is conflict with policies relating to the Conservation Area (ENV16) and setting of a listed building (ENV17). On the other hand housing policy HSG1 requires at least 60% of all new housing should be provided on previously developed land and through the conversion of existing buildings.

The NPPF is a material consideration which includes a presumption in favour of sustainable development, taking into account the three dimensions: economic, social and environmental.

The NPPF advises that planning applications should be approved unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against this Framework taken as a whole.

In terms of adverse environmental impact, subject to revised comments from consultees, the development will result in the loss of a non-designated heritage asset; cause less than substantial harm to the setting of a listed building and a high degree of less than substantial harm to the Conservation Area. Additionally in terms of social and economic considerations there is concern about the effect of possible occupancy of the dwellings on the local community and in respect of economic considerations a tourism facility and associated jobs will be lost.

The economic role of sustainable development is to ensure that sufficient land of the right type is available in the appropriate location at the appropriate time so as to support the Government’s growth agenda. The present application site comprises previously developed land which is sequentially preferable to a greenfield site; the site is also located within the built up area of Lee. The proposed development would make a meaningful contribution towards housing land supply, secure S106 contributions and provide investment into the area. In these respects the development would fulfil the economic strand of the sustainable development agenda.

A social benefit is that the proposal will deliver 20 dwellings and the NPPF reflects Government policy to boost the supply of housing and to take a positive approach to applications for residential development in sustainable locations providing there are no adverse impacts that would significantly and adversely outweigh the identified benefits. Additional social benefits include the café, parking and associated public access.

Environmental benefits include: regeneration of a site that has largely lain dormant for a number of years; landscaping of the valley; improved public car park; upgraded foul drainage; less potential traffic; provision of public open space; and improved water course.

Consequently, although finely balanced, the benefits outweigh the disadvantages and the presumption in favour of sustainable development tips the balance in favour of approval of the development in this instance.

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 44

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998

The provisions of the Human Rights Act and principles contained in the Convention on Human Rights have been taken into account in reaching the recommendation contained in this report. The articles/protocols identified below were considered of particular relevance:

Article 8 – Right to Respect for Private and Family Life THE FIRST PROTOCOL – Article 1: Protection of Property

DETAILS OF RECOMMENDATION

The Council resolves to delegate to the Chief Planning Officer in agreement with Chair and Vice-Chair of Planning Committee, to grant planning permission subject to:

1. No new planning issues being raised following the conclusion of the expiry re- consultation period on 13 th October 2016; and 2. The completion of a legal agreement to secure the required education and public open space financial contributions detailed in the report.

And subject to the following conditions:

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

Reason: The time limit condition is imposed in order to comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance both with the plans submitted as part of the application and the amended plans listed below (‘the approved plans’):

(L)001 A – Site Location Plan 14 th August 2015 L008 A – Demolition Plan 14th August 2015 Ecological Appraisal dated 24 th September 2014 Protected Species Survey Report dated 6 th August 2015 L051 B – Café proposed elevations 16 th September 2015 L044 D – Apartments proposed elevations 1 st March 2016 04429 TPP Rev A Tree Protection Plan 1 st March 2016 Landscape Management Strategy 1 st March 2016 L010 G Proposed Site Plan 16 th September 2016 L011 H Proposed Street Elevation 16 th September 2016 L012 E Proposed Site Section AA 16th September 2016 L013 D Proposed Site Section BB 16 th September 2016 L014 H Proposed Site Section CC 16 th September 2016 L015 C Proposed Site Section DD 16 th September 2016 L030 D North Terrace Proposed Plans 16 th September 2016 L031 D North Terrace Proposed Elevations 16th September 2016 L032 D North Terrace Proposed End Elevations and Sections 16th September 2016 L040 E Apartment Block Proposed Plans Lower Ground Floor 16 th September 2016 L041 E Apartment Block Proposed Plans Ground Floor 16 th September 2016

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 45

L042 E Apartment Block Proposed Plans First Floor 16 th September 2016 L043 D Apartment Block Proposed Plans Second Floor 16 th September 2016 L050 C Café and Toilets Proposed Floor Plan 16 th September 2016 Landscape Design Proposals 16 th and 21 st September 2016 Technical Note Car Park Drainage C14641-DTN01 16 th September 2016 C14641-C001 F Proposed Drainage Strategy 16 th September 2016 C14641-C002 B Car Park Construction Details 16 th September 2016

Reason: To confirm the drawings to which the consent relates and to ensure the development accords with the approved plans.

3) The proposed development shall be constructed in accordance with the following schedule of materials: natural slate roofs and fish tail wall covering; render and natural stone walls; natural stone coping; white painted timber fascia board; horizontal timber cladding; timber doors and windows, or aluminium and timber composite as shown on the approved drawings; oak frames and supports to porches and canopies; and metal flues. Samples of all materials are to be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority prior to construction of any building.

Reason: In the interest of the appearance of the development and the locality.

4) No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until a detailed permanent surface water drainage management plan is submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, with consultation with Devon County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority. This detailed permanent surface water drainage management plan will be in accordance with the principles of sustainable drainage systems, and those set out in the Flood Risk Assessment, Drainage and Hydraulic Modelling Report (Report Ref. R/C14641/001.04, Iss. 4, dated 9th February 2016).

Reason: To ensure that surface water from the development is managed in accordance with the principles of sustainable drainage systems.

Contaminated Land Desk Top Condition

5) Prior to the commencement of any site clearance, groundworks or construction, the local planning authority shall be provided with the results of a phase one (desktop) survey for potential ground contamination.

The report shall be prepared by a suitably qualified person and sufficient to identify any and all potential sources of ground contamination on any part of the development site.

Thereafter, depending on the outcome of phase one, a proposal for any phase two (intrusive) survey that may be required shall be presented to and agreed with the planning authority.

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 46

Reason: To ensure that any potential ground contamination has been identified and remediated to protect the health of future occupiers of the site.

Contaminated Land Reactive Condition

6) Should any contamination of soil or groundwater be discovered during development of the site, the Local Planning Authority should be contacted immediately. Site activities within that sub-phase or part thereof, should be temporarily suspended until such time as a procedure for addressing such contamination, within that sub-phase or part thereof, is agreed upon with the Local Planning Authority or other regulating bodies.

Reason: To ensure that any contamination existing and exposed during the development is identified and remediated.

Construction Management Plan Condition

7) Prior to the commencement of development, including any demolition, site clearance, groundworks or construction within each sub-phase (save such preliminary or minor works that the Local Planning Authority may agree in writing), a Construction Management Plan (CMP) to manage the impacts of construction during the life of the works, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt, the CMP shall include:-

a) measures to regulate the routing of construction traffic; b) the times within which traffic can enter and leave the site; c) the importation and removal of spoil and soil on site; d) the removal /disposal of materials from site, including soil and vegetation; e) the location and covering of stockpiles; f) details of measures to prevent mud from vehicles leaving the site and must include wheel-washing facilities g) control of fugitive dust from earthworks and construction activities; dust suppression h) a noise control plan which details hours of operation and proposed mitigation measures; i) details of any site construction office, compound and ancillary facility buildings j) specified on-site parking for vehicles associated with the construction works and the provision made for access thereto; k) a point of contact (such as a Construction Liaison Officer/site manager) and details of how complaints will be addressed

The details so approved and any subsequent amendments as shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority shall be complied with in full and monitored by the applicants to ensure continuing compliance during the construction of the development.

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 47

Reason: To minimise the impact of the works during the construction of the development in the interests of highway safety and the free-flow of traffic, and to safeguard the amenities of the area. To protect the amenity of local residents from potential impacts whilst site clearance, groundworks and construction is underway.

Demolition / Construction Times Condition

8) During the demolition / construction phase no machinery shall be operated, no process shall be carried out and no deliveries taken at or dispatched from the site outside the following times:

a) Monday - Friday 08.00 - 18.00, b) Saturday 09.00 - 13.00 c) nor at any time on Sunday, Bank or Public holidays.

Reason: To protect the amenity of local residents.

Asbestos Condition

9) Prior to demolition of the existing building the structure shall be surveyed by a competent person for the presence of materials containing asbestos. Any such materials found shall be removed and disposed of in accordance with current legislation and guidance.

Reason: To ensure that occupiers of the site and adjoining properties are protected from potentially harmful emissions to air from asbestos.

10) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order) express planning permission shall be obtained for any development within classes A - E of Part 1 and class A of Part 2 of Schedule Two of the Order.

Reason: To protect the appearance and character of the development in the designated Conservation Area and AONB.

11) Within 3 months of the final dwelling being occupied a post-construction report shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority demonstrating that at least a further 15% reduction in regulated carbon emissions beyond current Building Regulations has been provided by either on-site renewable technologies or fabric efficiency measured against SAP (DER/TER).

Reason: To ensure the development meets sustainability requirements.

12) (Highways conditions - awaited)

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 48

13) (Pre-commencement condition to cover the submission and approval of a detailed TPP and AMS - subject to Countryside & Landscape Officer comments)

14) (Landscaping and Ecological Management Plan (to include measures identified in the Ecological Appraisal dated 24th September 2014 and Protected Species Survey Report dated 6th August 2015)– subject to Countryside & Landscape Officer comments)

NOTES TO APPLICANT

1. For the purpose of interpreting the restrictions expressed in condition (17) of this consent, permitted development rights have been removed in respect of the following classes:

Part I: CLASS A The enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwelling-house Part I: CLASS B The enlargement of a dwelling-house consisting of an addition or alteration to its roof Part I: CLASS C Any other alteration to the roof of a dwelling-house Part I: CLASS D The erection or construction of a porch outside any external door of a dwelling-house Part I: CLASS E The provision within the curtilage of a dwelling-house of - a) any building or enclosure, swimming or other pool required for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house as such, or the maintenance, improvement or other alteration of such a building or enclosure; or b) a container used for domestic heating purposes for the storage of oil or liquid petroleum gas Part II: CLASS A The erection, construction, maintenance, improvement or alteration of a gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure

Further detailed information can be obtained from the Local Planning Authority, including a guide to householder development, and the Planning Portal at www.planningportal.gov.uk.

2. The applicant is reminded of the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the E.C. Conservation [Natural Habitats] Regulations 1994.

INSERT(S) TO FOLLOW OVERLEAF 1. OS Location Plan 2. List of representation names and addresses

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 49 Copy Supplied to: Strategic Development & Location Plan: Planning

Lynton House, Commercial Road, 59766: Former Lee Bay Hotel, Lee, Ilfracombe Scale: 1:5000 Barnstaple, EX31 1EA Date: 23 September 2016 © Copyright and database right 2012 Ordnance Survey Licence No. 100021929. No unauthorised reproduction permitted. Neighbour Representations List for Application No 59766

71 LETTER(S) OF OBJECTION

H AND E THOMPSON FISHERMANS COTTAGE LEE Date Received: 24-Mar-16 NICK HONEY THE OLD MILL LEE Date Received: 11-Sep-15 MARTIN ROBESON PLANNING PRA ON BEHALF OF OWNER OF CHAPEL COTTAGE Date Received: 21-Sep-15 Date Received: 01-Apr-16 DAVID THEOBALD SHELL COTTAGE LEE Date Received: 07-Sep-15 Date Received: 08-Mar-16 RUPERT WILKINS MILLFIELD COTTAGE LEE Date Received: 06-Sep-15 RICHENDA S CARTER LINCOMBE HOUSE LEE Date Received: 21-Sep-15 RON STAMP & DR RACHEL CHURC PEBBLE HOUSE HOME LANE Date Received: 18-Sep-15 MAIA NORMAN SOUTHCLIFF HALL LEE Date Received: 31-Mar-16 MR G POTTS THE ORCHARD LEE Date Received: 18-Sep-15 Date Received: 29-Mar-16 MRS C WEEKES ROSE COTTAGE LEE Date Received: 09-Sep-15 BILL HARVEY THE GRAMPUS INN LEE Date Received: 15-Sep-15 PAUL SCARROTT IVY BANK LEE Date Received: 08-Mar-16 Date Received: 21-Sep-16 Date Received: 07-Sep-15 JULIA WAGHORN GREY COTTAGE LEE Date Received: 07-Sep-15 MARION AND PAUL THOM THE GWYTHERS LEE Date Received: 15-Sep-15 Date Received: 28-Mar-16 NICKI CRUTCHFIELD ST ELOI FARM LEE Date Received: 30-Mar-16 JULIAN WITTS LITTLE RIDGE LEE Date Received: 21-Mar-16 Date Received: 16-Sep-15 ALLY POORE PARK COTTAGE LEE Date Received: 06-Sep-15 MR M PONSONBY HIGHVIEW HOME LANE Date Received: 17-Aug-15

03 October 2016 Page 1 of 4 Neighbour Representations List for Application No 59766

MR PETER CRESSWELL RECEIVED BY EMAIL

Date Received: 20-Aug-15 Date Received: 21-Aug-15 Date Received: 21-Aug-15 Date Received: 18-Sep-15 Date Received: 23-Mar-16 Date Received: 07-Sep-15 ALAN BANNISTER 2 BROOKDALE VILLAS LEE Date Received: 17-Sep-15 Date Received: 20-Mar-16 MARGARET RODD HIGHER BARN LEE Date Received: 06-Sep-15 DAVID RODD HIGHER BARN LEE Date Received: 11-Mar-16 Date Received: 20-Sep-16 Date Received: 06-Sep-15 STEPHEN J POORE PARK COTTAGE LEE Date Received: 06-Sep-15 MRS A ROBERTSON THE OLD VICARAGE LEE Date Received: 10-Sep-15 PAUL THOM THE GWYTHERS LEE Date Received: 15-Sep-15 MR ERIC COULING ROSE COTTAGE LEE Date Received: 09-Sep-15 Date Received: 01-Apr-16 MR T J GREAVES CHARLTON CLEAVE LEE Date Received: 24-Mar-16 Date Received: 26-Sep-16 Date Received: 17-Sep-15 SAMUEL F SENT BY EMAIL

Date Received: 21-Sep-15 KEVIN MCALLISTER OYSTERCATCHERS THE OLD COAST ROAD Date Received: 24-Sep-15 Date Received: 30-Mar-16 ELEANOR SCARROTT IVY BANK LEE Date Received: 08-Mar-16 Date Received: 21-Sep-16 PAUL JAGGERS PLUDD COTTAGE LEE Date Received: 09-Mar-16 JOHN SCARROTT IVY BANK LEE Date Received: 11-Mar-16 MARTHA SCARROTT IVY BANK LEE Date Received: 11-Mar-16 GEMMA MERRITT 50 THE SHIELDS

Date Received: 21-Mar-16 ALAN AND MARGARET BANNISTER 2 BROOKDALE VILLAS LEE

03 October 2016 Page 2 of 4 Neighbour Representations List for Application No 59766

Date Received: 21-Mar-16 DI NEWELL 27 THE VILLAS RUTHERWAY OXFORD Date Received: 21-Mar-16 MR AND MRS G COATES WAYSIDE LEE Date Received: 23-Mar-16 MATTHEW LLOYD THE BIRCHES WORCHESTER ROAD Date Received: 24-Mar-16 JULIE LLOYD THE BIRCHES WORCHESTER ROAD Date Received: 24-Mar-16 LOUISE THOMPSON SENT BY EMAIL

Date Received: 28-Mar-16 MRS GINNY POTTS THE ORCHARD LEE Date Received: 28-Mar-16 ANNE-SOPHIE CAPEL 37 LANCASTER GROVE LONDON Date Received: 31-Mar-16 J HOBLYN 7 ST THOMAS'S GARDENS LONDON Date Received: 31-Mar-16 JOHN HAINES BY E-MAIL

Date Received: 31-Mar-16 FRANK MULLARKEY 63 GLOUCESTER AVENUE LONDON Date Received: 31-Mar-16 JEN DE LOTZ 129 GLOUCESTER AVENUE LONDON Date Received: 01-Apr-16 MALCOLM HAINES PRIMROSE PROPERTIES 63 GLOUCESTER AVENUE Date Received: 01-Apr-16 MILES YOUNG-PLANNING PRACTIC 21 BUCKINGHAM STREET LONDON Date Received: 01-Apr-16 Date Received: 20-Sep-16 MARTIN CAREY 42 SHOOT UP HILL KILBURN Date Received: 04-Apr-16 MR & MRS HILBORNE THE COACH HOUSE LEE Date Received: 21-Apr-16

8 LETTER(S) OF SUPPORT

MR NICHOLAS VEASEY BEACH HOUSE LEE Date Received: 28-Aug-15 MRS H BOOKER THE GATE HOUSE LEE Date Received: 03-Sep-15 ROMY WALKER THE GRANGE LEE Date Received: 27-Aug-15 MR J WALKER THE GRANGE LEE Date Received: 28-Aug-15

03 October 2016 Page 3 of 4 Neighbour Representations List for Application No 59766

IAN & CYNTHIA STUART COMBELYNCHET LINCOMBE Date Received: 02-Sep-15 JANE JOHNCOCK WEST CLAYES LEE Date Received: 03-Sep-15 COL R C GILLIAT (RETD) THE OLD POST OFFICE LEE Date Received: 14-Sep-15 MR & MRS LETHBRIDGE DAMAGE BARTON MORTEHOE Date Received: 18-Sep-15

15 LETTER(S) OF COMMENT

PETER RICHEY THE WHITE HOUSE LEE Date Received: 23-Mar-16 Date Received: 14-Sep-15 H AND E THOMPSON FISHERMANS COTTAGE LEE Date Received: 31-Aug-15 MICHAEL ROGERS THE BLUE MUSHROOM LEE Date Received: 23-Mar-16 Date Received: 16-Sep-15 DR & MRS G HUMPHREYS CLIFFE LEE Date Received: 01-Sep-15 MRS C TITMAN & MR J ERTMAN ULFRID LEE Date Received: 03-Sep-15 REBECCA WYLES & ALUN DOBSON SORREL HOUSE LINCOMBE Date Received: 07-Sep-15 BETSY HOSEGOOD DAMAGE HUE LEE Date Received: 03-Sep-15 E THOMPSON FISHERMANS COTTAGE LEE Date Received: 04-Sep-15 ALAN BANNISTER 2 BROOKDALE VILLAS LEE Date Received: 04-Sep-15 MRS ELIZABETH GILLIAT THE OLD POST OFFICE LEE Date Received: 14-Sep-15 NATIONAL TRUST RECEIVED BY EMAIL

Date Received: 17-Sep-15 MAVIS ROGERS VIA EMAIL

Date Received: 25-Mar-16 Date Received: 15-Sep-15

03 October 2016 Page 4 of 4

2 App. No.: 61139 Reg. : 29/04/2016 Applicant: CHICHESTER HOMES DEVELOPMENTS LTD L. Bldg. : Expired: 29/07/2016 Agent : FEARNLEY LOTT ARCHITECTS Parish : BRAUNTON Case Officer : Mr. R. Pedlar

Proposal: ERECTION OF 55 DWELLINGS TOGETHER WITH ASSOCIATED ENGINEERING WORKS (AMENDED SITE PLAN & DRAINAGE, AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT & SUSTAINABILITY INFORMATION) (LIGHTING IMPACT ASSESSMENT) Location: LAND EAST OF SOUTH PARK BRAUNTON

PROPOSAL

The application proposes a residential development of 55 two storey dwellings comprised of 3, 4 and 5 bedroom open market houses and nineteen 1, 2 and 3 bedroom affordable houses, representing approximately 35% of the total.

The majority of dwellings will be detached properties with garage facilities. There are also a number of semi-detached properties, and a few short terraces. The houses are predominantly brick in appearance, with areas of painted render. The agent states that on key buildings such as corner plots and street frontages, the emphasis on brick over render increases, to ensure that the key areas of the development are not adversely affected by owners who do not maintain their homes. Windows are proposed to be white UPVC, with gutters and downpipes to match. The roofs will be natural slate.

