WEST DEVON DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT AND LICENSING COMMITTEE - TUESDAY, 4TH DECEMBER, 2012

Agenda, Reports and Minutes for the meeting

Agenda No Item

1. Agenda Letter (Pages 1 - 2)

2. Reports

Reports to P&L;

a) Planning Applications & Enforcement Reports Northern Area (Pages 3 - 50)

b) Planning Applications & Enforcement Reports Southern Area (Pages 51 - 94)

c) Planning Appeals Update (Pages 95 - 96)

d) Delegated Decisions (Pages 97 - 110)

e) Review of the Site Inspection Protocol (Pages 111 - 118)

f) Three Yearly Review of Gambling Statement of Licensing Principles (Pages 119 - 166)

g) Review of Environmental Health Licensing Fees, Gambling Premises Fees and Taxi Licensing Fees (Pages 167 - 190)

h) Summary of Licensing Act 2003, Gambling Act 2005, Taxi Licensing,Environmental Health Licensing and Charitable Collections Permissions Issued 1st April 2011 - 31st March 2012 (Pages 191 - 194)

3. Minutes (Pages 195 - 214)

A G E N D A – PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE – 4th DECEMBER 2012

PART ONE – OPEN COMMITTEE

1. Apologies for absence

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

If Councillors have any questions relating to predetermination, bias or interests in items on this Agenda, then please contact the Monitoring Officer in advance of the meeting.

3. Items Requiring Urgent Attention To consider those items which, in the opinion of the Chairman, should be considered by the Meeting as matters of urgency (if any). Page

4. Confirmation of Minutes Meeting held on 6th November 2012 3

PLANNING

5. Planning Applications & Enforcement Reports

Area Index 11 (i) Northern Area 13 (ii) Southern Area 61

6. Planning Appeals Update 104

7. Delegated Decisions 106

8. Review of the Site Inspection Protocol Joint report of the Development Manager and Member Services Manager 119

LICENSING

9. Three Yearly Review of Gambling Statement of Licensing Principles Report of the Licensing Manager 124

10. Review of Environmental Health Licensing Fees, Gambling Premises Fees and Taxi Licensing Fees Report of the Licensing Manager 169

11. Summary of Licensing Act 2003, Gambling Act 2005, Taxi Licensing, Environmental Health Licensing and Charitable Collections Permissions Issued 1st April 2011 – 31st March 2012 Report of the Licensing Manager 190

1 PART TWO – ITEMS WHICH MAY BE TAKEN IN THE ABSENCE OF THE PUBLIC AND PRESS ON THE GROUNDS THAT EXEMPT INFORMATION MAY BE DISCLOSED (if any). If any, the Committee is recommended to pass the following resolution:-

RESOLVED that under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting on the grounds that exempt information is likely to be disclosed as defined in the paragraphs given in Part I of Schedule 12(A) to the Act.

This document can be made available in large print, Braille, tape format, other languages or alternative format upon request. Please contact the Committee section on 01822 813662 or email [email protected]

Council Procedure Rule 24

Use of televised and sound recordings at Council and committee meetings

(1) Televised, vision and sound recordings or live broadcastings by members of the press or public at Council, or committee debates will be permitted if approved prior to the meeting by the person presiding in consultation with the Chief Executive (or his representative), each case being considered on its own merits.

(2) Any person acting in breach of this provision can be required to leave the meeting room immediately.

______

2 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

WARD: Bridestowe (Cllr L J G Hockridge)

APPLICATION NO: 02917/2012 LOCATION: Lower Brockscombe Coppice, Germansweek, Beaworthy, Devon, EX21 5AL APPLICANT NAME: Miss J Henderson APPLICATION: Full PARISH: Bratton Clovelly GRID REF: 246192 94978 PROPOSAL: Change of use of land and siting of structures and erection of buildings to form a camping facility and associated works. CASE OFFICER: Cheryl Stansbury TARGET DATE: 19/09/2012

Reason item is being put before committee: Cllr Hockridge wishes the application to be determined by Committee given the large number of objections received from local residents and the Parish Council.

RECOMMENDATION: CONDITIONAL APPROVAL

Reason for Approval: This application has been determined in accordance with Section 38 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which states that planning applications must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. This application has been determined in accordance with approved Development Plan Policies; relevant Government planning policy guidance; and approved in the absence of any other overriding material considerations and having given due weight to all other matters raised in this application including technical and other representations received. The relevant Policies are the NPPF 2012, Local Plan Review NE10, ED21, TLS2, TLS3, T9, PS2, PS3: Core Strategy SP1, SP3, SP10, SP11, SP17, SP19, SP21: County Structure Plan 2001 - 2016 ST1, ST16, CO1, CO9, CO13, TR7, TR10, TO3, TO4.

Special regard has been given to the representations received, and the comments from the Highways Officer, however, these are not considered over-riding and the proposal is considered acceptable subject to the conditions listed below.

List of conditions: 1. Standard 3 year time limit for commencement 2. Development in accordance with the approved plans 3. Holiday use only 4. Details of landscaping to be submitted 5. Tree protection plan and compliance with 6. Drainage details as requested by the Drainage Engineer

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

7. No external lighting of the site, other than solar powered lighting, the details of which are to submitted and agreed 8. Recommendations of the Ecological Report to be adhered to 9. Parking and turning area to be provided prior to the use commencing, to be maintained as such, and for no other purpose

The Proposal This is a full planning application for the change of use of land, the siting of structures and erection of buildings to form a camping facility. The proposal involves the siting of 4 insulated timber tents, 2 “Showman’s” wagons, communal buildings, office/shed/shower area, composting toilet, log store, poly tunnel and car parking area. A 5th timber tent and 2 camping pitches were proposed, and the applicants did intend to run environmental based training courses from the site, however, these aspects have now been omitted from the application.

The existing access point is to be used, with the gates widened and a new gravelled parking area is to be provided with parking for 5 cars, 1 of which is intended for staff parking.

Foul drainage is proposed through 2 composting toilets and a septic tank, with discharge to reed beds and a pond, with eventual clean water discharge to the watercourse.

The ethos behind the proposal is for a small-scale sustainably run camping facility in a woodland setting, with the emphasis on visitors arriving on foot, by bike or public transport, and especially encouraging those with specific leisure related interests to the area, such as canoeing, sailing or bird watching at Roadford Lake, cyclists and walkers using the many nearby cycle and walking routes such as the Ruby Way or Pegasus Way.

Site and Surroundings The application site measures 0.7 hectares, and lies within a wooded valley, approximately 2 km from the hamlet of Germansweek. The applicants have stated the site is currently being developed for small-scale woodland, as part of the farm woodland premium scheme.

The site is predominantly a coniferous plantation with smaller areas of deciduous plantation, scrub and wet grassland. The site is bounded to the north by hedgerows and the highway, and the land falls to the south, to a tributary of the River Wolf, which eventually runs in to Roadford Lake.

Access to the site is via a network of unclassified narrow rural lanes, where there is currently a timber access gate leading onto the site.

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

Consultations: Bratton Clovelly Parish Council Bratton Clovelly Parish Council (BCPC) held a meeting to discuss the application. 36 members of the public attended, including the applicant.

After listening to representations both from the applicant and local residents, BCPC voted unanimously to object to the application for the following reasons:-

1. Inadequately prepared application. The environmental survey has not been executed properly, especially with regard to the stream/water habitat. Many creatures such as brown trout and rodents live in that stretch of water and it is believed that a camping facility so close to this could easily destroy this habitat. The PC also has reservations about pollution to the nearby watercourse.

2. BCPC supports the vast local knowledge. This area does flash flood rapidly in this high rainfall area and we have safety concerns for those who may be camping close to the stream. The valley also carries noise and residents are extremely concerned about the noise such a camp site could generate in a quiet rural setting.

3. Road safety. The roads leading to this site are extremely narrow and frequently used by large heavy agricultural machinery. The PC has serious concerns for the safety of intended cyclists travelling to and from the site using the narrow roads, many of which have blind bends. The PC also note that there are no nearby designated cycle routes (such as the Tarka trail) and the nearest public transport is 1.5 miles away, if campers intended to arrive on foot. The PC also feel that traffic flows to and from this site have been understated.

4. Emergency services/safety. The road leading to this site is narrow and BCPC are concerned about the emergency services having difficulty accessing this site, particularly with regard to its remote nature. We also have serious concerns about fire safety on this site i.e. the use of wood burners in a woodland setting. They also raise concerns over the lack of proposed onsite supervision.

5. Wildlife impact. Brockscombe Valley has an abundance of natural wildlife which could be harmed by the intrusion of up to 18 campers on a daily basis. We do not wish to see this happen.

6. No proven local need. There is no proven local need for such a facility and the benefits to the immediate local economy are minimal, if at all. The nearest shops are either 4.5 miles way at Northlew or 6-7 miles away at Halwill Junction, with the nearest town being Okehampton approx. 9 miles away. There are no local amenities close by and we are convinced that the remoteness of this proposed site simply isn't the right location for such a camping facility.

Bratton Clovelly Parish Council requests that the Planning Authority seriously takes account of the concerns raised and listens to the local opinions.

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

County Highways Authority The outcome of this proposal is likely to depend on whether or not the application satisfies Policy TLS2. From a highway point of view, the unclassified road network is poor, both in width and alignment.

The seven units are likely to generate in the region of 28 trips; 14 in, 14 out. The trips will very much depend on the user. The site is well located to the Ruby Way and other facilities and would be attractive to cyclists and walkers.

I will raise a highway objection, but would say that if the proposal satisfies your policies the objection should not be over-riding. I will not raise an objection based on non-sustainable location as I consider that would be one reason why the site would be attractive to many users.

Recommend refusal for the following reason:- The road giving access to the site is by reason of its inadequate width and poor alignment, unsuitable to accommodate the increase in traffic likely to be generated contrary to Policy TR10 of the Devon County Structure Plan.

Devon Building Control Partnership We would have no concern with a system which has been design by manufacturers of specific plant to deal with effluent. The Environment Agency would also be reviewing what is being proposed in terms of discharge consent and would want assurance of water quality.

Until we can establish exactly what is being suggested it is difficult to comment, but there would be no problem associated with a good design and we would approve a professional approach to resolving a drainage application. A Building Regulation application should be forwarded for these works, however this is not prudent until you have given consent under planning.

South West Water No response received

Natural England In response to the original Phase 1 Habitat survey: The proposal does not appear to affect any statutorily protected sites or landscapes, or have significant impacts on the conservation of soils. Nor is it EIA development.

It is not clear from the information in support of this application what the impact on protected species will be. We would ask the applicant to provide further information that clearly describes the impact of the proposal on protected species and any proposed mitigation, together with evidence to show how they concluded what the impacts will be.

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

Response following receipt of second Phase 1 Habitat survey: The ecological survey has not identified there will be any significant impacts on protected sites, species or habitats. Suggest the Council encourages opportunities to enhance biodiversity in and around the development through landscaping, sustainable drainage systems, nesting sites and so on.

WDBC Countryside Officer The Ecological Survey recorded a predominantly young coniferous plantation, with neighbouring hedgebanks and scrub, and bordered by a tributary of the River Wolf on the southern boundary.

Some limited vegetation removal has been proposed to create space for the cabins, along with widening of the gateway (by circa 2m). While possible that dormice may use the woodland/hedge banks, subject to following a precautionary method including timing and supervision by a qualified ecologist during vegetation removal, it is highly unlikely that there will be a direct impact on dormice or their nesting/breeding sites (the ecologist has described why the site would be unsuitable for hibernating dormice). Ongoing management and the creation of new habitats is likely to improve the suitability of the site as a habitat for dormice.

While predominantly unsuitable for reptiles, the ecologist has suggested a mowing regime to discourage reptiles from using the site prior to works. Subsequently, management of the site has potential to improve the site for reptiles.

There is potential for birds to nest in the hedgebank and the woodland. As such, vegetation removal is recommended for outside of the nesting season.

Potential impacts on otters, bats and badgers were considered unlikely, and I would be inclined to agree. No external lighting is proposed; lighting within the woodland could have an impact on bats and dormice in particular, and as such a ‘no-external lighting’ condition would be welcomed. The ecologist confirms that no trees with any potential for bat roosts will be affected by the proposals.

If the application is approved, I would suggest the following conditions: Methodology and recommendations within the ‘Discussion and Mitigation’ section of the ‘Ecological Survey’ report should be adhered to pre, during and post construction. This includes supervision of vegetation removal by a qualified ecologist. No external lighting should be erected.

Environment Agency Initial response: Given the size, nature and location of the proposed development we do not need to be consulted for bespoke advice. Please refer to our standing advice, in particular, that relating to foul drainage and flood risk.

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

Following subsequent discussions with the Case Officer: As discussed by phone we have advised that there should be two reed beds in order for there always to be one which is usable when the other is under repair/replanting. Other than that I have no objections to the proposal. The owner will need to apply for an Environmental Permit to discharge this water, which I have already discussed with him. There is no guarantee a permit will be issued, although the initial indications seem positive. Building Regulations will also be needed and a consultation should take place with Environmental Health.

Following receipt of amended plans showing 2 reed beds: Confirm that my predecessor and myself are happy with these amended proposals now that 2 reed beds are included in the plans in order for there to always be one which is usable when the other is under repair/replanting.

Environmental Health Have had a site meeting with the applicant and there are no objections to the application on environmental health grounds. The EA will no doubt comment on the drainage. Should you be minded to give consent the development will require a caravan/camping licence and any issues we have will be addressed through conditions. It is unlikely there will be any significant problems.

Drainage Engineer Initial response: 1. The site is located in Flood Zone 1 and therefore is a low risk of flooding. The stream that flows adjacent to the site is classified as an ordinary watercourse and therefore the EA flood mapping does not include it. The proposed development is classified as a More Vulnerable use under PPS 25 Technical Guidance to the NPPF. Consideration should be given to a warning and evacuation plan for the lower laying parts of the site should the stream be in flood.

2. Proposals are for a pond, reed bed system, septic tank and a number of composting toilets. There are a number of pathways, camping pitches and a car park which make up the surfaced area of the site, plus, there are a number of buildings including a polytunnel. A Drainage Assessment is needed to support these proposals. This must include a description of the existing and proposed surface and foul water drainage systems and details of the following:

Identify which elements of the development drain in to the septic tank/reed bed system. Confirm how the paths, pitches, car park and any other surfaced areas will be drained. I have concerns relating to the close proximity of the camping pitches and timber tent 1 to the stream and strongly suggest that the applicant considers other locations. No details of the pond size or type of construction have been supplied. I have concerns relating to the positioning of timber tent 1 which is below the level of the pond.

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

Details are needed with respect to management of surface water run off. Provide details of the size and type of septic tank.

3. The applicant should note that percolation rates in the area can be variable and therefore if soakaways are considered it is vital that percolation tests are undertaken. A representative number of tests should be conducted to provide adequate coverage of the site and these should be in the proposed locations of the intended soakaways or permeable surfaces.

4. Soakaways must be designed to a minimum standard of a 1 in 30 year rainfall event plus 20% allowance for peak rainfall intensity and in accordance with CIRIA C697 The SuDS Manual. Soakaways must not be sited within 5 metres of any building in order to comply with Building Regulations Part H, and must not be sited within the root protection area of existing or proposed trees.

5. Alternative sustainable drainage systems (ponds, swales and wetlands) should be considered if the ground is found to be unsuitable for soakaways. Attenuation systems should be designed to a 1 in 30 year event plus 20% allowance for peak rainfall intensity and flow from such systems should be limited to no greater than a 1 in 10 year greenfield run off flow plus 20% allowance for peak rainfall intensity.

I need the information identified above before I can fully review these proposals.

Response following receipt of additional information: In my previous comments I suggested that consideration should be given to a warning and evacuation plan, but this was based on the previous layout which had tents sited close to the stream. These have been removed and a warning and evacuation plan may not be required.

With respect to the surface water drainage, percolation tests and soakaway/permeable surface design is still required and this is true for any other form of sustainable system. With respect to the reed bed design it would appear that the EA are comfortable with this.

Bearing in mind that there will be some regrading of the land, I suggest that percolation testing is deferred until after this has been undertaken as it is important that the ground tested is that where the soakaway and/or permeable surface will finally be sited. If tests are undertaken before the regrading of land is completed, there is the possibility that the tested ground is removed making the percolation test results invalid. In this case, I suggest that a condition is applied as follows:

Prior to the commencement of construction, site investigations comprising of percolation tests shall be undertaken and the results of such testing submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Such tests must be undertaken at the position and level where infiltration systems will be sited.

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

Prior to the commencement of the development, details of the foul and surface water design including supporting calculation shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The foul and surface water drainage system must be fully operational prior to the development being first brought into use.

Details of maintenance and management responsibility for the drainage system must be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to commencement on site.

Surface water drainage systems design and installation shall be accordance with CIRIA C697 The SuDS Manual and CIRIA C698 Site Handbook for the Construction of SuDS.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to ensure that the development is adequately drained.

WDBC Economy Manager (Tourism) Comments provided by South West Research Company Ltd: I’m struggling to find anything specific on alternative camping, I suspect because it is still very much a niche market. I guess the fact that there are not that many around might make this a feasible option, but I’m not sure how this can be backed up with facts. The accommodation audit estimates 1037 pitches currently in West Devon for caravanning & camping, 941 of which are touring pitches. Occupancy estimates are based on two scenarios;

1 - The capacity of all pitches assuming 4 persons capacity per pitch 2 - Capacity of pitches based upon an average group size of 2.5 persons per pitch, which is probably a more realistic figure.

The estimates suggest that current stocks are not being used to their capacity across the 6 month period, although there will undoubtedly be peaks and troughs within these estimates.

With regards to proof of need, this would very much depend on the applicants marketing strategy; including marketing spend, core markets, how they would reach potential customers expected conversion rates e.g. how many people will stay as a result of marketing spend.

Devon County Rights of Way Officer Devon County Council (DCC) is promoting, with the Ruby Country Partnership, 6 circular walking, cycling and horse-riding routes; Route 4 runs near Germansweek. Roadford Lake has a number of permissive cycleways within its site. The Ruby Country Partnership is also promoting cycling in Ruby Country and has recently drafted some cycling guides. DCC is also working on the Pegasus Way, a new walking, cycling and horse-riding route that will ultimately provide a primarily off-road route from Meldon through to the Cookworthy Forest and Ruby Way, running mainly along the dismantled railway track to the north of the A3079. I have also created a bridleway link from Halwill through to Cookworthy Forest and am working on another

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

from Muckworthy Chapel Farm to Cookworthy Forest. Furthermore, I am working on another route which will link the Northcombe Plantation area to the Pegasus Way and Beamsworthy area.

I do think that there is a demand for camping accommodation aimed at walkers, cyclists and horse-riders in Ruby Country and this would be supported by the work I am doing in the area.

Ruby Country Project Coordinator Ruby Country Partnership is involved in helping appropriate businesses develop and thrive around the ethos of sustainable tourism. Our project, Ride the Ruby Country, is supported by DEFRA with LEADER4 and GD LEAF funding, Devon County Council, West Devon Borough Council and Torridge District Council. The project is also delivering a wide number of trails for horse riding, cycling and walking based around the developing Pegasus Way and Ruby Way, which when complete, will form vital recreational routes and links within the regional networks. This particular planning application fits all of the criteria from our point of view, supports regional strategies for walking, cycling, horse riding, sustainable tourism and rural economic regeneration. There has been substantial financial investment in infrastructure which is designed to motivate the development of such businesses.

The proposed development is one that pays regard to all aspects of sustainable tourism. Through my involvement with the applicants, I appreciate the level of detail included and the thought processes behind the development. As far as I am aware, no areas of research have been ignored and WDBC and DCC have been involved from an early point in the development of the proposal.

This type of sensitive development is required in the rural area that makes Ruby Country so special and linking it in to sustainable tourism, transport and green issues in general can only be good for the local economy. There are many other local businesses that will no doubt benefit from this development if approved. These rural networks are also fundamentally important to the local economy which is challenged at the best of times.

WDBC Landscape Officer Initial response: Following a site meeting with the applicant, there are no tree or landscape concerns relating to this proposal. The scheme has been sensitively conceived and will have very little tree or landscape impact. However, more detailed documentation would be required to fully demonstrate the trees being removed, the level and footing details for the structures and the level and construction details for the pond.

Subsequent response following receipt of the information requested above: The information satisfies the requirements.

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service (Telephone conversation in light of the concerns raised by objectors.) The site would not be a target premises for the Fire Service because it is too small. However, the requirements would be generally satisfied if access to any structures on the site was within 45 metres of the highway. The applicant has been in discussions with the Fire Service. She will need to do a risk assessment, provide access for vehicles, have a water supply and an emergency evacuation plan.

Representations A total of 63 representations have been received; 50 of these object to the proposal and 13 are in support.

