West Devon Borough Council Planning and Licensing Committee 3 December 2013 ______

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING AND LICENSING COMMITTEE 3 DECEMBER 2013 ______

WARD NAME Tavistock North (Cllrs S Bailey; J Moody; J Sheldon) APPLICATION NUMBER 00912/2013 LOCATION Higher Wilminstone Farm, Wilminstone, Tavistock, PL19 0PJT APPLICANT NAME Ms I Chamber

Site Address: Higher Wilminstone Farm, Wilminstone, Tavistock, Devon, PL19 0JT

Development: Removal of Condition 7 attached to planning consent 2497/2012 to allow full time occupancy.

Reason item is being put before Committee: Cllrs Moody and Sheldon have both requested that the application is presented to planning committee due to the Town Council’s concerns, objections from local residents and the current condition of the premises which need to be fully explored and considered by members.

Recommendation: Grant removal of condition 7 of 02497/2012.

Conditions 1. Standard time restriction 2. Removal of Permitted Development Rights 3. Surface and foul water drainage details 4. Facing materials and roofing details 5. Ecology mitigation 6. Car parking and turning area to be retained 7. No other external equipment or chimney shall be installed

Key issues for consideration: Whether the removal of the current holiday let restriction condition to enable full time residential accommodation is in compliance with national and local policy (namely Local Plan policy RB2). Officers are satisfied that the site has been marketed appropriately and the creation of a permanent residential dwelling at this site is considered in accordance with this Local Plan policy.

Site Description: The application site is a former milking parlour building located to the north of Tavistock being accessible via a small junction from Old Exeter Road as it heads towards “Vigars Hall” which is situated approximately 130m to the south of the application site and also via the road approximately 225m to the east of the site, which connects the A386 to Heathfield.

The site is accessed via a narrow track in need of some repair to reduce its rutted and compacted nature and removal of the loose aggregate material. This track separates the site from the nearby dwellings known as “Wilminstone House”, “Swallow Cottage” and “Wilminstone Farm”. Further to the Southeast is the property 8 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING AND LICENSING COMMITTEE 3 DECEMBER 2013 ______

known as Higher Wilminstone Farm being approximately 13m from the rear yard area that is situated adjacent to the former milking parlour’s Eastern elevation.

Further to the South of the site is the property known as “The Barn” which benefits from consent for use as a holiday let and also was granted planning permission for change of use to A2 office, B1 light industrial and B8 storage uses under planning application 12857/2009/TAV.

The application site has benefit of a previous planning application 02497/2012 for change of use to holiday let, which was approved on 19/6/12 and has been implemented. The window and entrance openings have been installed and the internal walls have been plastered, but the first floor living accommodation alterations have not been carried out at present.

There is a concrete hard standing area towards the frontage of the site used for car parking and rear yard which would serve the proposal as private amenity space.

The site is not located within Tavistock settlement boundary or any area of special designation.

The Proposal: The application seeks consent to remove Condition 7 attached to the previously approved planning application for conversion of a former agricultural milking parlour building to a 3 bedroom holiday let (02497/2012). The removal of this condition would allow the permanent occupancy of the premises as a main place of residence. In other words approval of this application as proposed would create a new residential dwelling.

As the external alterations in the previously approved application have been implemented, there are no changes proposed on the exterior of this former agricultural building. The present car parking area and enclosed amenity area will remain. There is a single garage facility which is also a former agricultural building (allowed on appeal (02958/2012), which will be used as a domestic garage as part of this application. The submission is accompanied by a marketing report which show the applicant has been attempting to sell the premises as a holiday let.

Consultations: County Highways Authority – No comment. Tavistock Town Council – Object on the basis that the original application for the holiday let conversion has not been used for this purpose. The condition should not be removed.

Representations Five objection letters have been received which state the proposal is not appropriate in the area, because of highway safety issues, drainage issues and the building is not suitable for residential living or for holiday accommodation.

Relevant Planning History 01006/2013 – Prior notification for change of use of agricultural building to B8 (storage or distribution), currently pending 9 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING AND LICENSING COMMITTEE 3 DECEMBER 2013 ______

02497/2012 – Conversion of milking parlour to holiday let, approved 19/6/12 0958/2012 – Change of use of part agricultural building for use as domestic garage for use in conjunction with holiday let, refused 18/9/12, but allowed on appeal 12/3/13 00942/2010 – Construction of new roof to milking parlour, refused 14/12/10 and dismissed on appeal on 19/4/11.

ANALYSIS The application has been assessed against national and local development plan policies and other material planning considerations, taking into consideration the advice of statutory consultees. The key determining issues are:  Whether the proposed removal of Condition 7 of 02497/2012 to allow a permanent residential occupation is satisfactory in this rural location  Residential amenity issues  Access, car parking and ecological matters  Affordable housing provision

The principle of conversion to residential use The site has previously been assessed under Local Plan policies RB1, TLS1 and SPD for the conversion of a rural building to holiday use in 2012, during the previously submitted application 02497/2012. Therefore, the use as holiday accommodation at this rural location is considered satisfactory. However, the proposal to remove the restriction to allow permanent occupation as a residential dwelling requires careful consideration of Local Plan policy RB2.

It is considered that with the emergence of NPPF policy the Councils SDP on re-use of rural buildings would have lesser reliance in terms of consideration of weight because of the age of the document which was adopted in 2006. NPPF policy paragraph 55 has specific criteria for isolated residential schemes. Subject to the consideration of this criteria, and Local Plan policy RB2 the proposed principle of retaining the former agricultural building as a residential dwellinghouse can be considered acceptable in principle.

In this submission, the applicant states that the former holiday let has been marketed since August 2012 however, there has been no interest relating to the holiday let. The building has been vacant since the conversion was carried out during June and July 2012. The marketing exercise has generated 9 viewings but no offers over the 13 month period. The premises has been advertised for sale over this 13 month period for £100,000 for this holiday let which is considered reasonable and consistent with other holiday lets for sale within the area. Therefore, it is considered reuse of the site would be in line with the NPPF ethos of bringing back a rural building into economic use and enhancing the immediate setting of the area.

Local Plan policy RB1 criteria have been previously fulfilled as a result of the previous conversion scheme of the agricultural building into holiday let use. The building is structurally sound and is in good condition, with no external changes proposed as the windows and doorways were installed in 2012 with the previous holiday use planning permission. Local Plan policy RB2 relates specifically to residential conversions and relates to the evidence base of attempts to secure other business uses. In this case the LPA is satisfied that the applicant has attempted to 10 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING AND LICENSING COMMITTEE 3 DECEMBER 2013 ______

secure other business uses but has received no interest in this rural location. The proposal to remove condition 7 of 02497/2012 to create one dwelling is considered acceptable within policy RB1 and RB2 and would bring a vacant building into use which enhances the immediate setting of the rural landscape character of the locality.

Residential amenity issues The wider Wilminstone area has a number of residential premises, of which ‘Swallow Cottage’ is the closest to the application site, approximately 10m towards the east. However, it is considered that the proposed residential use would not adversely affect the current residential amenities enjoyed by residents because of the little change from the existing situation. There is no change to the external appearance of the building and the existing amenity area has a boundary wall and landscaping which hinders views from the nearest neighbouring property.

The other residential properties of Wilminstone House and Wilminstone Farmhouse towards the north east and north west on the opposite side of the road are well away as not to be adversely affected by the proposed residential use.

The previous agricultural uses would have generated a degree of traffic movements to and from the site, which would create a level of noise and disturbance. However, the form of noise and disturbance likely to be caused by the result of implementing the proposed residential use would not be at a level to warrant refusal of the planning application.