Vehicular access is proposed from the southern side of South Park at a point where the existing highway stops at the site boundary. The existing access from Lower Park Road will be closed.

Public open space is provided by an informal area near the centre of the development and a larger area to the south of the proposed housing in an adjoining field, which includes an equipped play area. A link from the latter to the public right of way running down the east side of the site is proposed.

The application is accompanied by a landscaping scheme which proposes that existing hedgerows are to be maintained and reinforced.

A drainage scheme has been amended to include attenuation of surface water on site, before discharge to Knowl Water. Foul drainage will connect to the existing sewer.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE subject to the completion of a Section 106.

SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

The 2.5 hectare application site comprises a field which lies immediately to the east of South Park and south of Lower Park Road, located on the eastern side of Braunton. Part of the adjoining field to the south also forms part of the site.

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 50

South Park to the west is mainly comprised of bungalows and Lower Park Road to the north is typified by substantial detached dwellings on large plots.

Two parts of the existing estate road on South Park extend as far as the western boundary of the site providing two potential vehicular access points into the site. Vehicular access to South Park is from Lower Park Road which leads westward to the village and eastwards to Barnstaple. An existing access to the field is available to the north on Lower Park Road.

The site is adjoined to the east and south by a public footpath leading to Wrafton and Heanton, with fields beyond, including farm buildings to the east.

The landform slopes gently from north to south and the boundary of the site on all sides comprises of hedgerows, including a variety of trees. To the south the land slopes towards Knowl Water, beyond which the south side of the valley rises towards Heanton.

REASON FOR REPORT TO MEMBERS

The application has been called by Cllr Bonds for the reason that: “Outside Local Plan; outside emerging Local Plan; increased risk of flooding: overdevelopment; and strain on infrastructure roads, schools and medical services”.

The applicant has requested that the application be considered at the October Planning Committee meeting.

In addition whilst not the applicant, it should be noted that Councillor Chugg is part land owner of the site.

POLICY CONTEXT

Development Plan

North Devon Local Plan 2006 STY2 Area Centres DVS1 Design DVS2 Landscaping DVS3 Amenity Considerations DVS4 Public Health and Safety DVS6 Flooding and Water Quality DVS7 Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems ENV1 Development in the Countryside ENV7 Agricultural Land ENV8 Biodiversity ENV11 Protected Species TRA1A Promoting Sustainable Transport Choices TRA6 General Highway Considerations TRA8 Residential Parking HSG2 Development Boundaries HSG5 Residential Density HSG7 Affordable Housing in Residential Schemes HSG8 Affordable Housing in Rural Areas

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 51

HSG9 Permanent Dwellings in the Countryside REC5 Public Open Space BRA7 Public Open Space Provision

The North Devon and Torridge Local Plan

National Planning Policy Framework

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Parish Council: Braunton Parish Council wish to recommend refusal on the following grounds: -

• It does not fit with the Local Plan the proposed site is established agricultural land outside of the Parish development boundary. • It would adversely affect the intrinsic environmental value and character of the landscape as the proposal will harm local wildlife and result in the loss of important wildlife habitat. • The site lies within the 4km Greater Horseshoe Bat roost sustenance zone associated with the Caen Valley Bats SSSI, the development would result in a threat to protected species adversely impacting on foraging and nesting habitat for bats, birds and reptiles, giving the sites close proximity to Knowle Water which is a major commuting route. • It is considered to be an unsustainable location for residential development due to its lack of safe accessibility for pedestrian connections to sustainable transport modes and local services. • The existing road network infrastructure leading to the development via Moor Lea and Barn Field Close is inadequate resulting in unsafe conditions. • In June 2014 the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan, Sustainability Appraisal – Technical D: Assessment of Housing Site Options for North Devon and Torridge, rejected this site (BRA/108) for future housing development on the grounds that it was unsustainable in terms of: o Increase in traffic through the village centre with consequent impact on air quality; and o limited capacity along Lower Park Road and its junction to accommodate the development. • The design, layout and appearance of the development is not in keeping with the character and appearance of the surrounding area. • Adverse effect on existing neighbouring properties in terms of overlooking, overshadowing causing loss of light and an unacceptable loss of privacy. • Over intensification of the site as the proposed density of dwellings per hectare is significantly higher than that found in the surrounding area. • The overall design of the development and proposed location of public open space would potentially cause risk of crime and anti-social behaviour. • Insufficient evidence in terms of the need for these 55 dwelling, in addition to the 390 already identified in the Local Plan. • Part of the proposed site is within an existing Flood Zone 2 and the proposed development will cause risk of further flooding. • Inadequate sewer and surface water drainage.

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 52

• The application does not stand up to the 4 pillars of sustainability considering there is no evidence of employment, social or economic benefit and the environmental harm that the proposed development will cause results in this application being unsustainable and unacceptable.

(26/08/16) Braunton Parish Council wish to recommend refusal, the amended plans received do not change the Council’s earlier views and therefore its previous reasons for refusal still stand. In addition to this, as it is a Greenfield site, taking into account the further sustainable information provided the Council strongly feels that the development should be aiming for a much higher level of sustainability.

Adjoining Parish (Heanton): Refuse.

Planning Policy: Firstly, I would like to set out the context in terms of the status of the emerging Local Plan. The Plan was submitted to the Secretary of State (Planning Inspectorate) on the 10 th June 2016. Paragraph 216 of the NPPF states - from the day of publication, decision takers may give weight to relevant policies in the emerging Plan according to:

• the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given); • the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given); and • the degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies in this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).

As the Council has a number of outstanding unresolved objections regarding housing numbers, housing site allocations and objectively assessed need, the appointed Inspector at the Examination will have to fully consider these outstanding issues, therefore only minimal weight must be attributed to the Council’s emerging policies relating to the delivery of housing in the emerging Local Plan. This approach has been confirmed by the Council’s Head of Legal Services .

In terms of National policy, Paragraph 49 of the NPPF makes it clear that 'housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development'. Paragraph 47 seeks to ‘boost significantly the supply of housing’ with the emphasis on having a supply of viable deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional buffer of 5% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. Paragraph 47 continues, where there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing, local planning authorities should increase the buffer to 20% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to provide a realistic prospect of achieving the planned supply and to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. The Council’s most recent 5 year housing land supply statement (31 st October 2015) could demonstrate a 5.0 year supply at 5% but only a 4.5 year supply at 20%. In terms of whether North Devon is considered a 5% or 20% Authority the PPG is clear that identifying a record of persistent under delivery is a matter of judgement for the decision maker, however at the Mead Park appeal (decision May 2015), the Inspector

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 53 concluded that recent housing delivery in North Devon, based on approximately 418 dpa (Local Plan target) would suggest that since 2006 this housing target was only exceeded once therefore the record is one which can be reasonably defined as persistent under delivery and a 20% buffer should be applied in this case.

The 5 year statement of October 2015 argues the rationale behind the 20% buffer. It makes it clear that the aim of requiring an increased buffer is to remedy a supply side deficit in deliverable sites. The specified method of addressing such a deficit is to bring allocated sites forward from later in the plan period (Paragraph 47). It has always been made clear that North Devon has no sites which the Council would consider it inappropriate to bring forward early for delivery within the first 5 years of the plan period. Indeed, many proposed housing allocations have been encouraged to come forward and several planning permissions have been granted or consented subject to the completion of a S106 agreement ahead of the emerging Plans adoption. The practical outcome of adopting a 20% buffer and its subsequent implications for being able to demonstrate a 5 Year Housing Land Supply, is not to bring forward proposed allocations more quickly from later in the Plan period, but to enable less suitable sites to be opportunistically promoted such as this. This approach to housing delivery can have the effect of reducing delivery rates from the best and most suitable sites due to the inability of the local housing market to absorb more than a limited annual supply of new homes before prices are depressed to the point of adversely impacting on viability. North Devon Council contends that the standard 5% buffer is more appropriate to apply, as there are plenty of sites that are available and deliverable within 5 years subject to the ability of the housing market in the district to absorb the required level of new housing. Whilst the LPA are seeking to take this approach to determining hostile planning applications where a 5 year supply is challenged, North Devon continues to lose appeals for new housing development on 5 year housing land supply and the proposal is considered by the Inspector as delivering ‘sustainable development’. Therefore, one of the key questions to establish with this proposal is whether it meets the test within paragraph 14 of the NPPF, the ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ (does the development perform an economic, social and environmental role). From a policy stance it is considered the general overall principle of the proposal would deliver ‘sustainable development’ subject to other planning and highways issues being addressed.

In terms of the planning application for 55 dwellings, this greenfield site is outside the defined development boundary for Braunton in the adopted Local Plan where the principle of housing is unacceptable unless it meets an affordable housing need in accordance with Policy HSG8. This approach to delivering affordable housing through rural exception sites is also supported by the NPPF. Braunton is a designated rural area; paragraph 54 would support the delivery of some market housing in order to facilitate the provision of ‘significant’ additional affordable housing to meet local needs. Therefore, it is considered that Policy HSG8 is still up to date and in conformity with the NPPF (Paragraph 49) even if a 5 year land supply is argued. I understand the current proposal is seeking to deliver approximately 35% of the new housing as affordable units, a split that is unlikely to be supported by policy for an exception site unless a robust viability assessment would demonstrate that 65% open market housing is the minimum amount required to deliver the affordable housing under current national and adopted local planning policies. However, the delivery of rural exception sites is clear in that such proposals on greenfield sites should be facilitating the provision of significant additional affordable housing to meet local need and not as currently proposed a 65% / 35% split in favour of open market housing without clear justification for doing so through a viability appraisal.

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 54

However, it should be noted that in terms of the emerging Local Plan Policy ST19 (Affordable Housing on Exception Sites), this exceptions policy to housing delivery would not apply to the land east of South Park as the Main Towns / Centres, including Braunton and Wrafton, are already accommodated approximately 87% of northern Devon’s housing growth over the Plan period and therefore the affordable housing need in the area should be provided on the proposed housing allocations and not through additional unplanned sites outside the defined development boundary.

The site has been included within the SHLAA (SHA/BRA/108) for 42 dwellings on a net developable area of approximately 1.4 hectares at 30 dph. For information, when the SHLAA Panel first considered this site in 2010 they were satisfied with the overall assessment and agreed with the recommendation that ‘development of this site would be a logical extension to the east side of Braunton’. Whilst the SHLAA recommendation has guided the overall level of housing development across this site there is no policy objection to a higher number of housing units being delivered if the principle of development was considered acceptable on this site and any increase in numbers would not have an adverse impact on surrounding residential properties and landscape character as well as helping to deliver the spatial vision and strategy for Braunton and Wrafton as set out within Policy BRA of the emerging Plan.

Although the site was considered developable in principle, it was not taken forward as an allocation within the emerging Local Plan. Technical Document D of the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) assessed a number of alternative housing options, where a number of these were rejected as less sustainable options for future housing development. The document included those sites that did not deliver key infrastructure and strategic objectives and the main reasons for which they were rejected. It identified issues relating to broad areas rather than precise sites and it is recognised that defining the extent of a site in greater detail could help to mitigate some of the identified impacts but not the fundamental concerns in terms of sustainability and deliverability. One of these rejected sites was land at South Park where it was concluded:

Land to the east of South Park was rejected because of sustainability issues in terms of:

• Increase in traffic through the village centre with consequent impact on air quality • Limited capacity along Lower Park Road and its junctions to accommodate development where the highway is narrow with limited opportunities to increase capacity • No existing transport links with the village or pedestrian footpaths along Lower Park Road; and • Key Network Feature along Mill Lane forming sites eastern boundary.

In regard to the above conclusions within the SA, of particular concern in policy terms is the limited highway capacity of the approach roads / junctions to South Park and air quality management concerns within the village centre (Policies TRA1A, TRA6, ST10, DM02, DM05). I would consider that the application should be accompanied by an air quality assessment in order to assess what the impacts may be from this development on the air quality management area and how any impacts will be mitigated. The contents of this report should be assessed in consultation with Andy Cole from Environmental Health. However, the Highway Authority should advise as to whether the local highway network

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 55 can accommodate the additional traffic movements without having an adverse detrimental impact on the highway issues concerned.

On balance, irrespective of the Council’s 5 year land supply position, the principle of housing on this site must be considered acceptable in the context of Paragraphs 14, 47 and 49 of the NPPF and Policy HSG8 of the adopted Local Plan. It is clear from the NPPF and recent appeal decisions that a 5 year land supply should be seen as a minimum as opposed to a maximum in order to boost significantly the supply of housing. It is therefore important to have some flexibility and resilience in the supply of housing to defend the Council’s position at any future appeals as whilst considered deliverable in 5 years schemes may in that period become unviable due to changes in the market. In other words, increasing the supply of housing will always be a material consideration regardless of an LPA’s ability to demonstrate a 5 year land supply. However, the current split between open market and affordable housing is not considered acceptable without a robust viability assessment to establish the reason why the site cannot deliver a significant level of additional affordable housing to meet local needs in accordance with policy.

(09/08/16) I would like to provide an additional response from the Planning Policy team regarding the above application, to both respond to issues raised by the applicant in their planning statement and to clarify the comments made by Mr Alcock on behalf of the Planning Policy team on 6 th July 2016.

Up-to-date Local Plan

Development Plan The current Development Plan is the North Devon Local Plan 1995 to 2011 and was adopted in 2006. The applicant has stated that this timeframe has now expired and therefore the plan is out of date. This is not the case as the timeframe refers to the allocation of sites in the plan. It is not the case that as the initial timeframe has expired that both the allocations and the development boundaries are out-of-date. Indeed, an appeal decision relating to the development of a dwelling at Witheridge (APP/X1118/W/16/3146385) dated 22 July 2016 demonstrates that the Inspectors still have regard to policies relating to the supply of housing (as the site was located in the countryside, the Inspector considered the application against policy ENV1).

In 2009, as with all Local Plans adopted prior to the introduction of the LDF, the Council ‘saved’ the relevant polices and where they are compliant with the National Planning Policy Framework, they continue to be up-to-date. It therefore remains the Development Plan for the local planning authority, and this is confirmed regularly in appeal decisions.

Emerging Local Plan As Mr Alcock has stated, the emerging local plan was submitted to the Secretary of State on 10 th June 2016 and therefore the Plan has now reached the ‘examination’ stage. The hearings are scheduled to take place in November, with the Plan anticipated to be adopted in 2017. It is accepted that the policies in the Plan have yet to be examined and therefore carry limited weight.

Mr Alcock has referred to Technical Document D to the Sustainability Appraisal and it may be of benefit to provide further details on why this document was written. When writing a Local Plan, the local planning authority is required to produce a sustainability appraisal to

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 56 assist with establishing the most appropriate sites to allocate in the Plan. Therefore, references relating to ‘least sustainable’ should be taken within this context (in this instance at Braunton and Wrafton). In addition, it should be noted that at the time of preparing the Sustainability Appraisal the site was not tested through a specific formal application. To that end, the responses from statutory consultees may now provide a different view on the sustainability based on the application which has been submitted.

Five Year Land Supply It is not the case that the local planning authority cannot be in the position to demonstrate a five year land supply until the adoption of the emerging Local Plan (as stated in paragraph 5.11 of the planning statement). The Planning Practice guidance is clear that where the lpa does not have an adopted Local plan it can still use its latest full assessment of housing need, or if this is not available the latest DCLG household projections. Paragraph 30 states: “Where evidence in Local Plans has become outdated and policies in emerging plans are not yet capable of carrying sufficient weight, information provided in the latest full assessment of housing needs should be considered. But the weight given to these assessments should take account of the fact they have not been tested or moderated against relevant constraints. Where there is no robust recent assessment of full housing needs, the household projections published by the Department for Communities and Local Government should be used as the starting point, but the weight given to these should take account of the fact that they have not been tested (which could evidence a different housing requirement to the projection, for example because past events that affect the projection are unlikely to occur again or because of market signals) or moderated against relevant constraints (for example environmental or infrastructure).” (Reference ID: 3-030-20140306).

The Council have followed this guidance, with the recent five year land supply statements providing a position against CLG household projections, and also the assessment of housing needs which have been produced in recent years. This approach has been accepted by planning inspectors (for example the Mead Park appeal referred to else where in the applicant’s planning statement).

With regards to the five year housing land supply situation, since Mr Alcock’s response to you, the council has updated the 5 Year Housing Statement to a April 2016 base date (the document will be available to view on the NDC website at: http://www.northdevon.gov.uk/council/strategies-plans-and-policies/environment-and- planning-policies/local-plan/local-plan-supporting-documents-evidence-base/housing/ later this month). The April 2016 statement demonstrates that the Council can demonstrate a five year land supply and therefore the housing polices in the adopted Local Plan are considered up-to-date and this application should be considered against these policies.

Referring to Mr Alcock’s response, it should be noted that the references to paragraph 14 of the NPPF, are in relation to the first sentence relating to the statement that “at the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development” , rather than accepting the need to engage the final bullet point relating to decision – taking where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out- of-date. As the Council can demonstrate a five year land supply, paragraph 14 of the NPPF is not engaged in relation to decision-making.

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 57

Considering all of the above, the Council does have an up-to-date Development Plan in relation to housing policies. It is against these policies the application should be considered.

Exception Sites Mr Alcock’s response sets out the reasoning for applying policy HSG 8 to this application. It is entirely appropriate, given the up-to-date housing policies in the Local Plan that relevant sites which are outside of the existing development boundary are considered as ‘exception sites’ However, as the NPPF definition for rural exception sites is ‘ small sites used for affordable housing’ further consideration needs to be given to whether the application is a small site. No further guidance is provided by the NPPF or PPG on what constitutes a small site, as such, the Council takes the approach that the size of the site should be relevant to the size of the settlement in question. Braunton is one of the larger settlements in district and as such could be expected to deliver a larger rural exception site under policy HSG8 than the smaller towns and villages in the district. However a site of 55 dwellings is, on reflection, too large to be considered a ‘small site’ and therefore policy HSG8 is not appropriate.

As it is a greenfield site the policy is for the provision of between 35% to 50% of dwellings to be affordable housing (see paragraph 3.6 of the Affordable Housing Code of Practice (March 2004)). Given the corporate priority for the provision of affordable housing, the amount of affordable housing would be expected to be 50% if this is demonstrated to be viable.

Sustainable Development Given all of the above and accepting that paragraph 14 of the NPPF is not engaged, the Framework does seek to boost significantly the supply of housing and appeal decisions have made it clear that the ability to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply should not be seen as a maximum supply. The Framework advocates a presumption in favour of sustainable development. If there are no outstanding planning issues relating to the site, and it is assessed that the application demonstrates that it meets the government’s definition of sustainable development (as defined by the NPPF) then it would be appropriate to consider the site as significantly boosting the supply of housing.

Development Management (Highways): The following contribution requirements are:

1. The sum of £55,000 for improvements and maintenance of the existing Public Right of Way No. 18 (Mill Lane) to the east of the application site, to improve the sustainability of pedestrian users of the application site; 2. The sum of £250 per dwelling to be utilised for Public Transport vouchers; and 3. The sum of £50 per dwelling to be utilised towards bicycle provision.

Conditions are recommended to be incorporated onto any planning approval (as set out below).

The Advance Payments Code applies. I shall be pleased if you will ensure that I am notified as soon as any Building Regulations approval is issued.

Flood and Coastal Risk Management Team: At this stage, we object to this planning application because we believe it does not satisfactorily conform to saved Policy DVS6, relating to flooding and water quality, and saved Policy DVS7, relating to Sustainable

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 58

Drainage Systems, of the North Devon Local Plan (1995-2011). The applicant will therefore be required to submit additional information, as outlined below, to demonstrate that all aspects of the surface water drainage management plan have been considered.

The applicant will be required to justify the HOST class value of 24 which has been used in the Greenfield Runoff Estimation for Sites Report (Report Ref. gcj49x7vuswc / 2.12, Rev. -, dated 25th February 2016). Our records show that a more appropriate value would be 17, which would significantly reduce the calculated greenfield runoff rates for this site, and thus would increase the amount of required attenuation storage.