Of the objecting representations, 23 are from residents of Germansweek, 15 are from West Devon residents, and the remaining 12 are from out of the county.

Of the supporting letters, none are from local residents, 9 are from residents of West Devon, with 4 letters coming from out of the county.

The objections can be summarised as follows:-

Detrimental impact upon the surrounding area of countryside, undermining the peace and tranquillity of the area. A commercial operation with no benefit or regard given to the local residents. When the site is full, it would have more residents than the local hamlet. Whilst the proposal might have its merits, it is in the wrong location and would be more suited to a large working farm. Would increase traffic on unsuitable narrow country lanes where the speed limit is 60mph. Accidents already occur on the lanes, which are frequently used by large farm vehicles. The proposal would also be a danger to pedestrians and cyclists and the lanes have no safe refuge. The site is remote and most people will arrive by car as public transport is almost non-existent, yet only 5 parking spaces are proposed. Additional cars could end up parked on the highway. Whilst the site is aimed at cyclists, there are no easily accessible cycle routes. Also, there is a risk of cyclists drinking at the pub and cycling back to the site. There is no need for this camp site. There are already 7 camp sites within a 7 mile radius of the site, as well as many B and Bs, holiday cottages and the Ashbury Hotel complex. The existing camp sites are never full to capacity and the proposal could harm existing holiday businesses. The proposal could result in pollution or littering of the site and river, and no account has been made of the many species living in the river such as fish and otters. The site is a haven for wildlife, with many protected species believed to be using it (including bats, dormice and otters). The application would be detrimental to these.

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

Having fires producing smoke for 11 months of the year is not environmentally friendly. The application is contrary to policy and similar applications have previously been refused. There are no amenities for visitors and the nearest shop is several miles away. There will be very little benefit to the local economy, with only the local pubs likely to benefit. The proposed foul drainage system could pollute the river, particularly in periods of high rainfall or in circumstances of winter flooding. Additionally, the use of composting toilets could be risky if not managed correctly. There will be a loss of a considerable number of trees, many of which have 10 years left to mature before they would be cleared. Whilst replacement trees are proposed, these are to be deciduous broadleaf species so would have no leaf cover in winter, rendering the site visible and intrusive within the landscape. There will be no on-site supervision and only part-time staff to check guests in and out. This could lead to future pressure for staff residential occupation of the site. Loss of agricultural land. Safety concerns as a result of the wooden buildings, wood burners and fires. As the site is remote, the emergency services would have difficulty in accessing it promptly. The river will also be dangerous to children unless it is fenced off. Will decrease nearby property values. Concerns that an increase in visitors would lead to trespass on farmland and rural farm theft.

One of the objectors makes comment that the Parish Council and the majority of Parishioners know little, or nothing, about the proposal. It is confirmed that statutory notification procedures have been followed; a site notice was posted, the immediate neighbours were notified in writing and the Parish Council were consulted. Furthermore, the Ward Member has confirmed that the Parish Council held a public meeting before responding to the consultation, given there was a lot of local interest in the application.

The supporting comments can be summarised as follows:-

This is a beautiful area which should be opened up more for visitors. With a strong environmental ethos, it is possible to limit traffic and other environmental impacts. The application represents a well thought out eco- friendly proposal which will provide unique and alternative accommodation in Ruby Country for a low number of visitors.

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

This will open up an important rural business opportunity. Tourism is an important part of the local economy and the sensitive development of this sector should be encouraged. Will provide sustainable low impact holiday accommodation, well related to cycle routes and other attractions, using minimal amounts of non- renewable resources and energy, with the structures being built from timber. The random site layout is well thought out and would enhance the attractiveness of what was rather neglected land. There is a need for this type of sustainable, low impact, non-mainstream accommodation for a growing minority of environmentally aware holiday makers. The target market for this site is people primarily arriving on foot or by cycle and it will have minimal impact in terms of traffic to the local area. The application proposes a scheme that is reversible and if the use were to cease, it could easily revert back to forestry. The proposal should be encouraged as the applicants are seeking to work in a sustainable way to promote the beauty and diversity of West Devon it will provide additional income to businesses within the area and further afield. The impact on the local area will be kept as low key as possible. The development will be of benefit to local businesses, including local shops. The application looks to address a number of the points in the West Devon adopted Core Strategy. The communal nature of the shared areas will encourage interaction between guests, resulting in a self regulating attitude towards unsavoury behaviour. The scale of the development is very small in comparison to others in the area, representing an unobtrusive facility in a natural form.

Planning History No planning history

Planning Policy National Planning Policy Framework 2012:

County Structure Plan 2001 – 2016: ST1 Sustainable Development ST16 Local Centres and Rural Areas CO1 Landscape Character and Local Distinctiveness CO9 Biodiversity CO13 Protection of Water Resources and Flood Defence TR7 Walking and Cycling TR10 Strategic Road Network TO3 Tourism Development in Rural Areas TO4 Touring Parks and Camping Sites

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

Core Strategy 2011: SP1 Sustainable Development SP3 Renewable Energy SP10 Supporting the Growth of the Economy SP11 Rural Regeneration SP17 Landscape Character SP19 Biodiversity SP21 Flooding

Local Plan Review 2011: NE10 Development in the Countryside ED21 Rural Diversification TLS2 New Caravan and Camping Sites TLS2 Tourist Accommodation Outside of Settlements T9 Highways PS2 Surface Water Drainage PS3 Foul Drainage

Analysis The key issues to be considered during the determination of this application are: 1. The principle of the development 2. Impact upon the landscape, including trees 3. Neighbour impact 4. Ecology 5. Highway matters 6. Flood Risk 7. Drainage 8. Other matters, including Health and Safety

Principle of the development The application site lies within an area of undesignated open countryside. Development in such areas is generally restricted in order to protect and enhance the countryside. Local Plan Policy NE10 does not permit development in the countryside outside settlement limits unless; (i) It provides an overriding economic or community benefit and cannot be reasonably located within an existing settlement; (ii) It does not cause unacceptable harm to the distinctive landscape character of the area and the important natural and made features that contribute to that character including views; (iii) Where the development is not associated with agriculture, the best and most versatile land is only developed if sufficient lower grade land is not available or that available lower grade land has an environmental value that outweighs agricultural considerations.

Protection for the countryside also exists in the West Devon Core Strategy, whereby SP1 requires consideration to be given to protecting and enhancing the countryside, biodiversity and geo-diversity, with particular regard to a range of locally, nationally

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

distinctive design and sustainable construction. However, SP1 also suggests that opportunities for promoting walking and cycling should be taken into account, and that the need for new developments to minimise resource and energy consumption should be demonstrated.

The above policies can be seen to be quite restrictive, however, further policy guidance is put forward in the NPPF, which also refers to the need to contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment, as does Structure Plan Policy CO1, which requires development to be sympathetic to the landscape character. However, the NPPF also places an emphasis on the presumption in favour of sustainable development, and the need to support a prosperous rural economy. In particular, paragraph 28 refers to promoting the development and diversification of land-based rural businesses, supporting sustainable rural tourism which respects the character of the countryside. This “...should include supporting the provision and expansion of tourist and visitor facilities in appropriate locations where identified needs are not met by existing facilities in rural service centres.”

With regards to specific tourism policies, within areas of open countryside, Local Plan Policy TLS2 is the most relevant, relating to the provision of new caravan/camping sites. The development of new sites (including proposals for static caravans, mobile homes or chalets) will be permitted where it is considered that existing provision is inadequate, where: (i) The development is visually unobtrusive at all times of year and can be screened in a manner which is compatible with the surrounding landscape; (ii) There is no significant adverse impact on wildlife, agriculture or historic interest; (iii) The development is of a scale related to its setting; (iv) The site layout, design and landscaping of the scheme minimises any adverse affects; (v) Roads linking the development with the primary and county road network are adequate for the volume and type of traffic likely to use them; and (vi) The use is restricted to holiday purposes.

Structure Plan Policy TO3 permits tourism accommodation which is related to existing recreational development, of an appropriate scale, and sympathetic to Devon’s natural heritage. Policy TO4 is also of relevance, and permits new camping sites where there is a proven need for increased capacity.

It is considered that the application complies with TLS2, the general aims of NE10 and the aforementioned Structure Plan Policies in that the proposed use is for holiday accommodation only, and this can be secured by condition; the site is well screened; the proposal is very small scale, of a nature appropriate to its woodland valley setting, and given that the layout ensures the majority of on-site vegetation is to remain, with additional landscaping proposed, it is not considered the development would be visually intrusive (traffic and ecology will be discussed later in this report).

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

The whole ethos behind the proposal is to encourage walkers and cyclists, and therefore, to locate the development within a settlement would not be appropriate as its rural location is seen as essential to its potential for success. In support of the application, the applicants have stated “This is, by its very nature, a small scale camping facility which would never accommodate more than 14 people and we intend for it to grow slowly and in harmony with its environment. The timber tents are intended to be an option for people either just passing through on bikes or for those wishing to make use of the surrounding routes but who don’t wish to travel with all their camping gear. They are a step up from pitching a tent and will offer charming accommodation which will be totally unique, and will also appeal to those on a budget. The wagons are delightful, unique structures and would be priced in line with surrounding accommodation options such as yurts and shepherds huts. The deluxe wagon would offer cosy, stylish accommodation for 2 people and the standard wagon would be offering bunk style accommodation.”

With regards to the need for the development, the West Devon Local Plan recognises there might be circumstances where appropriate tourism development should be considered in locations where residential use would not be acceptable, and where this is the case, developments should be sensitively located and designed with careful landscaping to render them as inconspicuous as possible; it is considered the proposal follows this objective. Policy TLS2 permits new sites where existing provision is deemed to be inadequate. It has been suggested by objectors that the area has enough holiday accommodation through the existence of several sites in the immediate vicinity, plus a range of holiday cottages, guest houses and hotels. The applicant has provided a marketing plan and details of nearby sites; the sites have been identified as follows (distances are approximate):

Ruby Lodges – 3 miles from site – large, high-end holiday lodges Coope Farm – 4.5 miles from site – 2 “Shepherd’s Huts” Evergreen Farm – 4 miles from site – Gypsy caravan South Breazle – 3.2 miles from site – traditional camping, touring and caravan storage Roadford Lake – 5.4 miles from site – traditional camping and touring Leasefield Farm – 7.2 miles from site – high end, yurts, tipis, B and B Hole Station – 8.8 miles from site – adult only campsite.

Whilst it is evident there are several camping and/or caravan facilities in the immediate area, none are aimed at the target market of walkers and cyclists, nor do they offer the unique type of accommodation that is proposed by this application. The Council’s Tourism Officer and the Ruby Country Project Co-ordinator feel there is very little in the way of “alternative” camping provision in the area and this is very much a niche market. The applicants themselves have stated they are looking to fill a gap in the market between conventional camping sites, “glamping”, holiday lets, and B and B or hotel accommodation.

The West Devon Local Plan recognises there might be circumstances where appropriate tourism development should be considered, in locations where residential use would not be acceptable, and where this is the case, developments

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

should be sensitively located and designed with careful landscaping to render them as inconspicuous as possible; the site’s location is considered to be well related to the cycling and walking provision in the area. It is seen as being appropriate in nature for this remote rural location and will be supportive of the rural economy, albeit in a very small way, in accordance with Core Strategy Policy 11.

Objectors state this is a commercial operation and there will be no real gains to the local economy or through job creation. The applicants intend to use local suppliers for eggs, meat, milk, vegetables and newspapers, and suggest there will be benefits through increased custom to local shops and pubs. It is recognised that these benefits would be on a very small-scale, however, policy does not stipulate how significant the benefits must be. It is considered in this respect, the application complies with SP10, which promotes the diversification of the rural economy and development of small businesses.

Impact on the landscape, including trees The site is within the open countryside, but is not within any area of special landscape value. It is set down in a valley and is not readily visible from nearby public vantage points. It is predominantly coniferous woodland, with some small areas of deciduous trees and grass land/scrub. The application does propose the removal of some of the site trees to make way for the timber tent structures, car park area and so on, plus it proposes to widen the access gateway by approximately 2 metres, however, additional planting of native broad-leafed species is proposed along with some strengthening of the hedgerow vegetation; the landscaping can be secured by condition.

The Council’s Landscape Officer has visited the site and with the additional information that was provided by the applicant in relation to the trees on site, no objection has been raised. Given the sloping nature of the site, the small scale of the proposal, the form of the buildings and structures proposed, together with the retention of the majority of the trees currently on site, it is not considered the application would be highly apparent within the landscape or detrimental to the character of the area.

Neighbour Impact The application site lies approximately 2km from the nearest settlement of Germansweek, however, a handful of residential properties lie within 200m, the closest being approximately 90 metres to the west.

Several objections centre around the potential to harm the amenities of nearby residents largely through noise disturbance of an unsupervised site, but also through smoke disturbance from the wood burning stoves, and the potential of trespass on to neighbouring land.

Matters raised such as smoke disturbance and trespass would not be material planning considerations and cannot be taken into consideration during the consideration of this application; any undue nuisance from smoke would be covered

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

by environmental legislation and trespass is a civil matter. It is worth noting that the Council’s Environmental Heath Officers have raised no objections to the proposal.

Regarding noise disturbance, it is recognised that this is a remote, relatively undeveloped countryside location, and it is therefore quiet. Whilst it is inevitable that any human habitation of the site would result in some level of noise, by the very small scale nature of the site and the ethos behind it, it is not considered the proposal would be likely to result in significant noise levels, such that would be detrimental to the amenities and living conditions of nearby properties. Hedgerow boundaries on site are quite substantial and would provide some degree of acoustic screening. However, any disturbance would again be controlled by Environmental Health legislation. It is worth noting that the applicant is no longer intending to hold training courses on the site, and through the removal of 2 camping pitches and 1 of the timber tents, the maximum number of occupants on site at any one time has been reduced to 14.

Ecology The application was accompanied by a Phase 1 Habitat Report which was not carried out by a qualified ecologist, and upon scrutiny by Natural England and the Council’s Countryside Officer, was found to be inadequate.

A further ecological survey, carried out by a qualified ecologist, was submitted and concludes that the site does have some wildlife potential, however, there was no evidence of protected species on site (such as bats, badgers, otters or dormice). Through appropriate construction methodology, it is not believed the development would be detrimental to the ecological value of the site and enhancement can be provided through the creation of new habitats and appropriate management.

It is therefore considered that subject to conditions to secure the mitigation and enhancement as put forward in the survey report, the proposal will not lead to a detrimental impact upon the wildlife of the site and wider area.

Highway Matters The site is accessed by the rural highway network, a lot of which consists of unclassified, narrow and winding lanes, particularly if approaching from the southerly or westerly directions. From the north and east, access is still via unclassified rural roads, which link directly to the A3079, approximately 2 km away.

The Highways Officer has assessed the application and has objected, based on the access road network being poor, both in width and alignment, and unsuitable to accommodate the likely increase in traffic, contrary to Structure Plan Policy TR10. However, this objection is not considered as over-riding, should the application satisfy other planning policies. It has been noted that the number of generated trips will very much depend on the user, and an estimation of 28 trips per day (14 in and 14 out) was made; this figure was given before the reduction in the number of units and omission of the training courses.

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

As has been referred to by many of the objectors and the Parish Council, concern has been raised that the local highways are unsuitable for the additional traffic this proposal would generate, and the proposal would therefore result in a hazard to all users, both in vehicles and on foot, horse or bike.

The remote location of the application site is noted, as are the aims of the NPPF and local planning policies, which seek to promote sustainable development and to encourage transport by means other than the private motor car. The NPPF does recognise that different policies and measures will be required and opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary from urban to rural areas.

The applicant has provided details of public transport serving the site. Whilst there is no direct bus service, the site is 1.4 miles from the nearest bus stop, which is served by 5/6 buses a day Monday to Saturday running between Exeter/Okehampton and Holsworthy/Bude. A hail and ride bus also runs on Thursdays from the local area. It is also the applicant’s intention to encourage non-car arrivals by offering a discount and they envisage there will be no more than 5 cars on site at any one time, hence, the limited area given over to parking. It is accepted that the majority of visitors would probably arrive by car, however, but that they would cycle or walk for the majority of their stay.

In strict “sustainability” terms, it could be argued that the site is not sustainably located, but, given the small-scale nature of the development and the target market, it is considered that the remote rural nature is necessary for the success of the operation and to locate it within a town and village would go against the philosophy behind it. Furthermore, the Highways Officer has not raised an objection based on a non-sustainable location as he considers this would be one reason why the site would be attractive to many users.

Whilst no objection was made regarding the access point by the Highways Officer, the applicant has amended the plans to increase the width of the access gate and to set it back into the site to allow for a car to stop outside to open the gates without obstructing the highway.

Objectors have also commented that the site does not provide enough parking and overflow parking could occur on the highway, causing an obstruction. The drawings indicate there is provision on site for 4 visitor vehicles and 1 staff vehicle, although there is room for at least one more parking space to be accommodated. Given that the number of units proposed has been reduced to 6, the fact that training courses are no longer proposed, and it is the applicant’s intention to not encourage cars to the site, this level of parking is seen as acceptable.

As noted by the Highways Officer, DCC Rights of Way and the Ruby County Project Officer, the site is well located to the Ruby Way and numerous other walking/cycling routes and other nearby recreational facilities. The underlying ethos behind the proposal is the creation of a low impact proposal, geared around sustainable transport methods, with the target customers being cyclists and walkers. Both the Devon Structure Plan and the Local Plan make reference to the importance of

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

Devon’s network of walking and cycling routes, and the application centres around these. Therefore, as set out earlier in this report under the Principle of the Development, it is considered there is a lack of provision of facilities of this nature in the area, the proposal is considered compliant with policies relating to tourism provision and the Highways Officer’s objection is not taken as over-riding.

Flood Risk Notwithstanding the watercourse running through the bottom of the site, it does not lie within Flood Zones 2 or 3, which are areas recognised to be at risk from flooding. However, local knowledge does suggest that the watercourse is known to flood occasionally.

The application originally proposed to site 2 camping pitches and a small timber tent within several metres of the watercourse, however, in light of the objections received and discussions with the Council’s Drainage Engineer, these 3 pitches are no longer part of the proposal.

In relation to flooding, the hard surfaces proposed by this application, pathways, car parking and so on, are all intended to be surfaced in permeable materials, either woodchip or gravel. Construction details for the surfaced areas have been provided and reviewed by the Drainage Engineer. Percolation tests have not been provided, however, the Engineer is satisfied this can be adequately covered by condition.

Construction details and flow rates in connection with the reed beds and pond have been provided and the proposal is not considered to increase the flood risk to the site. It is worth noting that the Environment Agency have not issued an objection to the proposal.

Drainage The foul drainage system has been designed by the applicants in consultation with the Environment Agency. The application proposes to utilise composting toilets, with the grey water drainage from the wagons, showers and communal areas discharging to a reed bed system, via a septic tank. Outflow from the reed beds will collect in a pond, with eventual clean water discharge to the watercourse. Ordinarily, water from a septic tank would discharge to a soakaway or direct to a watercourse, however, soakaways would not be considered suitable for the site, given its close proximity to the watercourse, and in line with the applicant’s environmental ethos, further treatment of waste water is provided through the reed beds and these, together with the pond, will also act as additional wildlife enhancement.

Surface water run-off from the various buildings will be collected in water butts and used for watering plants grown in the polytunnel; any surplus would be directed to the pond.

The Environment Agency initially stated they did not wish to comment on the application given the size, nature and location of the site. However, in light of the proposed drainage method and need for the applicant to secure a discharge permit from the EA, they have provided specific comments. Whilst the applicant is not

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

guaranteed to obtain the necessary discharge permit, the EA have stated the initial indications seem positive and no objections have been raised.

Whilst not a material planning consideration, given the applicants would also need to secure Building Regulations approval for the drainage system independently of any EA permit, Officers have discussed the proposal with the Building Control team. It is felt that through good design of the drainage system, following manufacturer’s recommendations for installation and operation of a septic tank, there should not be any issues with the proposal, however, it would not be prudent for a Building Regulation application to be made until such time as planning permission has been granted.

Other Matters Health and Safety Matters such as the watercourse being a danger to children, hazards to occupants of the units being at risk of fire and difficulties of the fire service in accessing the remote site have been raised. Whilst noted, they are not material planning considerations. However, the applicant has been in discussions with the Fire Service and has produced a “Fire and Emergency Evacuation Plan”; there will be a payphone on site, handbells, whistles and torches at fire equipment points around the site, standpipes and hoses will be located against the boundary hedge and extinguishers will be located adjoining the wagons and one of the timber tents. This would also be required as part of the caravan/camping licence the applicants would need to secure through Environmental Health.