There would be a smaller rear curtilage area to be provided for private amenity space which is considered satisfactory for the future occupiers of the proposed residential dwelling house.

Therefore, despite concerns raised by local residents to residential use, the proposed scheme is considered to be in compliance with Local Plan policies H31 as no adverse residential amenity issues would result.

Access, car parking matters No adverse comments have been received from the County Highways from a highway safety view in relation to create a permanent residential dwelling at this location. The site has ample car parking space for the 3 bedroom dwelling which would be created and no objections were received during the previous consideration of the holiday let application in 2012 on highway safety grounds. Also, since the holiday let was approved, the site now has a lawful planning permission for a domestic garage facility which was allowed on appeal. This facility will compliment the car parking provision.

Planning conditions are proposed to retain and safeguard the car parking, internal turning area and garage facility through removal of permitted development rights. Despite concerns raised by local residents on highway safety grounds, the proposal would not intensify the existing access arrangements and is considered acceptable in terms of provision and sustainable in line with the Local Plan.

11 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING AND LICENSING COMMITTEE 3 DECEMBER 2013 ______

Ecological matters With regard to protected species issues, the previous approval for the holiday let had a detailed wildlife survey and mitigation proposals which are tied in through condition. Therefore, the proposal to remove the holiday restriction condition will not affect protected species issues as the mitigation condition relating to wildlife mitigation will remain.

Affordable housing The Core Strategy policy SP9 requires that developments of 1-4 dwellings are required to contribute towards affordable housing provision by way of a commuted sum. However, this requirement is only applicable if new residential accommodation is proposed, as stated in the Council’s adopted SDP on affordable housing.

This application is merely seeking permission to enable the existing residential premises to allow full time occupancy. Therefore, the affordable housing contribution provision does not apply in this instance.

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

Planning Policy

West Devon Borough Council Core Strategy 2011 SP1 – Sustainable Development SP9 – Affordable housing SP10 – Supporting the Growth of the Economy SP11 – Rural Regeneration SP20 – Promoting High Quality Design

West Devon Borough Council Local Plan Review 2005(as amended 2011) NE10 – Protection of the Countryside and Other Open Spaces H31 – Residential development outside settlements RB1 – Conversion and re-use of rural buildings for business RB2 - Conversion and re-use of rural buildings for business TLS1 – Holiday Accommodation T9 – The Highway Network PS2 – Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems PS3 – Sewage Disposal

Other Policy considerations Supplementary Planning Guidance on re-use of rural buildings Supplementary Planning Guidance on affordable housing.

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

12 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING AND LICENSING COMMITTEE 3 DECEMBER 2013 ______

Notes of a Meeting of the PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE’S SITE INSPECTION PANEL held on THURSDAY 21st NOVEMBER 2013 at 1.00 pm.

Present: Cllr C M Marsh – Chairman Cllr M J R Benson – Vice-Chairman Cllr R E Baldwin Cllr W G Cann OBE Cllr C Hall Cllr L J G Hockridge Cllr T G Pearce Cllr J Sheldon Cllr D Whitcomb

Senior Planning Officer (AK) Enforcement Officer (BW) Committee & Ombudsman Link Officer

In attendance: Cllr J Moody – Ward Member

Application 00912/2013 – Higher Wilminstone Farm, Wilminstone, Tavistock, Devon PL19 0JT Mr M Bassett, owner of the property, attended the site inspection to clarify any queries raised by the Panel.

The Senior Planning Officer described the application to the Panel, pointing out the works proposed to various parts of the outside of the building. The Panel then went inside the property and were shown the work that had been carried out as part of the planning permission for a holiday let, thus activating the planning permission.

The Senior Planning Officer indicated to the Panel where the various rooms, e.g. living room, kitchen, bathroom etc, would be and the height of the proposed new ceiling above the living room to provided 2 bedrooms at first floor level.

The Panel then moved outside and viewed the yard area on the eastern side of the property. The Panel was advised that a number of window openings would be made and that the current corrugated roofing would be replaced with a more suitable roofing material to improved heat retention.

In conclusion the Panel viewed the property from the road and noted its location in relation to neighbouring properties.

The site meeting finished at 1.17 pm. ______

13 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING AND LICENSING COMMITTEE 3 DECEMBER 2013 ______

WARD NAME Tavistock South (Cllrs M Ewings; R Oxborough; E Sherrell) APPLICATION NUMBER 00748/2013 LOCATION Little Haven, 3 Chaucer Road, Tavistock, PL19 9AJ APPLICANT NAME Mr M Porter

Site Address: Little Haven, 3 Chaucer Road, Tavistock, PL19 9AJ

Development: Householder application for demolition of existing garage, erection of single storey attached annex and single storey extension.

Reason for item at Committee: This application in accordance with the Borough Council scheme of delegation has been referred to the Tavistock South ward members to seek authority as per the scheme of delegation to issue a delegated decision. Cllr Sherrell and Cllr Oxborough have called this item to committee.

Cllr Sherrell considers that the proposed dwelling is out of character with the area and that there would be no other comparable dwelling in the Chaucer Road area and that the proposal, in his view, is an overdevelopment of the site.

NB: Cllr Sherrell refers to the proposed dwelling in his reasoning for calling the application to Committee for clarity please note that this application is for extensions to the existing property, one of which is to create an annex to the existing property and not an additional dwelling.

Cllr Oxborough: “it is not clear that all the policy concerns that the neighbours who has objected has raised have been appropriately concluded, there seeming to me to be a large element of judgement in this consideration. In view of this I feel it is appropriate for the committee to debate this one. Notwithstanding her policy and ‘personal impact’ concerns, I am distinctly uncomfortable with this kind of ‘fill every gap with property’ type development.”

Recommendation: Conditional Consent

Recommended Conditions: 1. Time limit (3 years). 2. In accordance with approved plans. 3. In use ancillary to dwelling known as Little Haven, 3 Chaucer Road. 4. The link door shall be installed and retained thereafter. 5. The bedroom window shall be obscure glazed and non-opening and retained as such thereafter. 6. The bathroom window shall be obscure glazed and retained as such thereafter. 7. External material finishes to match unless indicated otherwise on approved documents. 8. No windows shall be inserted in the west elevation of the porch/wc extension facing 1 Chaucer Road unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

14 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING AND LICENSING COMMITTEE 3 DECEMBER 2013 ______

9. No additional windows shall be inserted in the east elevation of the annex extension facing 5 Chaucer Road unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 10. The 1.8m close-boarded fence on the boundary with 5 Chaucer Road shall be erected prior to occupation of the annex hereby approved and retained thereafter. 11. The shower/wet room window shall be a top hung obscure glazed window and retained as such thereafter.

Key issues for consideration: The principle of the development is supported in policy terms. Whilst, it is recognised that concern has been raised with regard to impact on residential amenity in relation to the proposed annex part of the scheme, the proposal subject to appropriate conditions as set out in the report is judged to not result in detrimental harm to the residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers to justify a refusal of planning consent which could be sustained at appeal. The proposals are considered to be of an appropriate design and constructed of suitable materials. No highways or landscape concerns are raised. On balance, the proposal is judged to be acceptable.

Financial Implications: None

Site Description: This application relates to an existing bungalow with an existing garage to the side of the property. Chaucer Road is a road consisting of detached bungalows, with flat roofed garages which are generally sited a similar distance apart from each other. The site is within the settlement boundary of Tavistock.

Planning permission was granted in 2008 under permission 11671/2008/TAV for an extension to the rear of the rebuilt garage to provide a bedroom with en-suite. This permission was not implemented and has now expired. However, it is a material planning consideration in this case.