Furthermore, the Drainage Strategy Drawing (Drawing No. 550, Rev. B, dated February 2016) shows the use of underground attenuation tanks to manage the surface water generated from rainfall events in excess of the 1 in 30 year return period. However, these underground crates cannot be considered as a truly sustainable means of drainage because they do not provide the required water quality, public amenity and biodiversity benefits, which are some of the underpinning principles of SuDS. Consequently, above- ground attenuation features should be utilised unless the applicant can robustly demonstrate that they are not feasible; in almost all cases, above- and below-ground features can be used in combination where development area is limited.

Although I appreciate that section 7.8 of the Flood Risk Assessment (Report Ref. 0505, Rev. B, dated 29th April 2016) states that a more sustainable drainage strategy incorporating attenuation ponds and swales may be possible at the detailed design stage, this alternative and more sustainable surface water drainage management plan should be provided for review at this stage.

I would also note that in accordance with the SuDS Management Train, surface water should be managed at source in the first instance. The applicant will therefore be required to explore the use of a variety of above-ground source control features across the whole site to avoid managing all of the surface water from the proposed development at one concentrated point. Examples of these source control features could include underdrained permeable paving, formalised tree pits or other bioretention features such as rain gardens, as well as green roofs and filter drains.

The applicant must also submit details of the exceedance pathways and overland flow routes across the site in the event of rainfall in excess of the design standard of the surface water drainage management system.

Furthermore, the applicant will be required to submit information regarding the maintenance of the proposed surface water drainage management system to demonstrate that all components will remain fully operational throughout the lifetime of the development.

I would be happy to provide a further substantive response when the applicant has provided the information requested above.

(01/08/16) Following my previous correspondence (FRM/2016/651, dated 3rd June 2016), the applicant has submitted additional information in respect of the surface water drainage aspects of the above planning application, for which I am grateful.

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 59

The applicant has submitted a Greenfield Runoff Estimation for Sites Report (Report Ref. gcj49xkn0xtx / 2.12, Rev. -, dated 14th June 2016), which now shows that the greenfield runoff rates have been calculated using the correct HOST class, which is acceptable. Furthermore, the applicant has submitted a Drainage Strategy (Drawing No. 550, Rev. C, dated February 2016) which now demonstrates that the proposed surface water drainage management system incorporates an attenuation pond designed to manage the 1 in 100 year (+40% allowance for climate change) rainfall event. This is acceptable because the system now fully satisfies the four pillars of SuDS, as outlined in CIRIA’s SuDS Manual (C753).

I note that the attenuation pond side slopes will have a maximum gradient of 1 in 2. However, I would advise that in accordance with section 23.2 of CIRIA’s SuDS Manual (C753), side slopes to the pond between the aquatic and safety bench should not usually exceed 1 in 3.

I have discussed the fact that part of the proposed attenuation pond is located within Flood Zone 2 with the Environment Agency, and they do not have any concerns in this instance. The only remaining issues to be addressed are details of the exceedance pathways and maintenance arrangements for the proposed surface water drainage management system, as outlined in my previous correspondence.

Once the above information has been provided, I would be happy to provide a further substantive response, with a view to withdraw my objection.

(11/08/16) Following my previous correspondence (FRM/810/2016, dated 1st August 2016), the applicant has submitted additional information in respect of the surface water drainage aspects of the above planning application, for which I am grateful.

The applicant has submitted an Exceedance Pathways Plan (Drawing No. 325, Rev. -, dated February 2016) and a Maintenance Plan (Report Ref. 16101 ‐05.08.16, Rev. -, dated 5th August 2016) which are both acceptable.

I am therefore happy to confirm that our objection is withdrawn, assuming that works proceed in accordance with the Drainage Strategy Plan (Drawing No. 550, Rev. C, dated February 2016).

Environment Agency: We have no objections to this proposal. We are satisfied that a sequential approach has been taken to the layout of development, with all dwellings located within Flood Zone 1 and public open space within flood zones 2 and 3. We have the following advice for the applicant.

Advice – Environmental Permitting This proposal is located adjacent to a designated main river. Under the terms of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010, a permit is required for any proposed works or structures, in, under, over or within eight metres of the top of the bank of the river. This was formerly called a Flood Defence Consent, although some activities are now excluded or exempt. Further details and guidance on how to apply or register an exemption are available on the GOV.UK website https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-activities-environmental-permits . A permit is separate to and in addition to any planning permission granted.

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 60

(18/08/16) We confirm that the amended plans do not alter the position outlined in our letter to the Council dated 2 June 2016 and our subsequent email sent to you on 15 June 2016.

The Devon County Council Flood and Coastal Risk Management Team should comment on the details of the surface water management scheme. This type of development within Flood Zone 2 falls within the scope of our Flood Risk Standing Advice, which means that we would not normally provide a comment. However, our Engineer has reviewed the plans and we are satisfied that the proposal will not increase the risk of flooding from the river.

Housing Enabling: If planning has accepted that this area of informal POS (emerging Local Plan – BRA03 Local Green Spaces) is developable as it is not allocated in either the adopted or emerging Local Plan we would then follow the current Local Plan requirements of 35% on an urban greenfield site. The total number of units has increased from the pre- application level of 53 to 55 units, this increases the affordable housing provision to 20 affordable homes (as per the Local Plan the affordable housing percentage is always based on “at least” the percentage requested because part of a house cannot be built. In this case “at least” 35% equates to 20 units). This is more than their current offer (based on the old total of 53) of 19 affordables.

The Design and Access Statement states that the “mix of these units has been developed with North Devon District Council Housing Enabling Officer as part of the pre-application discussions. The mix is as follows 3 no 1 bedroom Units, 11 no 2 bedroom units, 5 no 3 bed units.” However, this mix was not agreed and in my pre-application response dated 17 th August 2015 I confirmed that for 19 units (at the time less affordables were offered) we would need 2 x 1-bed houses, 11 x 2-bed houses, 5 x 3-bed houses and 1 x 4-bed house. On 20 units this would require: 2 x 1-bed houses, 12 x 2-bed houses, 5 x 3-bed houses and 1 x 4-bed house. This mix will meet our housing need and it is very important to have some of the larger units for some families. A 4-bed house can provide space for 6 people; this might sound high but different sex children cannot share once they are 10 years old and same sex children cannot share once they are 16 years old. Therefore, if you have a couple (one bedroom) with just 3 children – one boy 10 years old, one girl 11 years old and one girl 16 years old they would not be allowed to share rooms and therefore need a bedroom each, so in this example the 4-bed is only enough for a couple with 3 children. It is also important for those larger families with younger children who can share. Therefore, for the 20 units I would request 1 less 1-bed, 1 more 2-bed and the addition of 1 x 4-bed house. In their Affordable Housing Statement dated April 2016 Housing Benefit deductions for under-occupation is mentioned. This was born in mind when the housing benefit changes came in but the priority still remained with family housing due to the huge waiting times involved and NDC decided not to increase their 10% requirement for 1-bed housing. Furthermore, the same document refers to the requirement for affordable houses instead of apartments having an “impact on the ability of the scheme to provide the normal mix of house sizes” but we can accept the 1-beds as apartments – it is just family housing 2-bed upwards that we avoid apartments and FOGs. Also, the site is supposed to be invisible by tenure and therefore the house mix I have suggested moves the site away from being just the smaller units for affordable housing (1- 3 beds) and the larger units for open market housing (3-5 beds) by adding the one 4-bed (this should be social rent).

The Proposed Site Layout dated Feb 2016 (15 101 02A) no longer shows the internal house sizes. This was shown on the pre-app Proposed Site Plan dwg dated Jan 2015 (15

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 61

101 01 Prelim Rev C) and the sizing indicated sat within the absolute minimum range of our Register Providers so I would not want them any smaller and any opportunity to increase them even slightly would be beneficial. We aim for the affordables to be indistinguishable from the open market - and at present the size difference is huge. This difference is made more visible by the very minimum sizes on the affordables, the fact that the open market consists of only 3 and 4-beds and also that the 3-bed open market are by comparison a lot larger than the 3-bed affordables. The 4-bed would need to be 104sqm absolute minimum. I understand they are working with NDH on this scheme so I would like to ensure that NDH are happy with the design – when it is at the bare minimum it needs to be that much more efficient.

The site layout now shows 3 groups of 9 units, 9 units and 1 unit with the additional affordable housing unit. I am happy with 3 clusters and appreciate the move from 2 clusters to 3 clusters since the pre-application stage.

I also mentioned car parking in the pre-app: We would aim for the parking to be the same as in the open market homes - currently shown within the curtilage of the house. This is not possible on the terraces but - the no. of car parking spaces for the affordables looks very limited (one example is plots 39 and 40 3-bed shared ownership with one car parking space each?) and there are quite a number of properties accessing spaces in the same parking court. The open market all have parking within the curtilage.

75% social rent and 25% intermediate. This would equate to 15 social rent and 5 intermediate. At present they propose 5 intermediate and break it down as 2 x 2-bed and 3 x 3-bed. In Braunton 3-beds are not suitable as an intermediate product. I will not support another 3-bed intermediate. We have just had similar at a Braunton site and even the 2-beds were on the edge of affordability (a 40% share was almost 3 x HH income already and this is before house prices increase anymore). I would only advocate the 1 and 2-beds as intermediate. They have outlined a number of intermediate products as possible options. The discounted sale they state would be 30% discount but this is not how it works. They would need to be capped at £120k maximum end price (Braunton is a high value area and so is higher than our 3 x HH income boundary in other areas). We would then ask the developer to send us independent valuations of the properties at the s106 stage so we could set the percentage of open market value within the legal document; this percentage relates to the £120k - i.e. £240k house would be 50% of open market value. This would be set in perpetuity. There would be a local connection to Braunton in the first instance, then adjoining rural parishes, then to North Devon. Homes would need to be advertised and allocated via Help to Buy South West - and this would be at the developer's cost.

The staircasing of the shared ownership units would be limited to 80% as they are located in the Designated Rural Area around the urban centre of Braunton. Local connection initially to Braunton would apply on all the affordables, then to the adjoining rural parishes of , , Marwood and then to North Devon. They state that it should be as per HCA guidelines 25-75% minimum share but we do not want all the shared ownerships sold at a small 25% share – hence we limit the initial sale to a minimum of 40% share or as agreed in writing with the Proper Officer so that the exception can be agreed in some cases.

They mention that intermediate rent is 80% of market rent and no more than Local Housing Allowance but our definition of intermediate rent is 80% of Local Housing

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 62

Allowance. The rent that they have described is Affordable Rent and that can only be charged when the units are in the HCA Framework. As a s106 scheme we would not expect these units to form part of the HCA Framework and hence would not accept Affordable Rent. Intermediate Rent using our definition is acceptable as part of the 25% intermediate housing.

(14/06/16) I would like to change part of my consultation response below submitted on 2nd June 2016. I now realise that I have made 2 errors (1) I have referred to Braunton as an urban location and stated 35% affordable housing would be required and (2) I have stated that in the emerging Local Plan the area is allocated under BRA03 as “Local Green Spaces”. I would like to change this as per the reasons outlined below.

1) The current adopted Local Plan actually classifies Braunton as a rural area. As this site is outside the Braunton rural development boundary but is adjoining it, HSG8 (exception site) would apply. Under HSG8 the applicant will need to submit a viability assessment that would be independently reviewed at their cost by Lionel Shelley of Plymouth City Council’s Viability Team. This exercise will establish the minimum amount of open market required to cross-subsidise the build of affordable housing. Affordable housing is the main driver of an exception site; indeed it is the only reason that the site would be brought forward for development. We would require at least 75% social rent and the balance as intermediate. This should be provided as 10% 1- bed flats or houses; at least 60% 2-bed houses; 24% 3-bed houses and 6% 4-bed houses.

2) Although the emerging Local Plan still carries little weight Planning may decide to view the site under its policies. In the emerging Local Plan the area where the housing will be built is outside of the development boundary and is unallocated. It is only the area indicated as Public Open Space in the planning application that is allocated under BRA03 as “Local Green Spaces”. At present, as we are between policies if a site is allocated in the emerging Local Plan we would apply the emerging Local Plan policies to the site but as it is not allocated in the emerging Local Plan we would have to look at it under the current adopted Local Plan and view the site as if it were within the development boundary. In that case it would be considered as a rural greenfield site, which requires at least 50% affordable housing. On 55 units this would equate 28 affordable homes – at least 75% social rent (21 units) and the balance as intermediate (7 units). To meet housing need this should be provided as 10% 1-bed flats or houses; at least 60% 2-bed houses; 24% 3-bed houses and 6% 4-bed houses. The decision obviously remains with the Case Officer and Chief Planning Officer, whether to view the site under the adopted or emerging Local Plan. However, the site is unallocated in both plans and has been submitted now before the adoption of the emerging Local Plan. My point below regarding pepperpotting of the affordable housing would also change because as the numbers of affordable homes are uncertain at this time – clusters should be 6-10 maximum.

(30/09/16) Thank you for forwarding me the email from Chichester Homes Developments Ltd.

1. We do not accept fractions of homes as off-site contributions therefore we always round up as “part of a house” cannot be provided on site, hence policy is always “at least x %”. This practice will be enabled next year once the emerging Local Plan is

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 63

adopted. The current adopted Local Plan clearly states under paragraph 7.40 “As an alternative to the provision of affordable housing on a site, a financial or other contribution may be secured to facilitate provision elsewhere in the District. This approach, however will only be used in exceptional circumstances where it is agreed that there are clear advantages in locating the affordable housing elsewhere.” For example, this could be due to design (converted buildings, large block of flats, small high end apartment design etc.). This is because off-site contributions, especially small pockets of money are notoriously difficult to spend on additional affordable housing especially with the often long period of time between planning permission and completion of developments there is a risk that the 5-10 year timeframe on the commuted sum is missed and the money is lost. Therefore, I would only support 20 affordable homes provided on site. I would not support a part financial contribution. I would only accept 19 affordable homes plus a financial contribution if this was supported by a viability assessment showing that the provision of 20 affordable homes on site is not viable. This would then need to be reviewed by Lionel Shelley, Plymouth City Council at the applicant’s cost.

2. Chichester Homes Developments Ltd quote their Sandringham Gardens scheme recently completed when backing up their choice of house mix. This scheme should not stand as a model for all future developments. NDC allowed a change from policy to our standard house mix to enable that particular scheme that the applicant wished to do. Our housing mix policy is evidence-based and reflects housing need on Devon Home Choice. Chichester Homes Developments Ltd cannot simply do every single development without the provision of 4-bed 6-person housing else we will lose our ability to house larger families in these areas. I have consistently asked for a 4-bed for this reason in all my consultation responses (17 th August 2015, 2 nd June 2016). I will reiterate my points from 2 nd June 2016:

• “A 4-bed house can provide space for 6 people; this might sound high but different sex children cannot share once they are 10 years old and same sex children cannot share once they are 16 years old. Therefore, if you have a couple (one bedroom) with just 3 children – one boy 10 years old, one girl 11 years old and one girl 16 years old they would not be allowed to share rooms and therefore need a bedroom each, so in this example the 4-bed is only enough for a couple with 3 children. It is also important for those larger families with younger children who can share”. • “In their Affordable Housing Statement dated April 2016 Housing Benefit deductions for under-occupation is mentioned. This was born in mind when the housing benefit changes came in but the priority still remained with family housing due to the huge waiting times involved and NDC decided not to increase their 10% requirement for 1-bed housing for this reason”. • “Also, the site is supposed to be invisible by tenure and therefore the house mix I have suggested moves the site away from being just the smaller units for affordable housing (1-3 beds) and the larger units for open market housing (3-5 beds) by adding the one 4-bed (this should be social rent).” .”

I cannot support this scheme with no 4-beds delivered on site. Therefore, for the 20 units I would request 1 less 1-bed, 1 more 2-bed (social rent) and the addition of 1 x 4-bed house (social rent).

3. The tenure on 20 units should be 15 social rent and 5 intermediate.

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 64

4. I believe there is an error in the sizing indicated e.g. 5 x 3b totalling 904sqm = 180sqm each. If the 1b and 3b sizing could be confirmed that would be helpful. The 4b sizing should be minimum 104sqm. As commented on 2nd June I would like to see the internal house sizes indicated on the site layout.

5. Chichester Homes Developments Ltd stated “... [NDH] are happy with the units being in 3 groups rather than pepperpotted throughout the site as they will be easier to manage.” They are currently in 3 groups and this is classed as pepperpotting throughout the site – we don’t mean individually mixed 1:1 with an open market unit – just that they are grouped in clusters of 6-10 and so as in my previous consultation response from June – 3 groups is perfect. Pepperpotting does not look at stock management it is a way to ensure mixed and sustainable communities.

6. If NDH are happy with the allocated courtyard parking then I am happy.

7. As for our shared ownership requirement of a minimum of 40% share first sale at no more than 3 x household income, I have already discussed this policy with North Devon Homes and our reasons behind it. They are happy to have a clause with “or as agreed with the Proper Officer” to be inserted into the s106. This ensures that our expectations that a meaningful share in a property can be bought without having to pay a mortgage as well as high levels of rent on the unsold equity are met but also offers the possibility of a 25% share to be bought where North Devon Homes think that individual families are able to afford this.

In summary, I would not support the scheme as it stands for the reasons above

Parks: Please find attached the POS calculation for the above scheme (£110982.30). I have offset the equipped play and informal open space, as these will be provided on site.

In terms of the equipped play – please could I have sight of the detailed plans including specification of equipment?

I am satisfied with the location of the open space and it’s connectivity to the development.

(12/08/16) Further to our conversation, the area now designated as surface water attenuation basin was initially uncut grass meadow to encourage use as a reptile and wildlife area. The proposal still provides the required open space and my view remains unchanged in terms of the scheme delivering a viable open space scheme.

Education: The proposed 52 family-type dwellings will generate an additional 13 primary pupils and 7.8 secondary pupils.

Both the local primary and secondary schools have now reached capacity and therefore Devon County Council would need to request an education contribution to mitigate its impact.

Devon County Council will seek a contribution towards additional education infrastructure at the local primary and secondary schools that serve the address of the proposed development. The primary contribution sought is £147,699 (based on the current DfE extension rate for Devon of £11,361.50 per pupil) which will be used to provide primary

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 65 education facilities and a secondary education contribution of £142,279 (based on the current DfE extension rate for Devon of £18,241 per pupil) which will be used to provide education facilities in Braunton.

In addition to the contribution figures quoted above, the County Council would wish to recover legal costs incurred as a result of the preparation and completion of the Agreement. Legal costs are not expected to exceed £500.00 where the agreement relates solely to the education contribution. However, if the agreement involves other issues or if the matter becomes protracted, the legal costs are likely to be in excess of this sum.

(17/5/16) I’ve taken a look at the primary contributions and have seen that although the designated school South Mead is over capacity there is still some capacity at other schools within a safe walking of the development site. Therefore a primary contribution will not be sought for this development. Devon County Council will only request for a secondary contribution of £142,279 (based on the current DfE extension rate for Devon of £18,241 per pupil) which will be used to provide education facilities at Braunton Academy.

Natural England: Designated sites – further information required.

Caen Valley Bats Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) The application site lies within the 4km Greater Horseshoe Bat roost sustenance zone associated with the Caen Valley Bats SSSI and is in close proximity to Knowl Water which has been identified as one of the major commuting routes from the SSSI to foraging areas further afield (2002 English Nature radio tracking report).

The Caen Valley Bats SSSI is notified for it maternity and hibernation colonies of Greater Horseshoe bats and further information on the special interest can be found at www.magic.gov.uk

The development triggers Natural England’s Impact Risk Zones (IRZ2) for all planning applications outside or extending outside existing settlements/urban areas affecting greenspace, farmland, semi natural habitats or landscape features.