Lack of on-site supervision It is not intended that staff will be on site 24 hours a day, and they will only be present when guests arrive or leave. This has been referred to by objectors, but it is not always the case that camping/caravan sites have 24 hour supervision, particularly when they are small-scale in nature. It is thought by objectors that this application could lead to future pressure for a dwelling on site, however, a planning application would be required for this and assessed in line with the planning policies which would be in existence at such time.

Loss of agricultural land The site is currently largely coniferous woodland. It was purchased by the applicants several years ago and is part of a Farm Woodland Premium Scheme (a Government scheme designed to encourage farmers to establish and maintain woodlands). The site had not been managed effectively prior to its purchase by the applicants, and they have since worked to tidy up the site, clearing brambles, laying hedges and planting native trees. The site is not currently in active agricultural use and the nature of it, as woodland, will not be substantially altered by the proposal. The fact that, as stated by several objectors, the trees have another 10 years to mature cannot be taken as a material planning consideration.

Mention has also been made of the applicant’s claim that local businesses will benefit from the proposal, in particular, nearby local pubs. Objections have been received stating that this could encourage guests to cycle to the pubs and then back

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

to the site whilst under the influence; this is not a material planning consideration and any road users would be bound by the Highway Code and drink/drive legislation.

Finally, matters such as the devaluation of local properties or the likelihood of the proposal increasing instances of farm thefts, whilst noted, are not material planning considerations.

Considerations under the Human Rights Act Due regard has been given to the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, and in particular to the rights under Article 1 of the First Protocol of the applicants with respect to their right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of the property. Due regard has also been given to the rights, under Article 8, of local residents with respect to their rights for private and family life. In arriving at a recommendation the rights of the applicants have been balanced against the interests, as expressed through the Development Plan and Central Government Guidance.

Conclusion This is a very finely balanced application. On the one hand, planning policy seeks to direct development to existing settlements and away from the open countryside, yet, on the other hand, policies also stress the need for appropriately located development, and those supporting the rural economy.

The West Devon Local Plan recognises that tourism is one of the main contributors to the West Devon economy, and that the special character of the countryside lends itself to developments which encourage nature-based and activity holidays such as bird watching, riding, cycling and walking. Furthermore, the development is considered appropriate in size, scale and nature for this rural location, respects the character of the countryside, and will complement the sustainable tourism objectives within the County.

Whilst the concerns and objections received are noted, including that of the Highways Officer, given the very small scale nature of the proposal and through the imposition of appropriate conditions, it is not considered to be significantly detrimental to the character of the area, the amenity of nearby properties, biodiversity, drainage or the local highway network.

Notes of a Meeting of the SITE INSPECTION PANEL held on THURSDAY 15th NOVEMBER 2012. Present: Mrs C M Marsh – Chairman Mrs L Rose – Vice-Chairman Mrs S Bailey Mr W Cann OBE Mrs C Hall Mr L J G Hockridge Mr D Horn Mr T Pearce Mr D Whitcomb Planning Officer (LD) Committee & Ombudsman Link Officer

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

In attendance: Mr K Brookes – Chairman, Bratton Clovelly Parish Council Mr P Deacon – Bratton Clovelly Parish Council Mr P Creswell – Germansweek Parish Council An apology for absence was received from Mr D Wilde.

The Panel met on site at 11.20 am.

The Planning Officer outlined the proposal and indicated the location on the site of the various camping caravans, picnic areas, toilet facilities and the poly-tunnel. The track of the site path was also indicated as was the reed bed drainage system.

The Panel then walked the site.

The Planning Officer advised the Panel of the actual locations of the camping caravans and it was clear that a number of trees would have to be removed to accommodate them.

It was understood that a number of trees on the site had been provided under a Forestry Commission scheme which might have an impact on their proposed removal within a specific time period and the Panel requested that this matter be clarified and reported at the Planning & Licensing Committee’s meeting on 4th December 2012.

As a matter of clarity, the Panel further asked the case officer to ascertain information on the external lighting scheme being proposed to illuminate the footpaths and communal areas.

Both Parish Councils reported objections to the proposal and questioned its viability. Bratton Clovelly Parish Council had received objections from 36 parishioners during the meeting at which the application had been discussed. The parishioners had expressed concerns in relation to the narrow roads in the locality of the site, the fear that the river bordering the site could become contaminated and this river fed into Roadford Reservoir, the effect on local wildlife and they considered the site possibly unsafe for children.

Germansweek Parish Council had also received objections to the proposal but from a very much smaller number.

Concern was further expressed at the viability of the proposal given the number of other similar ventures in the area and, should this venture fail, what would become of the site and its buildings.

The site meeting finished at 11.50 am. ______

WARD: Drewsteignton (Cllr P Ridgers)

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

APPLICATION NO: 03085/2012 LOCATION: Land at SX704 977, Spreyton, Devon APPLICANT NAME: Powerhawk Limited APPLICATION: Full PARISH: Spreyton GRID REF: 270462 97721 PROPOSAL: Erection of single wind turbine with a hub height of 50m and 77m to blade tip and creation of new access track, widening of existing access and associated works. CASE OFFICER: Anna Henderson-Smith TARGET DATE: 12/11/2012

Reason item is being put before committee: This application has been called in by Councillor Ridgers: ‘I would like to call the above planning application to committee, if the West Devon recommendation is to approve the application.

My grounds for objecting are: 1. Visual intrusion and impact on the landscape and on surrounding villages, Spreyton and Bow and with particular reference to the visual impact from and to Spreyton Church. 2. Proximity to several immediate private dwellings that will suffer noise above 35db (10db at night) and also shadow flicker 3. Cumulative effects of this turbine in relation to other existing and proposed turbines in the immediate and surrounding area, especially the Den Brook turbines 4. The current planning application only shows photo montages from a limited amount of places, this needs to be expanded to neighbouring villages and also address cumulative effects with other turbines approved. Concern over accuracy of the existing photo images. 5. No amplitude modulation assessments supplied in the application.’

Councillor Ridgers then went on to send the following on 5th November 2012:

‘Further to our earlier conversation, the community interest, large scale and detailed technical aspects of this application, I would like to refer it to the planning committee.

I maintain my opposition to the application and trust that the views I have previously supplied will be included in the report.’

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE for the following reasons:

1. The proposal by reason of its siting and size would have a substantial detrimental effect upon the setting of, views from and the enjoyment of, nearby listed properties. It is not considered that the public and environmental benefits of the proposal would outweigh this harm to the heritage of the locality. As such this proposal is contrary to policies ST1, CO8 and CO12 of

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

the Devon Structure Plan, SP1, SP3 and SP18 of the Core Strategy and NE10 and BE3 of the Local Plan and the guidance of the NPPF. 2. The proposal by reason of its scale, movement and location would have a significant localised visual impact affecting the properties and area at the north of Spreyton. This together with a wider cumulative impact, particularly in views from DNP, loss of local tranquillity and diminution of landscape character are considered too adverse to be outweighed by the benefits of the scheme. As such this proposal is contrary to policies ST1, CO1, CO2 and CO12 of the Devon Structure Plan, SP1, SP3 and SP17 of the Core Strategy and NE10 of the Local Plan and the guidance of the NPPF.

The Proposal The application is for the erection of a single 500kw wind turbine with a hub height of 50m and a height of 77m to blade tip and creation of a new access track, widening of existing access and associated works such a crane pad and vehicular turning area.

Site and Surroundings The site is located towards the North East of the Borough close to the border with Mid Devon District. The site itself is currently an open agricultural field set outside the settlement boundary of Spreyton to the NE of the village on the road to Bow. The nearest properties are Stockhay Cottage Grade II listed, approximately 411 metres away, a permanent residential caravan, ‘Skywood’, at Weeke Farm approximately 422 metres away, the main farmhouse at Weeke Farm (Grade II listed) approximately 432m away, and the applicant’s property at North Beer Farm (418 metres away). The boundaries to the site are approximately 2m high Devon hedgebanks with fields and areas of woodland beyond. The nearest road is that from Spreyton to Bow which is located approximately 55m to the south of the proposed turbine site.

Consultations: Spreyton Parish Council – object unanimously for the following summarised reasons: - It should not be considered as farm diversification but as a commercial enterprise - It is contrary to WDBC policies - The Localism act means that as the community are opposed it should be rejected - Bad siting as the ridge will exacerbate the visual impact - Scale too large, detracts from the local character of the landscape - Detrimental impact on the setting of historic buildings - Detrimental effect upon the amenity of nearby properties and residents – mainly noise and flicker - Concerns re noise data accuracy and montage accuracy, also the noise at roads and footpaths has not been considered - Cumulative effects with other turbines and a lack of cumulative information on the montages provided - Determination should be delayed until WDBC renewable guidance is finalised Bow Parish Council – ‘have no comment to make’

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

County Highways Authority – ‘The construction traffic management plan clearly identifies the route and the levels of traffic associated with construction which is considered to be acceptable. Post construction traffic is minimal. It also indicates under “general” that once the programme of works has been confirmed that the programme will be submitted to both the Highway Authority and Devon and Cornwall constabulary for approval which is normal practice. I have no highway objection.’ English Heritage – Summary: As with Bondleigh, the proposed siting is prominent, especially in views from west and northwest. This is likely to principally a landscape issue in view of the scale and location of the proposal. We are concerned that - so far as can be understood from your website - there is no Heritage Statement to validate the assertions in the LVIA Report for instance in relation to Coombe Farmhouse (grade II* listed). We note also that other means of generating renewable energy, be it a solar farm or a group of smaller turbines that would be less out of scale with the historic landscape, have not been examined. Policy: The NPPF lays stress on the significance of the historic environment as a key principle of sustainable development, Key Principle 10 in p.17. Its ministerial Foreword clearly states “Sustainable development is about change for the better, … Our historic environment - buildings, landscapes, town and villages - can be better cherished if their spirit of place thrives rather than withers.” We do not question the need, but ask only that the impact be acceptable or mitigated, as required in p.97. Any harm to the historic environment and especially to designated assets and their setting needs clear and convincing justification (p.132). In this case there appears to be no examination of other possible options to achieve similar environmental benefits with less visual impact (WDBC Local Plan/Core Strategy Policy 13). Advice: We are grateful for the photomontages provided but would ask that a) we are reassured that Dartmoor National Park and Mid-Devon Historic Environment staff have been consulted and their views taken on board. We would ask that photomontages include both receptors and proposed turbines in the same view, for instance of St Michael’s Church, Spreyton (which is a highly significant mediaeval church) and of Coombe Farmhouse which is listed grade II*. The analysis in the Heritage Statement should also include potential ‘receptors’, such as the view of Cawsand Beacon from Ash House. I enclose a copy of our standard guidance. Recommendation: This is one of several tall (over 70m) turbines proposed for the area. Their stark contrast to the undulating farmland and human-scale farmsteads and villages where pleasing church towers are presently the dominant feature are likely to harm these relatively unspoiled and unsung but deeply cherished landscapes which have Dartmoor as a superb backdrop. We cannot accept the assertions in the LVIA without their being balanced by an Historic Environment Assessment undertaken by recognised consultants. In our view it would be premature to make a decision until more information, relevant to the historic environment and the impacts on it of this proposal has been received.’ Conservation Officer: ‘Following our site inspection and assessment of the locality I have identified the heritage issues that are most evident. It may be that

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

there are other views of further assets of which I am not aware but I believe the items I refer to cover the issues. I summarise my observations on heritage assets as follows:-

1. Spreyton village: The village centre has several listed buildings and a concentration of heritage assets. There is a case for it being a CA. I do not consider there to be any significant impact on the setting of the historic village core, or on important views from there. The public footpath to Coombe Farm is, however, an adjunct to the historic village and one which I would expect adds character and considerable amenity to residents and visitors.

2. Coombe farm: Grade II* listed property. There will be significant impact on public views from the footpath which passes through the property. The enjoyment of the heritage asset by the public will be affected by the proposed development. There will be significant visual impact for the owners looking from the property. Whilst views are partly screened by trees it appears that the turbine will be an assertive feature in the setting of the HA. I would assess the impact on setting to be substantial.

3. Stockhay: Grade II. The impact on the setting from public vantage points will be less than substantial, but the impact on owners will be significant. The turbine will be prominent in views from the main door and principal rooms and will be very evident in terms of day to day enjoyment of the property. I assess the impact on setting to be substantial as experienced by the owners.

4 Weeke Farm: Grade II. In public views from the lane to the S and SE the turbine will loom large adjacent to the house. There are issues of scale and prominence in these views and the setting of the LB will certainly be significantly changed. Whilst the owners will not be looking out onto the turbine from within the property, it will be a dominant aspect of the experience of arriving and leaving. I assess the impact on setting to be substantial.

To what degree issues like the visual impact of a turbine on arriving and departing a property, or enjoying its garden, can be held to harm the setting of an LB is open to interpretation. Recent case law has indicated that impact on private views is a consideration as well as public ones and the right of future generations, as well as current owners, to enjoy an heritage asset in an authentic context has to be considered. Just how these considerations weigh against the need for sustainable energy is not something I can easily judge and that is what the NPPF requires LPA’s to decide.

NPPF heritage considerations:

Para’s 128 & 129: The application does not satisfactorily assess the likely impact of the development on the setting of the HA’s I have identified. The onus has fallen on us to do this as required under para 129. I cannot envisage any way in which the impact on setting can be ameliorated or significantly lessened.

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

131 ‘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.’ The application does not offer the justification needed.

133 ‘Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to .…. 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’. I have concluded that the proposed development will cause substantial harm to the setting of at least three HA’s, one of which is highly graded at II*. I do not consider there to be ‘substantial public benefit’ from the renewable energy produced by a single turbine to outweigh the harm to settings identified.

134 ‘Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal’. If the applicants contend that my assessment of ‘substantial harm’ is inappropriate I would say that the public benefits of the proposal are not so great as to even justify ‘less than substantial harm’.

Summary: It is clear that this development will have a significant impact on the setting of listed heritage assets, one of which is II* and has a public right of way associated with it. If the weight given to private views and enjoyment of a heritage asset by its owners is comparable to that given to public views then I would say the harm for each HA certainly crosses the line into being substantial. If greater weight is given to public views than private, then the most substantial harm is on the setting of Coombe Farm and Weeke Farm.

If the notion of proportionality is applicable, as seems to be inferred by para’s 133 and 134 of the Framework, I am of the opinion that the level of visual impact to views of and from the three individual heritage assets I have mentioned is greater than the public benefit of the renewable energy generated by a single turbine.

Recommendation: Refusal: On grounds of harm to the setting of designated heritage assets.’

South West Water – no comments received

Landscape Officer – ‘The proposal is for a single 77m to tip wind turbine including foundations, access track, crane hardstanding and switchgear house on land east of North Beer Farm approximately 1km north of Spreyton.

1. West Devon Borough Council and Tamar Valley AONB Landscape Character Assessment

The application site is set within landscape 1D Inland Undulating Uplands

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

In summary the key characteristics are;

Gently rolling upland with streams Mainly pastoral cultivation, in a small to medium sub-regular pattern on slopes, with some arable cultivation on flatter areas. Little woodland Network of sinuous minor roads Sparse settlement pattern High and open, with extensive views where hedgebanks permit

In summary the key management guidelines are: Ensuring that development does not lead to the loss of valuable habitats. In all areas of open countryside, resisting development which is uncharacteristic and visually intrusive over wide areas. Any development should reinforce the traditional landscape character of the area. Having regard to the potential impact on and dilution of local landscape character through the introduction of renewable energy sources such as windfarms.

2. Principle Area Constraints - Close proximity of Spreyton village at approximately 1km distance (numerous listed buildings). - Location of various listed buildings, Weeke Farm and Stockhay Cottage being the closest at 500m away. - Dartmoor National Park boundary lies less than 5km to the south. - The principle other settlements within sight of the development include Bow 4km, North Tawton 5km and Whiddon Down 5km. - Local footpath network, Two Moors Way less than 4km

3. Assessment of Submission and Site Visit Our site visit of October 24th concentrated upon the immediate impact upon the properties Skywood and Weeke Farm, views from the local lane network between Spreyton and Bow.

In my opinion the proposal will have a severe adverse impact upon the properties Skywood and Weeke Farm (both share the same access drive). The turbine is located within only a few metres of the entrance drive off the country lane entailing that every journey to and from the two properties will be dominated by the presence of the turbine.

Any use of the lane north of Spreyton will experience significant views of the turbine particularly beyond the property Coffins. For those who use the local network of lanes the presence of the turbine will become by far the most significant visual marker of the various journeys made. Without the turbine it is the presence of particular trees, woods, rural views, property entrances etc that are the primary journey markers.

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

Views to the north whilst travelling east along the lane in the vicinity of the property ‘Cramphay’ revealed a significant view with the turbine, stand of Pines and Weeke Farm all within close proximity. The presence of the Pines at the entrance to Weeke Farm is particularly significant as they are very much a local landmark; at approximately 20m in height the Pines clearly demonstrate the height of the adjoining turbine at nearly 4 times this height.

The Zone of Theoretical Visibility Study submitted (ZTV) generated a number of suggested viewpoints as presented in the submission by photomontages. Photomontages 4 and 6 include the 9 consented turbines at Denbrook. The Landscape and Visual Report (L and VP) states that ‘there would be a degree of interdivisibility between the two projects’. ‘Most of the Denbrook turbines would be visible from the vicinity of the proposal’.

The Photomontages with an opinion on prominence: 1. Minor Road, Heath Cross to North Beer Farm; 0.36km distant- extremely significant 2. Edge of Spreyton, 0.7km distant- very significant 3. PROW adjoining Chapel Park, Spreyton, 0.9km distant- turbine seen across the development 4. East Begbeer Cumulative View1.2km distant; Den Brook and North Begbeer wind turbine seen either side of the lane 5. Justment Cross 1.9km- significant 6. Bow to Speyton minor road Cumulative View; seen against Dartmoor to the south, Den Brook very prominent, North Beer turbine seen beyond the Den Brook cluster 7. South Nethercott 3.2km- no significance 8. Two Moors Way 3.7km- visible but nearby development also very evident 9. Bow Playing Fields 4.3km- turbine does interrupt long views south towards Dartmoor but at some distance 10. Tarka Trail near North Wyke 4.4km distant- turbine is seen with together the installed turbine at Great Cocktree, landscape is tranquil and static with the turbines being in danger of becoming the visual focus 11. North Tawton Public Right Of Way (PROW) 5km distant- of some prominence in context of surrounding unspoilt rural landscape 12. Whiddon down 5.5km distant- very distant view only 13. Devonshire Heartland Way 6.3km distant- seen very close to erected Great Cocktree turbine but at some distance 14. Two Moors Way 6.4km distant- distant view only 15. Two Moors Way 8km distant- barely visible 16. Cosdon Hill 9.2km distant- conditions of some cloud and haze suggest low prominence but would be greater in sunlit conditions 17. Coombe Farmhouse Drive- position chosen is largely obscured by vegetation until the hedge is cut, if the position was adjusted by a few metres the turbine would be very prominent 18. Chapel Park, Spreyton 898m distant- of some significance; clearly seen between properties and blades above properties , from properties on the

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

northern side of the development very prominent in the outlook of some properties, constant movement detracts from tranquillity of rural views 19. Coombe Farmhouse 977m distant- Hidden by vegetation at this distance 20. North Beer Farm, Spreyton- prominent, turbine dwarfs neighbouring Pines

Of all the above viewpoints it is the closest points that give the primary concern: viewpoints 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 17, 18 and 20.

4. Cumulative Impact The L and VP lists the places where there are combined visual effects which it summarises as having a negligible magnitude of effect of slight significance (page 32, 33). The photomontages from Viewpoints 4 and 6 show that this turbine adds to the turbine landscape of Den Brook which in my opinion spreads the already extremely significant landscape impact of the Den Brook development. As a consequence it is my opinion that the addition of this turbine into the landscape is further damaging to the setting of the farmsteads and settlements of the Den Brook- Bow-Spreyton area. In my opinion the already present Great Cocktree turbine has relatively low significance in the assessment of this proposal however when viewed from the northern flanks of Dartmoor all three turbine sites will be able to be viewed together and will in my opinion diminish the visual quality of the landscape north of Dartmoor as appreciated from the higher ground of Dartmoor.

5. Conclusion That the scale, movement and location of the proposed turbine will have a significant localised visual impact affecting the properties at Weeke and north of Spreyton. This together with a wider concern of cumulative impact, loss of local tranquillity and diminution of landscape character are in my opinion too adverse to consent.’

Countryside Officer - following an initial request for clarification and some additional information, the Countryside Officer commented as follows: ‘In light of this additional information from the ecologist (i.e. the site is indeed considered unsuitable for dormice based on the structure of the hedgerows), the likely impacts of this turbine ecologically would indeed seem limited.