The Proposal: Application for demolition of existing garage, erection of single storey attached annex and single-storey extension.

Consultations: County Highways Authority – Highways do not wish to comment Environmental Health Section – Unexpected contaminated land condition Tavistock Town Council – Support the proposal

Representations Three representations have been received in objection to the proposal from the adjacent property, 5 Chaucer Road. One in response to the original plans and two in response to the revised plans and applicants letter. The concerns raised in these representations are summarised below:

This new self-contained dwelling is completely out of character in this area of small detached bungalows; 15 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING AND LICENSING COMMITTEE 3 DECEMBER 2013 ______

I feel that this is contrary to the approved and adopted Local Plan Policy H40. This is a separate, self-contained dwelling and although attached, there is no link to the existing main house. As such, this cannot be regarded as an annex in the true sense.

Each detached home, in the road, sits on its own plot, with flat roofed garage, and is a similar distance apart from its neighbour. With this development at the side of the main house, there will be a cramping, terraced effect – butting up to mine with only 6 foot between walls – on such a small plot surely an over-development of the site and is contrary to Policy H40 (i) as regards massing and scale and size.

The height of the new build, with pitched roof, will tower over my home, with both the height of the new roof being more than mine and as the ground rises there. I believe that this is an unacceptable level of dominance and overbearing building – the wall to the side of my home will rise way up hemming in my home oppressively, and as such is contrary to Policy H40 (i) again re massing, size and scale.

There are three windows proposed down the side next to my house. Two of these have openings and allow easy viewing into my property. One is of clear glass, which will look into my kitchen and breakfast room area. The opening bathroom window will have a clear view into the area directly behind my bedroom and the 3rd, despite being of obscure glass, will have the potential to throw light at night into the rear of my property, specifically my bedroom – as will the bathroom too. Obviously I am expected to be fully clothed and have my curtains closed at all times should this plan be allowed, and will have no privacy at the rear of my property – all 3 bedrooms are along this side. I also believe the proposed front window will look into my property too. This would all be contrary to policy H40 (ii).

There are also, on the same side wall, planned kitchen extractor and bathroom extractor positions. Both are only 6 foot from my main bedroom windows – I have 2 windows and usually have them open, but of course that will be impossible with the close proximity of these extractors, due to reasons of smell, fumes and noise. Being asthmatic I am particularly keen on breathing issues! This too is contrary to policy H40 (ii)

As these houses sit sideways to each other, the impact of this proposal will affect ½ of my home – main bedroom, bathroom, kitchen and breakfast room. There is a high hedge over 2m at the moment, but the intention is for a new fence to be put in at only 1.8m – even more loss of privacy for my house. I believe most of the windows will take away any privacy I have in over ½ of my house and this new fence will only add to the feeling of being hemmed in and do nothing to hide this huge extension and overlooking issues. This would all be contrary under policy H40 (ii) and even (i).

By building this dwelling against the main house, the existing access for the family from their front to back garden is removed, and the proposal is for this 16 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING AND LICENSING COMMITTEE 3 DECEMBER 2013 ______

to become a 9.6 metre (31.5 foot) long by 3 foot passage down the side of the new build, next to my boundary – 3 foot from my bedroom wall! This is not adequate space around the whole building for circulation from front to back without causing a further significant effect on my amenities. I find it unacceptable that the change of circulation movement for a family of 5, with all the normal extra traffic of friends and family; of bin access; of access to sheds etc in the back garden is to become almost touching distance of my bedroom wall! Reference policy H40 (iv) and (ii) with regard to noise and disturbance.

The new build is much larger than the flat roofed garage that exists now. I am concerned at the dispersal of surface water – the soakaways seem to be just a few feet from my bedroom wall. With its slightly raised position and my house being downhill, and the narrowness between my wall and their proposed wall, I feel problems could arise. Even the present garage does not drain down in this area!

I cannot see how a new one bedroomed house can be built in this area without it affecting my residential amenity, and general enjoyment of my own property. The close proximity of this proposal and the obvious loss of any privacy amenity I may have had is not something I ever envisaged could happen when I bought this house 2 years ago. Not only is my privacy inside my house affected but also there would be a loss of enjoyment of my private garden – their overlooking and opening windows for a start.

I also believe it will have an adverse effect on the whole road – the quiet, open and non-overlooked nature of all these houses is one of the reasons people move here – it being mainly an area of retired folk. There have been no such additional buildings in all this area.

The addition of a link door on revised plans will not change the fact that this is still a self-contained one bedroom bungalow which is being crammed into the space between no 3 and no 5 Chaucer Road.

The proposed roof ridge height of the building in the revised plans will still be higher than my house.

The issue of the retention of the hedge on the revised plans has its points, but as a hedge is a natural thing, its survival - at the present height – during and after the building period, is suspect to say the least. Surely the integrity and privacy, not to mention the residential amenity of my home, cannot be balanced so finely on the survival of a thin old hedge?

In winter this golden privet hedge sheds many of its leaves and I can see through easily – therefore they will be able to see through to my house. As it has been regularly and intensely cut right back at that point, it is nothing like the dense, tall hedge a few metres away towards the front of the house. As the proposed only access from the front garden to back garden is along this section of the hedge, it is obvious it will be kept well cut back. This 31.5 foot by 3 foot path, only 3 foot from my bedroom does not seem to have changed 17 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING AND LICENSING COMMITTEE 3 DECEMBER 2013 ______

in these new plans! The loss of this hedge either during building or after would completely destroy any privacy for me and could take 10 years to re-grow to a suitable density and height!

The living room window which has been so slightly lowered, opens only 6 foot from my bedroom, and will probably still see into my property, either through the thin hedge or over a normal height fence. How can it be right to have a living room window open so close to my bedroom? At some point there could, and probably will be, teenage children living in there – nothing like the quiet scene being portrayed just now. Also it is only a few feet from my toilet window and bathroom window – another issue to my privacy. The kitchen window will also still be able to look into my property, into my kitchen and breakfast room. These intrusive plans combine lack of privacy of view and sound – to so much of my house.

The previous planning permission he mentions had expired on 22 May 2011, and I moved in here towards the end of July 2011. I knew nothing about it until he mentioned it a year later. When I checked, I was told that the permission had expired 14 months previously (i.e. 3 years after being granted) so was not relevant at the time my searches had been done. It also was for something completely different than the present proposal. I spoke with a planning officer at the same time -2012 and he explained it was no longer valid.

Reading from the plans, I see the ‘path’ down the other (left) side of his house will be 300mm (30 cm, or 1 foot wide) after building the new, small extension on the left side of their property. As I said before, this does not provide access from the front to the back garden. The subject of circulation is one of concern due to the new sole access being 3 foot from my bedroom wall and windows, 31.5 foot long, between 2 stone walls, with some sort of stone underfoot, and so will be excessively noisy in so confined a space, with the normal circulation of a large family going to their gardens, sheds, bins or whatever. I repeat my reference to contravening Local Plan Policy H40, (iv) and (ii).

One representation has been received from the applicant which raised the following points in response to the last letter received on the revised plans, see file for full representation:

This is a one bedroom bungalow. The title on the plans clearly states a single storey extension because this is what it is, there are no hidden agendas. This is why, the addition of a link door was made taking into account the concerns of the first letter and was hoped to reassure my neighbour that this is in fact an extension and not a bungalow.