The 2002 radio tracking report for Caen Valley Bats SSSI highlights that Key flight corridors linking Caen Valley Bats SSSI with foraging areas were found to be associated with watercourses, tall, bushy hedgerows, sheltered woodland edge and tree lines and the most favoured foraging areas were associated with mosaics of scrub and wet woodland, high overgrown hedges, tree lined water courses and woodland edge adjacent to meadows and grazed pastures, linked to the availability and abundance of key prey species.

Given the separation distance of the development from Knowl Water, the proposal is unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on the flight corridor. However, the ecological assessment (Greena Ecological Consultancy November 2015) has identified that Greater Horseshoe bats also use the hedgerows on the development site for foraging and commuting and that there is the potential for lighting associated with the housing development to have an adverse effect on the bats.

Lighting should be as low as guidelines permit and if lighting is not needed it should be avoided. We therefore recommend that a detailed lighting strategy is secured for the site

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 66 to ensure that spillage onto hedgerows of artificial light from buildings and external lights is not increased and is minimised where new lighting is required.

We would draw your attention to the Institute of Lighting Engineers guidelines for the reduction of obtrusive light and British Standard 5489 for route lighting and Bats and lighting guidance (BCT)

Any lighting strategy for the site should ensure that light onto hedgerows will be secured at a level of for example 0.5lux or below to allow the continued use of hedgerows as foraging and commuting routes for bats. We would suggest the following points are considered in formulating the strategy to ensure adverse impacts on bats are avoided:

1. Confirmation of where the 0.5 lux is measured i.e. whether at ground level. Lux levels may be higher at the levels bats fly at (e.g. Horseshoe bats typically fly at 1- 1.5m above ground). We would suggest information regarding the vertical luminance value e.g. the light spill on a 200mm measuring grid, is provided to better understand the likely impacts on bats. 2. Further detail about the lighting design specifications, in particular, the maintenance factor (and whether this has been accounted for in a 0.5 lux prediction) and whether the lights are dimmable; whether the lighting design is proposing mitigation measures such as luminaires, optical control, cowls etc. to further fine tune the lighting; lighting controls; acknowledgement that bats avoid blue light. 3. Any strategy must include a commitment to achieving the 0.5 lux at the detailed design stage.

We would recommend that you consult the ecological consultant involved with the project to ensure any strategy is appropriate and reflects their recommendations for a suitable lighting mitigation strategy.

Should the application change, or if the applicant submits further information relating to the impact of this proposal on the SSSI aimed at reducing the impacts, Natural England will be happy to consider it, and amend our position as appropriate.

Taw Torridge Estuary SSSI The development is within 2km of the Taw Torridge Estuary SSSI which is notified for its overwintering birds and intertidal habitats. Further information can be found at www.magic.gov.uk The development triggers Natural England’s Impact Risk Zones (IRZ3) for residential development of 50 units or more. However, given the scale of the development it is unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on the SSSI interest. There is a potential hydrological link to the SSSI via Knowl Water and the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) such as attenuation ponds and swale could help to ensure the quality of surface water runoff from the development into the Knowl water. We note from the drainage assessment that SuDS will be considered at the detailed design stage and we would recommend that they are implemented in line with Paragraph 103 of the NPPF which indicates that development should be required to give priority to the use of sustainable drainage systems.

Landscape This proposal does not appear to be either located within, or within the setting of, any nationally designated landscape. All proposals however should complement and where

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 67 possible enhance local distinctiveness and be guided by your Authority’s landscape character assessment and the policies protecting landscape character in your local plan.

Protected Species We have not assessed this application and associated documents for impacts on protected species.

Natural England has published Standing Advice on protected species. You should apply our Standing Advice to this application as it is a material consideration in the determination of applications in the same way as any individual response received from Natural England following consultation.

The Standing Advice should not be treated as giving any indication or providing any assurance in respect of European Protected Species (EPS) that the proposed development is unlikely to affect the EPS present on the site; nor should it be interpreted as meaning that Natural England has reached any views as to whether a licence is needed (which is the developer’s responsibility) or may be granted.

If you have any specific questions on aspects that are not covered by our Standing Advice for European Protected Species or have difficulty in applying it to this application please contact us with details at [email protected].

Local Sites If the proposal site is on or adjacent to a local site, e.g. Local Wildlife Site, Regionally Important Geological/Geomorphological Site (RIGS) or Local Nature Reserve (LNR) the authority should ensure it has sufficient information to fully understand the impact of the proposal on the local site before it determines the application.

Biodiversity Enhancements Your authority should consider securing measures to enhance the biodiversity of the site from the applicant, if it is minded to grant permission for this application. This is in accordance with Paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Additionally, we would draw your attention to Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006) which states that ‘Every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity’. Section 40(3) of the same Act also states that ‘conserving biodiversity includes, in relation to a living organism or type of habitat, restoring or enhancing a population or habitat’.

All new development should create high quality locally distinctive places where people want to live and work. Green infrastructure is increasingly recognised as an essential component of any truly sustainable development. Natural England has provided information on green infrastructure which is available at http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/35033?category=9002 The Town and Country Planning Association’s publication ‘Biodiversity By Design ’ provides further information on this issue. The proposal should also accord with local GI priorities within the North Devon and Torridge Green Infrastructure Strategy http://www.torridge.gov.uk/article/11279/Green-Infrastructure-Strategy Examples of biodiversity enhancements that can be widely incorporated into development proposals include:

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 68

Green/brown roofs - The use of alternative roofing (turf, aggregate, brown and green roofs) can make a significant contribution to biodiversity, attenuation of rainfall, and energy efficiency as they can provide a high degree of insulation.

• Landscaping - Native species of plant should be used in landscaping proposals associated with development, unless there are over-riding reasons why particular non-native species need to be used. The nature conservation value of trees, shrubs and other plants includes their intrinsic place in the ecosystem; their direct role as food or shelter for species; and in the case of trees and shrubs, their influence through the creation of woodland conditions that are required by other species, e.g. the ground flora. • Nesting and roosting sites - Modern buildings tend to reduce the amount of potential nesting and roosting sites. Artificial sites may therefore need to be provided for bats and birds. There is a range of ways in which these can be incorporated into buildings, or built in courtyard habitats. Their location should provide protection from the elements, preferably facing an easterly direction, out of the direct heat of the sun and prevailing wind and rain. • Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) - Many existing urban drainage systems are damaging the environment and are not, therefore, sustainable in the long term. Techniques to reduce these effects have been developed and are collectively referred to as Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS). They are physical structures built to receive surface water runoff. They typically include ponds, wetland, swales and porous surfaces. They should be located as close as possible to where the rainwater falls, providing attenuation for the runoff. They may also provide treatment for water prior to discharge, using the natural processes of sedimentation, filtration, adsorption and biological degradation. The SuDS strategy should be capable of delivering a high quality multi-functioning approach that provides high water quality (e.g. pollution control measures, use of reed beds, etc.), quantity (flood alleviation, run-off, etc.), and ecological and amenity value. Paragraph 103 of the NPPF indicates that development should be required to give priority to the use of sustainable drainage systems. Further guidance on the design of SuDs for wildlife by the RSPB can be found at www.rspb.org.uk/sustainabledevelopment

Any design layout for the site should work towards a net gain in biodiversity in line with the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 9). A landscape and ecological management plan should be secured via conditions or obligations as appropriate.

Additional Matters In accordance with Section 4 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, Natural England expects to be consulted on any additional matters, as determined by North Devon Council that may arise as a result of, or are related to, the present proposal. This includes alterations to the application that could affect its impact on the natural environment. Natural England retains its statutory discretion to modify its present advice or opinion in view of any and all such additional matters or any additional information related to this consultation that may come to our attention.

(16/08/16) We have considered the amended information submitted and further to our advice of 19th May 2016 (ref 185878) have the following additional comments.

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 69

Designated Sites

Taw Torridge Estuary SSSI The development is within 2km of the Taw Torridge Estuary SSSI which is notified for its overwintering birds and intertidal habitats. Further information can be found at www.magic.gov.uk The development triggers Natural England’s Impact Risk Zones (IRZ2) for residential development of 50 units or more. However, given the scale of the development it is unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on the SSSI interest.

There is a potential hydrological link to the SSSI via Knowl Water and the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) such as attenuation ponds could help to ensure the quality of surface water runoff from the development into the Knowl water. We welcome the amended drainage and layout plans to include an attenuation pond before the surface water discharges to Knowl Water to address water quality impacts.

Further guidance on the design of SuDS for wildlife by the RSPB can be found at www.rspb.org.uk/sustainabledevelopment and any design layout should work towards a net gain in biodiversity in line with the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 9). A long term ecological management and maintenance plan for the SuDS should be secured via conditions or obligations as appropriate.

Additional matters In accordance with Section 4 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, Natural England expects to be consulted on any additional matters, as determined by North Devon Council that may arise as a result of, or are related to, the present proposal. This includes alterations to the application that could affect its impact on the natural environment. Natural England retains its statutory discretion to modify its present advice or opinion in view of any and all such additional matters or any additional information related to this consultation that may come to our attention.

(02/09/16) Designated sites

Caen Valley Bats Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) As previously advised, the application site lies within the 4km Greater Horseshoe Bat roost sustenance zone associated with the Caen Valley Bats SSSI and is in close proximity to Knowl Water which has been identified as one of the major commuting routes from the SSSI to foraging areas further afield (2002 English Nature radio tracking report).

The Caen Valley Bats SSSI is notified for it maternity and hibernation colonies of Greater Horseshoe bats. The 2002 radio tracking report for Caen Valley Bats SSSI highlights that Key flight corridors linking Caen Valley Bats SSSI with foraging areas were found to be associated with watercourses, tall, bushy hedgerows, sheltered woodland edge and tree lines and the most favoured foraging areas were associated with mosaics of scrub and wet woodland, high overgrown hedges, tree lined water courses and woodland edge adjacent to meadows and grazed pastures, linked to the availability and abundance of key prey species.

Given the separation distance of the development from Knowl Water, the proposal is unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on the identified flight corridor. However, the ecological assessment (Greena Ecological Consultancy November 2015) identified that

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 70

Greater Horseshoe bats also use the hedgerows on the development site for foraging and commuting and that there is the potential for lighting associated with the housing development to have an adverse effect on the bats.

The lighting impact assessment (Services Design Solution Ltd 10th August 2016) indicates that mitigation has been applied to ensure the avoidance of light spill onto the eastern hedgerow to maintain a level of 0.5 lux or below. The mitigation should be secured via suitable conditions. Our advice is that a similar approach should also be taken for the western and northern boundaries as these are also identified in the ecological assessment (Greena Ecological Consultancy Nov 2015) as important commuting and foraging routes.

We would also recommend that you consult the ecological consultant involved with the project to ensure any strategy is appropriate and reflects their recommendations for a suitable lighting mitigation strategy.

The recommendations made by the Devon Wildlife Trust for double planting of hedgerows to create dark flight corridors should also be considered.

Additional matters In accordance with Section 4 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, Natural England expects to be consulted on any additional matters, as determined by North Devon Council, that may arise as a result of, or are related to, the present proposal. This includes alterations to the application that could affect its impact on the natural environment. Natural England retains its statutory discretion to modify its present advice or opinion in view of any and all such additional matters or any additional information related to this consultation that may come to our attention.

Wales & West Utilities: Wales & West Utilities has pipes in the area. Our apparatus may be affected and at risk during construction works. Should the planning application be approved then we require the promoter of these works to contact us directly to discuss our requirements in detail before any works commence on site. Should diversion works be required these will be fully chargeable.

Designing Out Crime Team Leader: Thank you for finding the time to meet with myself and my colleague yesterday afternoon.

The crime and disorder statement within the application was most welcome, however the actual design especially permeability does not comply with that statement.

A crime analysis undertaken on Tuesday 25 th May reveals a total of 395 reported crimes reported in the past 12 months. It is estimated that only around 50% a crimes actually get reported, and that figure does not reflect minor anti social or unacceptable behaviour leading to community conflict within Braunton. This constant minor anti social behaviour (AS) has a huge adverse affect on individuals quality of life and can lead to more serious conflict or an escalation of ASB

Braunton has a proportionately high reported crime rate for the size of the village and issues with youths has on occasions have been of major concern to the police, the public, and parish council. These crimes include burglary (39) Drug offences (23) public order and

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 71 violence (139) sexual offences (29) vehicle crime & damage (78) finally theft and other offence (87)

The design submitted can potentially contribute to further crime and community conflict which can lead to a breakdown in sustainability as described below.

There is an access onto the equipped play area directly through a 13 vehicle parking area that should be secure, Play areas are notorious for attracting rowdy youths and drinkers between 1900 and up to 2am, the parking area is likely to attract BMX and skate boarders etc. enroute to this meeting point and is a real concern as during holidays it is likely to turn into a skate park with all the potential for damage and conflict.

There should never be an access or egress via a car park, there is a high likelihood of conflict as well from the residents of plots 37 -47 (not 48) with the potential noise of users late afternoon and evening. This should be a cull de sac offering security, ownership, and private space.

The next issue is the long, unnecessary doglegged footpath from yet another 13 vehicle parking area (plots 26 – 34) This path does not comply with any planning guidance and is a fear generator in its current state. It isn’t serving the community and is making those 13 vehicles vulnerable to crime and equally important community conflict as it makes an ideal BMX track encircling plots 24, 25, and 55.

For this link to remain it would need to be straight, and have appropriate lighting and all properties protected with defensible planting which plot 26 lacks at present, however that would not address the potential for vehicle crime, damage, and community conflict this path will almost certainly cause over the years.

Natural or casual surveillance cannot be relied on to deter crime, regrettably due to high media cover there is overwhelming evidence that suggests unless a crime directly involves a member of the public many will not report it for fear of repercussions or being labelled a “grass” making residents culpable guardians of parking spaces does not work.

This is the opportunity to design out the potential crime and disorder, once built it will be impossible to rectify.

(15/08/16) Thank you for this amended application. This amendment ensures a safer and sustainable development. Can I please confirm that defensible planting will extend to the rear garden of plot 45 and 20, this will prevent unlawful rear access.

Braunton Access Group: As a group we have looked carefully at the above planning application and have concerns on the following:

• There are no Public Transport links covering the area at the present time resulting in a dependence on motor vehicles. As Mill Lane public footpath runs along the eastern boundary could consideration be given to up-grading this to an all year round surface foot path to allow easy access for pedestrians & wheelchair users. • Any road without a pavement is on concave road means pushing at an angle or going down the middle of the road, this is a safety issue for wheelchair users and their carers.

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 72

• The access along lower park road is of grave concern, buggies and wheelchairs often go along - there is no pavement for quite some distance, when there is, the dropped kerbs are not in the right place so most of users just stick to the road.

Would it be possible to allocate some 106 money to upgrading the pavements in Lower Park Road and Mill Lane?

Public Rights of Way: The site is bounded on the east by Mill Lane, a public footpath. The southern section of Mill Lane, to the south of the main body of the site, is very wet, and this is referred to in the travel statement. The drainage plan for the site almost parallels the public footpath for much of its length, and then crosses the public footpath to reach the proposed outfall to Knowl Water. Given the scale of the development and the condition of Mill Lane, I would expect off site contributions to enable the route to be brought into a fit condition at all times of the year, as it will provide an important link through to Wrafton. The drainage plan for the site should also be expanded to assist in the drainage of the lower section of Mill Lane.

The proposed open space area could be linked to the public footpath network crossing the site, encouraging people to use the footpaths to reach their local destinations.

(17/08/16) The amended site plans appear to show the connection between the proposed public open space and the adjacent public footpath, Mill Lane to be closed off. The Design and Access Statement originally submitted highlights this connection in Section 3.1, Vehicular and Transport links. Why is the proposed connection to this route now removed? This significantly reduces the public benefit of the proposed development to the adjacent area.

The amended drainage strategy shows the proposed outfall to Knowl Water as crossing the line of the public footpath, Mill Lane, in order to discharge. Any detailed scheme design here (none shown that I can identify) will need the approval of the public rights of way team, along with any necessary licenses for placing apparatus in the highway (s50) from the Highway Authority. Without having sight of a detailed design scheme for this, I cannot fully comment on its suitability in terms of the impact it would have on Mill Lane. Any approved scheme delivered here would require the temporary closure of Mill Lane, and the applicant would need to apply to Devon County Council for the appropriate temporary closure.

I would therefore be grateful if the applicants could provide further detail on the proposed drainage outfall, and explain why no connection is proposed between the public rights of way network and the public open space, when the two are immediately adjacent.

Sustainability Officer: The submitted Sustainability Statement claims that the requested condition is overly onerous and that “there would be an additional cost for each plot of around £3,500.00 to provide this level of renewables”.

A 15% reduction in the dwellings emission rate beyond that required by Part L 2013 is generally considered achievable with little or no requirement for any renewable energy provision. It should be noted that the policy requirement is intended to favour a fabric first approach which is accepted as more cost effective.

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 73

(01/09/16) The submitted SAP calculations for both the affordable and open market elements indicate that the As Designed scheme has exceeded the required 15% improvement of DER/TER as requested.

South West Water: No objection.

Devon Wildlife Trust: Thank you for the opportunity to examine this planning application. Our comments on the biodiversity aspects are as follows.

The potential impact of lighting on the hedgerows used as flight corridors by the legally protected Greater Horseshoe Bat, concerns us. We therefore support the recommendations made by Natural England regarding lighting in their letter of 19 May 2016.

In addition, in order to ensure the effectiveness of these lighting measures and continued use of existing hedgerows by the Greater Horseshoe Bat, we recommend that additional hedgerows are planted, parallel to existing hedgerows, to form dark flight corridors.

DCC Policy and Infrastructure Development: The strategic planning team is sometimes consulted on LPA planning applications and, likewise, will sometimes provide a coordinated, strategic DCC response. We usually do this if there are significant issues relating to DCC responsibilities, often in relation to transportation and education provision, or if the application is of a large scale (for example around 300 dwellings plus).

Taking this into account, we decided that a strategic response is not necessary. However, having been in touch with colleagues, I am aware that DCC has provided separate highways and education responses. You may also have received archaeology and flood risk input.

Public Health: I apologise for not having responded earlier. Generally I believe that Public Health hasn’t regularly commented on developments of this scale. However as you point out there is the matter of the local GP practice and its capacity; you asked for my thoughts about this.

I can confirm that if this about the GP practice we don’t have responsibility for primary care and so I cannot comment specifically.

I recommend that you make contact with either NHS England or James Short at NEW Devon CCG who leads for primary care. Colleagues here are aware that the Caen surgery is marginally oversubscribed but nowhere near the 30% of other practices in the Northern Locality. 55 new homes should not present a massive new input and of course any new patients would attract new finances.

Planning Delivery: I confirm that I do not wish to comment unless issues arise from the consultation and consideration process that you require my input to, particularly in relation to any s106 obligations.

Economic Regeneration Officer: I have just had a look through this one and don’t have any concerns from an economic development perspective.

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 74

Braunton Marsh Drainage Board: I have consulted with the Chairman of Braunton Marsh Internal Drainage Board who has confirmed that the Board will not be submitting a response.

Environmental Health: I have reviewed this application in relation to Environmental Protection matters and comment as follows:

1. Land Contamination I have reviewed the Phase 1 Geotechnical Investigation and Contamination Assessment Report by Ruddlesden Geotechnical ( Ref: TB/JF/SR/13236/PGCAR) dated February 2016. The report concludes that the levels of contamination affecting the site are unlikely to be potentially harmful to human health given the proposed end use or to the water environment. However, the report recommends that further contamination testing be undertaken as part of a geo-technical intrusive investigation in order to confirm the findings of the preliminary phase one assessment.

Given the above, I recommend conditions be imposed relating to contaminated land investigation and reaction (as set out below).