The turbine has been sited in excess of the minimum distances recommended by Natural England from hedgerows in respect of bats (it is noted the hedgerows provide moderately good links for bats to the wider community, although the lack of woody structure of the hedgerows should be noted). As per the report, it would be reasonable to expect that the impact on any vulnerable bird species would be low.

As such, should you be minded to approve the application I would suggest the following condition: - Recommendations within 5.1.2 with respect to protection of nesting birds should be adhered to prior to and during works affecting the hedgebanks.’

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

Natural England – standing advice on biodiversity and re landscape ‘we do not believe that this development is likely to impact on the purposes of designation of the National Park.’

Dartmoor National Park Authority – objects: ‘The National Park OBJECTS to the proposal. The proximity of the site to the high ground on the northern edge of the Park and the scale of the turbine would result in a significant harmful visual impact on views from the park. This would significantly compromise the value of the pastoral landscape which provides the setting of the National Park. A structure of the scale proposed, accentuated by the movement of the blades would be extremely prominent within views from the Park and particularly from open access moorland. Views towards the National Park would also be severely impacted on where the rising moors and tors of Dartmoor which are such a strong feature of the landscape would be compromised as the turbine would appear as a dominant and distracting feature in the foreground to those views.

The scale of the turbine and its proximity to the park would have a high impact on the setting and understanding of the wildness of the National Park and its relationship with surrounding pastoral landscape.

The Dartmoor National Park Authority consequently OBJECTS to this proposal.’

Mid-Devon District Council – no comments received at the time of writing Environment Agency - no comments received DCC Archaeology - ‘The proposed turbine and associated track lie in an area of archaeological potential some 100m to the east of a prehistoric settlement that was identified through aerial photography. Given the proximity of the proposed development to this archaeological site it is possible that groundworks associated with the construction of the turbine, access track and service runs will expose and destroy archaeological deposits and artefacts associated with the known prehistoric activity in the vicinity.

For this reason and in accordance with paragraph 141 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) I would advise that any consent your Authority may be minded to issue should carry the condition as worded below, based on model Condition 55 as set out in Appendix A of Circular 11/95.

I would envisage a suitable programme of work as taking the form of the archaeological supervision and control of the initial topsoil strip and subsequent ground reduction that will be undertaken in advance of construction of the turbine and associated infrastructure. The results of the fieldwork and any post- excavation analysis undertaken would need to be presented in an appropriately detailed and illustrated report.’

NATS – no safeguarding objection CAA – standard letter response

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

MOD – no objections but requests that the turbine is fitted with aviation lighting: ‘all turbines should be fitted with 25 candela omni-directional red lighting or infra- red lighting with an optimised flash pattern of 60 flashes per minute of 200ms to 500ms duration at the highest practicable point’. Exeter Airport - no comments received Environmental Health Section - ‘With regards to shadow flicker there will be an impact, so I would suggest a condition that requires the Shadow Flicker shut off system to be installed. The applicants’ assessment has recommended an automatic system that if sunlight is above the required threshold at the given time of day when flicker is prone, it will shut down the turbine. The assessment has predicted that a neighbouring property may get up to 40 hours of shadow flicker a year, which could impact on the neighbours. Shadow flicker is not covered by nuisance legislation so they only way it can be dealt with is through the planning process.

With regards to noise

The ETSU (the assessment and rating of noise from wind farms) condition for single turbines would be appropriate, which is

The noise produced by the operation of the wind turbine shall not exceed, L90,10min of 35 dB(A) up to wind speeds of 10 m/s at 10 m height at the boundary of the nearest noise sensitive property.

It is appropriate as the noise assessment has shown that none of neighbouring properties will be subjected to noise higher than 35 db LA90. There for the 35 dB LA90 condition stated in the ETSU guidance is appropriate for single turbines and states that this condition alone would offer sufficient protection of amenity. It is worth noting that if there is noise issues with the turbine and levels are below the condition nuisance legislation can be used.

With regards to Amplitude Modulation there is currently no agreed national planning condition which is appropriate for a single turbine. In the event of any problems nuisance legislation can be used.’

Representations

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

25 Letters of support were received cover the following:

Would rather see a few single turbines scattered than large wind farms If the land owner is willing to invest in the future and erect a turbine it should be supported It is important for the next generation who are more accepting of these technologies and who will need them in the future Devon needs to catch up with Europe and Cornwall on these new technologies It won’t negatively effect tourism and people may travel to see them It is another step towards meeting renewable energy targets Everyone recognises the energy problem but no one wants it on their doorstep but everyone would soon get used to it It won’t have a negative effect on anyone We should not object to progress Should support this diversification of a local family farm when people aren’t prepared to pay a fair price for food Without these projects rural communities like this will be the first to suffer if there are fuel and power shortages in the future We need more turbines to make more power This is a positive step in the right direction and every community should take action on climate change It is more akin to a giant windmill or tree, not a block of flats! We need to act about fuel running out and not prioritise peoples view from their windows There is a no right to a private view This development would become part of the village just like the new development has and people objected to that too but no one even thinks about it now. Not just anywhere is suitable for a turbine so when there is a feasible site it should be supported if Devon is going to reach its renewable targets I live in Spreyton and would be proud to see the village taking a step forward in renewable energy production Great Cocktree is not intrusive, it is graceful They are not ugly but are a ‘fantastic piece of engineering’ AM is an issue caused between turbines, not with a single one The landscape around is not natural but is a result of man’s activities All the nearest properties are over the statutory 400m from the turbine It will not be visible form the parish church Do you want to be swayed by people who don’t want change or to have their views spoilt or do you want to save the planet?! Have never noticed any unbearable noise when staying near turbines in Cornwall

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

110 letters of objection were received raising the following points:

Energy/finance Will lead to a loss of visitors coming for the riding, cycling, landscape and historic buildings leading to loss of money going to local businesses etc Only viable because of Government subsidies Loss of money into the local economy from reduced visitors Contribution to the grid of this one turbine is of little significance nationally and of no benefit to the local community Developer and landowner only real beneficiaries Unnecessarily large turbine producing under an 800kW machine (same height) should be used not the reduced 500kW which is only proposed in order to benefit from the tariff Turbines are inefficient This is not the most efficient turbine for his site Will be applying for reduced council tax banding if this is erected

Visual impact Will be seen from miles around including Dartmoor and will dominate many views Application states that the landscape character effects would be of high magnitude and properties up to 1km away will also suffer a high magnitude effect It will affect public footpaths being visible from many including Tarka trail, two moors way and Devon Heartland Way and from Bow playing field and village hall, Cumulative impact with Den Brook and Great Cocktree from public viewpoints Will add to Den Brook effectively stretching the wind turbine development even further Visual intrusion of the landscape ZTV show the turbine will be visible from wide areas including Dartmoor Totally at odds with the wild beauty of Dartmoor Will dominate the skyline Will damage the charming rural setting of Spreyton village Seems to be totally driven by commercial considerations, it should be based on lower land The montages are inaccurate and misleading Prominent, incongruous and alien feature Why higher than the original screening opinion height of 66m This would create a ‘wind farm landscape’ Concern re impact on adjacent veteran pines which are a local landmark and the nearby planting of new trees, turbines are 61m higher than the old pines which are marked on a number of old maps and it will dominate as a landmark thus detracting from the pines

Noise and Flicker

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

No tests for noise were undertaken by the developers and no information has been provided re noise in the village centre, as such the information submitted is insufficient Some residents will experience shadow flicker this will lead to diminished living conditions and potential health issues UK Noise Association recommends turbines are not within 1.6km of a residential property The turbine will cause constant noise for some properties in Spreyton and will cause sleep disturbance at the level predicted, children and particularly sensitive to this issue AM will be an issue for properties up to 2km away from the site The proposal is too close to the nearest residential properties No AM information submitted Noise data is corrupted over 5m/s and all except one of their readings was done at over 5m/s and thus the data is inadequate Monitoring and measuring of noise data did not meet industry standards Information does not assess wind shear or excess amplitude modulation Noise leading to loss of sleep leading to problems for those needing sleep for work and particular health implications for children Den Brook AM conditions or other AM conditions should be applied if it is approved Loss of the right to peaceful enjoyment of properties

Heritage Detrimental impact on Historic villages nearby and listed buildings, harms character and setting Such a structure is incompatible with the preservation of the setting of listed buildings Would be visible from the church at Spreyton Loss of enjoyment and views from Listed buildings (objections received from residents of these buildings at Stockhay, Weeke and Coombe) The two pine trees at Weeke are historically important as a Drovers landmark and this turbine would dominant them It will be clearly visible from and heard from the public footpath which runs through Combe (II*)

Wildlife Detrimental impact will be severe – groundworks will damage flora and fauna Disturbance to dormice, badgers, owls, migratory birds and bats No bat or owl surveys have been carried out and the pond 500m from the turbine has not been surveyed for great crested newts Particular risk to raptors of which there are several species in the area Nacelles get warm which attracts insects and then bats which are killed by turbines

Traffic and highways

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

The Spreyton to Bow road is a rat run and the landscape assessment confirms that the local road will suffer high/moderate effect for motorists The turbine is too close to the road, guidance states they should be ‘topple distance’ plus 10% from any road or right of way Will cause more accidents on a busy road Driver distraction No swept path analysis has been done as part of the Traffic construction assessment ensuring that the lorries can make the sweeps to turn in the narrow lanes Views from many surrounding public footpaths and rights of way will be spoilt It will be visible from main A roads and tourist routes Disruption during construction Road is national speed limit and is used for large lorries and buses

Other Health and safety issues such as turbines collapsing, exploding or blades shearing off – poses a risk to visitors, residents, wildlife and those on rights of way Council should not consider this until Den Brook is concluded Accumulative health implications as properties surrounded by this and Den Brook The applicants own more land and there are better sites on their land further from rights of way, other landowners and residences Nearby residential mobile home (permanent unit) has not been taken into consideration in any of the reports Tranquillity will be spoilt and lost The drawings are inadequate The consultation by the developer with the public was limited and inadequate A turbine this size was deemed too large by Aardvark in the initial scoping opinion to WD so why do they now consider it acceptable?! Inaccuracies in the application Localism Bill – development should not be allowed if the local community is opposed to it Contrary to WDBC planning policies Loss of house value and no compensation, young people may end up in negative equity, older ones will lose their ‘pension’ If this is approved we Spreyton will expect its rates and taxes to be lowered/cut A smaller turbine akin to Great Cocktree may be acceptable here Solar panels are a better alternative for renewable energy If this is diversification why has a company called power hawk been set up as the applicant? The turbines are likely to remain on site more than 25 years due to renewals and replacements Other appeal decisions in the area suggest that this is not an acceptable scheme Many aircraft in the area for training MOD Screening and coping opinions in the area combined with applied for/approved applications show huge pressure for turbine development in the area Mobile phone, TV and radio interference Some of the viewpoints are missing in the submitted information

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

Proposal is contrary to planning policies When WD put so much emphasis on the minutiae of development how is this invasion in the countryside even being considered. De-valuation of houses in the area, 30% drop in value according to RICS Would cause an issue for horse-riders in the locality The belts of trees being planted on adjacent land will not have been taken into account and could effect the turbine’s efficiency in the future There are errors/discrepancies in the submission, e.g. Skywood omitted and 20 and 25 years mentioned There was no consultation with the public by the developer Health issues such as memory loss, balance problems, loss of sleep, insomnia, anxiety and depression Properties nearby are at risk of flying debris if the turbine suffered any damage in high winds Concerns about the setting of a precedent and additional turbines It is not farm diversification but an industrial development Loss of individual views from properties Determination should wait until the Bill regarding proximity to residential properties goes through parliament ‘Wind Turbines (Minimum Distances from Residential Premises) Bill (HL Bill 11) Outside the area identified by The Council as having sufficient wind hence the need for its height How will reinstatement work if subsidies are pulled? – a bond should be in place to ensure decommissioning and reinstatement of the site Turbines worsen the impact on climate change 2 letters making comment only: - Concerns that montages are not accurate - Request a balloon is raised to 77m high on the site to gauge height

Policies Local Plan Policies: NE10 Protection of the wider countryside and other open spaces BE3 Listed Buildings BE13 Landscape and boundary treatment T9 The Highway Network PS2 Surface water ED21 Diversification

Core Strategy policies: SP3 Renewable Energy SP17 Landscape Character SP18 The Heritage and Historical character of West Devon SP19 Biodiversity SP21 Flooding

County Structure Plan 2001 - 2016: ST1 Sustainable Development CO1 Landscape

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

CO2 National Parks CO8 Archaeology CO10 Protection of nature conservation sites and species CO12 Renewable energy development CO14 Conserving agricultural land TR10 Highway network

West Devon Renewable Energy Potential Study 2008

National Planning Policy Framework: Particularly section 10. Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change

PPS22 Companion guide

National Policy Statements (NPSs) on Energy (EN-1) and Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3)

Assessment There are several planning issues associated with this proposal; in no particular order these include renewable energy targets and policy aims, landscape character and visual impact, residential amenity including noise and shadow flicker, biodiversity, traffic and highways, tourism and the economy.

Policy Context West Devon Borough has set out its commitment to encouraging appropriate renewable energy developments through proactive renewable energy policies as Core Strategy policy SP3 - Renewable Energy states:

‘‘Proposals for development involving the provision of renewable and/or low carbon technologies, including micro-generation technologies, together with ancillary buildings and additional infrastructure will be supported and encouraged except where the proposal would have unacceptable adverse effects which are not outweighed by the local and wider environmental, economic, social and other considerations of the development.

Permission will only be granted if the developer has satisfactorily addressed the following on an individual case by case basis: The use of the most appropriate technology; Measures to mitigate any adverse impacts on the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties during the construction, operational lifespan and decommissioning of the equipment/infrastructure; The provision for the protection, preservation, and/or mitigation for any features of strategic, cultural, agricultural, ecological, historic and/or archaeological importance, including landscape character…..’’

However whilst assessing applications for renewable energy development, officers must be mindful of this proactive and encouraging policy approach and of energy targets both nationally and more locally, all such policies and documents emphasise

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

the importance of achieving the right type of development in the right location, and that where such development may have a detrimental impact, this will need to be outweighed by its environmental benefits if it to be found acceptable.

The National Planning Policy Framework with specific regards to determining applications applicable to this proposal states:

‘96. In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should expect new development to: - comply with adopted Local Plan policies on local requirements for decentralised energy supply unless it can be demonstrated by the applicant, having regard to the type of development involved and its design, that this is not feasible or viable; and - take account of landform, layout, building orientation, massing and landscaping to minimise energy consumption…..’

‘98. When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should: - not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy and also recognise that even small- scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions; and - approve the application [unless material considerations indicate otherwise] if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable.

Once suitable areas for renewable and low carbon energy have been identified in plans, local planning authorities should also expect subsequent applications for commercial scale projects outside these areas to demonstrate that the proposed location meets the criteria used identifying suitable areas.’

Highways Although there have been concerns raised regarding highway safety and the proximity of the proposal to the road, DCC Highways have raised no objection on issues of driver distraction, proximity to the highway, flicker experienced on the road or inability to reach the site with construction vehicles. The case officer questioned the DCC Highways Officer regarding the guidance referred to by objection letters and his opinion on this. The Highways Officer confirmed that there is Highways Agency guidance that turbines should be placed at least their length away from a highway, ‘topple distance’, however given the extremely rare occurrence of turbines falling he maintained he had no objections to the scheme. Thus, with a condition attached to any permission ensuring adherence to the construction management plan, the proposal is considered acceptable in highway terms.

Landscape and Visual Impact

Assessing cumulative landscape and visual effects

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

The PPS22 Companion Guide is still adopted and sets out that Cumulative landscape effects and visual effects should be considered separately; ‘the former refers to effects of a proposal development on the landscape fabric, character and quality and so concerns the degree to which renewable energy development becomes a significant or defining characteristic of the landscape. Cumulative visual effects concern the degree to which renewable energy development becomes a feature in particular views (or sequences of views), and the effect this has upon the people experiencing those views.’

It also goes on to say that ‘Cumulative effects may arise where two or more of the same type of renewable energy development are visible from the same point, or are visible shortly after each other along the same journey. Hence, it should not be assumed that, just because no other sites are visible from the proposed development site, the proposal will not create any cumulative effects.’ ‘Sequential effects on visibility occur when an observer moves through a landscape and sees two or more schemes. Common routes through a landscape (e.g. major roads; long distance paths or cycle routes) should be identified, as ‘journey scenarios’ appropriate for assessment… at the most detailed level, description and assessment of cumulative effects may include the following landscape issues: scale of development in relation to landscape character or designations; sense of distance; existing focal points in the landscape; skylining (where additional development along a skyline appears disproportionately dominant); sense of remoteness or wildness.’ This is a relatively large single Turbine set on a ridge so it will be visible over a large area and the ZTV plan (zone of theoretical visibility) submitted demonstrates this. However, simply because it is visible does not automatically render it detrimental.

It is important to note here that the MOD has not objected but does request in the interest of air safety that the turbine has an aviation light on the top in accordance with the criteria. As such any visual impacts from this proposal would be experienced both during daylight and darkness hours (unless the infrared aviation light option were used) due to the presence of the light. The light is prescribed as a 25 candela omni-directional red light or infrared light with a flash pattern of 60 flashes per minute of 200ms to 500ms as high as practicable on the turbine.

The landscape in which this proposal would sit is inland undulating uplands with one such defining feature being its high and open nature, with extensive views where hedgebanks permit. The pertinent management guidelines include: ‘…having regard to the potential impact on and dilution of local landscape character through the introduction of renewable energy sources such as windfarms.’

There are few vertical or modern development features in this area of landscape apart from the very distinctive ‘Weeke Firs’ immediately adjacent to the proposed site which are approximately 15 metres high and are identifiable on the skyline even on a misty day from as far away as Bow. The remaining trees in the area are generally clumped in small forested/wooded areas rather then interspersed in the hedgerows and consequently form large areas of cover rather than individual vertical features. There are some utilities poles but these are few and are currently dwarfed by the tall firs.

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

The landscape views most significantly impacted upon, as demonstrated within the photomontages provided, are those from nearby individual Heritage properties such as Stockhay, Weeke and Coombe and additionally the areas around the properties of Skywood, North Beer, the new Meadow Rise development in the village and the terrace opposite Stockhay. It is also visible from rights of way and highways such as the road to Bow, the public footpath through Spreyton and the footpath at Coombe Farm.

In addition the DNP Authority considers that the proposed turbine would be an incongruous feature when viewed from the National Park exacerbated by its movement ‘A structure of the scale proposed, accentuated by the movement of the blades would be extremely prominent within views from the Park and particularly from open access moorland.’ To gauge this and the legibility of other turbines from differing heights and distances, the case officer visited Kit Hill in Cornwall to view the 77m Turbine south of Launceston which is a similar distance from Kit Hill as the proposed turbine in this instance is from the Northern Tors of Dartmoor (Although Kit Hill is lower than the peaks of the Tors). The Turbine was clearly visible at this distance and did attract the eye and break up the low ‘patchwork’ landscape.

Overall in terms of general visual impact, this turbine would constitute an uncharacteristic and visually intrusive feature, dominating in local views and natural landscape features and visible in combination with other turbines (predominantly Great Cocktree and Den Brook) in views from DNP.

Cumulative impacts As set out above, ‘Cumulative effects may arise where two or more of the same type of renewable energy development are visible from the same point, or are visible shortly after each other along the same journey’. There have been many applications for wind turbines in West Devon and the surrounding Districts in recent years and in this location it has reached a point at which it is considered there are cumulative impacts from certain viewpoints and along certain journeys.

In addition to the above visual impacts, it is evident from the montages provided that the proposed turbine would be seen in the landscape cumulatively and in context with approved Den Brook turbines in Local views and from Dartmoor National Park and create the beginnings of a ‘dot-to-dot’ type impact where the eye would be attracted to the movement of turbines scattered east to west – the recently approved Keyethern Farm turbine in the distance to the east, then to the Okehampton College approved 2 turbines quite near to the Park boundary, Great Cocktree, Den Brook and then to this current proposal. In views from the Park it would also be seen in single views cumulatively in context with the operational turbine at Great Cocktree as mentioned by the Landscape Officer in her response. In addition in local views and longer views from the high northern flanks of the National Park, due to its relative proximity to Den Brook, it would give the visual impression of being an outlier to Den Brook wind farm spreading the wind farm’s visual impact and creating a wind farm landscape in this area.

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

The accompanying elements of the turbine which could be viewed from the surrounding area, such as the tracks and crane standing, would green over in time and appropriate aggregate use could be conditioned. In additional there are existing overhead cables in the area minimising the impacts of any further necessary cabling which may go overground, and a decommissioning condition would ensure the land were returned to its pre-development state after the turbine ceased operation. These more localised visual aspects of accompanying plant and works are not considered unacceptable.