As for being crammed in as a terraced look. The proposed extension is set back from the main building line, the roof line and floor levels are significantly lower than the existing Bungalow and certainly do not overpower the neighbouring property. There will be a meter between our extension and the site boundary and at the narrowest point there is roughly the same distance

18 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING AND LICENSING COMMITTEE 3 DECEMBER 2013 ______

between the boundary and my neighbour’s property on the other side of the boundary.

Consequently, this separation, reduced levels and setback from the building line will not give the appearance of a terraced house.

There have been some planning permissions that have been accepted elsewhere in Tavistock in the past where extensions have been built next to or on the boundary wall of which I would cite in support any objection.

Also, there have been larger extensions in Chaucer Road and Milton Crescent in the recent past and presently on going.

With reference to raised ground and largeness of build. I do not understand this comment as there is no intention to raise the ground level, if anything there will be a reduction in ground level to accommodate the lowering of the extension. The lowering of the extension has erased the need for the three external steps to the front elevation, this I believe should satisfy my neighbours’ concerns on this point, even though they would have blended well and been in-keeping with the rest of the bungalow and more appeasing to the eye.

With regards to the overall largeness, there was planning permission already granted on this property for a garage, bedroom and bathroom extension which was greater in length and height than this current proposal. Although this permission has now lapsed it was still live when the resident purchased and moved into the property next door.

With regard to the hedge being too flimsy/Access to rear via path. I can only assure all that it will not get damaged and it would be in everyone’s interest to ensure it doesn’t. As for the hedge being regularly and intensely cut back again is inaccurate, as it is cut once maybe twice maximum a year and then only the new leaves would be taken back. Which I have also done by request for no. 5 on their hedge side as well, and removed small young trees from the hedge at their request also.

As for access to the rear. There are two paths, one running down each side of the property as the proposed extension on the other side still leaves access clear to walk through and will have an access gate.

Reference Living room window/kitchen window/toilet bathroom window/teenage children?

The Living room window has been lowered considerably so that the top of the window is at the level of the boundary fence, as mentioned earlier the whole build has been lowered by three steps. Again this was to compromise and take into account any concerns and with the six foot fence it will stop any viewing of properties from either side.

19 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING AND LICENSING COMMITTEE 3 DECEMBER 2013 ______

Again, I can only reiterate with regards to the kitchen/bathroom/toilet window that the build has been lowered three steps and there will be a 6ft fence or 6ft plus hedge present. So the kitchen window being lowered and the presence of the fence/hedge will erase any concerns of seeing into either property.

For reassurance when standing in my present study window you cannot see in the property next door and this is three steps higher than the floor of the proposed extension. And I feel the comments regarding my children’s future and to where they will live too personal to comment on, especially regarding to this planning permission.

Obscure bathroom window: This is obscured to ensure privacy for all concerned; I believe there would be little if any light pollution due to the fence between the properties together with curtains and/or blinds being provided for our privacy.

Obscured bedroom window: As for the obscured bedroom window, this again will not be able to look into any part of the adjoining property as it is an obscured non-opening window and at such a height that would make accessing this difficult. This was with a view in mind for all persons privacy and considerations.

The kitchen extractor and bathroom extractor: I have no layout plans for my neighbours property so cannot comment on the proximity of individual rooms in relation to the position of my proposed extract fans, however, the extractors will be no closer than 1m from the site boundary plus a similar distance on the other side of the fence, there is also a 6ft fence between the two properties and again believe that in the wall at the height stated would not be a concern. Additionally, the extractor fans will be in operation for limited periods only.

Path 6ft from bedroom window: There has always been access to get down between my garage and the fence and will still be the other side of a fence and has a choice of two paths to access the rear so not a concern. As for the comment of a ‘new home’ I have to state that it is a single storey extension not a house.

Insistence on 1960s dark brown tile wall cladding: I had the plans drawn up to be in keeping with the current look of the property and trying to again ensure to be appeasing to the eye for all the neighbours in the road.

Should this be a request for a two storey building then I would expect such concerns but for a small single storey extension with a mind to care for my mother after my father passing away earlier this year I find distressing.

Relevant Planning History Planning permission was granted by consent 11671/2008/TAV to demolish the garage and to rebuild a new garage with an additional extension to the rear to create a bedroom. This consent was granted on 22nd May 2008; the consent has not been implemented and has now expired. However, it is a material planning consideration for this case. 20 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING AND LICENSING COMMITTEE 3 DECEMBER 2013 ______

ANALYSIS

Background and Principle of Development The previous planning consent which was not implemented and has now expired 11671/2008/TAV is a material planning consideration and has been taken into consideration in assessing this application.

The previous consent was granted to demolish the garage and to rebuild a new garage with an additional extension to the rear to create a bedroom with en-suite.

When compared against this previous consent the proposed annex being considered under this application is broadly similar in scale. In that whilst it projects further into the rear garden compared with the previous consented scheme; it is set back further from the front of the building compared to the previously consented scheme and the revised plans submitted during this application have lowered the extension reducing its overall height compared with the previously consented scheme. The proposal however does introduce an additional window serving a kitchen to the front of the annex, introduces a window serving a habitable room (living room) in the side whereas in the previous consent a window in the side was proposed to serve a garage rather than habitable room and two obscure glazed windows are proposed in the side serving a bedroom and wc whereas the previous proposal, had one small obscure glazed window serving an en-suite. However, it must be noted that the window serving the living room which has clear glazing has been dropped in height during the course of the application to alleviate perceptions of overlooking.

The porch/wc to the other side of the property was also not part of the previous consent.

The principle of an extension to a dwelling within the settlement boundary of Tavistock is supported in policy terms and no objection is raised to the principle of the porch and WC extension given that the proposal is within the settlement boundary.

Policy H40 states in 4.136 that ‘there may be occasions where a close relative of the occupant of a dwelling may require some form of care, but where that relative wishes to retain a degree of independence. In such circumstances it may be appropriate to provide an annex as an extension to an existing dwelling to provide independent but linked accommodation.’

Policy H38, whilst it does not directly reflect this application as this is an extension to the property and not a new independent dwelling, the spirit of what this policy is trying to achieve is also relevant to this case in which were new residential units are proposed it seeks to ensure that the scale and intensity of use will not cause significant detriment to the character of the building and locality and that the proposal does not result in an unacceptably low level of amenity for the occupiers of the building or neighbouring residents; and that there is space to provide adequate privacy for residents together with adequate amenity space for drying and refuse facilities.

21 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING AND LICENSING COMMITTEE 3 DECEMBER 2013 ______

The previous consent which is now expired contained only a bedroom with en-suite retaining a link with the main dwelling in terms of needing to use the kitchen and living room of the main dwelling for the day to day living requirements of the occupant of the annex.

In this case, the annex does including a small kitchen and living area. However, there is a connection with the dwelling in terms of a family connection with the owners of the dwelling, a linked door between the annex and the dwelling and shared use of the garden. It would also be conditioned that the annex be used ancillary to the main dwelling and the link door to be installed and retained to prevent it being used as a separate independent unit. Therefore, the proposal with these conditions in place can be classed as an annex in accordance with policy H40 set out above.

In summary, the principle of an annex extension and porch/wc extension is supported subject to the design of the proposals being acceptable, the proposals not resulting in detrimental harm being caused to the residential amenity of neighbour occupiers and the proposals not raising highway/access or landscape concerns which will be addressed in the following sections of the report.

Neighbour Amenity: The proposed porch/wc extension given the separation distance with the nearest neighbouring property does not raise residential amenity concerns in terms of resulting in an overbearing impact, loss of light or overlooking concerns. No windows are proposed to the side elevation of the extension facing the immediate neighbour 1 Chaucer Road however to avoid potential overlooking issues, a condition will be attached removing permitted development rights to insert windows in the side elevation of the extension to protect the residential amenity of the neighbouring property (1 Chaucer Road) from overlooking.