2. Construction Phase Impacts In order to ensure that nearby residents are not unreasonably affected by dust, noise or other impacts during the construction phase of the development I recommend conditions be imposed relating to a Construction Management Plan and construction times (as set out below).

3. Air Quality I have reviewed the WYG Air Quality Assessment dated 22 July 2016. The report provides an assessment of air quality impacts arising at both construction and operational phases of the proposed development.

I have referred to construction phase impacts at 2 above.

Operational phase impacts are assessed in the report, having regard to recognised guidance and standards. The assessment takes account of local sensitive receptors including the Council's Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) in Braunton and refers to relevant local air quality monitoring data. The report concludes that traffic related air quality effects of the development would be of negligible significance at all relevant receptors and that this conclusion carries a high level of confidence in terms of the technical analysis. I accept the findings of the report and I therefore have no further comments with regard to operational phase air quality impacts.

You may wish to consider the report's recommendations at 7.2 relating to best practice for reducing traffic pollution.

(19/09/16) I have considered the comments made by Mr Bunyard in his email of 24 August 2016 in relation to air quality aspects of application 61139. The contour map on page 33 of the Air Quality Assessment report that I believe Mr Bunyard is referring to shows predicted NO2 levels in Braunton. These contour predictions are the output of the model after it has been adjusted to take account of the local monitored data obtained by NDC. The report states that the model adjustment is in accordance with standard guidance and that the model

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 75 produces data that is within 10% of the monitored levels. This is in line with the requirement of DEFRA's technical guidance. As such, I am satisfied that the modelling is acceptable and I do not wish to alter my comments on the application.

Countryside & Landscape Officer: No formal comments received at the time of writing the report. Draft comments:

1. Arboricultural Impacts – Whilst a tree survey/constraints plan has been commissioned an arboricultural impact assessment (AIA) and associated tree protection plan (TPP) and arboricultural method statement (AMS) has not been provided and I have concerns that the design does not provide sufficient separation distances between existing trees and hedges and the proposed dwellings. 2. Ecological Impacts – Again, whilst preliminary ecological reports have been provided an ecological impact assessment (EIA) of the proposed dwelling is lacking. I again have concerns that the biodiversity losses have not been adequately addressed and opportunities for enhancement have not been taken. 3. Landscape Impacts – Again, whilst happy/content with the landscape and visual appraisal (LVA) findings in relation to the principle of development, the mitigation and enhancement recommendations do not appear to have been followed through to the final site layout and design stage.

All of the above raises conflict with numerous planning policies which would suggest that the development currently proposed should be refused.

Health and Social Care (Social Services): No comments received at the time of writing the report.

Principal Engineer: No comments received at the time of writing the report.

Recycling and Commercial Services: No comments received at the time of writing the report.

REPRESENTATIONS

At the time of preparing this report 167 letters of objection and 12 letters of comment have been received relating to the application (copies of all the letters have been made available prior to the Planning Committee meeting in accordance with agreed procedures).

Objections • Contrary to planning policy/already rejected in Local Plan (BRA108), opportunistic, cumulative impact, lack of need • Narrow access road/Both accesses should be opened • Traffic generation – underestimated (8 peak movements), air pollution, pedestrian conflict (inc. school children & Tyspane), lack of pavement HPR, noise, traffic survey out of peak holiday season, construction traffic • Lower Park Road/ Heanton St/Wrafton Rd inadequate – single width in places, on road parking, congestion, existing rat-run • Lack of public transport • Mill Lane – condition/impact of drainage • Flood risk increased/Flood Plain/Impact of tank/Lack of SUDS

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 76

• Existing drainage cannot cope/Poor quality of existing pitch fibre sewers/ raw sewage overflow/who will manage drainage? • Lack of affordable housing/Floor area of AH • Strain on infrastructure – roads, schools, medical services (Caen Health Centre). • Greenbelt countryside/erosion of agricultural strip between settlements • Over development, high density compared to existing, particularly where affordable housing is proposed next to South Park, out of scale, design out of keeping • Loss of privacy/relationship of plot 34 to 24 South Park/ Overbearing on bungalows • Impact of pile driving • Anti-social use of play area/crime • Previous scheme for 42 houses rejected (as part of Local Plan) • Impact on Wildlife – badger, bats, otters, birds, inadequate plans, fences against hedges • Lack of employment opportunities • Loss of neighbouring house value • Loss of views • Potential second homes

Observations • Better to use both access points • Disruption during construction

See attached list for representation names and addresses.

PLANNING HISTORY

Reference Proposal Decision Date NI 2383 Outline application proposed dwellings Refused 02.02.56 NI 7802 Outline application proposed residential Refused 02.02.65 development (34 plots) Appeal Dismissed 11.07.66 NI 9941 Proposed residential development Refused 04.04.67 NI 10436 Proposed residential development Refused 18.08.67 NI 11114 Proposed residential development (34 plots) Refused 26.07.68 Appeal withdrawn NI 14029 Outline application proposed residential Withdrawn 06.06.74 development (23 plots)

As referred to in the Planning Policy response, the site was identified through the SHLAA for 42 dwellings as a logical extension to the east side of Braunton. Following the Chief Planning Officer’s letter of 2014 to developers seeking to identify a supply of deliverable housing sites sufficient to provide 5 years supply, a pre-application enquiry was submitted. At that time and based on an assumption that the site would be included in the development boundary, informal advice was given that a level of 35% affordable housing would be acceptable. Subsequently, the site was not taken forward as an allocation in the emerging Local Plan.

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 77

SUMMARY OF ISSUES

• Residential Planning Policy • Affordable Housing • Traffic • Drainage • Design • Amenity • Ecology • Other matters • Section 106

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

Residential Planning Policy

The current position of the Council is set out in the second response from Planning Policy and can be summarised as:

Emerging Local Plan • At present this carries limited weight. • The Sustainability Appraisal viewed the site as ‘least sustainable’ which does not mean that it is not sustainable, subject to detailed consideration.

Five Year Land Supply • The local planning authority can be in the position to demonstrate a five year land supply before adoption of the emerging Local Plan. • The updated 5 Year Housing Statement demonstrates a five year land supply and therefore the housing polices in the adopted Local Plan are considered up-to-date. • The first sentence of paragraph 14 of the NPPF remains relevant but the paragraph is not engaged in relation to decision making in this case.

Exception Sites • Policy HSG 8 relating to ‘exception sites’ is up to date. • The NPPF definition for rural exception sites is ‘small sites used for affordable housing’. • A site of 55 dwellings is too large to be considered a ‘small site’ and therefore policy HSG8 is not appropriate in this instance. • As a greenfield site, the Council’s Affordable Housing Code of Practice (2004) advises that between 35% to 50% of dwellings should be affordable housing.

Sustainable Development • There is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. • Although paragraph 14 of the NPPF is not engaged, the Framework seeks to significantly boost the supply of housing and appeal decisions have made it clear that the ability to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply should not be seen as a maximum supply. • If there are no outstanding planning issues relating to the site, and it is assessed that the application demonstrates that it meets the government’s definition of sustainable

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 78

development (as defined by the NPPF) then it would be appropriate to consider the appropriateness of the site in contributing to the supply of housing.

Affordable Housing

As set out above, as a greenfield site, between 35% to 50% of dwellings should be affordable housing.

On the basis of the updated response from Planning Policy, the applicant has been requested to submit a Viability Assessment for consideration, but has declined to do so.

This is on the basis that:

“the request is entirely unsubstantiated because Policy HSG7 of the adopted local plan does not specify a target but merely states, “residential development will only be permitted where an element of affordable housing is provided “.

This is the Development Plan policy, not the Affordable Housing Code of Practice which is not part of the Development Plan. Nevertheless, what the Code of Practice actually states is “as a guide, the Council will expect between 35 to 50% of dwellings on ‘greenfield’ sites to be affordable”. It does not say that the amount will be determined by an open book viability process and the application proposal to provide 35% affordable housing is of course consistent with this guidance.

In addition, the Code of Practice was produced in 2004, some 12 years ago. It is not clear whether it was ever adopted as supplementary planning guidance or what status it now has. It certainly wasn’t the subject of independent examination. What is very clear however is that it cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be regarded as an up to date document to be relied upon in decision making in 2016 nor is it based on up to date evidence of housing need and viability.

The Council has of course undertaken an up to date assessment of affordable housing need and viability as part of its preparation of its draft joint local plan with Torridge District Council. Draft Policy ST18 of that plan proposes 30% affordable housing on new housing developments, a figure the application proposals to deliver 35% are in excess of. Indeed, paragraph 3.11 of the Affordable Housing Topic Paper (May 2016) states,

“The Economic Viability Assessment (CE23) was updated in 2015 to reflect any potential changes to viability within the local housing market (CE24). It concludes that a requirement for 30% affordable housing alongside a CIL of £60 per m2 remains appropriate. The updated evidence (CE24), as a change from the initial assessment (CE23) did not recommend a 40% affordable housing requirement on large greenfield sites, the exclusion of which endorses the Councils’ decision not to incorporate it into the Publication draft Local Plan (SUB1)”.

Your officers’ view is that the most recent evidence on which we are able to draw as an up to date basis for affordable housing provision within residential schemes is set out in paragraphs 3.11 and 3.12 of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan 2011 – 2031 Topic Paper: Affordable Housing (May 2016); this evidence is reflected in Policy ST18 of the emerging Joint Local Plan which requires 30% affordable housing that applies to all new housing.

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 79

Reference to the range of between 35% and 50% is set out the Council’s Affordable Housing Code of Practice (adopted March 2004) which states in paragraph 3.6:

Where appropriate, sites identified for residential development in the Local Plan have an affordable housing target which will be reviewed at the time a planning application is submitted. As a guide, the Council will expect between 35 to 50% of dwellings on ‘greenfield’ sites to be affordable with at least 25% on ‘previously developed sites’. The lower requirement for affordable housing on previously developed land is in recognition of the generally higher costs in redeveloping such sites. In the villages and rural settlements, the expectation will be that at least 50% of all homes will be affordable.

This requirement is not however explicitly carried forward in the generic housing policies (notably Policy HSG7) of the adopted North Devon Local Plan (July 2006) although it has been otherwise recognised in specific site allocations in the document.

The invitation to submit a Viability Appraisal had regard to concerns raised in representations regarding the basis for 35% Affordable Housing being offered as part of the present application; for example, the VA could have outlined the relationship between the affordable housing percentage being offered and its impact on the delivery of a viable scheme. However, I note the advice set out an e-mail to Bob Pedlar 23 rd September (above) that it is not intended to submit this information and note the reasons for this decision.

Your officers’ view is that whilst it could have been helpful if a VA had been submitted, such a submission is not mandatory.

Whilst the Housing Officer is of the opinion that the provision should be 20 dwellings to meet a 35% requirement, your officers consider the 19 dwellings (34.5%) sufficient to meet a 35% requirement. The applicant is also willing to offer a financial contribution of 0.5 of a house to make up the difference.

There remains a difference in the mix of house sizes proposed, where the Housing Officer requests one less 1 bedroom dwelling, in preference for a 4 bedroom dwelling. The applicant comments ‘We have been in discussions with North Devon Homes regarding the proposed mix, sizes and tenure of the affordable units, and they have confirmed that they support the following at South Park, Braunton:

Three x 1 bedroom (16%) - 559 m2 to 635m2 - All social Rent Eleven x 2 bedrooms (58%) - 775 m2 - 9 x social Rent, 2 x shared ownership Five x 3 bedroom (26%) - 904 m2 - 2 x social Rent, 3 x shared ownership

Dwelling sizes are detailed in the ‘Plot Schedule’ and are required to meet the needs of a Registered Provider, to whom the affordable dwellings will be sold.

Three clusters of affordable dwellings are acceptable.

The parking space ratio for the two groups of 9 affordable dwellings is 1.4 spaces per dwelling. The Local Plan requires 1.2 per dwelling.

The Housing Officer questions the allocation of 3 bedroom houses as part of the 25% intermediate provision and the type of intermediate housing proposed.

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 80

The latest comments from the applicant have been put to the Housing Officer who in summary advises:

• Fractions of homes as off-site contributions are not acceptable and 20 should be provided. • Maintains the request for a 4 bedroom house. • The tenure should be 15 social rent and 5 intermediate. • The size of dwellings should be confirmed. • The proposed pepperpotting is acceptable. • Courtyard parking is acceptable if agreed by North Devon Homes. • The shared ownership requirement as set out in the S106 should be “or as agreed with the Proper Officer”.

Traffic

Much comment has been made on traffic related issues including: the narrow access road; both accesses from South Park should be opened; traffic generation has been underestimated (8 peak movements); additional air pollution; pedestrian conflict with vehicles related to school children and the junction outside; lack of pavement for a stretch of Higher Park Road; noise; the impact of construction traffic; the physical constraints of Lower Park Road/ Heanton St/Wrafton Rd being single width in places, having on road parking, congestion and use as ‘rat-run; Lack of public transport; and, the condition/impact of drainage on Mill Lane.

The application is accompanied by a Transport Assessment and Travel Plan.

The TA concludes that:

• The location of the site is accessible for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users and integrates with the surrounding residential area. Therefore the site is in line with national and local. • Walking distances to schools and local amenities are well within the boundaries of the acceptable walk distance to education facilities set out by the CIHT Guidelines ‘Providing for Journeys on Foot’. • The small increase in vehicular flows on the local road network as a result of the proposed development is minimal and would not give rise to a material impact on existing traffic and safety conditions. • The cumulative impact of the development would not be severe and thus should not be refused on transport grounds in line with NPPF.

The Local Highway Authority accepts these conclusions and recommends conditions and a contribution towards improvements to Mill Lane.

Drainage

Locally, concern has been raised about increased Flood risk, use of Flood Plain and lack of SUDS.

The revised drainage strategy has evolved from discussions between the applicant and

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 81

In response to a question raised about the view of the DCC Flood and Coastal Risk Management Team officer, he comments that ‘I can confirm that I have removed my objection on the above planning application because the applicant has now provided sufficient information in respect of the surface water drainage aspects of the proposals.

The reference to source control features in my initial consultation response was purely an opportunity for the applicant to provide betterment to the sustainability of the proposed surface water drainage management system. Unfortunately, although the provision of source control features is desirable, the absence of these is not a sufficiently defendable reason to object to a planning application. Indeed, the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed surface water drainage management system has now been designed to the correct technical standards, which was the primary reason for my objection.

The additional information referenced in my second and third consultation responses will be submitted to the Planning Case Officer by the applicant’s appointed agents. (Revised Drainage Strategy, Exceedence Pathways and Maintenance Schedule now submitted).

In terms of how the additional information specifically addressed my initial objection:

1. The greenfield runoff rates for the site have been recalculated in accordance with the correct HOST soil classification for the site; 2. The proposed surface water drainage management system will discharge attenuated surface water runoff from the site at a rate which does not exceed the existing greenfield conditions up to, and including, the 1 in 100 year (+40% allowance for climate change) rainfall event; 3. The exceedance routes plan demonstrates that in the event of the proposed attenuation pond overtopping, flows are directed to the south towards the watercourse; 4. The operation and maintenance plan outlines how the proposed surface water drainage management system will be maintained over the lifetime of the development.

The fact that the revised surface water drainage management plan is dated February 2016 is not necessarily unusual; applicants will generally commission these plans prior to submitting planning applications, in order to ensure smooth passage through the planning process. It is then the responsibility of the applicant’s appointed Consultant Drainage Engineer to provide details of revisions or updated dates, but this is at their discretion; it depends on how they choose to title and reference their plans.

The Environment Agency confirmed by telephone that they had no concerns in respect of the location of the proposed attenuation pond within Flood Zone 2 in this instance. Only part of the attenuation pond is located within this Zone, and it is deemed that there would be no impact on the floodplain as a result of this feature being present here. Furthermore, it is deemed that the drainage of the site would not be compromised by the location of the attenuation pond because any exceedance from it will be directed onto the floodplain.

The safety aspects of the proposed surface water drainage management system are outside of our statutory consultee remit, but it is proposed to incorporate a knee-high fence around the attenuation pond, which accords with industry best-practice. This arrangement enables the pond to be accessed and actively used by the residents, whilst also ensuring that there is sufficient protection for young children in the vicinity.

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 82

I would also add that integrating an attenuation pond into the Public Open Space is acceptable because it accords with the underpinning principles of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS). Indeed, surface water drainage management systems should be fully integrated into green infrastructure networks and other open spaces across development sites in order to provide a variety of benefits to water quantity, water quality, visual amenity and biodiversity.

Finally, it is proposed that the surface water drainage management system for this site will be managed and maintained by, and the legal responsibility of, a private maintenance company, as is common practice across the country.

In terms of foul drainage it is suggested that existing drainage cannot cope and connection to the existing system relies on a poor quality of existing pitch fibre sewers and that there is raw sewage overflow on occasion.

SWW raise no objection to the proposal either in terms of capacity or the proposed connection to the mains in South Park. On the latter they state ‘The sewer is as you say pitch fibre not a material used nowadays I admit but it is serviceable and does not cause us any concerns’.

Consequently, it is considered that policies DVS6 and DVS7 are satisfied.

Design

Although there is suggestion in letters of representation that the scale and design of the buildings is out of keeping with the locality, the area along and south of Lower Park Road has no consistent character. It comprises a mixture of a range of sizes of houses and bungalows of differing age. Similarly, the proposed development proposes a range of house types and sizes, using a range of materials, with a predominance of brick, already found in the village.

Landscaping is required by Policy DVS3 of the Local Plan. A Tree Protection Plan has recently been submitted in response to the Countryside & Landscape Officer draft comments, which is being considered by that officer. The applicant’s view is that an impact assessment should not be necessary.

An area of Public Open Space as required by Policy REC5 is proposed to the south of the dwellings. This is comprised of equipped play area, informal open space and meadow/wildlife area. The latter includes a surface water attenuation basin, a maximum of 600mm deep, with a maximum 1 in 2 slope and enclosed by a 0.6m kneel rail. This is land allocated in the Local Plan under BRA7 as Public Open Space Provision. A smaller more formal area is proposed in the housing area.

All POS will be the responsibility of a management company.

Amenity

Concerns have been raised by adjoining property owners about over development, high density (particularly the area of affordable housing adjacent to bungalows on the east boundary of South Park) compared to existing, scale and loss of privacy/relationship to those bungalows.

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 83

In terms of density, existing Local Plan policy only permits development at the highest net density having regard to the character of the site and surrounding area. The preamble suggests no lower than 30dph. The NPPF is less prescriptive. Overall proposed density is 26dph. The area of 9 proposed affordable dwellings adjoining the east side of South Park is approximately 45dph.

For comparison, the density of surrounding development is South Park 14dph, east end of Moorlea 20dph and Lower Park Road north of the site 5dph.

The NPPF at paragraphs 47 and 58 advises that density should reflect local circumstances but should also optomise the potential of the site to accommodate development.

Privacy/overlooking are a particular concern of residents living in bungalows on the east side of South Park, particularly because of the density of development in that part of the site. However, the submitted layout plan also shows that the distance between buildings is significant. For instance, the distance between proposed dwellings on plots 31 to 34 and 21 and 22 South Park is 29.6 metres, albeit the latter has a conservatory a few metres closer. 20 South Park is a little closer to the windowless side elevation of the house on Plot 30 at, 19 metres.

Consequently, taking into account the distances involved and separation by a mature hedge and the use of a condition restricting permitted development rights in respect of this group of houses, it is not considered there is an amenity concern that would warrant refusal.

Construction, including traffic which will inevitably access the site through South Park can be controlled through a Construction Management Plan.

Air quality has been raised as a potential issue in terms of additional traffic through the village centre. However, it will be noted from the response from Environmental Health that concurs with the conclusion of the Air Quality Report that traffic related air quality effects of the development would be of negligible significance at all relevant receptors. The situation would be helped by the promotion of non-car modes of transport.