Heritage With regards to the policy guidance on heritage consideration, paragraph 129 of the NPPF indicates that the significance of the heritage asset and its setting should be assessed and taken into account when considering the impact of a proposal on that asset so as to avoid or minimise conflict. When assessing the impact on the significance of a heritage asset great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation on the basis that the more important an asset is the greater the weight should be attached. It is made clear that significance can be harmed by development within the setting of a heritage asset. Where a development would lead to substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, permission should be refused unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm. In the situation where development would result in less than substantial harm this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

In a recent appeal decision at Truthan, Cornwall (August 2012) for 5 turbines 120m high the Inspector highlighted the issue of Heritage and in particular setting and stated that: ‘S66 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires the decision maker to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting. The Framework requires the decision maker to identify and assess the significance of the heritage asset and take this into account when considering the impact of a proposal. The Framework defines significance as the value of the heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest, which may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also its setting. Setting is defined as the surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced.’

There are some clear similarities between this recent appeal and this current application. There were several Grade II listed buildings in similar proximity to the development as here (with the main listed buildings in this current application being Stockhay (grade II), Weeke (II) and Coombe (II*). With regards to one property in Cornwall, Grade II Truthan, and its setting and views of/from it, there are clear similarities with Coombe which is of higher importance at II* but also has a public footpath running through it offering public views of this asset in its context. The Inspector said the following: ‘Significant public views of Truthan House are obtained from the public footpath that runs for part of its route across open high ground to the south...Truthan House is prominent seen against a backdrop of rising fields to the north. In this view, Truthan House is seen as a substantial, distinctive and attractive building and one that would be interpreted by the lay observer as a

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

historically/visually significant building. Although power lines cut across the foreground of the view and the existing Carland Cross turbines are seen in the distance to the north-west of the house, these do not materially diminish its significance as a heritage asset and the importance of its setting to the north. In the view from the public footpath to the south, Turbines C and D would be seen immediately to the west of Truthan House and Turbines E, B and A would be seen to the east. The separation from Truthan House to these turbines would be some 750m.’ (Coombe is approximately 945m from the turbine site in this application and this application is for only one turbine of 77m to tip but the considerations are interpretation of impact is comparable.)

It is clear from the comments of English Heritage and from the Council’s Conservation Officer that this proposal would have a detrimental impact on heritage assets in the locality.

A site visit was undertaken with the case officer, DM Manager, Conservation Officer and Landscape Officer to view the area and the site from the surroundings in particular to identify the impact upon the heritage assets and where the turbine may be visible from.

It was very evident on this site visit and further demonstrated through the second submission of photographic montages that the turbine would be very dominant in views of Weeke from the South, the approach to and views from Stockhay and visible from the length of the footpath running through Coombe and the property itself. Views of the front of Stockhay from the road are currently mainly screened, as the turbine would be at this point, by large trees, however these could be removed at any time giving open views of Stockhay in the context of the turbine.

As set out above, the turbine would be experienced both by those living in Coombe and also those members of the public utilising the public footpath which runs through the site and past the house from Spreyton.

The greatest impact in Heritage terms would be upon Weeke Farm (grade II) whereby its entrance drive would be dominated on entrance and exit by the turbine whereas at present the entrance is marked by a local landscape feature, ‘Weeke Firs’ highlighted as a landscape asset/feature and an historic marker in many letters of representation.

Officers are in agreement that there will be a substantial detrimental impact upon the setting and enjoyment of these three heritage assets were this turbine to be erected. It is not considered that the public benefits of this single turbine is great enough to outweigh this detriment. Whilst there is an environmental benefit and this turbine would produce renewable energy and offset carbon, the majority of local views received are in opposition to its siting and size along with other issues so it would not seem that the majority public perception is one of benefit. In addition Officers do not consider that the contribution to green energy (public benefit) in this instance is great enough to offset the detriment to the heritage of the area.

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

Biodiversity Adequate information was provided with the application (combined with the additional information provided on request) to satisfy the Local Planning Authority that the proposal would not trigger an offence under the habitat regulations and neither would it have a significant detrimental effect upon any habitat or biodiversity on the site provided the recommended condition were attached to any approval of the scheme. The turbine is sited in accordance with the Natural England guidance of 50m from blade tip to a hedge, negating the need for certain surveys. Natural England raised no biodiversity/ecology concerns.

Noise, Flicker and Amenity Some of the representations received have made reference to a recent Bill by the House of Lords which had its first reading in the House of Lords on 14/5/12 but has had no second reading as yet. It is called the Wind Turbines (Minimum Distance from Residential Premises) Bill [HL] 2012-13. It proposes that a turbine with a height such as this should be a minimum of 1500m from the nearest residential property. However it is in its early infancy and having taken legal advice on the weight it can be afforded in the consideration of such proposals our Lawyer has advised that this bill should be given very little weight due to its current stage in the legislative process and the number of stages and revisions which could occur were it to progress.

With regards to noise, the nearest residential property is Stockhay Cottage Grade II listed, approximately 411 metres away, a permanent residential caravan ‘Skywood’ at Week Farm approximately 422 metres away , the main farmhouse at Weeke Farm (Grade II listed) approximately 432m away, and the applicant’s property at North Beer Farm (418 metres away). These are a large enough distance from the turbine that the Borough Council’s Environmental Health Officers do not consider that the turbine will cause a noise nuisance at these or other properties as the projected noise levels will be less than 35dB at all these properties (other than the applicants property) which is in industry terms considered acceptable, however a standard industry condition is proposed by EH to offer some further control should this be necessary. These proposed decibel limits could then be enforced e.g. through limiters on the turbine if necessary at certain windspeeds etc. (ETSU-R-97 guidelines on noise assessment for turbine applications was recently upheld as the accepted method by the Planning Inspector for Fullabrook in North Devon, in this current application that means no background noise recording was required but to make the application more robust it was undertaken). Wind shear and microphone sensitivity can affect noise calculations, but again the recordings taken and distance to the nearest neighbouring residential units are such that this is not considered a problem. The measuring of or imposition of a condition covering, Amplitude modulation has also been raised through the representations, particularly given the debate around this and the conditions on the nearby Den Brook Wind Farm. However there is no industry accepted way of measuring AM at present and the conditions surrounding it as imposed by the Den Brook Appeal Inspector has lead to a debate around accurately and fairly measuring the AM and its effects. As such it is not considered appropriate by Environmental Health to impose any such requirement of condition at this time.

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

Overall it is not considered that the noise impacts of this proposal, with the suitable condition, warrants a withholding of the permission.

Re shadow flicker: PPS22 Companion Guide states: Para 73. ‘Under certain combinations of geographical position and time of day, the sun may pass behind the rotors of a wind turbine and cast a shadow over neighbouring properties. When the blades rotate, the shadow flicks on and off; the effect is known as ‘shadow flicker’. It only occurs inside buildings where the flicker appears through a narrow window opening….(para 75) At distance, the blades do not cover the sun but only partly mask it, substantially weakening the shadow. This effect occurs first with the shadow from the blade tip, the tips being thinner in section than the rest of the blade. The shadows from the tips extend the furthest and so only a very weak effect is observed at distance from the turbines.’

There are two main implications of flicker, the possible nuisance and degrading of a persons enjoyment of their property from the flicker and the health implications for those susceptible to this type of light disturbance: Para 77 ‘Around 0.5 % of the population is epileptic and of these around 5 % are photo-sensitive. Of photo-sensitive epileptics less than 5 % are sensitive to lowest frequencies of 2.5-3 Hz, the remainder are sensitive only to higher frequencies. The flicker caused by wind turbines is equal to the blade passing frequency. A fast- moving three-bladed machine will give rise to the highest levels of flicker frequency. These levels are well below 2 Hz. The new generation of wind turbines is known to operate at levels below 1 Hz.’

It is also generally accepted that shadow flicker only occurs in certain conditions and only affects properties within 10 times blade diameter of the turbine (as set out in PPS22 companion guide), and then only those properties where a shadow could be cast by the sun which is generally accepted to be 130 degrees either side of North, leaving a 100 degree area in the south unaffected.

The turbine diameter on this proposed turbine is 54m thus the potentially affected area would be 540m in a 260 degree arc centring on North.

There are 10 properties within this 540m zone, of these the submission identified that there would be effects at 3 properties. The software package used to calculate the impact on these properties gives a worst case scenario outcome as it does not take into account sunset/rise times, vegetation/screening from building between the turbine and receptor or weather conditions. However an example of the outcomes predicted were that at Weeke Farm in a worst case, 40.4 hours of flicker would be experienced spread over 86 days early evenings in May/June/July the duration of a maximum single event would be 33 minutes with an average of 28 minutes per day. At North Beer Farm it was 18.4 hours per year over 43 days in early mornings March and September, a maximum event of 34mins and an average of 26 minutes. Flicker would also potentially be experienced at Skywood for around 21.8 hours per year over 53 days in the year.

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

There are roads in this potential flicker zone however DCC Highways have raised no objection to the turbine on any such grounds. However there are residential properties within this zone and the specialist information within the application does acknowledge that these properties would be affected. To mitigate against these possible negative impacts, a limiter is proposed to be fitted to the turbine, EH commented that: ‘With regards to shadow flicker there will be an impact, so I would suggest a condition that requires the Shadow Flicker shut off system to be installed. The applicant’s assessment has recommended an automatic system that if sunlight is above the required threshold at the given time of day when flicker is prone, it will shut down the turbine. The assessment has predicted that a neighbouring property may get up to 40 hours of shadow flicker a year, which could impact on the neighbours. Shadow flicker is not covered by nuisance legislation so the only way it can be dealt with is through the planning process.’

Although Environmental Health are in agreement with the consultant’s recommendation of a shut off type device (these are usually operated and triggered by a photocell) and consider that this will overcome the possible loss of amenity at the affected properties by shadow flicker, there is some debate about how easily enforceable such conditions are. In addition it must be considered that at any time that the turbine is shut off due to flicker implications it will not be producing electricity. However overall the amount of hours that the turbine may be shut off for is a very small proportion of the year and the technology to manage the potential implications of this flicker does exist. Due to these factors, although there are properties within the flicker area, given the existence of technology to address and mitigate for any potential impact it is not considered that shadow flicker substantiates a reason for withholding permission.

The Environmental Report provided with the application provides adequate information to satisfy officers that the proposal would have no significant detrimental effect upon telecommunications in the area.

It is not considered that potential effects upon the enjoyment of the area by horse- riders alone is sufficient to substantiate a refusal on amenity loss in the area and previous policy has not supported refusing on these reasons.

In terms of residential amenity, except in the case of Weeke Farm and Skywood, due to the separation distance of the turbine from any other single residential dwelling, it is not disputed that the turbine would be visible from residential units and their gardens, however the distance is such that it is not considered that the turbine would be overbearing or significantly detrimental to the enjoyment of any of these properties and as such it is not considered that amenity is a reason to withhold planning permission. (Although raised in representations, private views from properties and value/sale of properties are not material planning considerations and as such cannot be considered here). However in the cases of Skywood and Weeke Farm, their only and main entrance-way would be totally dominated by the turbine when approaching, entering or leaving the properties. The Heritage implications and impact of this are discussed under the heritage section, but in terms of amenity and dominance on the properties the proposal is considered to significantly erode the

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

inhabitants enjoyment of their own properties and is considered sufficient to warrant refusal.

Other The agent has responded to some of the objection queries raised with the following: ‘The design lifetime of the turbine is 20 years in terms of calculating generational output and also carbon offset although turbines have been demonstrated to have an operational lifetime of 25 years+. We adopted the design life of 20 years being the lower figure for calculating the anticipated generation output and carbon offset benefit hence the two references but anticipate that it will continue to generate energy for a longer period after that.

With respect to the reference to whether a larger turbine was thought to be inappropriate at the screening stage, the appropriateness of scale of a turbine in any given location is a combination of a number of considerations inter alia visual impact, noise, shadow flicker, ecology and access. A considerable amount of work has been undertaken since the submission of the EIA screening request that has allowed us to propose the application turbine and which have all been addressed in the supporting documentation. The capability of the existing road network to get the turbine to the site for example has since been assessed by a haulage company used by the manufacturer EWT who has also demonstrated on other projects the ability to get to sites on similar road networks.’

A community payment has been offered up by the applicant’s however it is current officer opinion that this cannot be secured via s106 provisions as it would not meet the tests of a section 106 obligation and is therefore not a material planning consideration.

Considerations under Human Rights Act Due regard has been given to the provision of the European Convention on Human Rights and in particular to the rights under Article 1 of the First Protocol, namely the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions, and Article 8, the right to respect for private and family life. In arriving at a recommendation the rights of the applicants have been balanced against the objections raised by third parties. However, having due regard to objectives of Development Plan Policies and Central Government Guidance and relevant consultation replies, it is not considered that these concerns would override the applicant’s reasonable expectations under the Convention.

Conclusion Overall it is not considered that the harm to the setting and enjoyment of the three nearest listed properties of Stockhay, Coombe and Weeke and the dominance of the turbine upon the small village of Spreyton and its residents’ enjoyment of the relatively undeveloped, historically rich rural area is outweighed by the environmental benefits of this proposal. ______

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS SOUTHERN AREA

WARD: Tamarside (Cllr D Whitcomb)

APPLICATION NO: 02769/2012 LOCATION: Camplehaye Residential Home, Lamerton, Tavistock, Devon, PL19 8QD APPLICANT NAME: Avens Care Homes Ltd APPLICATION: Removal of Condition\Variation of Condition PARISH: Lamerton GRID REF: 2445450 768220 PROPOSAL: Removal of conditions attached to planning consent 11230/2007/TAV. CASE OFFICER: Ben Dancer TARGET DATE: 13/08/2012

Reason item is being put before committee: The application has been brought before Committee at the request of Cllr. Whitcomb, who states that:

“I wish this application to be determined by Committee given the objections received by residents and the Lamerton Parish Council”.

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL

Reason for Approval: This application has been determined in accordance with Section 38 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which states that planning applications must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. This application has been determined in accordance with approved Development Plan Policies; relevant Government planning policy guidance; and approved in the absence of any other overriding material considerations and having given due weight to all other matters raised in this application including technical and other representations received. The relevant Policies are the National Planning Policy Framework, Devon Structure Plan Policies ST1, ST3, CO9, TR5, TR10 West Devon Borough Core Strategy Policies SP1, SP8, SP19 and West Devon Local Plan Review Policies NE10, H34, RB2 and T9.

Special regard has been given to the representations about the history of the building, the intended use and the preference for the building to either be kept as a care facility or demolished, but these were not considered to be overriding given that evidence has been provided to show that the re-use of the building for care provision of varying natures has been sought. The proposal would not lead to a detrimental impact upon the amenities of the site or surrounding area, inclusive of any neighbouring residents.

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS SOUTHERN AREA

List of conditions: 1. Standard time limit

The Proposal The application is for the removal of a planning condition (condition 5) originally applied to planning consent 7540/2005/TAV and then subsequently amended by an appeal decision relating to planning application 11230/2007/TAV.

The condition is reproduced below for reference:

“The occupation of the dwelling shall be limited to the owner or an employee and dependants thereof of Camplehaye Residential Home, and/or the provision of residential accommodation and care to people in need of care. The building the subject of this appeal shall not be occupied at any time other than for these purposes and in connection with the use of the main building as Camplehaye Residential Care Home. The building the subject of this appeal shall not be sold off or let separately from the main building Camplehaye Residential Home”.

Site and Surroundings The site consists of a detached property which has been designed to resemble a large detached dwelling, although it has clearly been adapted\designed to provide facilities for care.

An internal inspection of the building by the case officer revealed a large lift capable of being accessed by a wheelchair, large circulation and extra width corridors to accommodate wheelchairs and allow for manoeuvring. Each bedroom was equipped with alarm systems and modifications for those in need of care, in addition it was evident that each bedroom functioned to provide independent space for its occupant with an en suite again equipped with various adaptations for those with impaired mobility.

A large bathroom with motorised bath tub was also in evidence as well as a range of adaptations to the kitchen area to provide the ability for multiple users of the same space. This included lowered work surfaces and cooker. The case officer also observed the provision of an office with washroom clearly designed to be utilised by a member of staff.

The site is accessed from the main road (B3362) serving to connect Lamerton with Tavistock, but is served by a separate fork of the main drive from the Camplehaye Residential home. It has a large parking area suitable for accommodating a number of cars and is set within the extensive grounds that make up the curtilage of the wider site.

The site is situated to the west of the properties known as Camplehaye Bungalow and 1 and 2 Camplehaye Cottages. To the south and on the opposite side of the road to the site are the properties known as 1 and 2 Greenfield Cottages. Consultations:

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS SOUTHERN AREA

Lamerton Parish Council: Object – The house should remain attached to the residential home County Highways Authority: No objections South West Water Services: No comments received

Local Residents\Interested Parties 2 letters of representation objecting to the development raising the following issues: House build via the back door The building should remain as part of the existing care home If it is no longer required it should be demolished Why does a managers house require 5 bedrooms and to be located so far from the main residential care home?

Material Planning Considerations The material planning matters which have to be considered with regard to this application are the planning history, the relevant Development Plan Polices and impacts of the removal of the condition upon the amenities of the site, surrounding area and neighbouring residents.

Planning History 02379/2012 Removal of condition 5 attached to planning permission 11230/2007/TAV. Withdrawn 11230/2007 Change of use of manager’s dwelling to residential care house for adults with learning disabilities. Appeal Allowed 09/09/08 10992/2007 Change of use of manager’s house to youth facility with new garage and store. Withdrawn 7540/2005 Erection of two storey extension to residential care home and re- siting of dwelling. Granted 21/06/05 2523/4 Provision of managers accommodation. Granted 03/05/90

Planning Policy National Planning Policy Framework

Structure Plan 2001 – 2016: ST1 Sustainable Development ST3 Self Sufficiency of Devon’s Communities CO9 Biodiversity and Earth Science Diversity TR5 Hierarchy of Modes TR10 Strategic Road Network

Core Strategy: SP1 Sustainable Development SP8 Inclusive Communities SP19 Biodiversity

Local Plan Review:

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS SOUTHERN AREA

NE10 Development Within the open Countryside H34 Removal of Agricultural Occupancy Condition RB2 Re-use and Conversion of Rural Building T9 Impact on the Highway network

Analysis Background History The building was granted consent as a managers dwelling under planning application 7540/2005, and the building was constructed in 2007.

The dwelling was not occupied as a managers dwelling as the business operation no longer required this provision. Thereafter an application was made to alter the occupancy condition to allow the building to be utilised as a care facility (application 11230/2007/TAV) the application was refused by the LPA but allowed by appeal. The condition as set out at the head of this report was attached to that decision by the Inspector.

Since that time the applicant has advertised the facility for a range of care uses but has not been successful in letting or renting the care accommodation. This has been primarily due to the change in care provision relating to segments of the care industry and also the separated nature of the unit from the main Camplehaye Residential home that raises issues over the ability to share staff or employ a bespoke staffing presence within the unit.

In either instance there is either the question of care staff reaching occupants from the main house within reasonable timeframes and the likely high the frequency of this occurrence. To provide an onsite bespoke presence raises the costs of care for occupants of the facility which has impacted its appeal to potential occupants.

It is acknowledged that the fallback position would be to occupy the building as the owner or employee, but this is not required at the present time. Indeed it would appear that the matter was addressed by the Planning Inspector at the time of the previous appeal in that they commented upon the apparent lack of consideration of the need by the LPA with respect to the renewal of consent for a managers dwelling since 1995.

The inspected note at that time “whatever the justification first offered in 1995, there can have been no pressing need for a manager’s accommodation in connection with the use, or the building would have been constructed long ago. Notwithstanding this, the Council has renewed the planning permission twice since 1995 and apparently did not seek to re-examine the justification pleaded (of the functional need for a new dwelling here) until this new application (11230/2007/TAV) was made”.

At the time the Inspector was of the view that the building could be utilised alongside the main residential care home with staffing and resources split across the two and that it would be akin to a large extension to the existing care home. The Inspector was also of the view that the building should not be severed from the main

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS SOUTHERN AREA

residential care home. The original condition was therefore modified to that currently the subject of this application.

Given the above it is evident that the Inspector modified the previous occupancy condition to give greater flexibility to the use of the building. It is also evident that at that time the applicant was not requesting that the condition be removed (which is more usual) but that such a modification would allow for the building to be put to a business use in line with the care facilities on the site.

It is officer opinion that this represents an attempt to utilise the building as a care facility and to try and make use of the asset as part of the care facilities that operate at Camplehaye.

At the time of the Inspectors’ decision it is clear that she was not of the view that the operation of the unit in tandem with the existing residential care home would not be a viable solution.

The current submission is supported by confirmations over the inability of the applicant to attract clients to occupy the unit. This has been the result of a mixture of economic factors leading to the inability to adequately fund long term care, alterations to the levels of public care funding available and the isolated nature of the unit affecting how it can be utilised.