5 Chaucer Road is the immediate neighbour to the proposed annex. 5 Chaucer Road is sited at a lower ground level compared to 3 Chaucer Road and the bungalow has a bedroom, bathroom, kitchen and breakfast room on the side of the building adjacent to the proposed annex. The bathroom window is an obscure glazed window, however the kitchen and breakfast room have windows facing the application site, and the bedroom window is clear glazed.

Concern has been raised that the proposal is a self-contained one bedroom bungalow being crammed into the space between 3 and 5 Chaucer Road and this being an overdevelopment of the road of individually spaced detached homes, none of whom have any form of addition like this.

The application is for an annex extension, not a separate dwelling and the application would be conditioned to be used ancillary to the existing bungalow. The proposal creates a linked door with the existing bungalow which would be secured by condition. The proposal meets the criteria in policy terms for an annex extension to the existing bungalow. If a dwelling (independent) had been proposed then this would have been unlikely to be supported due to a proposal for a new dwelling (independent) on this plot having inadequate outdoor amenity space which would also have diminished the outdoor amenity space for the existing dwelling. A 22 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING AND LICENSING COMMITTEE 3 DECEMBER 2013 ______

separate independent dwelling would also have resulted in overlooking concerns given the juxtaposition between 3 Chaucer Road and a dwelling were it to have been proposed.

Concern has also been raised that the height of the new build, particularly the gable roof and change in ground level between the site and 5 Chaucer Road would result in an unacceptable level of dominance and over-bearing impact on 5 Chaucer Road creating an oppressive outlook from 5 Chaucer Road.

Whilst it is recognised that there is a change in ground level between the two properties with the application site being higher than 5 Chaucer Road which results in the existing bungalow roof ridge being higher than that of 5 Chaucer Road. The proposed annex extension has been lowered in height compared with the existing bungalow and has a lower internal floor level compared with the existing bungalow this lowering has reduced the number of steps needed to access the annex compared with accessing the existing bungalow on site which means that it sits lower than the existing bungalow at the site. The lowering of the height of the annex and the resultant reduction in roof ridge height and floor level of the annex combined with the separation from both the boundary and the property of 5 Chaucer Road, does not result in an extension being overbearing or oppressive to an extent to justify a refusal of planning permission on these grounds which could be sustained at appeal, on balance it is therefore judged to be acceptable on these grounds.

The proposed annex has three windows facing 5 Chaucer Road, a high level window serving a bedroom, a window serving a bathroom and a window serving a living room to the side elevation of the extension. The living room window has been lowered during the course of the application. There is also a window serving the kitchen and a door to the front elevation and a door and window serving the bedroom facing onto the applicants garden.

Concern has been raised that the living room window although lowered will open only 6 foot (approx 1.83m) from the bedroom window of 5 Chaucer Road and a few feet away from the bathroom/wc window and this in the representation submitted is judged to be an unacceptable separation distance for a window to be able to be opened. Concern has been raised that this will result in a loss of privacy should the occupants of the annex change from that currently proposed and will create overlooking opportunities either through the hedge or over the fence.

The proposed living room window faces a 1.8m high fence and not the hedge. The living room window has been lowered during the course of the application so that the top of the proposed window is at the level of the boundary fence in order to prevent an opportunity to/perception of overlooking of 5 Chaucer Road. This separation distance and the boundary treatment are deemed adequate to ensure an unacceptable level of overlooking/loss of privacy would not occur regardless of occupant of the annex. The application is judged on the acceptability of an annex to this property and is not a personal permission to a particular occupant. The acceptance of an annex in this location is therefore based on an unknown occupant whom is likely to change during the ownership of the property by the current owner and/or any future owners of the property.

23 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING AND LICENSING COMMITTEE 3 DECEMBER 2013 ______

A condition will be attached to ensure that the fence is erected prior to occupation of the annex and retained thereafter to ensure no overlooking occurs in the future. A condition will also be attached removing permitted development rights to insert additional windows into the side elevation of the annex without a separate planning consent. With these conditions in place no overlooking/loss of privacy concerns are raised.

Concern has also has also been raised with regard to the bathroom window which is a top- hung window marked to be obscure glazed. Concern has been raised that the opening bathroom window will look into the garden directly behind the bedroom of 5 Chaucer Road and that this window is 6 foot from the bedroom window resulting in overlooking and loss of privacy concerns.

This window is a top-hung window and therefore does not provide the opportunity for the window to be fully opened; rather the top of the window opening is for ventilation purposes. It is therefore judged that the proposed bathroom window does not provide the opportunity for an unacceptable level of overlooking/loss of privacy of 5 Chaucer Road to warrant a refusal of planning permission on these grounds. A condition however will be attached to ensure that this window is a top hung window and obscure glazed and retained as such as shown on the submitted plans.

Concern has also been raised with regard to the high level window proposed for the bedroom and that this would be visible over the fence and 3 foot away and this could be a problem, with light at night flooding into the garden behind 5 Chaucer Road bedroom and could be changed to be an opening window in the future.

This window is a high level window and therefore does not provide opportunities for overlooking. It is marked as obscure glazed and is non-opening which will be conditioned to be installed and retained as such thereafter. With this condition in place there are no grounds to refuse the application on overlooking/loss of privacy concerns. With regard to light pollution the window is a modest sized high level obscure glazed window the amount of light that would result will have minimal impact given that it is in an existing residential estate where a degree of light pollution is to be expected. In addition, the response received from the applicants to this point details that curtains and/or blinds would be used for their privacy.

Concern has also been raised that the kitchen window will provide opportunities to look into 5 Chaucer Road into the kitchen and breakfast room of this property resulting in loss of privacy and/or noise disturbance.

The case officer has visited both 5 Chaucer Road and the application site (Little Haven, 3 Chaucer Road). Whilst, it is recognised that there may be the perception of overlooking from 5 Chaucer Road, when stood in the applicants present bungalow you cannot see into the property next door including the kitchen and breakfast room. The bungalow is three steps higher than the floor of the proposed extension which has been lowered. This lower position compared with the existing property and the boundary treatment at this point will ensure that the proposed window whilst it may have the perception of overlooking would not result in an unacceptable level of overlooking to justify a refusal of planning permission on this ground.

24 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING AND LICENSING COMMITTEE 3 DECEMBER 2013 ______

Concern has also been raised with regard to the retention of the hedge and its chances of survival given that it is a natural boundary treatment and in winter shed leaves and the potential this would create for being able to see through the hedge to 5 Chaucer Road. Given that the majority of the proposed annex extension is behind the 1.8m high fence the only affected part of the extension for this consideration is the kitchen and access into the property. As covered in the previous paragraph the hedge and level of the annex is considered sufficient to ensure no unacceptable level of overlooking and this is also the conclusion with regard to the access door to the property.

Concern has been raised by the immediate neighbour, with regard to the change in the access arrangements for the family from their front to back garden with the existing access beside the dwelling and adjacent to the existing garage to be demolished bringing the access to the rear garden on this side of the property immediately adjacent to the boundary with 5 Chaucer Road and concerns have been raised with regard to increased noise and disturbance with a passageway being adjacent to the boundary. Whilst, this concern is noted the noise and disturbance would not be significantly more that the existing to warrant a refusal of planning permission on this ground.