Ecology

Issues that have been raised in representations include, impact on wildlife such as, badger, bats, otters and birds, inadequate plans, the construction of fences against hedges and missing surveys.

The application is accompanied by Ecological Survey Reports dated July and November 2015 and a supplementary letter dated December 2015. The results from July were:

• The proposed development will not impact any designated sites, priority habitats or primary reasons for SAC or SPA selection; however, greater horseshoe bats in particular need to be considered in planning and design of the proposal. • Further survey work to confirm presence / absence of roosting bats and to assess the level of bat activity in the field and its proximity as well as the importance of the hedgerows as features of navigation and foraging for bats will be necessary.

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 84

• The current levels of light intensity should be measured to serve as a baseline for lighting on the site post development. • Due to the fact that the hedgerows surrounding the field subject to the proposed development are suitable for nesting passerine birds, the hedgerows should ideally not be removed during bird nesting season which usually lasts between March and the end of August. If removed during this period an ecologist survey will be required to check for nesting birds. • No further survey work for badger is required. • No further survey work for hazel dormouse is required. • A full reptile survey should be carried out to assess the absence / presence of reptiles on site and potentially also to estimate the population size.

From the November survey it was additionally concluded that:

• Should works be postponed until March 2016 or later, it is recommended to re- survey the area to assess the likelihood of badger presence or absence. • Mitigation measures for the loss of reptile habitat will be necessary.

Following a representation querying the adequacy of bat surveys, this has been put to Natural England who responded that “In terms of survey effort, given the proximity to the Caen Valley Bats SSSI, best practice guidance should be followed to establish the significance of the site. The level of survey carried out so far (2015) has identified that the hedgerows are important for greater horseshoe bats. I would suggest you request justification from the ecologists regarding the level of survey carried out (as per our Standing advice and the 2016 BCT survey guidelines 1.1.3 and 2.2.5)”.

The applicant advises that information regarding the ecology and bat flight routes is likely to take a little longer to put together and that the Planning Committee could be updated.

A Lighting Impact Assessment has been submitted focussing on the east boundary of the site. The lighting assessment for the west and north hedgerows is in hand and will follow the same methodology as that completed for the eastern hedgerow, but will not be available until 5 th October. The agent is in conversation with the ecologists involved to ensure they are satisfied that any mitigation proposed is appropriate to avoid impacts on bats.

An update from Natural England states “Natural England’s Standing Advice , which is Habitat Regulations compliant, has been put together to provide Local Authorities with a consistent level of advice and you should be able to find the answers to your questions in the advice and the best practice guidance it points to. The applicant’s ecologist should also have regard to the Standing Advice.

In terms of your question on enforcement, where planning permission only is required the LPA would be responsible for enforcement of conditions, but where a protected species licence from Natural England is required then it would be our role to investigate any breaches of a licence. However, the question specifically relates to the ecologist ’s statement about the avoidance of offences being committed in relation to badgers and we would expect an ecological watching brief to be secured in any conditioned ecological management plan to ensure works are carried out to avoid offences if the ecologist decides a licence is not required.

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 85

The Greater Horseshoe bat is a European Protected Species, protected under Schedule 2 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) Regulations 1994 (Regulation 38). This legislation (Reg 37) also states the requirement to conserve linear features in the wider countryside (a key feature in the ecology of the greater horseshoe bat).

A European Protected Species licence is required in order to carry out any works that involve certain activities such as capturing the animals, disturbance, or damaging or destroying their resting or breeding places. Note that damage or destruction of a breeding site or resting place is an absolute offence and unless the offences can be avoided through avoidance (e.g. by timing the works appropriately), it should be licensed.

Currently, no disturbance, damage or destruction of the Caen Valley Bats SSSI roost is proposed and the main commuting route identified in close proximity, Knowl Water, will not be directly affected. The hedgerows on the development site are being retained and the developer has committed to producing a lighting plan to avoid light spill onto the eastern, western and northern hedges.

However, following receipt of your questions, I have discussed the potential impacts on the horseshoe bats in more detail with my colleague who works on the South Hams SAC. In terms of survey effort, given the proximity to the Caen Valley Bats SSSI, best practice guidance should be followed to establish the significance of the site. The level of survey carried out so far (2015) has identified that the hedgerows are important for greater horseshoe bats. I would suggest you request justification from the ecologists regarding the level of survey carried out (as per our Standing advice and the 2016 BCT survey guidelines 1.1.3 and 2.2.5).

The development site is within an area likely to support both foraging and commuting greater horseshoe bats (i.e. within a 4km foraging radius of maternity roost). However, the site appears to provide little potential to support cattle grazing (aerial photos/ecological survey indicate it to be arable/not long term grazed grassland). The hedge boundaries do support commuting activity and the adjacent fields appear to be grazed and could support foraging habitats. In terms of close boarded fencing, this forms part of the mitigation to avoid light spill onto the hedgerows. However, I missed the fact that it appears to be erected directly adjacent to the hedge . We would recommend a minimum 5m (ideally 10m ) buffer to the hedge with light levels <0.5lux as the bats generally fly and feed predominantly within this zone (which should be tussocky grass to encourage moth species and be mown annually to avoid scrub encroachment). There may also be scope to bring the hedgerows into some form of beneficial management such as planting of gaps and allowing hedge to grow tall [3-6m] with overhangs. ”

With regard to Biodiversity, Policy ENV8 of the North Devon Local Plan requires that losses to biodiversity must be minimised, fully mitigated and compensated for by the creation or enhancement of habitat and the Government policy set out at paragraph 109 of the NPPF is to minimise impacts on biodiversity and provide net gains.

Consequently, the applicant has been requested to carry out a biodiversity metric on the site to identify the biodiversity loss arising from the development. The applicant has now submitted that information showing an overall gain and this has been passed to the Biosphere Manager and Countryside & Landscape Officer for further comment.

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 86

Other Matters

Comment has been received on the adequacy or otherwise of local infrastructure. It is noted that in terms of schools, DCC comment that although the designated primary school South Mead is over capacity there is still some capacity at other schools (Braunton Caen and Kingsacre) within a safe walking of the development site. Therefore a primary school contribution will not be sought for this development. There is however a request for a secondary contribution of £142,279 calculated on all family size dwellings, which will be used to provide education facilities at Braunton Academy. This sum will be reduced on a pro-rata basis since NDC does not require contributions on the affordable housing element. This reduces the sum to £98,501.

The impact on medical services has also been raised, but the Public Health officer at DCC concludes that 55 new homes should not present a massive new input and of course any new patients would attract new finances.

New Homes Bonus. Section 143 of the Localism Act amends Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 so that when determining planning applications, Local Planning Authorities should also have regard to any local finance considerations so far as material to the application. Local finance considerations mean a grant or other financial assistance that has been, or will or could be provided to the relevant authority by a Minister of the Crown, or Sums that a relevant authority has received, or will or could receive, in payment or a Community Infrastructure Levy. In respect of this application consideration should be given to the New Homes Bonus that would be generated by this application.

Other concerns raised including, loss of neighbouring house value, loss of private views and potential second homes, are not material planning considerations.

Section 106

• 19 units of affordable housing. • A secondary contribution of £98,501 towards the 1 st phase expansion for additional teaching accommodation at Braunton Academy. • POS contribution of £110,982.30 • Highways contributions of £55,000 for improvements and maintenance of the existing Public Right of Way No. 18 (Mill Lane) to the east of the application site, to improve the sustainability of pedestrian users of the application site. The sum of £250 per dwelling to be utilised for Public Transport vouchers and £50 per dwelling to be utilised towards bicycle provision.

CONCLUSION

This site is located on the edge of the village of Braunton but outside of the development boundary of the settlement in both the adopted and the emerging North Devon Local Plan. The NPPF reflects Government policy to boost the supply of housing and to take a positive approach to applications for residential development in sustainable locations providing there are no adverse impacts that would significantly and adversely outweigh the identified benefits.

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 87

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

Furthermore, applications for residential development should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The Council’s most recent Housing Land Supply Statement (April 2016) demonstrates that the Council has a 5 year housing land supply and on this basis the present application falls to be considered against the adopted Local Plan and the policies noted in this report. It also fallows that the decision should be taken in accordance with the adopted development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

On this basis the application as proposed is not considered to be in compliance with those policies relating to the development of land outside the identified development boundary of Braunton. Having arrived at that view it is however then necessary to identify other material considerations and determine whether any of these may outweigh the policies. It has already been noted that the NPPF is an important consideration with its clearly set out presumption in favour of sustainable development as being an issue.

In this instance, the site is on the edge of the development boundary for Braunton as identified on Inset Map 14 of the adopted North Devon Local Plan. Residential development abuts the site on its northern and western boundaries and the application proposes pedestrian and cycle links as well as highway improvements to secure connectivity through the site to adjoining development and the village centre with its services and community facilities. Devon Council in its role as Local Highway Authority has not recommended refusal of the application on highway grounds subject to securing connectivity improvements and the TA that accompanies the application concludes that the location of the site is accessible for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users and accords with recommended walking distances to local amenities whilst the additional traffic generation is not considered such as to give rise to result in a severe cumulative impact such as to warrant refusal on those grounds.

In these respects the application site whilst not in the location identified through the emerging Joint Local Plan exercise as the most sustainable site to serve Braunton is nonetheless considered to be in a sustainable location in terms of its relationship to existing residential development and in terms of reasonable access and connectivity to local amenities. In terms of testing the sustainability of the location through the present planning application, the application has been supported by a TA and tested through consultation with the Local Highway Authority and in this specific context its location is such as to facilitate use of sustainable transport modes as sought by the Framework.

The economic role of sustainable development is to ensure that sufficient land of the right type is available in the appropriate location at the appropriate time so as to support the Government’s growth agenda. The present application site is greenfield land which is not the preferred type whilst it is located adjacent but not within the identified development boundary. Notwithstanding, the proposed development would make a meaningful contribution towards housing land supply, deliver improvements to highway infrastructure together with other S106 contributions and provide investment into the area. In these respects the development would fulfil the economic strand of the sustainable development agenda. Specifically, this proposal will deliver 55 new dwellings and will boost the housing supply as well as providing 19 affordable dwellings; 13 of which will be social rented units, contributing towards the district’s critical need. This should be given significant weight.

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 88

It is also recognised that a core principle of the NPPF is that planning should recognise the intrinsic character of the countryside and in this respect the development of a greenfield site would harm that objective. Set against this is the view that the development would have limited landscape and visual impact whilst ecological concerns may be satisfactorily mitigated through appropriate conditions in accordance with the above ecological reports.

Whilst there will clearly be an impact on the countryside, the site is not within any particular landscape designation and views of the site are limited. This limited impact may be further mitigated by landscaping proposals. Subject to agreement on this and finalisation of ecology reports and mitigation the environmental strand of sustainable development is addressed through on site landscaping.

Furthermore, it is considered that the present scheme would fulfil an important social role in contributing to the supply of housing; this includes affordable housing although subject to the reservations noted by the Council’s Housing Enabling Officer. The development would also provide access to accessible local services. The scheme will also contribute towards education infrastructure, POS facilities and improvements to the public right of way to the East.

In terms of the overall planning balance, as a greenfield site the land is not sequentially preferred to previously developed land but set against that loss is the benefit of its contribution towards housing land supply. Although not of the preferred type for development, its location is such that there would be access to a choice of sustainable means of travel whilst it has already been noted that harm to the character of the countryside is considered to be limited.

The planning balance is a fine one and arguable given the need to take into account a range of benefits and dis-benefits. The NPPF advises that planning applications should be approved unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against this Framework taken as a whole. On applying that balance your officers consider that the benefits in particular of contributing to housing land supply would be substantial in addition to the other economic and social benefits noted. In the absence of demonstrably adverse impacts that would significantly or demonstrably outweigh these benefits it is concluded that the present proposal represents sustainable development that in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development suggests that the application should be supported and planning permission granted.

Subject to the resolution of outstanding issues referred to in the report, which should be possible, development is considered to be technically sound, subject to appropriate conditions.

When applying the planning balance, the concerns noted in the report are not considered to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of this scheme.

Consequently, whilst recognising that this is a finely balanced decision, the recommendation is that the Planning Committee approves the application subject to the completion of an s106 to include the contributions set out in the report.

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 89

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998

The provisions of the Human Rights Act and principles contained in the Convention on Human Rights have been taken into account in reaching the recommendation contained in this report. The articles/protocols identified below were considered of particular relevance:

Article 8 – Right to Respect for Private and Family Life THE FIRST PROTOCOL – Article 1: Protection of Property

DETAILS OF RECOMMENDATION

The Council resolves to delegate to the Chief Planning Officer in agreement with Chair and Vice-Chair of Planning Committee, to grant planning permission subject to:

No new planning issues being raised following the submission of additional information as set in the report relating to ecological surveys and mitigation; and

The prior completion of a legal agreement to secure:

• 19 units of affordable housing • A secondary contribution of £98,501 towards the 1 st phase expansion for additional teaching accommodation at Braunton Academy • POS contribution of £110,982.30 • Highways contributions of £55,000 for improvements and maintenance of the existing Public Right of Way No. 18 (Mill Lane) to the east of the application site, to improve the sustainability of pedestrian users of the application site. The sum of £250 per dwelling to be utilised for Public Transport vouchers and £50 per dwelling to be utilised towards bicycle provision.

And the following conditions, subject further responses from consultees:

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

Reason: The time limit condition is imposed in order to comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance both with the plans and documents submitted as part of the application and the amended versions listed below (‘the approved plans’):

15 101 01 Site Location Plan 15 101 D 02 Site Plan as Proposed 15 101 03 Site Topographical Survey 15 101 04 Proposed Street Scene Elevations and Site Sections 15 101 05 External Works - Landscape Details 15 101 20 Affordable - Plots 26-27 - Plans, Section and 3D View 15 101 21 Affordable - Plots 26-27 - Elevations

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 90

15 101 22 Affordable - Plots 28-30 - Plans 15 101 23 Affordable - Plots 28-30 - Elevations 15 101 24 Affordable - Plots 28-30 - Section and 3D View 15 101 25 Affordable - Plots 31-32 - Plans, Section and 3D View 15 101 26 Affordable - Plots 31-32 - Elevations 15 101 27 Affordable - Plots 33-34 - Plans, Section and 3D View 15 101 28 Affordable - Plots 33-34 - Elevations 15 101 29 Affordable - Plot 35 - Plans, Section and 3D View 15 101 30 Affordable - Plot 35 - Elevations 15 101 31 Affordable - Plots 39-40 - Plans 15 101 32 Affordable - Plots 39-40 - Elevations 15 101 33 Affordable - Plots 39-40 - Section and 3D View 15 101 34 Affordable - Plots 41-44 - Plans 15 101 35 Affordable - Plots 41-44 - Elevations 15 101 36 Affordable - Plots 41-44 - Section and 3D View 15 101 37 Affordable - Plots 45-47 - Plans, Section and 3D View 15 101 38 Affordable - Plots 45-47 - Elevations 15 101 39 3 Bed Housetype A Plots 15, 52 - Plans, Section and 3D View 15 101 40 3 Bed Housetype A Plots 15, 52 - Elevations 15 101 41 3 Bed Housetype A - Plots 19, 21, 48 - Plans, Section and 3D View 15 101 42 3 Bed Housetype A - Plots 19, 21, 48 - Elevations 15 101 43 3 Bed Housetype A Plots 20, 36, 53 - Plans, Section and 3D View 15 101 44 3 Bed Housetype A Plots 20, 36, 53 - Elevations 15 101 45 3 Bed Housetype B Plot 38 - Plans, Section and 3D View 15 101 46 3 Bed Housetype B Plot 38 - Elevations 15 101 47 3 Bed Housetype B Plot 55 - Plans, Section and 3D View 15 101 48 3 Bed Housetype B Plot 55 - Elevations 15 101 49 3 Bed Housetype B Plots 18, 22 - Plans, Section and 3D View 15 101 50 3 Bed Housetype B Plots 18, 22 - Elevations 15 101 51 3 Bed Housetype B Plot 24 - Plans, Section and 3D View 15 101 52 3 Bed Housetype B Plot 24 - Elevations 15 101 53 3 Bed Housetype C Plot 23 - Plans, Section and 3D View 15 101 54 3 Bed Housetype C Plot 23 - Elevations 15 101 55 4 Bed Housetype A - Plot 1, 25, 37, 49 - Plans, Section and 3D View 15 101 56 4 Bed Housetype A - Plot 1, 25, 37, 49 - Elevations 15 101 57 4 Bed Housetype A - Plot 3, 17 - Plans 15 101 58 4 Bed Housetype A - Plot 3, 17 - Elevations 15 101 59 4 Bed Housetype A - Plot 3, 17 - Section and 3D View 15 101 60 4 Bed Housetype A - Plot 4, 7, 51 - Plans, Section and 3D View 15 101 61 4 Bed Housetype A - Plot 4, 7, 51 - Elevations 15 101 62 4 Bed Housetype A - Plot 13 - Plans 15 101 63 4 Bed Housetype A - Plot 13 - Elevations

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 91

15 101 64 4 Bed Housetype A - Plot 13 - Section and 3D View 15 101 65 4 Bed Housetype A - Plot 14 - Plans, Section and 3D View 15 101 66 4 Bed Housetype A - Plot 14 - Elevations 15 101 67 4 Bed Housetype A - Plot 16, 50 - Plans, Section and 3D View 15 101 68 4 Bed Housetype A - Plot 16, 50 - Elevations 15 101 69 4 Bed Housetype B - Plot 2 - Plans 15 101 70 4 Bed Housetype B - Plot 2 - Elevations 15 101 71 4 Bed Housetype B - Plot 2 - Section and 3D View 15 101 72 4 Bed Housetype B - Plot 5 - Plans 15 101 73 4 Bed Housetype B - Plot 5 - Elevations 15 101 74 4 Bed Housetype B - Plot 5 - Section and 3D View 15 101 75 4 Bed Housetype B - Plot 6 - Plans 15 101 76 4 Bed Housetype B - Plot 6 - Elevations 15 101 77 4 Bed Housetype B - Plot 6 - Section and 3D View 15 101 78 4 Bed Housetype B - Plot 8 - Plans 15 101 79 4 Bed Housetype B - Plot 8 - Elevations 15 101 80 4 Bed Housetype B - Plot 8 - Section and 3D View 15 101 81 4 Bed Housetype B - Plot 12 - Plans 15 101 82 4 Bed Housetype B - Plot 12 - Elevations 15 101 83 4 Bed Housetype B - Plot 12 - Section and 3D View 15 101 84 4 Bed Housetype B - Plot 54 - Plans 15 101 85 4 Bed Housetype B - Plot 54 - Elevations 15 101 86 4 Bed Housetype B - Plot 54 - Section and 3D View 15 101 87 5 Bed Housetype Plot 9 - Plans 15 101 88 5 Bed Housetype Plot 9 - Elevations 15 101 89 5 Bed Housetype Plot 9 - Section and 3D View 15 101 90 5 Bed Housetype Plot 10 - Plans 15 101 91 5 Bed Housetype Plot 10 - Elevations 15 101 92 5 Bed Housetype Plot 10 - Section and 3D View 15 101 93 5 Bed Housetype Plot 11 - Plans 15 101 94 5 Bed Housetype Plot 11 - Elevations 15 101 95 5 Bed Housetype Plot 11 - Section and 3D View 15 101 96 Double Garage - Plots 14 - Floor Plans, Elevations & Section Landscaping and Planting Plan B Ecology - Report July 2015 Ecology - Report Nov 2015 Ecology - Letter of Mitigation Report Tree Survey - Arboricultural Constraints Report - JP Associates 16101 -315 – C - Engineering Layout 16101-320.1 A Road Sections 16101-320.1.2 Road 1 Road Cross Sections 16101-320.2 Road Sections - Sheet 2

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 92

16101-550D Drainage Strategy 16101-325 SW Flood Exceedance Routes Travel Plan Waste Management Plan HRW_UKSuds_Runoff_Report Letter to DCC Flood- Maintenance 05.08.16 Proposed Scheme for Equipped Play- Option 1 Proposed Scheme for Equipped Play - Option 2 Biodiversity Matrix Lighting Impact Assessment

Reason: To confirm the drawings to which the consent relates and to ensure the development accords with the approved plans.