In addition to the above information, evidence has been provided indicating the various means of marketing that has been utilised to advertise the facility dating from July 2009 through to February 2011 and the still current website. Whilst the case officer had initial concerns over some aspects relating to whether the marketing materials were distributed, it has been subsequently confirmed by the agent that brochures, press releases and adverts were not only produced but also distributed, published and displayed. This has relevance when considered with the relevant Development Plan policies which relate to this type of application.

Development Plan Policy Due to the unique nature of the condition the Development Plan does not contain a policy which directly relates to the condition being considered. Whilst this is the case there are two relevant policies which can be applied to assess this application, these being Local plan Policies H34 and RB2.

Local Plan Policy H34 is normally applicable to the removal of agricultural occupancy conditions. But the principle of justifying the removal of a condition is encapsulated within the preamble of this policy.

The policy states that “the removal of an agricultural occupancy condition will be permitted where an assessment of continuing need locally and not just on the holding, justifies it.”

Perhaps more relevant is the preamble to this policy which states that the assessment of such a need “should include evidence that the house has been

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS SOUTHERN AREA

placed on the market for a reasonable time at a price, which reflects the existence of the occupancy condition. The preamble also states that “the dwelling should not remain vacant nor should current occupants be forced to remain in occupation by virtue of a planning condition which has outlived its usefulness”.

Local Plan RB2 is normally applied to the conversion of rural buildings for residential use. Again, however there are elements of this policy which apply equally in assessing this current application. namely the first criterion of that policy states that “the re-use or conversion of a rural building (buildings in the countryside outside of the defined limits of large and small settlements) for residential use will be permitted where: every reasonable attempt has been made to secure suitable business re-use and the application is supported by evidence of reasonable effort made to secure suitable re-use”.

Whilst it is acknowledged that the occupancy condition is not for an agricultural worker and that the building is not a barn conversion, it is noted that both policies are specific in stating that such matters must be assessed against the evidence that there is no longer a need for the building to be occupied as per the wording of the condition and that every attempt has been made to secure its re-use for business purposes.

The normal route for demonstrating the above is for the properly to be marketed for re-use over a 12 month period.

Given the nature of this building and the associated condition which limits occupancy it is the opinion of the case officer that marketing the property on the open market would conflict with the wording of the condition in that it states that “the building the subject of this appeal shall not be sold off or let separately from the main building Camplehaye Residential Home”.

With the above in mind the applicant could apply to vary the condition to remove this element of the condition, but this would still limit occupancy in that the conditions states “occupancy of the dwelling shall be limited to the owner or an employee and dependants thereof of Camplehaye Residential Home”.

Again the applicant could seek to modify this element of the condition also thus leaving the building with a condition limiting its use for “the provision of residential accommodation and care to people in need of care”. Evidently this would then leave the ability for the property to be sold or let to another care provider.

The case officer has enquired as to whether the property was offered on such a basis and has had confirmation from the applicant via their agent that contact “was made with health care agents who sell and lease care homes, but they saw no value in proceeding for the lack of beds and economies of scale”.

Given the above it is officer view that whilst the building has not been marketed for sale it has been the subject of a marketing campaign to attract clients, it has been offered for both care provision for clients with learning disabilities as well as care for

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS SOUTHERN AREA

the elderly. In addition enquiries have been made to see if the building could be sold/ leased as an independent care facility but is not of a viable scale to function as such. In addition this would still conflict with the current wording of the conditions that the property not be sold or leased.

This then leaves the possibility of marketing the building for any other business re- use. This has clearly not taken place. But again there are some limiting factors such as the proximity of the residential care home and other neighbouring properties that would possibly preclude some forms of business use (those likely to generate noise, dust, smell or effluvia). In addition the building is designed and adapted for a very specific purpose which would require extensive modification to accommodate another use (even office use). It is officer opinion that the building in its current format is not readily usable for an alternate business use without possible detrimental impacts upon the amenities of the neighbouring residents and without substantial alterations to the building which would most likely limit its appeal to potential purchasers.

Given the above it is officer opinion that in terms of the investigation of utilising the building within the terms of the condition there has been extensive effort to secure its use. It is also evident that even varying the condition would not yield an ability to sell the property on the open market without varying the condition. Even at that stage should such a variance be granted, the occupancy of the building is still constrained by the remaining wording of the condition.

At the current time it is considered that the building has been reviewed for various care based uses in connection and in isolation from the existing Camplehaye Residential Care home and that an examination of re-use for business purposes through the normal methodology would require the modification of the condition to be sold as a separate entity and that even then its re-sue for business purposes would be possibly constrained due to its location near residential properties and that its design would require extensive adaption for alternate business uses.

It is officer view that in terms of examining the potential re-use of the building reasonable attempts have been made. In addition it is evident that the current condition prohibits the building from achieving an alternate use and that it is unlikely that occupancy in line with that condition will be achieved.

The remaining element of the policy is to refer to the guidance within the preamble to Local plan policy H34 in that that “the dwelling should not remain vacant nor should current occupants be forced to remain in occupation by virtue of a planning condition which has outlived its usefulness”.

Whilst the building has not been utilised as a dwelling it is in effect a dwelling fettered by the occupancy condition and therefore it can be considered against this guidance. It is evident that the Inspector questioned the need for the dwelling, but concluded that this had not been raised by the LPA over the course of the previous planning applications, the building was constructed and designed for the purpose of care provision (as evidenced from the site inspection conducted by the case officer) and

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS SOUTHERN AREA

that the operational and economic circumstances have combined to see the facility lie unused for a protracted period of time. This is despite evidence to suggest that it has been actively pursued for a use compliant with the existing condition and attempts to seek sale or lease of the dwelling as a separate care facility.

It is officer opinion that on balance the current application satisfies the relevant criteria of the two most relevant polices and that the condition is no longer capable of being maintained without contradicting the guidance that such conditions, if no longer required, should be removed.

Impact of removal of condition The application if granted consent would result in the removal of the occupancy being limited to the terms of the condition. It is therefore necessary with applications of this nature to consider the impacts of this upon the amenities of the site and surrounding area. This will include impacts upon the highway, neighbouring resident’s possible impacts upon the landscape and upon ecology, dependent on the nature of the condition and the site.

In this instance it is evident that the removal of the condition applies to an existing building designed for residential accommodation. The site benefits from a suitable access and parking provision and is within grounds to provide for potential occupiers amenities.

The site is outside the settlement boundary for Lamerton and therefore is within the open countryside. But in this case would fall to be determined against the criteria of RB2 and the removal of condition fettering the occupancy of a residential property. The site is located adjacent to various residential properties as noted within this report and is situated in close proximity to the settlement boundary for Lamerton. It is still regarded as being within the open countryside and so if a new dwelling were to be put forward by way of a planning application then this would normally conflict with established Development Plan Policy.

Considerations under Human Rights Act Due regard has been given to the provision of the European Convention on Human Rights and in particular to the rights under Article 1 of the First Protocol, namely the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions, and Article 8, the right to respect for private and family life. In arriving at a recommendation the rights of the applicants have been balanced against the objections raised by third parties. However, having due regard to objectives of Development Plan Policies and Central Government Guidance and relevant consultation replies, it is not considered that these concerns would override the applicant’s reasonable expectations under the Convention.

Conclusion In this instance the removal of the condition relates to an existing residential unit that has a condition limiting its occupancy and so is already regarded as being a dwelling in planning terms. The re-use of existing buildings is also detailed within Local Plan

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS SOUTHERN AREA

Policy RB2 and is in principle acceptable subject to the provisions previously outlined within this report.

Given the above and the ability of the site and building to accommodate the unfettered occupancy of the building without detriment to near neighbours, the environment or the highway network it is officer opinion that the impact of the removal of the condition would not lead to a detrimental impact upon the amenities of the site or surrounding area, inclusive of any neighbouring residents. ______

WARD: Tavistock North (Cllrs Mrs S Bailey; J Moody; J Sheldon)

APPLICATION NO: 02698/2012 LOCATION: 16 Buddle Close, Tavistock, Devon, PL19 0EG APPLICANT NAME: R.M Builders Ltd APPLICATION: Full PARISH: Tavistock GRID REF: 247941 75014 PROPOSAL: Erection of 2 dwellings and associated works. CASE OFFICER: Ben Dancer TARGET DATE: 13/07/2012

Reason item is being put before committee: The application is before Members at the request of Cllr. Moody who comments: “Given the many concerns of local Buddle Close residents regarding the proposed development which include material planning issues such as scale, over dominance, overlooking, sense of enclosure as well as traffic and parking issues, I would, therefore, ask for the planning application to be considered by the planning committee”.

RECOMMENDATION: Delegate to Head of Development Management to approve subject to conditions and the completion of a S106 Agreement to provide the required contributions toward affordable housing.

Reason for Approval: This application has been determined in accordance with Section 38 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which states that planning applications must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. This application has been determined in accordance with approved Development Plan Policies; relevant Government planning policy guidance; and approved in the absence of any other overriding material considerations and having given due weight to all other matters raised in this application including technical and other representations received. The relevant Policies are The National Planning Policy Framework, Devon Structure Plan Policies ST1, CO6, TR5, TR10, West Devon Borough Core Strategy Policies SP1, SP9, SP20 and West Devon Borough Local Plan Review Policies: BE13, H28, PS2, PS3, T5 and T9.

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS SOUTHERN AREA

Special regard has been given to all consultations and relevant planning history. Special regard has also been given to the representations about the impacts of the proposed development by way of design, over-dominance, impact upon neighbouring residents amenities, drainage, parking, but these were not considered to be overriding because the development provides sufficient reductions in height to reduce the impact upon the occupiers of 16 Buddle Close and provides an acceptable drainage system thus overcoming the reasons for refusal relating to the previous application (01827/2011). Furthermore the present design is considered to be acceptable in the context of the site and surrounding developments, the development will provide the required contribution to affordable housing and the level of parking suitable to cater for the use. The site is located within the settlement boundary and matters relating to boundary treatment, landscaping, contaminated land, drainage and the preservation of neighbouring residents amenities can be addressed by suitable conditions.

List of conditions: 1. Standard time limit 2. Boundary treatment 3. Development in accordance with approved plans 4. Parking to be retained 5. Drainage condition relating to surface water design and supporting calculations 6. Drainage maintenance and management 7. Foul and Surface water drainage to be completed before occupation 8. Surface water drainage to be installed in accordance with CIRIA C697 9. Materials to be approved 10. No insertion of windows to north or south elevations 11. Removal of permitted development rights for extensions, alterations, roof alterations, enclosures and curtilage structures. 12. Survey and remediation strategy in relation to Arsenic 13. Standard contaminated land condition for any unexpected contaminants 14. Tree protection scheme 15. No trees to be removed 16. Landscaping scheme to be approved 17. Dust suppression scheme

The Proposal Erection of 2 dwellings and associated works.

Site and Surroundings The site consists of a steeply sloping section of land located to the west of the hammerhead turning area which forms the end of Buddle Close.

The land is characterised by structured planting at its abutment with the pavement and kerb which separates the turning head from the sites eastern boundary. This then alters to undeveloped rocky terrain which rises up toward the western boundary of the site which culminates in boundary of trees forming a small copse adjacent to land surrounding a disused quarry further to the North West.

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS SOUTHERN AREA

To the north and south of the site are the properties of 17 and 16 Buddle Close. The site serves as a separating area of landscaping giving an open aspect to this part of Buddle Close. In contrast the surrounding developments consist of quite large dwellings arranged as a mix of semi-detached pairs with terraces at each end of the close.

The site is in an elevated position within the wider street-scene as the road slopes away to the east toward a block of single storey garages.

The site is not located within the Conservation Area or World Heritage Site being approximately 40m distant and set behind the existing developments within Buddle Close. The site is within the defined settlement boundary for Tavistock.

Consultations: Tavistock Town Council: Object – Over-development, over-bearing to other properties and on highest point of road. County Highways Authority: No objection South West Water Services: No comments received Environmental Health Officer: No objection – recommends standard conditions for contaminated land Senior Engineer: No objection - recommends standard conditions for drainage

Local Residents\Interested Parties: 20 letters of representation have been received objecting to the proposal raising the following matters: - Over-development of site - Dominant impact upon 16 and 17 Buddle Close - Lack of adequate parking provision - Impact upon sewerage system by way of extra loading and construction traffic. Repairs to patch this system were paid for by residents previously. - Inaccurate plans - Impact upon bats - Disturbance to residents during construction - Loss of open/garden space - Design not in keeping with surrounding properties - Visual impact when viewed from wider viewpoints around Tavistock - Soakaway not adequate - Loss of light to 17 Buddle Close and its garden - Loss of open aspect - Impractical to develop the site when estate was first constructed - Development is driven by profit not the needs of the community - Increased traffic flows leading to disruption to existing residents - Where will household waste be kept - Use of explosives to achieve levels may be necessary - Applicant should not use Buddle lane to access the properties - Object to further development of green space within Tavistock - No fencing between 17 Buddle Close and application site

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS SOUTHERN AREA

Material Planning Considerations The material planning considerations that relate to this application are design, impact upon the amenities of neighbouring residents, highways impacts, landscaping, ecology, drainage, previous planning history and the Development Plan Policies.

Planning History 01827/2011 Erection of 2 flats with associated garages and access. Refused 24/01/12

Planning Policy National Planning Policy Framework

Devon Structure Plan 2001 – 2016: ST1 Sustainable Development CO6 Quality of New Development CO7 Historic Settlements and Buildings TR5 Hierarchy of Modes TR10 Highways Network

West Devon Borough Core Strategy: SP1 Sustainable Development SP9 Affordable Housing SP18 The Heritage and Historical Character of West Devon SP20 Promoting High Quality Design

West Devon Borough Local Plan Review: BE13 Landscaping and Boundary Treatment H28 Settlement Limits PS2 Surface Water Drainage PS3 Foul Drainage Disposal T5 Public Transport T9 Impact on the Highway network

Analysis The proposal is for the erection of 2 dwellings and associated works. The associated works include the parking, landscaping and drainage arrangements.

This proposal has been submitted to try and overcome the issues that led to the refusal of the previous scheme for the development of 2 flats on this site (application 01827/2011)

The previous application was refused for the following reasons; 1) It is considered that the proposed flats by reason of their resultant relationship with the existing dwelling 16 Buddle Close, would be over-dominant and increase sense of enclosure and pose an unacceptable impact upon the amenities of the occupiers of 16 Buddle Close due to over-dominance and the increased sense of enclosure. Therefore the proposed development it is not in accordance with Local Plan policy H28.

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS SOUTHERN AREA

2) Insufficient information is available to properly assess whether there would be adequate provision for the disposal of surface water run-off arising from the development. The proposal is therefore considered contrary to Local Plan policy PS2.

The current scheme alters the proposal to 2 dwellings as opposed to the flatted development previously proposed. This has occurred due to the re-design of the proposal in consultation with officers to try to overcome the first refusal reason.

The resultant design is now takes the form of a semi detached pair, with the unit closest to 16 Buddle Close having being set down in relation to the other proposed dwelling. The previous design consisted of 2 flats (one above the other, with garaging on the ground floor. The current design sees the removal of one garage in order to facilitate the lowering of one half of the pair and a new parking space being created to the front of the adjacent property (16 Buddle Close) which is denoted as being in the applicant’s ownership.

This staggered design sees the aforementioned dwelling lowered from 10.36m to 6m in comparison to the previously refused scheme. The design is reflective of the staggered roof profile that is evident along the terrace immediately to the northeast of the application site. These properties are situated on a slope running from the northwest downwards to the southeast. Whilst this roof form is not reflected in the dwellings to the south of the site that run along Buddle Close, it is considered that the roof form is not out of keeping with examples that are present at the head of Buddle Close.

The proposed height reduction is considered by the case officer to alleviate the sense of enclosure and dominance of that dwelling which would have previously led to an unacceptable impact upon the occupiers of 16 Buddle Close. It is considered that whilst it will not totally remove such enclosure the impacts of the development are considerably lessened by the lowering of the building in combination with the flattening of the roof angle to reduce the angle of the roof-planes.

It should be noted that in reviewing the current plans the accuracy in relation to the height of the existing building (16 Buddle Close) has been questioned due to a discrepancy between the current plans and those previously refused. The Agent has confirmed that the new plans show the correct height and that the previous plans are therefore inaccurate.

In effect the original inaccuracy portrayed 16 Buddle Close as being 9.5m in height and therefore the concerns over the dominance of the new building was heightened by this inaccuracy.

Although it is evident that the relationship of the new dwelling to the existing was still not acceptable and likely to be subject to the same scaling issue. This matter has only come to light due to the new plans indicating an increased height for the existing building (16 Buddle Close) which is now shown as being 10.36m in height.

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS SOUTHERN AREA

The agents for the application have confirmed that the height of the building is 10.36m and not as was previously indicated on the previously refused plans. Confirmation that this inaccuracy has now been addressed allays officer concerns over the height of the existing dwelling and the relationship in height of the proposed dwellings can be accurately assessed.

The previously refused scheme showed a height difference between 16 Buddle Close and the proposed building which equated to a 4m section of building presenting itself to the boundary with 16 Buddle Close.

The current plans now show this difference in heights to eaves of the nearest proposed dwelling and that of 16 Buddle Close as being almost in-line meaning that the amount of building presented to the boundary would be the section from eaves height to roof ridge being approximately 1.8m. Therefore the current plans show a reduction of over half the height difference from 4m to 1.8m. It is considered that whilst the new proposal will still be visible from the kitchen window and garden area of 16 Buddle Close, its dominance and the associated sense of enclosure is significantly lessened. It is officer opinion that this current proposal addresses the previous refusal reason relating to this issue.

Drainage The proposed soakaway system has been assessed by the Senior Engineer. She has noted that “Soakaways must not be sited immediately adjacent to the highway. Where soakaways are sited within 5m of the highway provision must be made to ensure that flows from the soakaway do not cause detriment/washing out of the highway sub-base”.

Her conclusions on the basis of the information are that the proposed system is acceptable subject to standard conditions being applied to any planning consent as may be granted.

Parking Several objections have been received with respect to parking and that the proposed dwellings are only provided with one space each - one space to be a parking space to the front of 16 Buddle Close (in the applicant’s ownership) and the second being the proposed garage.

The highways officer has not objected to the level of parking provided.

Objections have been received stating that the presence of the dwellings would lead to the occupiers parking within the turning head that forms the end of Buddle Close. Officers are of the opinion that parking on the road does indeed take place along the length of Buddle Close and that there is the potential that occupiers and visitors may well seek to park in the turning area. However this can occur now, there are no parking restrictions in place by way of yellow lines or limited waiting times. The Highways officer has not requested contributions to fund such parking restrictions in this area. Furthermore it is noted that current planning policy favours lower levels of parking on developments close to town Centres. The site is located approximately

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS SOUTHERN AREA

592m from Bedford Square and the route to town is via pavement. Buddle Close is also located along a bus route and therefore whilst the site would not be classed as within the town centre it is nonetheless still a commutable distance for pedestrians. It is therefore considered that the level of parking provision is considered to be acceptable.

The proposed parking space to the front of 16 Buddle Close would normally lead to concerns over the possibility for noise and headlights to disturb the residents in this particular case the garage and front door area located at the same level as the proposed parking space. The living accommodation afforded to 16 Buddle Close is mainly located above this level and therefore light and noise from vehicles parking on this proposed space would be of an acceptable level in terms of impacts upon their amenities.

Impact upon neighbouring residents amenities The proposed building has been reduced in height and much of the impact of the proposal with respect to 16 Buddle Close has been covered in assessing this relationship.

A window is located on the northern elevation of 16 Buddle Close. Whilst it would not appear to serve a habitable room it has been reviewed in context with the plans on site. The roof-plan drawings show that the principle elevations of the dwellings will sit in alignment with the leading edge of the adjacent landing formed by the external steps that run along the northern elevation of 16 Buddle Close. The window sits over the stairs leading up to this landing and therefore this window would not be occluded by the development but will be able to view the building. Given the likely frequency that such views will be seen from this particular window it is not considered that the siting of the dwellings in relation to this window would unduly impact upon the amenities of the existing residents of 16 Buddle Close or the future occupiers of the proposed dwellings. There will be some light loss to this window but it would appear to be secondary in nature and on the northern elevation, meaning that such light loss whilst more discernible due to the relatively low levels of light gathered would not affect a primary window within the living space.

In addition the balance flue that also protrudes from the north elevation of 16 Buddle Close is located so as to discharge toward the road and it is not considered that this item is in itself sufficiently detrimental to the occupiers of the proposed dwellings as to warrant a refusal of the application or for its repositioning. Although it is noted that the applicant owns 16 Buddle Close and therefore should such issue arise it is within their power to facilitate this should they feel it necessary.