The proposed plans also indicate two extractors on the wall facing 5 Chaucer Road one an extract fan to the kitchen and one to the bathroom. Concern has been raised with regard to their proximity to the bedroom windows of 5 Chaucer Road with regard to smells, fumes and noise. The extractors will be approx 1m from the side boundary plus a similar distance from 5 Chaucer Road and there would be a 1.8m close boarded fence between the annex and 5 Chaucer Road to be secured by condition. The separation distance, boundary fence, and the fact that extract fans are only used for short periods of time results in the position of the extract fans and proximity to 5 Chaucer Road being judged to be acceptable and not resulting in unacceptable level of smells, fumes or noise disturbance to justify a refusal of planning consent on this ground.

Concern has also been raised in the representation received about the dispersal of surface water with the soakaways seeming to be just a few feet from the bedroom wall of 5 Chaucer Road. With 5 Chaucer Road being downhill and the narrowness between the wall of 5 Chaucer Road and the proposed wall, concern is raised about potential problems that would arise. This concern is noted, however adequate provision would need to be made for the dispersal of surface water to satisfy building regulations and therefore this is not a matter on which planning permission could be refused as the applicant would need to ensure adequate arrangements are made for drainage to meet Building Regulations.

Design: In design terms, the proposed porch/wc is of a simple design which as it is set down from the roof ridge of the existing property and is subordinate in width to the existing bungalow will appear as a subservient addition to the property.

The proposed materials for the porch/wc extension are compatible with the existing bungalow and would be secured by condition.

25 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING AND LICENSING COMMITTEE 3 DECEMBER 2013 ______

The design of the proposed annex in terms of materials is compatible with the existing bungalow.

Concern has been raised with regard to the use of dark brown tile wall cladding which the respondent considers will add in their view to the dark and over-bearing appearance of the annex. The dark brown tile wall cladding for part of the side wall has been included to match that of the existing bungalow to tie the extension in with the existing bungalow. The use of the brown tiles for part for the side wall of the extension would not result in loss of light to such an extent that an application could be refused on this ground and in design terms is considered to be a compatible with the existing tiles of the bungalow.

Concern has been raised that the design of the annex would result in overdevelopment of the site and the proposed annex appearing crammed in resulting in a cramping and terracing effect. A terracing effect occurs where an extension to a property is situated in close proximity to its neighbour, and is not set back from the front elevation of the existing property or set down from the roof ridge of the existing property and due to limited separation distance when viewed from the street can appear to create a terrace. In this case, the proposed extension is single-storey, set significantly back from the front elevation of the bungalow and the roof ridge and floor levels of the proposal are lower than the existing Bungalow on the site having been lowered during the course of the application. There is also approximately a metre between the annex extension and the site boundary and approximately the same distance between the neighbour’s property and their side boundary as such the proposal as a result of its design and separation distance between the extension and boundary and extension and adjacent property cannot be argued to result in a terracing effect when viewed from the street and a refusal on this grounds is not justified.

In summary the design and materials for both the porch/wc extension and the annex extension are judged to be acceptable on design grounds.

Highways/Access: The proposal would result in the demolition of the existing garage, however adequate off-street parking provision would be retained on site and there are no restrictions on on-street parking for visitors. DCC Highways have declined to comment on this application.

No objection is raised on highway grounds.

Landscape Considerations: The proposal retains the existing hedge to the side boundary with 5 Chaucer Road up to the front of the proposed extension with a 1.8m high fence on the boundary with 5 Chaucer Road for the length of the proposed annex extension. No alterations are proposed to the boundary treatment with 1 Chaucer Road which consists of a hedge.

No objection is raised in landscape terms to the boundary treatments to be retained/proposed which are compatible with boundary treatments in the surrounding area. 26 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING AND LICENSING COMMITTEE 3 DECEMBER 2013 ______

Planning Policy

National Planning Policy Framework Section 7 – Requiring good design

West Devon Borough Council Core Strategy 2011 SP1 – Sustainable Development

West Devon Borough Council Local Plan Review 2005(as amended 2011) H40 - Residential Extensions

Conclusion The principle of the development is supported in policy terms. Whilst, it is recognised that concern has been raised with regard to impact on residential amenity in relation to the proposed annex part of the scheme, the proposal subject to appropriate conditions as set out in the report is judged to not result in detrimental harm to the residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers to justify a refusal of planning consent which could be sustained at appeal. The proposals are considered to be of an appropriate design and constructed of suitable materials. No highways or landscape concerns are raised. On balance, approval is recommended subject to conditions. ______

WARD NAME Hatherleigh (Cllr C Hall) APPLICATION NUMBER 00938/2013 LOCATION Reed Farm, Hatherleigh EX20 3LH APPLICANT NAME Mr & Mrs I Balsdon

Site Address: Reed Farm, Hatherleigh, Okehampton, Devon, EX20 3LH

Development: Outline application for erection of agricultural workers dwelling.

Reason item is being put before Committee: Cllr C Hall called this application to Committee stating: ‘I would like this brought to committee for the following reasons:

(i) I feel there could be potential concern regarding animal welfare. (ii) I am of the understanding that Mr Balsdon is trying to expand his farm by another 130 acres. If this is the case, he would need permanent staffing, more so than now.’

27 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING AND LICENSING COMMITTEE 3 DECEMBER 2013 ______

Recommendation: Refusal

Reasons for refusal: Whilst there is a functional need in relation to the applicant’s total land holdings and enterprise at Hatherleigh for an additional full time worker, this application has not adequately demonstrated that there is no alternative accommodation nearby in Hatherleigh which is suitable and available for occupation instead of the proposed dwelling, i.e. it has not been demonstrated that another dwelling is required on-site. For this reason the development would not meet all of the criteria set out in the Local Plan Policy H31 and the proposal would not accord with NPPF policy set out in paragraph 55.

Key issues for consideration: Whether there has been a clear need demonstrated for an agricultural workers dwelling against Local Plan H31 in this outline submission.

Site Description: The site lies approximately 360m west from the Hatherleigh settlement boundary and is presently an open grazing field approximately 35m west of Reed farm house. The land raises slightly along Sanctuary Lane as the application land is on higher ground level as compared to neighbouring Reed farm house.

There is currently hedgerow cover between Sanctuary Lane and the site along the boundary and the site is accessed through a field gate. The nearest neighbouring property (named Yollaberry) is located approximately 410m distance away, towards the south western direction. The site is considered to be set in open countryside and is not covered by any designation.

The Proposal: The application seeks outline consent for an agricultural workers dwelling. Matters for consideration in this application are layout and scale as the submission proposes creation of a bungalow measuring 13.8m long by 8.8m wide and 4.9m in height. The proposal would be set within its own plot as there would be amenity space created on either sides and to the rear.

Matters relating to access, appearance and landscaping would be reserved for subsequent approval.

The submission has been accompanied by an agricultural appraisal highlighting the applicants need for the proposal to allow their daughter to be committed in the farm holding as an additional agricultural worker, to be close to the livestock within the farm enterprise.

Consultations: County Highways Authority The outcome of this application will depend on whether the proposal satisfies the agricultural appraisal process. The site takes its access from a minor unclassified road with low traffic flows. A dwelling of this type generates in the region of 4 trips per day, 2 in and 2 out and it would be unreasonable to suggest that the highway

28 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING AND LICENSING COMMITTEE 3 DECEMBER 2013 ______

network could not accommodate such low flows. No highway issues are therefore raised.

Environmental Health Section Standard unexpected contaminated land condition is recommended.

Hatherleigh Town Council Support the application provided that there is a restriction for an agricultural worker on the proposed dwelling.

Agricultural Consultant Having assessed the circumstances of the applicants farming activities against the relevant criteria of the NPPF and Local Plan Policy H31, I consider that the proper functioning of the applicants farming activities requires a worker to be readily available at most times on the farm. Re the second criterion -I consider there to be potentially suitable and available accommodation in Hatherleigh, which the applicants have failed to consider.