Implementation of Approved Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) and Tree Protection Plan (TPP)

3) In this condition ‘retained trees, hedges and shrubs’ means an existing tree, hedge or shrub, which is to be retained in accordance with the approved plans and particulars [Arboricultural constraints report dated 29th April 2016 and ‘Draft’ Tree Protection Plan dated 26th September 2016 Ref D40 06 P4]; and paragraphs (a) and (b) below shall have effect until the expiration of 5 years from the date of the last occupation of an approved building for its permitted use.

a) No retained tree, hedge or shrub shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed, nor shall any tree, be topped or lopped other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars, without the written approval of the local planning authority. Any topping or lopping approved shall be carried out in accordance with British Standard 3998: 2010 Tree Work - Recommendations.

b) If any retained tree, hedge or shrub is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, another tree, hedge or shrub shall be planted at the same place and that tree shall be of such size and species, and shall be planted at such time, as may be specified in writing by the local planning authority.

The erection of protective barriers and any other measures identified as necessary for the protection of any retained tree, hedge or shrub, or land to be used for future landscaping shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans and particulars before any equipment, machinery or materials are brought on to the site for the purposes of the development, or in accordance with an approved method statement and shall be maintained until all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site. Nothing shall be stored or placed in any area fenced in accordance with this condition and the ground levels within those areas shall not be altered, nor shall any excavation be made, without the written consent of the local planning authority.

Reason: To safeguard the appearance and character of the area.

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 93

4) Provision, implementation and maintenance of detailed landscape and ecological enhancement proposals

i) No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape and ecological enhancement works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include proposed finished levels or contours; means of enclosure; car parking layouts; other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; hard surfacing materials; minor artefacts and structures (e.g. furniture, play equipment, refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting etc.); proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (e.g. drainage power, communications cables, pipelines etc. indicating lines, manholes, supports etc.); retained historic landscape features and proposals for restoration, where relevant and ecological enhancement features.

ii) Soft landscape works shall include planting plans; written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment); schedules of plants (noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities); implementation and management programme.

iii) Ecological enhancement features shall include location plans and written specifications/drawings showing all bat/bird/bug boxes, hibernacula’s or other features to be provided in association with the development.

Reason: To assimilate the development into the landscape and to safeguard the appearance, character and biodiversity of the area.

Contaminated Land Condition

5) Prior to the commencement of any site clearance, groundworks or construction, the local planning authority shall be provided with the results of a phase two (intrusive) investigation for potential ground contamination.

The report shall be prepared by a suitably qualified person and be sufficient to confirm the absence of significant ground contamination predicted in the preliminary phase one survey. Thereafter, depending on the outcome of the phase two assessment, a proposal for any further investigation or remediation works that may be required shall be presented to and agreed with the planning authority.

Reason: To ensure that any potential ground contamination has been identified and remediated to protect the health of future occupiers of the site and the environment.

Contaminated Land Reactive Condition

6) Should any contamination of soil or groundwater not previously identified be discovered during development of the site, the Local Planning Authority should be contacted immediately. Site activities within that sub-phase or part thereof, should be temporarily suspended until such time as a procedure for addressing such

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 94

contamination, within that sub-phase or part thereof, is agreed upon with the Local Planning Authority or other regulating bodies.

Reason: To ensure that any contamination existing and exposed during the development is identified and remediated.

Construction Management Plan Condition

7) Prior to the commencement of development, including any site clearance, groundworks or construction within each sub-phase (save such preliminary or minor works that the Local Planning Authority may agree in writing), a Construction Management Plan (CMP) to manage the impacts of construction during the life of the works, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt and where relevant, the CMP should take account of the mitigation recommendations set out in the WYG Air Quality Assessment dated 22 July 2016 and shall include:-

a) measures to regulate the routing of construction traffic b) the times within which traffic can enter and leave the site c) the importation and removal of spoil and soil on site d) the removal /disposal of materials from site, including soil and vegetation e) the location and covering of stockpiles f) details of measures to prevent mud from vehicles leaving the site and must include wheel-washing facilities g) control of fugitive dust from earthworks and construction activities; dust suppression h) a noise control plan which details hours of operation and proposed mitigation measures i) details of any site construction office, compound and ancillary facility buildings j) specified on-site parking for vehicles associated with the construction works and the provision made for access thereto k) a point of contact (such as a Construction Liaison Officer/site manager) and details of how complaints will be addressed

The details so approved and any subsequent amendments as shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority shall be complied with in full and monitored by the applicants to ensure continuing compliance during the construction of the development.

Reason: To minimise the impact of the works during the construction of the development in the interests of highway safety and the free-flow of traffic, and to safeguard the amenities of the area. To protect the amenity of local residents from potential impacts whilst site clearance, groundworks and construction is underway.

Construction Times Condition

8) During the construction phase no machinery shall be operated, no process shall be carried out and no deliveries taken at or dispatched from the site outside the following times:

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 95

a) Monday - Friday 08.00 - 18.00, b) Saturday 09.00 - 13.00 c) nor at any time on Sunday, Bank or Public holidays.

Reason: To protect the amenity of local residents.

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

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

10) The proposed roads, footways, footpaths, verges, visibility splays, junctions, cuttings, embankments, sewers, drains, service routes, car parking/garage spaces, access drives, construction traffic roads, construction staff car parking and construction site compound shall be laid out, constructed and completed in accordance with a detailed programme that is to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before any part of the development commences.

Reason: To ensure the proper development of the site.

11) No other part of the development hereby approved shall be commenced until the access road has been laid out, kerbed, drained and constructed up to base course level for the first 20 metres back from its junction with the public highway with the ironwork set to base course level, the visibility splays required by this permission have been laid out, the footway on the public highway frontage required by this permission has been constructed up to base course level and a site compound and car park have been constructed in accordance with details previously submitted for approval.

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

12) The occupation of any dwelling in an agreed phase of the development shall not take place until the following works have been carried out to the written satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority:

1. the spine road and/or cul-de-sac carriageway including the vehicle turning head within that phase shall have been laid out, kerbed, drained and

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 96

constructed up to and including base course level with the ironwork set to base course level and the sewers, manholes and service crossings completed 2. the spine road and/or cul-de-sac footways and footpaths which provide that dwelling with direct pedestrian routes to an existing highway maintained at public expense have been constructed up to and including base course level; 3. all visibility splays have been laid out to their final level 4. the street lighting for the spine road and/or cul-de-sac and/or footpaths has been erected and commissioned 5. the car parking and any other vehicular access facility required for the dwelling by this permission have been completed 6. the verge, service margin and vehicle crossing on the road frontage of the dwelling have been completed with the highway boundary properly defined 7. the street nameplates for the spine road and/or cul-de-sac have been provided and erected.

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

13) When once constructed and provided in accordance with condition 12 above, the carriageway, vehicle turning head, footways and footpaths shall be maintained free of obstruction to the free movement of vehicular and pedestrian traffic and the street lighting and nameplates maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that these highway provisions remain available.

14) Within twelve months of the first occupation of the first dwelling in an agreed phase of the development all roads, footways, footpaths, drainage, statutory undertakers' mains and apparatus, junctions, access, retaining wall and visibility splay works shall be wholly completed to the written satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the access arrangements are completed within a reasonable time.

15) Provision shall be made within the curtilage of each dwelling for the disposal of surface water so that none discharges onto the highway.

Reason: In the interest of public safety and to prevent damage to the highway.

16) Individual car parking spaces within any communal parking facilities to be provided as part of the development shall not be allocated to individual dwellings and shall be maintained free of obstructions to their use, such as chains or bollards, by all occupiers of the estate and their visitors.

Reason: To ensure that adequate off street parking facilities are available for all the traffic attracted to the site.

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 97

17) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order) express planning permission shall be obtained for any development within classes A - E of Part 1 and class A of Part 2 of Schedule Two of the Order for Plots 26 to 35 and 39 to 47.

Reason: To protect the appearance and character of the development in the area, that the amenity of adjoining properties is considered as part of any application and to ensure that the affordable units remain of a size that can be considered affordable by design.

NOTES TO APPLICANT

1. For the purpose of interpreting the restrictions expressed in condition (17) of this consent, permitted development rights have been removed in respect of the following classes:

Part I: CLASS A The enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwelling-house Part I: CLASS B The enlargement of a dwelling-house consisting of an addition or alteration to its roof Part I: CLASS C Any other alteration to the roof of a dwelling-house Part I: CLASS D The erection or construction of a porch outside any external door of a dwelling-house Part I: CLASS E The provision within the curtilage of a dwelling-house of - a) any building or enclosure, swimming or other pool required for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house as such, or the maintenance, improvement or other alteration of such a building or enclosure; or b) a container used for domestic heating purposes for the storage of oil or liquid petroleum gas Part II: CLASS A The erection, construction, maintenance, improvement or alteration of a gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure

Further detailed information can be obtained from the Local Planning Authority, including a guide to householder development, and the Planning Portal at www.planningportal.gov.uk.

2. The applicant is reminded of the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the E.C. Conservation [Natural Habitats] Regulations 1994.

INSERT(S) TO FOLLOW OVERLEAF 1. OS Location Plan 2. List of representation names and addresses

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 98 Copy Supplied to: Location Plan Strategic Development & 61139: Land east of South Park, Braunton Planning House, Commercial Road, Scale: 1:5000 Barnstaple, EX31 1EA Date: 03 October 2016 © Copyright and database right 2012 Ordnance Survey Licence No. 100021929. No unauthorised reproduction permitted. Neighbour Representations List for Application No 61139

167 LETTER(S) OF OBJECTION

LISA CROSS ITHACA LOWER PARK ROAD Date Received: 20-Jun-16 JANE BROWN MILL LODGE LOWER PARK ROAD Date Received: 03-Jun-16 NICOLA RELPH MILLAND LOWER PARK ROAD Date Received: 20-Jun-16 ANDREW MCCLENAGHAN NAIRN LOWER PARK ROAD Date Received: 20-Jun-16 PETER ORAM PARKLANDS LOWER PARK ROAD Date Received: 04-Jun-16 Date Received: 18-Aug-16 PETER GRINSTEAD PIPITS LOWER PARK ROAD Date Received: 23-May-16 NEIL & FIONA POLLINGTON SOUTH VIEW LOWER PARK ROAD Date Received: 20-Jun-16 MR AND MRS ISAAC TRAVELLERS JOY LOWER PARK ROAD Date Received: 31-May-16 MRS J CONNOR HEANTON MILL EAST WRAFTON Date Received: 08-Jun-16 Date Received: 01-Sep-16 GODFREY OSBOURNE HEANTON MILL WEST WRAFTON Date Received: 04-Jun-16 MISS A BALL 15 SOUTH PARK BRAUNTON Date Received: 20-Jun-16 MRS M KELLY 16 SOUTH PARK BRAUNTON Date Received: 01-Jun-16 MRS ROSE THORN 20 SOUTH PARK BRAUNTON Date Received: 22-Aug-16 Date Received: 07-Jun-16 MR AND MRS HAZELDINE 21 SOUTH PARK BRAUNTON Date Received: 02-Jun-16 Date Received: 19-Aug-16 MRS J BRADES 22 SOUTH PARK BRAUNTON Date Received: 05-Sep-16 Date Received: 05-Sep-16 Date Received: 20-Jun-16 MR & MRS TURNER 23 SOUTH PARK BRAUNTON Date Received: 07-Sep-16 Date Received: 24-May-16 MR & MRS CHANCELLOR 24 SOUTH PARK BRAUNTON Date Received: 27-May-16 MR & MRS CROSS 25 SOUTH PARK BRAUNTON Date Received: 24-May-16

03 October 2016 Page 1 of 8 Neighbour Representations List for Application No 61139

RAYMOND YOUNG BYE ORCHARD COLLEY PARK ROAD Date Received: 16-May-16 ANNE YOUNG BYE ORCHARD COLLEY PARK ROAD Date Received: 16-May-16 ALISA JAMES 37 CAVIE ROAD BRAUNTON Date Received: 16-May-16 I AND D EDGERTON 64 KINGSWAY WEST WICKHAM Date Received: 18-May-16 ANN PARKER SENT BY EMAIL

Date Received: 17-May-16 MR C HOLTOM 9 SOUTHLEA CLOSE BRAUNTON Date Received: 23-May-16 MR P WRIGHT 10 SOUTH PARK BRAUNTON Date Received: 23-May-16 Date Received: 23-May-16 MS D SMITH 26 MOOR LEA BRAUNTON Date Received: 10-Aug-16 Date Received: 18-Aug-16 Date Received: 23-May-16 M A LATCHFORD 32 SOUTH PARK BRAUNTON Date Received: 23-May-16 MR P JOHNSON 67 MOOR LEA BRAUNTON Date Received: 23-May-16 MRS S LUKE 140 HOWGATE ROAD BEMBRIDGE Date Received: 23-May-16 MR S ROOK RECEIVED BY EMAIL

Date Received: 24-May-16 MR T GEORGE 9 WILLIAMS CLOSE WRAFTON Date Received: 24-May-16 MR B DOWDING BRAMBLES LOWER PARK ROAD Date Received: 24-May-16 MR R HARRIS ALLERFIELD LOWER PARK ROAD Date Received: 24-May-16 Date Received: 08-Aug-16 MR & MRS McILVEEN 31 SOUTH PARK BRAUNTON Date Received: 23-May-16 MR S SATINET WHITECROFT HIGHER PARK ROAD Date Received: 23-May-16 JOSEPHINE R BULLED 28 MOOR LEA BRAUNTON Date Received: 24-May-16 MSK COTTON 55A MOOR LEA BRAUNTON Date Received: 24-May-16 MR W BRADFORD ST MERRYN HIGHER PARK ROAD

03 October 2016 Page 2 of 8 Neighbour Representations List for Application No 61139

Date Received: 24-May-16 MRS M BUCKLAND RECEIVED BY EMAIL

Date Received: 24-May-16 MR K LOWTHER 4 CAPERN CLOSE WRAFTON Date Received: 25-May-16 MRS S SATINET WHITECROFT HIGHER PARK ROAD Date Received: 25-May-16 DANIELLE ASH 2 FIELD CLOSE BRAUNTON Date Received: 25-May-16 MRS C ARNO RECEIVED BY EMAIL

Date Received: 25-May-16 MR & MRS D ALLEN SOUTHACRE HIGHER PARK ROAD Date Received: 26-May-16 MRS P WOOLFIRES 4 CURVE CLOSE BRAUNTON Date Received: 26-May-16 MR & MRS WELLAND 3 MOOR LEA BRAUNTON Date Received: 26-May-16 MRS J CONIBEAR 11 MOOR LEA BRAUNTON Date Received: 25-May-16 Date Received: 05-Sep-16 MR N VOSPER 35 MOOR LEA BRAUNTON Date Received: 27-May-16 MR & MRS SMITH 43 SOUTH PARK BRAUNTON Date Received: 05-Sep-16 Date Received: 27-May-16 MR & MRS MEE 13 SOUTH PARK BRAUNTON Date Received: 22-Aug-16 Date Received: 27-May-16 Date Received: 24-Aug-16 MR & MRS WESTLAKE 14 SOUTH PARK BRAUNTON Date Received: 27-May-16 MR R PARK 37 KEL AVON CLOSE TRURO Date Received: 27-May-16 MR D NICKOLLS 9 GLEBELANDS WRAFTON Date Received: 26-May-16 MR M CANTY FANGROVE LOWER PARK ROAD Date Received: 27-May-16 MR P BARNES 42 THE BRITTONS BRAUNTON Date Received: 26-May-16 RICHARD YEO 2 BRITTONS CLOSE BRAUNTON Date Received: 30-Aug-16 Date Received: 31-May-16 SUE PROSPER SENT BY EMAIL

Date Received: 20-Jun-16

03 October 2016 Page 3 of 8 Neighbour Representations List for Application No 61139

Date Received: 13-Jun-16 Date Received: 15-Jun-16 PAMELA FARRELL 23 KINGSACRE BRAUNTON Date Received: 10-Aug-16 Date Received: 01-Jun-16 MRS EILEEN BRANSTON 2 CURVE CLOSE BRAUNTON Date Received: 01-Jun-16 MR DAVID TURNER 23 SWALLOWFIELD ROUNDSWELL Date Received: 02-Jun-16 DR JAN HANOUSEK 3 DUNNS CLOSE WRAFTEN Date Received: 02-Jun-16 MR AND MRS THOMAS 2 MOOR LEA BRAUNTON Date Received: 03-Jun-16 PETER AND TERESA CRESSWELL 40 MOOR LEA BRAUNTON Date Received: 03-Jun-16 THE OWNER/OCCUPIER 23 BARNFIELD CLOSE BRAUNTON Date Received: 03-Jun-16 MARK ALEXANDER 7 SOUTH PARK BRAUNTON Date Received: 27-May-16 MR AND MRS TODD 22 CURVE ACRE BRAUNTON Date Received: 27-May-16 CHRISTINE LATCHFORD 32 SOUTH PARK BRAUNTON Date Received: 27-May-16 HAZEL AND BILL COLEMAN SENT BY EMAIL

Date Received: 28-May-16 SUSAN MILLS CORNERWAYS 19 SOUTH PARK Date Received: 09-Sep-16 Date Received: 03-Jun-16 C R BRANSTON 2 CURVE ACRE BARNFIELD CLOSE Date Received: 03-Jun-16 JOHN & JILL STEWARDSON 60 MOOR LEA LOWER PARK ROAD Date Received: 06-Jun-16 JULIEN HARRISON & JANE CUMMIN 12 THE GRANGE BRAUNTON Date Received: 16-Aug-16 Date Received: 31-May-16 SUSIE HARKNESS THORNES POLTIMORE ROAD Date Received: 31-May-16 ROSEMARY MADGETT 1A LOWER PARK ROAD BRAUNTON Date Received: 31-May-16 GARETH RICHARDS 14 MOORLEA BRAUNTON Date Received: 31-May-16 MR K BRADLEY 41 MOOR LEA BRAUNTON Date Received: 31-May-16

03 October 2016 Page 4 of 8 Neighbour Representations List for Application No 61139

ALAN GREEN SENT BY EMAIL

Date Received: 31-May-16 MR AND MRS MOORE SENT BY EMAIL

Date Received: 31-May-16 D WATSON 12 SOUTH PARK BRAUNTON Date Received: 31-May-16 MARIE JOHNS 27 SOUTH PARK BRAUNTON Date Received: 31-May-16 L.A.PARSONS 1 SOUTH LEA

Date Received: 31-May-16 IAN ETHERON 42 THE BRITTONS BRAUNTON Date Received: 31-May-16 ANDREW CONIBEAR 17 SOUTH LEA BRAUNTON Date Received: 01-Jun-16 JANICE GENT ABBOTSFIELD EAST HILL Date Received: 01-Jun-16 ROBERT MANNING 54 MOOR LEA BRAUNTON Date Received: 01-Jun-16 R MORGAN 10 SOUTH LEA BRAUNTON Date Received: 01-Jun-16 PAUL WAITIMAS 38 MOOR LEA BRAUNTON Date Received: 01-Jun-16 MR AND MRS FOLLAND 7 BRITTONS CLOSE BRAUNTON Date Received: 02-Jun-16 WENDY PLOWMAN SENT BY EMAIL

Date Received: 02-Jun-16 JOHNATHAN PLOWMAN SENT BY EMAIL

Date Received: 02-Jun-16 MIKE PLOWMAN SENT BY EMAIL

Date Received: 02-Jun-16 RUTH MCDONOUGH THE ORCHARD HIGHER PARK ROAD Date Received: 02-Jun-16 PAULINE PONSFORD SENT BY EMAIL