17 Buddle Close lies to the north of the application site. The proposal would see the higher of the two dwellings located adjacent to 17 Buddle Close. The proposed building is set back from the road and pavement at the turning head. This means that the proposed dwelling is not in alignment with 17 Buddle Close, being set back and at a right angle to it. The proposed building therefore will be visible from the front windows serving 17 Buddle Close but at a right angle.

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS SOUTHERN AREA

The proposed building will sit adjacent to the elevated garden area which is located to the west of 17 Buddle Close. The current owner has previously indicated on site that she does not utilise this area much due to its nature (stone), elevated position and steepness and that she utilises the remaining area of level garden to the rear of the site.

The proposed dwelling will be dug into the existing rock which forms the sloping topography of this site. The existing height of the garden area belonging to 17 Buddle Close would not be altered.

It is officer opinion that the new dwelling would have a significant visual presence when read against this elevated area of garden. However the likely impacts in terms of the ability of the owner/future occupiers of 17 Buddle Close to continue to have reasonable enjoyment of their property and surrounding curtilage would not be unacceptably affected by way of loss of light or overlooking. Only one window is proposed, which is shown to serve a landing area at the second floor. Conditions can be applied to limit the ability to install further windows to this elevation.

Objections have been received with respect to loss of light to 17 Buddle Close and the aforementioned garden area. The development will result in some light loss. However the setting back of the proposed property and its orientation in relation to the development is such that this light loss would not be of sufficient a level as to warrant the refusal of this application.

The arc of the sun from east to west would mean that light would be lost to the building as the sun transits along this path rising toward the middle of the day and dipping on its descent toward the west. As 17 Buddle Close faces south the light is partially obscured by the existing building of 16 Buddle Close which sits in almost direct opposition to 17 Buddle Close but with sufficient distance to allow for ambient light to reach the principle elevation of 17 Buddle Close.

Given that the proposed dwellings will be situated further to the west they may well impeded such ambient/filtered light but this would not, in officer view, be so great as to warrant refusal of the application.

Further objections relating to lack of boundary treatment have been made with respect to 17 Buddle Close and the application site. It is not considered that this is entirely accurate as plans indicate the erection of a 1.8m high close boarded fence. Officers feel that a suitable condition should be applied to any concern to ensure that the details of the boundary treatment compliment the street scene and are adequately adjusted to account for the sloping nature of the site.

Affordable Housing At the time of writing the required S106 to provide £12,000 is still in draft. The requirement to pay such a sum was originally questioned by the agents as the previous scheme was not subject to one. As clarification the previous scheme was fully flatted development and therefore not subject to the relevant Core Strategy Policy SP9.

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS SOUTHERN AREA

The current submission proposes 2 dwellings and therefore they are subject to the provisions of SP9. This has been accepted by the agents and the S106 has been submitted but has yet to be completed. It is anticipated that this will take place shortly.

Ecology Objections have been received over the lack of ecological assessment with regards to this site. As confirmation the trigger for requesting such information which is utilised by the Local Planning Authority in requesting such surveys is in this instance based upon site area. As the site is less than 0.1h in area and does not propose the removal of any tree or hedgerow then such a survey is not required.

Objections have stated that bats frequent and roost in the woodland toward the west of the site, however no development is proposed in that area and there is no indication that trees or hedges are to be removed in this woodland. And they have not been included as part of the application. A condition detailing works in relation to the existing trees and the landscaping can be applied to any consent to ensure that the trees are not affected by the development during the construction phase of the development.

Other matters The objections relating to the pressure on the existing sewer system through overloading have not been substantiated by way of comments from South West Water. If the system is privately owned/ maintained then these matters are essentially civil in nature and would not be dealt with as part of this application. It is not considered that damage by construction traffic can be adequately conditioned for given that the road is publicly accessible to all vehicles at present. The Highways Officer has not indicated that the existing road is incapable of accepting traffic movements of this nature.

In addition issues relating to noise and construction are generally covered by provisions under separate legislative provisions. Given the proximity of the site to the other residents it is considered appropriate to request a dust suppression scheme.

Considerations under Human Rights Act Due regard has been given to the provision of the European Convention on Human Rights and in particular to the rights under Article 1 of the First Protocol, namely the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions, and Article 8, the right to respect for private and family life. In arriving at a recommendation the rights of the applicants have been balanced against the objections raised by third parties. However, having due regard to objectives of Development Plan Policies and Central Government Guidance and relevant consultation replies, it is not considered that these concerns would override the applicant’s reasonable expectations under the Convention.

Conclusion The current development proposal is considered to have addressed the previous refusal reasons which related to the refused scheme for 2 flats. It is acknowledged

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS SOUTHERN AREA

that the development will result in the loss of the open space that denotes this area of Buddle Close, but it is officer opinion that the scale and form of the development can be accommodated without an undue detrimental impact upon neighbouring residents, the space is not currently utilised as formal open space for play or recreation and is within the settlement boundary for Tavistock where Local Plan Policy H28 allows for the principle of such development. Suitable conditions can be applied to ensure control over relevant matters relating to the development and the development will provide the relevant contributions towards affordable housing provision to be secured via a S106 Agreement as noted within the recommendation to Members.

Notes of a Meeting of the SITE INSPECTION PANEL held on THURSDAY 15th NOVEMBER 2012.

Present: Mrs C M Marsh – Chairman Mrs L Rose – Vice-Chairman Mrs S Bailey Mr W Cann OBE Mrs C Hall Mr L J G Hockridge Mr D Horn Mr T Pearce Mr D Whitcomb

Ward Members: Mr J Moody Mr J Sheldon

Area Planning Officer (South) Committee & Ombudsman Link Officer

In attendance: Mr C Gubby – County Highways Authority

An apology for absence was received from Mr D Wilde.

The Panel met on site at 10.00 am.

Mr Sheldon reported that, on this occasion, he was also representing Tavistock Town Council in addition to being a Ward Member.

The Area Planning Officer outlined the proposal which was a full application for the erection of two dwellings on the northern end of the hammer-head turning area in Buddle Close. The development would be between two established dwellings and would require some substantial earthworks\excavation of the current landscape area. One of the dwellings would have an integral garage with the second dwelling having a parking space located on land to the front of No. 16 Buddle Close, currently in the ownership of the applicant. The soakaway for the proposed dwellings would also be located here.

The applicant and his agent had marked out the plot so that the Panel could judge its possible impact on the amenity of current residents in the Close and get an idea of the building work to be undertaken in preparing the site.

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS SOUTHERN AREA

The Panel was advised that the Landscape Officer had no objections to the proposal and the Highways Officer reported similarly, expressing the view that the carriageway was wide enough to accommodate moving vehicles between vehicles parked either side of the road.

The Town Council, through Mr Sheldon, reiterated their objection to the proposal as stated in the Committee report as over-development, over-bearing to other properties and on being on the highest point of the road.

The site meeting finished at 10.20 am. ______

WARD: Tavistock North (Cllrs Mrs S Bailey; J Moody; J Sheldon)

APPLICATION NO: 02757/2012 LOCATION: Land Adjacent To 77, Bannawell Street, Tavistock APPLICANT NAME: Endeavor Homes Ltd APPLICATION: Full PARISH: Tavistock GRID REF: 247963 74610 PROPOSAL: Erection of building containing 5 flats with associated works including demolition of existing garages. CASE OFFICER: Ben Dancer TARGET DATE: 15/08/2012

Reason item is being put before committee: The application has been brought before the Committee at the request of Cllr. Moody who has stated that:

“Given the local residents’ concerns regarding the over development of the site, the over supply of flat accommodation in the area, insufficient off street parking for the size of the development and the acknowledged historic on-street parking problems in the area I would, therefore, request that this application be considered by committee”.

RECOMMENDATION: CONDITIONAL APPROVAL

Reason for Approval: This application has been determined in accordance with Section 72 of the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 in respect of planning applications which affect Conservation Areas which requires that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of Conservation Areas and determined in accordance with Section 66 of the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 in respect of planning applications which affect a listed building or its setting which requires that special regard shall be had to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS SOUTHERN AREA

architectural or historic interests which it possesses. This application has been determined in accordance with approved Development Plan Policies; relevant Government planning policy guidance; and approved in the absence of any other overriding material considerations and having given due weight to all other matters raised in this application including technical and other representations received. The relevant Policies are the National Planning Policy Framework, Devon Structure Plan Policies ST1, CO6, CO7, CO8, TR5, TR10, West Devon Core Strategy Policies SP1, SP4, SP9, SP18 and SP20 and West Devon Borough Local Plan Policies BE1, BE2, BE3, BE7, BE8, BE13, BE16, H28, T5, T9, PS2 and PS3.

Special regard has been given to the representations about the impact upon the highway due to the level of parking proposed, the impact of the building upon the area including the Conservation Area, World Heritage Site and adjacent Listed viaduct and the impact of the proposal upon neighbouring residents by way of loss of light but these were not considered to be overriding because the development is considered to be located within a sustainable and accessible location close to the town centre and would provide a suitably designed development which does not detract from the character and appearance of this designated area. Furthermore it complies with the Development Plan Policies and National Planning Framework which seek the re-use of brownfield sites and to make the most efficient use of the land in keeping with the qualities of the area. The previous planning history has also been considered in arriving at this determination

List of conditions: 1. Standard time limit 2. Hard and soft landscaping (inclusive of minor structures) 3. Landscaping to be maintained and replaced 4. Drainage Assessment 5. Approval of surface water drainage design 6. Drainage maintenance to be approved and implemented 7. Drainage to be completed prior to first occupation 8. Roof verge, rainwater goods and window details to be approved 9. Materials to be approved 10. Railing and railing plinth details to be approved 11. Removal of PD rights Part 40 Classes A-G 12. Parking provided prior to first occupation and maintained thereafter 13. Dust suppression scheme to be approved 14. Compliance with dust suppression scheme for duration of construction 15. Contaminated land survey, risk assessment and remediation 16. Windows shown as obscure glazed to be permanently retained as such unless otherwise agreed by LPA

The Proposal Erection of building containing 5 flats and associated works including demolition of existing garages.

Site and Surroundings

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS SOUTHERN AREA

The site consists of a brownfield site situated between Bannawell Street and Taylor Square directly adjacent to the Viaduct within the Tavistock Conservation Area and Cornwall and West Devon World Heritage Site. Until recently there were 5 garages on site which were situated adjacent to 77 Bannawell Street and which were set down below the level of Bannawell Street by approximately 1.4metres. These have now been fully demolished having received Conservation Area Consent under application 01574/2011.

As with previously approved schemes the proposed flats would be orientated with their frontages facing onto Bannawell Street which runs parallel to the sites western boundary. The properties on the western side of the street consisting of flats given as Flats 1A, 1B, 1C & 1D Bannawell Street and Flats 1,2 & 3 Bannawell Street (themselves a subdivision of 2 Bannawell Street).

The site is separated from these properties by approximately 8.4m. The rear of the proposed flats is the road connecting to Taylor Square, with “Fenner House” (a multi- occupancy residential unit) being situated approximately 13m to the east of the application sites boundary with the road.

The site is located within the Conservation Area, World Heritage Site and the defined settlement boundary for Tavistock. The site is also located adjacent to the Grade II Listed Viaduct.

Consultations: Tavistock Town Council: Support County Highways Authority: No objection South West Water Services: No comments received Conservation Officer: No objection to revised design but would object to reconstituted stone within the Conservation Area. Landscape Officer: No Comments received Senior Engineer: No objection subject to conditions RSPB: Comments that they would recommend a condition to create nesting places for building dependent birds with the fabric of the building.

Local Residents\Interested Parties 4 letters of representation have been received objecting to the proposal, raising the following matters; The developer should be content with permission for 2 dwellings 4th additional parking space does not justify additional unit This development is driven by profit Well known fact that flats generate a high flow of residents going through them Presence of asbestos on the site Loss of light to 2 Bannawell Street due to buildings height in relation to incline of hill Development will create and exacerbate parking problems in Bannawell Street Development spoils setting of Listed viaduct This part of Bannawell Street already has several blocks of flats

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS SOUTHERN AREA

Concentration of people within a small area creates problems Area of land is far too small to accommodate 5 flats Development will add to the extremely high density of development in this area Flats out of context with area

Material Planning Considerations The material planning considerations in assessing this development are the design, impact upon the character of the Conservation Area and World Heritage Site, impact upon the setting of the adjacent Listed Viaduct, highways impacts and the impacts of the development upon the amenities of neighbouring residents.

Planning History 01574/2011 Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of existing garages. Granted 07/11/11 01592/2011 Erection of 4 flats and associated works including demolition of existing garages. Granted 13/09/11 12597/2009 Proposed erection of 2 semi-detached dwellings. Granted 28/04/09 12122/2008 Erection of 3 dwellings. Refused 10/09/08 12121/2008 Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of existing garages. Refused 10/09/08 11651/2008 Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of existing garages. Withdrawn 11650/2008 Erection of 3 dwellings. Withdrawn 9288/2006 Erection of 3 storey building comprising 10 flats, formation of 6 parking spaces and access. Refused 07/11/06 9278/2006 Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of existing garages. Granted 10/10/06 6225/2004 Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of existing garages. Granted 17/08/04 6224/2004 Outline application for residential development. Granted 17/08/04

Planning Policy National Planning Policy Framework

Structure Plan 2001 - 2016 ST1 Sustainable Development CO6 Quality of New Development CO7 Historic Settlements and Buildings CO8 Archaeology TR5 Hierarchy of Modes TR10 Strategic Road Network

Core Strategy: SP1 Sustainable Development SP4 Infrastructure Provision SP9 Meeting Housing Needs SP18 The Heritage and Historical Character of West Devon SP20 Promoting High Quality Design

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS SOUTHERN AREA

Local Plan Review BE1 Development Within Conservation Areas BE2 Demolition Within Conservation Areas BE3 Development Affecting the Setting of a Listed Building BE7 Archaeology BE8 Archaeology BE13 Landscaping and Boundary Treatment BE16 Potentially Polluting Activity H28 Settlement Limits T5 Public Transport T8 Parking T9 Impact on the Highway network PS2 Surface Water Drainage PS3 Foul Drainage

Analysis Design This current application proposes 5 flats as opposed to the previously granted planning consent under application 01592/2011 which proposed 4 flats.

The proposed flats would be contained within a building of a similar footprint to that previously granted consent under that planning consent and also planning consent 12597/2009/TAV. The height of the proposed building is indicated on plan as being no higher than the ridgeline of 77 Bannawell Street which is located adjacent to the site on its northern boundary.

The proposed flats are almost identical in terms of their scale, bulk and massing as previously approved. The original plans submitted indicated some differing design elements from that previously consented such as the inclusion of revised designs and numbers of dormer windows, the positioning and removal of some fenestration that was previously proposed, large amounts of rainwater goods and the removal of features such as the chimneys.

Following objections from the Conservation Officer and the case officer the designs have been amended to alter the proposals to reduce the visual clutter and remove the extra dormer windows. The proposal also indicates 4 parking spaces (an increase from the 3 spaces previously approved) and revised position for bin storage.

The amended plans are now considered to be acceptable, with the caveat that the reconstituted stone indicated would not be accepted within the Conservation Area and therefore a condition for a more suitable finish such as natural stone would be attached to any planning consent. The final design of the bin store would also not be approved until details of its design had been submitted for approval by the Local Planning Authority and condition would be applied to ensure these details are submitted prior to the commencement of development. The position of the store has not been objected to by the Conservation Officer given that it will be located at a

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS SOUTHERN AREA

lower level than Bannawell Street and thus not visually prominent (subject to a suitable condition).

With regard to the proposed design, scale bulk and massing it is officer view that the proposed 5 flats would effectively be housed within a design not very dissimilar to that already consented under previous planning permissions.

Impact Upon the Conservation Area, World Heritage Site and Setting of the Listed Viaduct As with previous planning consents, the design of the building maintains a simplistic form intended to replicate the style of other dwellings and cottages within the locality. The design has been modified in accordance with the advice of the Conservation Officer and the case officer to bring the design more in line with that previously consented.

The position and design have therefore been reviewed in this context and the Conservation Officer has confirmed that there are now no objections to the design other than that with respect to the use of reconstituted stone.

The current proposal therefore is not considered to represent a major departure from the design of the previously approved schemes and that the impacts of the development relate more to the increase in density as opposed to the buildings impact upon the character of the Conservation Area and the World Heritage Site.

The scheme will ultimately replace the garages which are not considered to enhance the Conservation Area. The development in terms of scale follows the scale and general form of the dwellings which run to the north of the viaduct as opposed to emulating the larger buildings which are situated to the east (Fenner House) and to the south within Taylor Square. It is officer opinion that this is an appropriate form for the development proposed given the context of the site and adjacent area.

The proposal does not raise any new issues with respect to the setting of the viaduct which has already been assessed under the previous applications for this site. The separation distance and relationship have been accepted and remain unaltered, the scale and design of the proposal also remain as previously approved and therefore there is no alteration in terms of the proposed building in relation to the Listed viaduct from the previously approved schemes.

Highways Parking has been indicated on plan as providing 4 spaces; the previous approved plans indicated 3 spaces. The Highways officer has no objection to the scheme on the basis of 4 spaces being provided and given the sites location close to and within walking distance of the town centre.

Impact Upon Neighbouring Residents Amenities It is considered that the proposal does not raise any further issues of overlooking to the design previously approved. It is acknowledged that the proposal will increase

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS SOUTHERN AREA

the density and therefore there will be more occupants within the building. In planning terms this is not an incompatible use with the surrounding development, given that the neighbouring buildings are also dwellings/residential units.

Whilst this is a fully flatted development the design of the building is akin in form and scale to dwellings as opposed to larger flatted developments. The proposed scheme makes little alteration to the internal arrangements that were indicated on the previously approved scheme for 4 flats.

One notable exception is the placement of living/kitchen/dining rooms toward the west facing elevation at first floor and ground floor. The previously approved scheme proposed bathrooms and kitchens to front this elevation. It is officer opinion that these alterations do not result in any further likelihood of undue overlooking occurring to the residents of the flats located both along the western side of Bannawell Street and indeed given the pattern of houses being in opposition to each other along the length of the road, the proposed development replicates this pattern.

An objection has been raised with respect to loss of light to 2 Bannawell Street. It is officer opinion that the loss of light would be minimal given the separation distance of the proposed building from the existing dwelling and is akin to the relationship of the other properties which face toward each other along the length of the road, being approximately 8m apart (with the road separating them). In addition the arc of the sun as it moves from east to west along a southern arc means that light travelling toward the eastern elevation of 2 Bannawell Street is somewhat impeded by the existing viaduct piers, existing developments to the east and south and the overshadowing caused by the viaducts bulk as it runs from East to West above Bannawell Street.

It is officer opinion that the proposed flats would not unduly reduce the levels of filtered light to the properties opposite, inclusive of 2 Bannawell Street. It is evident that the sense of enclosure will increase as a result of the new development, but this is no greater than that which has been previously consented and again reflects the pattern of residential dwellings running along the road.

Other Matters Concerns have been raised with respect to asbestos being present on site. This has previously been raised in respect of the garages and their proposed demolition. At the present time there is a valid consent for their removal, with a condition for materials resulting from demolition to be removed from the site within 3 weeks of demolition and the site left in a tidy condition. In addition an informative was attached to that consent advising the applicant to seek the advice of the Local Planning Authority's Environmental Health Department with respect to the possible presence of asbestos in the fabric of the garages and its safe removal. Previous planning approvals have also been subject to a condition for the surveying and remediation for arsenic at the request of the Environmental Health Officer. It is considered appropriate that such a condition would be re-applied to any consent granted for the current development.

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS SOUTHERN AREA

At the present time it would appear the garages are in the process of being demolished.

Considerations under Human Rights Act Due regard has been given to the provision of the European Convention on Human Rights and in particular to the rights under Article 1 of the First Protocol, namely the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions, and Article 8, the right to respect for private and family life. In arriving at a recommendation the rights of the applicants have been balanced against the objections raised by third parties. However, having due regard to objectives of Development Plan Policies and Central Government Guidance and relevant consultation replies, it is not considered that these concerns would override the applicant’s reasonable expectations under the Convention.

Conclusion In respect of the current full application it is considered that the proposed increase in density from 4 flats to 5 flats does not in itself create any further impact upon the amenities of neighbouring residents or the character of this designated area that would warrant the refusal of the scheme. The proposed development reutilises brownfield land, is situated within the Tavistock settlement boundary and is located within a sustainable location close to the town centre. The proposed design is considered to be akin to the previously approved planning application, with some variance to design elements and fenestration. Conditions can be applied to any consent to cover matters relating to materials, minor design elements, drainage and contaminated land.