The applicants farming activities seem to suggest the proposed development of the second dwelling would be financially sustainable as the farm business is financially sound and economically viable.

Representations None received

Relevant Planning History None relevant

ANALYSIS The application has been assessed against national and local development plan policies and other material planning considerations, including the advice of statutory consultees. The key determining issues are:  Whether a clear genuine need has been demonstrated for the proposed agricultural workers dwelling on-site?  The proposed size and impact on the surrounding rural character  Highway issues

The principle of the proposal and whether there is a clear need Generally, both national and local planning policy are against isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances of essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside.

Local Plan policy H31 is states the following criteria: ‘‘Residential development, outside the defined limits of settlements will not be permitted unless all the following criteria are met:

(i) There is written independent evidence of a genuine and sustained need for the dwelling, that need being based upon an essential agricultural, forestry or horticultural requirement for a full time worker to be resident on the holding; (ii) The local planning authority has no reason to believe that the need for an 29 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING AND LICENSING COMMITTEE 3 DECEMBER 2013 ______

additional dwelling has arisen primarily due to the recent sub-division of the holding and/or the recent disposal of a dwelling from the holding; (iii) There is no building on the holding suitable for conversion to a dwelling; (iv) The dwelling is sited close to existing agricultural buildings unless it can be clearly demonstrated that a more isolated location is essential for the operation of the holding; and (v) The dwelling is in keeping with the character of the area in terms of scale, design and materials’’.

The agricultural appraisal submitted with the application seems to suggest that Reed Farm is a profitable farm enterprise which has beef and sheep enterprise over the 44 hectares, owned by Mr and Mrs Balsdon. The applicants have also recently tendered for the purchase of a further 53 hectares around the vicinity. It is the applicants desire to involve their daughter within the farm operations and she would utilise the proposed agricultural workers dwelling.

The Council’s Agricultural Consultant has vetted this information and has confirmed that the functional test has been satisfied, in that the proper functioning of the applicants farming activities does require them to have an additional agricultural worker readily available at all times close to the farm enterprise.

However, whilst the submission has demonstrated that there is a clear need for a worker, it has not been demonstrated that the additional agricultural worker can not be housed within the existing range of housing stock within close proximity to the farm. Due to the farm location close to Hatherleigh, there seems to be plenty of 2 or 3 bedroom houses available for either rent or to purchase within a 2 minute drive from the site, which the additional agricultural worker can utilise and be in easy access to the farm. There is also a new residential development available off Oakfield Road which is being marketed which the agricultural worker could live and access the farm at any time.

Therefore, the current submission fails on this aspect of Local Plan policy H31 and general presumption contained in the NPPF which steers new development away from open countryside.

The proposed size and impact on the surrounding rural character The proposal is outline but seeks consent for layout and scale. The proposed plans show for a 3 bedroom bungalow measuring approximately 13.8m long by 8.8m wide and 4.9m in height. There are no objections to the size, footprint and height of the proposed agricultural workers dwelling which is commensurate with the sizes of a typical agricultural workers dwelling.

In terms of landscape impact, it is acknowledged the proposal would be within the next field at approximately 37m east from Reed farmhouse. However, the application site is at a slightly higher ground level as compared to the Reed farmhouse and the proposal would utilise the existing field access. However, the principle of 4.9m high bungalow at this location would not cause an impact on the landscape setting to warrant refusal against Local Plan Policy NE10. There are no immediate neighbouring dwellings that would be affected by the proposal and there would be sufficient amenity space for the proposed agricultural workers dwelling. 30 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING AND LICENSING COMMITTEE 3 DECEMBER 2013 ______

Therefore, the proposal would conform to the requirements of Local Plan policy NE10 and Core Strategy Policy SP17 on landscape setting grounds.

Highways matters No concerns have been raised with regard to highway matters, due to the fact that a new dwelling would generate low vehicle movements which the highway network can accommodate. Also, as the application is outline, access matters will be fully assessed in the reserved matters stage in terms of highway visibility and safe access in a forward gear. No objections are therefore raised on the principle of creating a new agricultural workers dwelling at this site, in accordance with Local Plan Policy T8 and T9.

Conclusion Whilst there is a functional need in relation to the applicant’s total land holdings and enterprise at Hatherleigh, the applicant has not adequately demonstrated that there is not alternative accommodation nearby in Hatherleigh which is suitable and available for occupation instead of the new proposed dwelling. For these reason the development would not meet all of the criteria set out in the Local Plan Policy H31 and the proposal would not accord with NPPF policy set out in paragraph 55.

Planning Policy

West Devon Borough Council Core Strategy 2011 SP1 – Sustainable Development SP17 – Landscape Character SP20 – Promoting High Quality Design

West Devon Borough Council Local Plan Review 2005(as amended 2011) NE10 – Protection of the Countryside and Other Open Spaces H29 – Smaller Settlements H31 – Residential Development in the Countryside H32 - Residential Development in the Countryside H33 - Residential Development in the Countryside T8 – Car Parking T9 – The Highway Network

31 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING AND LICENSING COMMITTEE 3 DECEMBER 2013 ______

WARD NAME Milton Ford (Cllr R Baldwin) APPLICATION NUMBER 00089/2013 LOCATION Endsleigh Hotel, Milton Abbot, Tavistock, PL19 0PQ APPLICANT NAME Endsleigh Hotel Ltd

Site Address: Endsleigh Hotel, Milton Abbot, Tavistock, PL19 0PQ

Development: Application for new planning permission to replace extant planning permission granted under planning consent 12381/2008/TAV for change of use from stables to hotel accommodation.

Reason for item being at Committee: This application has been called to Planning Committee by Cllr Baldwin for as he believes that this is a sensitive and sustainable redevelopment of a listed building situated within an AONB and that measures have been and are being taken to protect wild life, especially bats. By permitting this development not only will a heritage asset be restored for future generations, but the business viability of the hotel will be enhanced, thus continuing to provide much needed local employment.

Recommendation: Conditional Permission

Conditions (list not in full) 1. Time Limit 2. Works in accordance with bat mitigation report

Key issues for consideration: Changes to relevant planning policy/ case law, changes to the site and surrounding area (inclusive of other developments granted or implemented) that may be impacted by the proposal and any other material maters that may differ from those previously assessed such as changes to the highway network, landscape, ecology, flood risk, etc.

Financial Implications: None

Site Description: The site consists of a grade I listed building located approximately 12.5m to the north of Endsleigh House (currently in use as a hotel).

The building’s list description is as follows:

“Stables. Designed in circa 1810 by Sir Jeffrey Wyatville for the 6th Duke of Bedford. Stone rubble brought to course with hipped slate roofs. Approximately U- plan, built against the slope of the land to the north and consisting of 3 ranges round a pitched stone courtyard. The south range faces Endsleigh House across a forecourt. 1 storey and attics. Deep eaves, casement windows with timber mullions and transoms in chamfered stone openings, the doorway and window to the grooms' accommodation have segmental arches with keystone. Full dormers with hipped roofs.

32 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING AND LICENSING COMMITTEE 3 DECEMBER 2013 ______

The south side of the south range is symmetrical with a plinth and a massive central coach entrance under a separate hipped roof carried on chamfered stone cheeks with chamfered lintel with mason's mitres. Timber spandrels with Gothick cusping form a triangular arch on the north and south sides of the coach entrance. A clock turret on the ridge has louvred sides, 4 diagonally-set clock faces and a hipped slate roof crowned by a weathervane. The south side of the range has 6 large entrances.