Date Received: 02-Jun-16 LUKE OLIVER 3 GLEBELANDS WRAFTON Date Received: 02-Jun-16 EMILY HARMER 12 BARNFIELD CLOSE

Date Received: 02-Jun-16 RICHARD HINDLE 12 BARNFIELD CLOSE

Date Received: 02-Jun-16 BERNARD COOK 5 MOOR LEA BRAUNTON Date Received: 02-Jun-16

03 October 2016 Page 5 of 8 Neighbour Representations List for Application No 61139

MRS S KERSLAKE THE LINHAY LOWER PARK ROAD Date Received: 02-Jun-16 MRS SUSAN RICHARDS SENT BY EMAIL

Date Received: 02-Jun-16 VAL SADLER 18 SPUTH PARK BRAUNTON Date Received: 19-Sep-16 Date Received: 02-Jun-16 PETER AND JANE MAKEPEACE SENT BY EMAIL

Date Received: 02-Jun-16 LOUISE HANNINGTON 16 EAST FIELD ROAD PORTSMOUTH Date Received: 02-Jun-16 OLIVER MACK 61 WARREN ROAD ICKENHAM Date Received: 02-Jun-16 LARA POTTER MOLOMOAK HIGHER PARK ROAD Date Received: 03-Jun-16 MRS L DAVIS 35 SOUTH PARK BRAUNTON Date Received: 03-Jun-16 CLAIRE MITCHELL 13 QUANTOCKS BRAUNTON Date Received: 03-Jun-16 ROB PENDLETON 2 ST JOHNS COURT HEANTON STREET Date Received: 03-Jun-16 DR E GREW BRITTONS CLOSE

Date Received: 03-Jun-16 L CANT BRITTIONS CLOSE

Date Received: 03-Jun-16 MICHELLE AND ROB TICKELL TAWMEAD LOWER PARK ROAD Date Received: 03-Jun-16 JULIE JARVIS CLARENDON LOWER PARK ROAD Date Received: 08-Sep-16 Date Received: 03-Jun-16 MICHAEL ROBON WHITE AND JENN 31 THE BRITTONS EX33 2HF Date Received: 03-Jun-16 MR W MCCLENAGHAN SENT BY EMAIL

Date Received: 03-Jun-16 GRAHAM TAYLOR ROSEVINE LOWER PARK ROAD Date Received: 06-Jun-16 JOHN HIGGS MILL LODGE LOWER PARK ROAD Date Received: 04-Jun-16 MARGARET RANDLES SENT BY EMAIL

Date Received: 05-Jun-16 CHRIS & LINDA MCDOWELL PARK FARMHOUSE LOWER PARK ROAD Date Received: 05-Jun-16 JAMES ADDISON 39 SOUTH PARK BRAUNTON 03 October 2016 Page 6 of 8 Neighbour Representations List for Application No 61139

Date Received: 08-Jun-16 DAVID RICKSON 1 DUNNS CLOSE WRAFTON Date Received: 10-Jun-16 ALAN SCHOFIELD 5 SOUTHLANDS WRAFTON Date Received: 17-Jun-16 ROBERT AND WENDY BANBURY ARDELVE DOWN LANE Date Received: 17-Jun-16 RESIDENT IN MOOR LEA MOOR LEA

Date Received: 17-Jun-16 NEIL CROSS ITHACA LOWER PARK ROAD Date Received: 12-Sep-16 Date Received: 20-Jun-16 CLAIRE ANDERSON EASTHOLME HILLS VIEW Date Received: 20-Jun-16 DAVID GITTINGS 21 BARNFIELD CLOSE EX33 2HL Date Received: 23-Jun-16 Date Received: 20-Jun-16 PETER T D BOSTOCK COTT LOWER PARK ROAD Date Received: 20-Jun-16 TRACY ADCOCK 19 BARNFIELD CLOSE BRAUNTON Date Received: 21-Jun-16 Date Received: 04-Jul-16 GREG HAM 19 BARNFIELD CLOSE BRAUNTON Date Received: 21-Jun-16 Date Received: 12-Sep-16 DAVID RELPH MILLAND LOWER PARK ROAD Date Received: 22-Jun-16 Date Received: 01-Jul-16 Date Received: 08-Sep-16 ELIZABETH HILL VIA EMAIL

Date Received: 21-Jun-16 SIMON PITTMAN THE COTTAGE THE ROCK Date Received: 22-Jun-16 SOUTHMEAD SCHOOL GOVERNER SOUTHMEAD SCHOOL WRAFTON ROAD Date Received: 26-Jun-16 MR AND MRS COHAN SENT BY EMAIL RESIDENTS ON PARK VILLAS Date Received: 01-Jul-16 MR S ROOK 48 THE BRITTONS BRAUNTON Date Received: 08-Aug-16 D.A AND C TURNER 23 SOUTH PARK BRAUNTON Date Received: 08-Aug-16 MR & MRS CLOPET 8 SOUTH PARK BRAUNTON Date Received: 05-Sep-16 IONA HEATLIE SENT BY EMAIL

03 October 2016 Page 7 of 8 Neighbour Representations List for Application No 61139

Date Received: 04-Sep-16 PETER HEATON-JONES MP HOUSE OF COMMONS LONDON Date Received: 21-Sep-16

12 LETTER(S) OF COMMENT

MRS J CONNOR HEANTON MILL EAST WRAFTON Date Received: 31-Aug-16 MRS M CRANSTON 17 SOUTH PARK BRAUNTON Date Received: 17-May-16 MR G KETTLE 10 MONTPELIER ROAD PURLEY Date Received: 23-May-16 SUE PROSPER SENT BY EMAIL

Date Received: 06-Jun-16 Date Received: 06-Jun-16 Date Received: 31-May-16 Date Received: 10-Jun-16 Date Received: 15-Aug-16 TRACY ADCOCK 19 BARNFIELD CLOSE BRAUNTON Date Received: 07-Jul-16 Date Received: 28-Jul-16 D.A AND C TURNER 23 SOUTH PARK BRAUNTON Date Received: 31-Aug-16 NORTH DEVON UNESCO & WORLD ANDREW BELL - BIOSPHERE RESERVE CO-ORDINATOR & Date Received: 12-Aug-16

03 October 2016 Page 8 of 8

3 App. No.: 61552 Reg. : 22/08/2016 Applicant: MR BRIAN MOORES L. Bldg. : Expired: 17/10/2016 Agent : STEVE CLEMENTS Parish : INSTOW Case Officer : Mr. R. Bagley

Proposal: INSTALLATION OF TIMBER CLADDING TO NORTH WEST & SOUTH WEST ELEVATIONS Location: THE OLD STABLES QUAY LANE INSTOW BIDEFORD EX39 4JR

PROPOSAL

This is a full application for the introduction of cladding on The Old Stables, Quay Lane, Instow.

The submitted plans illustrate the proposed use of a ‘grey pre-decorated treated timber cladding’ material on the majority of the south west elevation, and partial timber cladding at first floor on the North West elevation. The north east elevation would remain as existing with painted cement render.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE

SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

The Old Stables are located on the south side of Quay Lane, approximately 25 metres to the east of Marine Parade.

The property is visible from Quay Lane and indirectly from Marine Parade. The property currently has a white painted cement render exterior finish.

The balcony illustrated on the south west elevation has been previously approved in application 59705.

REASON FOR REPORT TO MEMBERS

Councillor Moores owns The Old Coach House and therefore, delegated powers are removed.

POLICY CONTEXT

Development Plan

North Devon Local Plan 2006 DVS1 Design ENV16 Conservation Areas

National Planning Policy Framework

Core Principle 7 Requiring Good Design

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 99

Core Principle 12 Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment

Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Instow Parish Council : Instow PC had no objections subject to it being in accordance with the Conservation area requirements.

The Heritage and Conservation Officer : This building is adjacent a listed building and within the Instow Conservation Area. I make no objection to the addition of cladding to the elevations proposed, provided that it is timber.

REPRESENTATIONS

At the time of preparing this report 1 letter of objection and no letters of support have been received relating to the application (copies of all the letters have been made available prior to the Planning Committee meeting in accordance with agreed procedures).

See attached list for representation names and addresses.

PLANNING HISTORY

Reference Proposal Decisio n Date 59705 Erection of balcony Approve 22.01.16

SUMMARY OF ISSUES

• Impact of the design on the Instow Conservation Area

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

Instow Conservation Area Policy ENV16, NPPF Core Principle 12

A key characteristic of the historic Instow Conservation Area is the retention and preservation of traditional design forms. Both Central and Local Government planning policies emphasise the need to facilitate a high standard of development protect and enhance the traditional aspects of buildings within Conservation Areas. The adopted North Devon Local Plan states that ‘high standards of design for new development must preserve or enhance the traditional character or appearance of the Conservation Area’.

The Old Stables are located within the historic core of the Instow Conservation Area, and relate to the historic setting of nearby listed buildings as a former stable block (notably Number 1 Victoria Terrace). In this context, it is essential that the simple traditional appearance of the building is not disrupted by introducing a design form which would fail to preserve or enhance the appearance of the building in its setting. NPPF paragraph 133 emphasises this stating ‘Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss’.

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 100

The proposal would introduce timber cladding on the south west and North West elevation, proposed as a light grey colour. The applicants have specified a colour of the timber cladding as illustrated in the attached manufacturers details (Vincent Timber LTD Cape Codd – solid colour, CCS20024).

The Conservation Officer has considered the introduction of the cladding and has raised no objection providing the cladding is of timber material.

Whilst cladding is not found prominently along Quay Lane or along Marine Parade, there are a number of other examples of externally clad buildings elsewhere in Instow, notably ‘Colenso’ to the north and properties within the Conservation Area along Kiln Close Lane. (see photos and applicants Heritage/supporting statement). There is an existing small area of cladding on the North West elevation of The Old Stables. In this respect, cladding is a feature found elsewhere in Instow representing the character of the wider area.

Views of the property from the south along Marine Parade would be obscured by Number 1 and 2 Quay Lane. The principle view from the north along Marine Parade would be of the first floor of the North West elevation. Given that The Old Stables are set back from the main street scene of Marine Parade by approximately 25 metres, with the use of light grey colouring of the cladding as proposed, the north elevation would be read in context with the lighter coloured render buildings to the east and west along Quay Lane. The Authority is satisfied that when viewed from Marine Parade to the west, the lighter grey coloured timber cladding would not be read as a markedly different material when viewed in context with Number 1 Quay Lane.

A condition is included to ensure the use of the light grey coloured timber. In that this development only permits cladding to The Old Stables, it would not set precedent for other properties within the Conservation Area to include cladding without prior consideration of this Authority.

The significance of the external change to one dwelling in this location would not result in substantial harm or loss of significance to the wider Instow Conservation Area.

CONCLUSION

In light of the above, and in the absence of any objection from the Conservation Officer, the proposal would meet the aim of the North Devon Local Plan 2006 and the National Planning Policy Framework, to facilitate development which would preserve or enhance the character of the Conservation Area and would comply with policy ENV16, NPPF core principle 12 or Section 66 of the Planning (Listed building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998

The provisions of the Human Rights Act and principles contained in the Convention on Human Rights have been taken into account in reaching the recommendation contained in this report. The articles/protocols identified below were considered of particular relevance:

Article 8 – Right to Respect for Private and Family Life THE FIRST PROTOCOL – Article 1: Protection of Property

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 101

DETAILS OF RECOMMENDATION

That the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

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

Reason: The time limit condition is imposed in order to comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the plans 125/16/02 and received on 22nd August 2016 (the approved plans).

Reason: The Local Planning Authority is satisfied on balance that the approved drawings propose works that are visually appropriate and that variation from these could result in a less satisfactory appearance within the Instow Conservation Area, or an adverse impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties.

3) The Cladding shall be of a timber material and of a light grey colour as per the sample submitted illustrating ‘Vincent Timber LTD Cape Codd – solid colour, CCS20024’.

Reason: To ensure the development does not detract from the character or appearance of the Instow Conservation Area.

INSERT(S) TO FOLLOW OVERLEAF 1. OS Location Plan 2. List of representations names and addresses

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 102 The site

Copy Supplied to: Strategic Development & Location Plan Planning

Lynton House, Commercial Road, 61552: The Old Stables, Quay Lane, Instow Scale: 1:1250 Barnstaple, EX31 1EA Date: 27 September 2016 © Copyright and database right 2012 Ordnance Survey Licence No. 100021929. No unauthorised reproduction permitted. Neighbour Representations List for Application No 61552

1LETTER(S) OF OBJECTION

SHOOEY MACCALL GOLDEN HIND BRIDGE LANE Date Received: 19-Sep-16

27 September 2016 Page 1 of 1

4 App. No.: 61754 Reg. : 26/08/2016 Applicant: MR GLYN LANE L. Bldg. : Expired: 21/10/2016 Agent : DEBORAH POLKINGHORNE Parish : LANDKEY Case Officer : Miss T Blackmore

Proposal: VARIATION OF CONDITION 2 (APPROVED PLANS & DETAILS) ATTACHED TO PLANNING PERMISSION 56708 (ERECTION OF ONE DWELLING) TO ALLOW CHANGE OF BRICK COLOUR FROM IBSTOCK HARVEST MULTI TO IBSTOCK BRISTOL ORANGE BLEND (AMENDED DESCRIPTION) Location: PROSPECT GARDENS BLAKES HILL ROAD LANDKEY BARNSTAPLE EX32 0JU

PROPOSAL

Planning permission 56708 was granted on the 7 th February 2014 for the erection of one dwelling to the garden area of Prospect Gardens and the creation of new vehicular access onto Blakes Hill Road.

This application is for a variation of 2 (approved plans & details) attached to planning permission 56708 to allow the change of brick colour for the construction of the dwelling from Ibstock Harvest Multi to Ibstock Bristol Orange blend.

The original brick Ibstock Harvest Multi has been discontinued and the Ibstock Bristol Orange blend is its replacement.

There are no proposed external alterations.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE

SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

The site is within the development boundary of Landkey. The site fronts and is accessed from Blakes Hill Road, which is situated to the western edge of Landkey.

The site is surrounded by residential development. The boundaries of the site are predominantly formed by established hedgebanks. The rear boundary consists of fenced boarding.

REASON FOR REPORT TO MEMBERS

The applicant is Councillor Glyn Lane.

POLICY CONTEXT

Development Plan

North Devon Local Plan 2006 DVS1 Design

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 103

DVS2 Landscaping DVS3 Amenity Considerations HSG2 Development Boundaries TRA6 General Highway Considerations TRA8 Residential Parking

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

At the time of preparing this report no consultation responses had been received.

REPRESENTATIONS

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

PLANNING HISTORY

Reference Proposal Decision & Date 56708 Erection of one dwelling Conditional Consent 07.02.2014 22416 Proposed alterations & extension to dwelling Conditional Consent (Prospect Gardens) 30.08.1996

SUMMARY OF ISSUES

1. Design 2. Amenity

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

1. Design The proposal is for the erection of a two-storey dwellinghouse, of 149 square metres in size. The size of this dwelling is considered reasonable in comparison to the size of the plot of the land and the size of the neighbouring dwellings.

The proposed design consists of brick walls and a tiled roof. The design is reasonably simple with a bay window feature to the front elevation. The proposed pitch roof is in keeping with the adjacent dwelling (Prospect Gardens).

Having regard to the existing street scene including the overall design, scale, massing and boundary treatments of this residential area it is considered that this proposal accords with planning Policy DVS1 (Design) of the adopted North Devon Local Plan.

2. Amenity Planning Policy DVS3 of the North Devon Local Plan seeks to protect the amenities of occupies of Blakes Hill Road and Cherry Tree Drive and the future occupants of the proposed development, particularly material is whether there is any potential loss of privacy.

There are existing residential dwellings surrounding this proposed site. The dwelling to the south east of the site named ‘Two Gates’ is a single storey dwelling with existing hedging

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 104 and trees to this boundary. The window openings to the south east elevation of the proposed dwelling consist of one obscure glazed window (to an ensuite bathroom).

The dwelling to the north west of the site, named Prospect Gardens, is not considered to be overlooked. There is to be a 1.8 metre fence erected to the boundary of these two properties. Prospect Gardens does not have any first storey window openings, ‘facing’ onto the proposed dwelling.

The dwellings to the north east, named 25 and 27 Cherry Tree Drive, are also not considered to be overlooked. Again, there is to be a 1.8 metre fence erected to the rear boundary of this proposed dwelling. The angle of these dwellings and the fact there is a minimum 18 metres separation distance, from the proposed dwelling, will ensure this does not result in any material overlooking/privacy issues occurring.

Having regard to the separation distance and the existing and proposed boundary treatments, the Chief Planning Officer does not consider that there would be any material concerns relating to the privacy of the adjacent dwellings.

CONCLUSION

The Chief Planning Officer has had regard to the issues set out above and considers that this application accords with planning policies set out in the Development Plan. This is an acceptable infill site providing an additional residential unit, which is well related to the settlement of Landkey in line with Planning Policy HSG2. As such, it is considered that this application should be approved subject to the recommended planning conditions as set out below.

This application for a variation of condition 2 to allow the change of brick colour due to the original brick being discontinued does not change the balance of this decision.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998

The provisions of the Human Rights Act and principles contained in the Convention on Human Rights have been taken into account in reaching the recommendation contained in this report. The articles/protocols identified below were considered of particular relevance:

Article 8 – Right to Respect for Private and Family Life THE FIRST PROTOCOL – Article 1: Protection of Property

DETAILS OF RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE – Subject to the following conditions:

(1) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the plan submitted as part of this application, numbers L229 13 31 C received on 27 th September 2016 and drawing numbers L229 13 01A, L229 13 30A and the Design & Access Statement received on 2 nd December 2013 relating to 56708 ('the approved plans'). Reason:

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 105

To confirm the drawings to which the consent relates and to ensure the development accords with the approved plans.

(2) The proposed development shall be constructed in accordance with the following schedule of materials: Walls – Brick Roof - Tiles (grey in colour).

Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the development and locality.

(3) No other part of the development hereby approved shall be commenced until the alterations to the access, parking facilities, visibility splays, turning area, parking space and garage/hardstanding, access drive and access drainage have been provided in accordance with the requirements of this permission.

Reason: To ensure that adequate facilities are available for he traffic attracted to the site.

(4) A turning area parking space, garage/hardstanding and access drive shall be laid out and maintained for these purposes in accordance with the approved plan L229 13 01 A.

Reason: To ensure that adequate facilities are provided within the site for the traffic likely to be generated by the proposed development.

(5) Provision shall be made within the curtilage of the private access for the disposal of surface water so that none drains on to the highway.

Reason: In the interest of public safety and to prevent damage to the highway.

NOTES TO APPLICANT

1. From the Flood Defence aspect the Environment Agency advise that surface water run-off from the proposal should be managed by the use of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems [SUDS]. These systems mitigate the potential effects of development including increased quantity of run off, increased rate of run-off and deterioration of water quality through pollution. Such systems would include infiltration trenches, swales, infiltration basins and porous paving. Ground conditions will need to be investigated to determine the most efficient methods or if alternative solutions will need to be investigated. In the first instance it is advised that the design of such a system is investigated in accordance with CIRIA C522 - 'Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems - design manual for England and Wales. An outline or preliminary design should then be submitted to the Environment Agency for comment.

INSERT(S) TO FOLLOW OVERLEAF 1. OS Location Plan

Planning Committee on the 12/10/2016 Page 106 The site

Copy Supplied to: Location Plan Strategic Development & 61754: Prospect Gardens, Blakes Hill Road, Landkey Planning Lynton House, Commercial Road, Scale: 1:2500 Barnstaple, EX31 1EA Date: 29 September 2016 © Copyright and database right 2012 Ordnance Survey Licence No. 100021929. No unauthorised reproduction permitted.