The west range has 1 entrance with windows on either side. The east range, partly used for accommodation has diagonally set chimney shafts and 2 entrances. On the east side it is built into the slope of the land at the north allowing direct access to the first floor. A 2-bay gabled projection at the south end has a half-hipped roof.

On the north side of the courtyard, opposite the coach entrance is a fountain set in a round-headed alcove in a tall battered stone surround terminating in a cornice. A stone trough is set in front of the alcove, and above the alcove is an inscription panel: "Endsleigh Cottage was built and a residence created in this sequestered valley by John Duke of Bedford the spot having been previously chosen from the natural and picturesque beauties which surround it by Georgiana, Duchess of Bedford.

The first stone of the building was laid by her 4 eldest sons Wriothesley Edward, Charles, James Fox and ...... September 7 1810" (parts illegible). Hussey suggests that the Duchess of Bedford was the driving force behind the creation of Endsleigh House”.

The site is situated within the open countryside and within the Tamar Valley AONB. The building is not located adjacent to any residential properties.

The site is accessed by way of a private drive leading onto the road connecting the site to the wider rural road network situated to the east of the application site approximately 1.1Km from the stable building and hotel (Endsleigh House).

The Proposal: The proposal is an application for new planning permission to replace extant planning permission granted under planning consent 12381/2008/TAV for change of use from stables to hotel accommodation.

Consultations:

 County Highways Authority: No objection

 Milton Abbot Grouped Parish Council: Support

 Countryside Officer: Objects on the basis of insufficient information.

 Natural England: Comments that further information in relation to ecology should be sought before decision is made.

 Conservation Officer: No objection

33 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING AND LICENSING COMMITTEE 3 DECEMBER 2013 ______

Representations None received

Relevant Planning History

7969/2005/TAV – withdrawn

12027/2008/TAV – LBC for this current scheme, approved 27/11/08

12381/2008/TAV for change of use from stables to hotel accommodation. Approved.

ANALYSIS The previous assessment of the application is as follows;

“The issues associated with this application are the effect of the proposal upon the special historical and architectural value of the listed building, the listed park, AONB, highway network and countryside.

In relation to the listed building, the general principle of the change of use of the stable building was considered acceptable by our Conservation Officer some time ago, however extensive negotiations between the Conservation Officer, Planning Officer, Agent and Francis Kelly of English Heritage have since occurred in order to negotiate an improved scheme in terms of preserving the special historic and architectural details and regarding the formulation of suitable and comprehensive conditions.

It is now considered acceptable by English Heritage, the Conservation Officer and Planning Officer as it is not consider that this proposal will have a significant detrimental effect upon the historical and architectural value of the listed building. Suitable conditions and an archaeological condition requested by DCC archaeology and EH have been applied. (The LBC for these works has been approved and issued).

It is not considered that this development would have an undue negative impact upon the special landscape characteristics which made this area worthy of AONB designation. Neither do the Garden History Society consider they need to comment in relation to its impact upon the listed garden. Likewise due to the screening on site, the topography and the nature of the proposal (and the condition tying the building’s use to the existing hotel use), it is not considered that this proposal will have an undue negative impact upon the rural character of the countryside.

In relation to residential amenity, there are no immediately adjacent residential properties. The nearest is approximately 150 m away but is completely screened from the application site by vegetation and by the topography caused by the nearby river. It is not therefore considered that the proposal will have a significant detrimental effect upon residential amenity.

34 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING AND LICENSING COMMITTEE 3 DECEMBER 2013 ______

The DCC highway engineer has no objection on the grounds that he notes the existing use on-site. As this application is being considered as an extension to the existing hotel use on site, condition have been applied to tie the use of this building to the hotel use so as to ensure that, were this to alter, the impact upon the garden, AONB and highway network etc. could be reconsidered”.

The previous application was assessed against the following Local Plan Policies;

BE3 – Listed buildings BE9 – archaeology BE6 – listed gardens NE8 – Tamar valley AONB T9 – highway safety T8 – parking TLS1 – extension to existing holiday accommodation in the countryside

It should be noted that policy NE8 has been replaced by Core Strategy Policy SP17 and that the NPPF is now in effect.

Having reviewed the previous application and checking against the site at present it is evident that the NPPF and policy SP17 still afford protection to designated landscapes such as the AONB. Whilst this is the case, it is clear that the impact of the development upon the designated landscape remains as it did previously.

Ecology The main issue that has arisen in respect of this application as compared with that previously granted is in relation to a bat roost and the impact of the development upon it and the protected species.

There have been discussions with the applicant’s agent and ecologist since October which has resulted in submission of supplementary information including endorsement of the mitigation strategy from the applicant’s ecologist. On this basis your officers are satisfied with the mitigation scheme as now proposed and endorsed and are in a position to recommend approval subject to conditions.

As the proposed alterations involve licensable activity is taking place the LPA needs to ensure that the applicant meets the three tests

- The Stable Block roof void provides five bat species with a variety of roosting opportunities which include hibernation, day roosting and maternity roost (different uses for each species). Various bat access points into the void were installed during a roof renovation in 2012. - The main access point for Lesser Horseshoe Bats into the roof void is above a door lintel on the ground floor (leading to an enclosed space between wall and panels which is followed up into the roof void). It is proposed to move this doorway, incorporating an access point for the Lesser Horseshoe Bats above the doorway therefore maintaining the existing access to the roost space. - Bats have been able to access the ground and first floors of the Stables due to a combination of doors being left open, broken window panes, and holes in ceilings. 35 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING AND LICENSING COMMITTEE 3 DECEMBER 2013 ______

- Mitigation measures (namely specific timing of works) has been proposed within a submitted 'Bat Mitigation Survey Report' to minimise the likelihood of disturbance to bats.

Aspects of the work are expected to require EPS Licensing (namely blocking of access points through the broken window) and works to first floor east wing ceiling. As the proposal will trigger a Habitats Regulations offence, and require a EPS Licence to proceed, the LPA must consider the proposal against the 3 derogation tests:

- Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest - The proposal will consolidate the Grade I Listed building, preventing deterioration of the structure which could further compromise its condition. The works will bring the building back into active use, providing economic benefits for the Hotel business. - No Satisfactory Alternative - The do nothing alternative could lead to deterioration of the internal conditions of the building to the detriment of the roosting bats. Most of the proposed works are internal, and there are no apparent methods of bringing the building back into active use without undertaking the proposed internal works. - Maintenance of Favourable Conservation Status - Mitigation has been outlined which will minimise impact on the protected species, and it has been shown that the roost space (and access points) will be maintained and consolidated. The ecologist has confirmed that the proposal will maintain the favourable conservation status of the bat species using the Stables Block.

It is considered that the proposal would be likely to be granted a EPS Licence by Natural England.

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

Planning Policy NPPF

West Devon Borough Council Core Strategy 2011 SP1 – Sustainable Development SP10 – Supporting the Growth of the Economy SP11 – Rural Regeneration SP17 – Landscape Character SP18 – The Heritage and Historical Character of West Devon SP19 – Biodiversity SP20 – Promoting High Quality Design

West Devon Borough Council Local Plan Review 2005(as amended 2011) NE10 – Protection of the Countryside and Other Open Spaces BE3 – Listed Buildings BE4 – Features and Artefacts of Local Importance BE6 – Historic Parks and Gardens RB1 – Conversion and re-use of rural buildings for business 36 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING AND LICENSING COMMITTEE 3 DECEMBER 2013 ______

TLS1 – Holiday Accommodation T8 – Car Parking T9 – The Highway Network