Accordingly the proposal is considered to comply with the listed Development Plan Policies. ______

WARD: Tavistock North (Cllrs Mrs S Bailey; J Moody; J Sheldon)

APPLICATION NO: 02961/2012 LOCATION: 3 Duke Street, Tavistock, PL19 0BA APPLICANT NAME: Colvase Estate Ltd APPLICATION: Full PARISH: Tavistock GRID REF: 248176 74511 PROPOSAL: Two new shop fronts to facilitate subdivision of shop to two units. CASE OFFICER: Katie Graham TARGET DATE: 26/09/2012

Reason item is being put before committee: This application has been called to Committee by Councillor Sheldon on the following grounds: “I have to state that I am the Chair of the Tavistock Town Council Plans Committee. We give due

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS SOUTHERN AREA

consideration to all plans and without fail in CA, WHS areas we make reference to the Conservation Officer.

I would wish this matter to go to Committee as the side premise involved fronts onto Pepper Street. There is already a bricked up part of this building that defaces the ground floor. Only from the first floor upwards has character over successive years been retained. In the commercial retail environment that this building stands I believe it is in the public interest to encourage new small self contained shop units, of which there are two. Assisting traders who wish to follow the path of becoming independent retailers that Tavistock is known for. Tavistock does not lack traders to do this; home based businesses could be encouraged to take part.

Pepper Street is made up of shops with various frontages and is a natural thoroughfare to shops in Barley Market Street. Businesses are varied and they are likely to profit and gain from the addition of footfall these small shops units should bring. Material considerations involve employment and regeneration that supports other businesses and the Town Centre.“

RECOMMENDATION: Delegate to Development Manager to REFUSE application (subject to no new representations raising new material planning considerations being received on the 4th December).

Reason for refusal: The proposed new shop fronts by reason of their form, proportion and design including the addition of plywood sign boards will fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area and would harm the OUV of the WHS and the setting of the Listed Buildings The proposal is therefore contrary to Development Plan Policies BE1, BE3, R2, SP18, SP20, Structure Plan Policies CO6, CO7 and the NPPF.

The Proposal This is a Full planning application for the creation of two new shop fronts, on the Pepper Street elevation of 3 Duke Street. This will allow for the creation of 2 new units, to be formed from underused space currently serving the one of the retail units occupying 3 Duke Street. There has been a variety of amendments for this scheme. The final scheme, now in front of Members for consideration proposes a set of glazed entrance doors with 2 windows sited on either side of the glazed doors and a timber framed sign board over the windows and doors.

Site and Surroundings The application site is located in the town centre of Tavistock, within the Conservation Area and World Heritage Site. The application site currently forms part of 3 Duke Street, which is sited on a corner fronting onto Duke Street, but also has a frontage along Pepper Street. It is the Pepper Street elevation that is proposed to be altered as part of this proposal. 3 Duke Street is currently 2 retail units (2 phone shops) which both front onto Duke Street. The supporting information states that internally to the rear of these units there are underused spaces including a blocked off room, large kitchen area and toilet and a disused outside toilet. The Pepper Street elevation is characterised by an infilled window, noticeable by the retention of

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS SOUTHERN AREA

its cill and a traditional sliding sash window, sited on either side of an entrance door with a small pediment porch above. The mid C19th building is 3 storey with a balanced appearance with the arrangement of the recessed sash white painted timber windows sited at the first and second floor. The building is a yellow render.

Adjacent to the north west there is an access serving the rear of properties to the north west of Pepper Street with slate hung cantilevered accommodation above which is attached to the application site. Further to this are a butchers and cobblers. On the opposite side of Pepper Street there is a bank.

There are some Listed Buildings within the vicinity of the site including 1 Duke Street (Grade II) to the south west and 9 – 18 Duke Street (Grade II) to the South East.

Consultations: County Highways Authority: Do not wish to comment South West Water: No comments received Environment Agency: No comments received – standing advice applies Tavistock Town Council: Support the proposal with reference to the Conservation Officer Conservation Officer: Original comments on original scheme: The building has a strongly residential character and contributes significantly to the character and appearance of the CA and the setting of listed buildings. It also dates from the period of mining boom so contributes to the OUV of the WHS. There was some pre-app on this and I expressed the view that only a design of excellent quality could justify such a fundamental change.

Clearly it is desirable to bring buildings into the fullest possible Optimum Viable Use, but this cannot be at the expense of other heritage considerations. It is not indicated why the vacant rooms cannot be re-allocated to form part of (I assume) residential units above? This would enable the restoration of the blocked window and, therefore, the true historic elevation. It seems also to be assumed that no future tenant of the phone shop would want to use the additional space. Given the apparent short term tenancy arrangement is this not a bit short-sighted?

If the case for conversion is adequately made then the form of conversion needs to be considered. I have a number of comments on the proposed design:- 1. Form – The form and proportion of the openings does not relate very well to the elevation as a whole. The loss of simple symmetry and introduction of different glazing patterns does not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the building. 2. Fascias – There is a general lack of fascias on commercial properties in the vicinity – the adjacent butchers is a notable exception but not the rule. Would it be better to do without fascias so that the domestic entrance remains the focal point? Signage could be by applied lettering. 3. Historic windows – Could the existing window openings be retained, perhaps clear glazed as ‘shopfronts’? The units and the flats could then be accessed from a shared lobby behind the existing entrance which would be open during

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS SOUTHERN AREA

business hours only. This would, of course, allow the two rooms to possibly be linked as a single shop unit.

As it stands I cannot offer support as the scheme will transform the elevational appearance and will not, therefore, pass the ‘preserve or enhance’ test. There will also be an impact on the setting of LB’s and the character of a polite shopkeepers residence associated with the main shopping street of the successful town.

Updated informal comments during course of application: Version 2 is a possible solution. Require granite thresholds and large cross sections of joinery and fascia and add conditions (structural details and painting of elevation).

Updated comments: The double doors with the flank windows exhibit no particular design quality. The proportions are awkward and the appearance bland. There is no attempt to explain how the design has responded to the balanced elevation that exists or how it is considered to preserve or enhance character or appearance. The grey window and door material looks like powder coated metal? I thought there had been reference to timber in the actual app. How does this relate to the elegant white painted timber sashes?

In summary, this design clearly fails to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA, so I cannot support it. The doorway approach on previous drawings at least reflected the character of the existing openings, even if the design itself did not present much hope of a positive appearance.

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS SOUTHERN AREA

Updated comments: Further to my comments yesterday I can add some more based on the detailed sectional drawings provided.

1. I am still unconvinced by the flank window design and I am not prepared to recommend approval for this.

2. I welcome the confirmation of painted timber joinery details and the granite threshold. The section marks a sill as granite with anti slip finish which does not make sense – as this relates to the side windows which I do not support it may not be such an issue.

3. I do not agree with planted on sign boards. The scheme we were prepared to support, based on the width of existing window openings, had recessed fascias which were acceptable (although inadequate detail was provided). If integral fascias are not proposed then I would strongly advocate the use of signwriting onto render as successfully used on other businesses in the vicinity.

The 19th century commercial growth of Tavistock is epitomized by the high quality of shopfronts along Duke St and elsewhere. These units contribute to the Outstanding Universal Value of the WHS and it is most desirable that any new units achieve a similar level of quality and do not detract from existing architectural compositions.

Having come close to a scheme which we were able to support it is unfortunate that the application has now veered away to a form which I am unable to endorse.

As it stands I strongly recommend refusal as the form, proportion and design of the proposed shop openings and the addition of plywood sign boards will fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area. The development would also harm the OUV of the WHS and there will also be an impact on the setting of LB’s.

Local Residents\Interested Parties: One letter of representation received out of the consultation process from the Tavistock & District Chamber of Commerce: Support for the Townscape Heritage Initiative and recognises importance of the towns historic heritage however is also concerned that the town centre should achieve both vitality and viability. Present elevation of the building is far from attractive and creates no particular interest visually. Bringing that frontage to life must therefore be welcomed visually and because of the activity it would create.

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS SOUTHERN AREA

Proposal would enhance the attractiveness of Pepper Street which would be to the benefit if other businesses in the vicinity Balance needs to be struck between achieving a suitable design, and producing 2 viable shop units, and their size would be attractive to independent retailers. In order to give occupants bets chance of achieving economic viability the new shops needs display windows. Request permission be granted as soon as possible.

Material Planning Considerations The key material planning considerations include the design and resultant impact of the proposal and impact upon the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage Site and the impact upon the vitality and viability of the town centre and economy.

Planning History 02408/2012 Retrospective sub-division of 2 existing flats to create 2 additional flats. Consent 19/04/2012 9329/2006/TAV Advertisement Consent for erection of sign (externally illuminated trough lighting) Withdrawn 19/12/2006 7812/004 New shopfront. Conditional Consent14/09/1998 8365/05 Retrospective application for demolition and rebuild as existing main chimney. Granted with Standard Condition 18/07/1994 8365/02 New shopfront for proposed greengrocers. Granted with Standard Condition 23/07/1993 8365// Renewal of fascia and doors to existing shop front. Granted with Standard Condition 06/11/1985

Planning Policy National Planning Policy Framework

Local Plan Review: BE1 Conservation Areas BE3 Listed Buildings and their settings R2 Vital and Viable Town Centres

Core Strategy: SP1 Sustainable Development SP10 Supporting the Growth of the Economy SP18 The Heritage and Historical Character of West Devon SP20 Promoting High Quality Design

County Structure Plan: ST1 Sustainable Development CO6 Quality of New Development CO7 Historic Settlements and Buildings SH2 Shopping Facilities and Settlement Hierarchy SH4 Shopping Facilities in Rural Settlements

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS SOUTHERN AREA

Analysis In terms of the principle of development, Local Plan policy R2 encourages retail units within town centre locations where: (i) The development is of a bulk and design compatible with it’s surroundings; (ii) The development will not give rise to significant loss of amenity to neighbouring occupiers; (iii) There are no significant adverse impacts in terms of highway safety.

It is not considered that there are any issues in terms of the bulk of the development, nor any in relation to the amenity of neighbouring occupiers or any issues relating to the impact upon highway safety. The key issue for consideration is whether the design is compatible with its surroundings.

The proposal will utilise underused areas currently serving an existing retail unit, and will not impact upon the functioning of this existing unit. There is no objection to the creation of additional A1 units within a town centre location and therefore no objection in principle. The key issues to consider are the design and impact upon the historic environment and the impact upon the town centre.

Design and Heritage Considerations The key consideration is the impact upon the existing building and resultant impact Conservation Area and WHS. As noted in the Conservation Officer’s comments the existing frontage is residential in character and considered to contribute positively to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and WHS. There have been various amendments to the scheme through the application process. One version of the scheme which proposed the replacement of the windows with the glazed doors, and revealed signage above, was considered acceptable by officers, however as this was not deemed viable by the agent, the current scheme (as described under the proposal section above) is before Members. The Conservation Officer has provided extensive comments in relation to this proposal as copied above.

The materials for the shop front have been confirmed (timber shop front with a granite threshold) and these are considered acceptable. However the proportions and form of the proposed new shop front openings, specifically the flank windows, are not considered to reflect the existing balanced elevation and the character of the shop fronts do not reflect that of the existing building. They will also result in the loss of the historic window.

In addition, there is concern over the proposed softwood timber fascia sign. This is proposed to be stuck on above the shop fronts, affixed to the render and not sited within a reveal.

Overall it is not considered that the proposed shop fronts preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area and it is considered that the proposal will harm the historic significance of the building.

Impact upon Town Centre

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS SOUTHERN AREA

The introduction of 2 additional modest shop units within the town centre will have a positive impact upon the vitality and viability of the town centre.

Referring to the NPPF, Para 134 states that: “Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.”

In this case it is considered that the harm to the designated Conservation Area and WHS outweighs the public benefits of the proposal.

Others The application is currently in a reconsultation period, which finishes on Committee day (4th December). However, as comments could be received throughout this day, a decision cannot be issued on the 4th December. If appropriate officers would intend on issuing a decision on the 5th December provided no new representations have been received. This is reflected in the recommendation above.

As noted above there are not considered to be any issues relating to neighbour impact. The existing and adjacent building contains residential units but a retail use is not considered to conflict with these uses.

The proposal in a town centre location is not considered to give rise to any highway issues.

There are no issues relating to ecology and/or biodiversity.

Considerations under Human Rights Act Due regard has been given to the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, and in particular to the rights under Article 1 of the First Protocol of the owner of the site with respect to his rights to peaceful enjoyment of possession and protection of property. Due regard has also been given to the rights under Article 8 of the neighbouring properties, with respect to their rights for private and family life. In arriving at this recommendation, whilst the effect of the recommendation on the applicants is acknowledged, the impact has been carefully balanced against the wider community interest.

Conclusion The existing building is considered to positively contribute to the Conservation Area and WHS. The proposed shop fronts, due to their proportion and form, and affixed timber sign board, are considered to harm the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the OUV of the WHS. In addition, it is not considered that the public benefits of the proposal outweigh this harm. ______

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS SOUTHERN AREA

WARD: Tavistock North (Cllrs Mrs S Bailey; J Moody; J Sheldon)

APPLICATION NO: 03106/2012 LOCATION: 20 Plymouth Road, Tavistock, PL19 8AY APPLICANT NAME: Mrs E Baker APPLICATION: Full PARISH: Tavistock GRID REF: 247959 74278 PROPOSAL: Change of use of office to beauty therapy room. CASE OFFICER: Katie Graham TARGET DATE: 21/11/2012

Reason item is being put before committee: site owned by West Devon Borough Council.

RECOMMENDATION: CONDITIONAL APPROVAL

Reason for Approval: This application has been determined in accordance with Section 72 of the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 in respect of planning applications which affect Conservation Areas which requires that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of Conservation Areas. This application has been determined in accordance with approved Development Plan Policies; relevant Government planning policy guidance; and approved in the absence of any other overriding material considerations and having given due weight to all other matters raised in this application including technical and other representations received. The relevant Policies are NPPF, Core Strategy: SP1, SP10, SP18, Local Plan: BE1, BE3, T8, Structure Plan: ST1, ST15, ST20, CO7, TR4, TR9

Special regard has been given to the representations about public visitation, noise and parking but these were not considered to be overriding due to the small scale and siting of the proposed use, visitor numbers and noise is not considered to give rise to any harm, and the lack of onsite parking is not considered to give rise to any harm taking into account the town centre location.

List of conditions: 1. Standard Time Limit 2. Restriction on hours of opening (10am – 6pm Monday to Friday, 10am – 2pm Saturdays and no Sunday or bank holiday working – as copied from application forms) 3. The proposed use shall be restricted to beauty therapy only and shall be used for no other purpose

The Proposal

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS SOUTHERN AREA

The proposal is for the change of use of an office room on the first floor of the existing building, to be used for beauty therapy.

Site and Surroundings The application site is located within the settlement of Tavistock and forms part of 20 Plymouth Road which has been subdivided into a number of modest business units (including financial advisors, golf union, planning agency, taxi company and web design company).

20 Plymouth Road is sited immediately to the east of the bus depot and to the south of The Anchorage Centre. It is attached to 18 Plymouth Road which is sited to the east. There is some parking to the front of 20 Plymouth Road which serves the existing offices within the building.

The site is located within the Conservation Area and World Heritage Site.

Consultations: County Highways Authority: Noting the existing use I can confirm that I have no highway objection to the proposal in this edge of town centre location Conservation Officer: Unless there are heritage issues you need me to comment on I am happy for you to deal with this. South West Water: None Environment Agency: None (standing advice would apply) Tavistock Town Council: Support the proposal

Local Residents\Interested Parties: One letter of objection on the following grounds: Concerns over security with members of the public entering the building at all times of the day Potential for noise – music Parking is limited and allocated to tenants – potential for misuse

Email from applicant responding to objection, advising: Clients would be arriving on an appointment basis and would be let and shown out by applicant, and not be left to pose a security risk An application for a licence to play CDs has been applied for. This will be atmospheric background music (“gentle and soothing”) Have not advertised any parking spaces on site and have put within advertising brochure that there is adequate local parking near 20 Plymouth Road on the main road and in adjacent car parks. I will also advise them where to park and ask them to move should they park within an allocated space before treatment is commenced. Would like to run a small business alongside others without causing discomfort or concern

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS SOUTHERN AREA

Material Planning Considerations The material planning considerations include the principle of development, impact upon heritage, parking and other considerations to address the objection received.

Planning History 5057/2003/TAV Advertisement Consent for display of name plate. Conditional Consent 28/10/2003 2843/2002/TAV Non-illuminated board sign on front elevation adjacent to entrance door Conditional Consent 06/05/2002 1086/2000/TAV Erection of non illuminated wall mounted sign Conditional Consent 16/01/2001 1600/014 Formation of a sales kiosk and canopy. Conditional Consent 17/09/1992 1600/07 Change of use from supermarket to studio ice skating. Conditional Consent 04/08/1989 1600/06 Erection of a new shop fascia sign. Granted with Standard Conditions (Advert Only) 03/03/1980 1600/01 Change of use of existing garage to a retail grocery, ground floor of 20 Plymouth Road to storage and ancillary accommodation, and existing hardstanding to car parking, 20 Plymouth Road, and part of the Bus Depot, 20 Plymouth Road. Conditional Consent 06/12/1976 1600/0 Use of existing premises for office purposes at Bus Station site Consent 23/05/1975

Planning Policy National Planning Policy Framework

Core Strategy: SP1 Sustainable Development SP10 Supporting the Growth of the Economy SP18 The Heritage and Historical Character of West Devon

Local Plan: BE1 Conservation Areas BE3 Listed Buildings T8 Parking

Structure Plan: ST1 Sustainable Development ST15 Area Centres ST20 Re-assessment and Safeguarding Employment Land CO7 Historic Settlement and Buildings TR4 Parking Strategy, Standards and Proposals TR9 Public Transport

Analysis Principle of Development

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS SOUTHERN AREA

The proposal is for the change of use of one room of the building to a beauty therapy room and the application form states that the use would include manicures and pedicures. This is considered to be at a modest scale which would not give rise to any intensification of use within the building.

The site is located within a town centre location and there are no policy restrictions that would prevent such a use within this location.

The proposal will comply with the Core Strategy which advises that support will be given to the provision of business in the main towns and the development of small businesses. The proposal within a town centre location is considered to contribute to its vitality and viability.

Impact upon Heritage The proposal does not include any alterations to the building and the use is not considered to harm the character or appearance of the Conservation Area or the Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage Site.

The nearest Listed Building is Grade II 16 Plymouth Road located further to the east and 19 and 21 Plymouth Road across the road to the south of the application site. Their settings will not be affected by the proposal.

Parking Whilst 20 Plymouth Road has some parking to the front, this proposal will not be allocated any of these parking spaces. However the site is located immediately adjacent to the bus station within a town centre location and within close proximity to a public car park. Given the small scale and siting of the proposed use, the lack of allocated on site parking is not considered to give rise to any highways issues and there is no objection on this basis.

Any misuse of parking cannot be controlled by planning condition and is not a material planning consideration.

Other Issues The neighbouring property 18 Plymouth Road is currently residential (although benefits from consent for a part change of use to office). A single beauty therapy room is not considered to give rise to any impact upon amenity such as noise.

An objection has been received from a current tenant of 20 Plymouth Road in relation to noise. It is not considered that a single beauty therapy room would give rise to any significant noise nuisance, and as an example, any music would be no different to an office with a radio on.

The other objection raised relates to concerns over security in relation to members of the public visiting the building, which is also not a material planning consideration. In any case, the use in terms of visitors would not be significantly different to the current office uses within the building, some of which would also have members of the public visiting.

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS SOUTHERN AREA

Considerations under Human Rights Act Due regard has been given to the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, and in particular to the rights under Article 1 of the First Protocol of the applicant(s) with respect to his/her/their right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of the property. Due regard has also been given to the rights, under Article 8, of local residents with respect to their rights for private and family life. In arriving at a recommendation the rights of the applicant(s) have been balanced against the interests, as expressed through the Development Plan and Central Government Guidance. Conclusion The proposed change of use, which is small in scale and sited conveniently adjacent to both the bus station and public car park, is considered to be acceptable in terms of planning policy. ______

WARD: Thrushel (Cllr D Horn)

APPLICATION NO: 02926/2012 LOCATION: Land at Spindlewood House, Newton Down, Lifton, Devon, PL16 OAS APPLICANT NAME: Ms K Sargent APPLICATION: Full PARISH: Stowford GRID REF: 2413065 856885 PROPOSAL: AMENDED PLANS: Erection of dwelling in place of caravan in use for residential purposes. CASE OFFICER: Katie Graham TARGET DATE: 20/09/2012

Reason item is being put before committee: This application has been called in to Committee by Cllr Horn on the grounds within the following comments: “Thanks for the report, it was how I expected and I can understand the way you came to a decision but I consider there is room for debate on how Policy H29 applies to these small rural Hamlets that make up the Parish of Stowford. So I would like to call this Application into Committee on the grounds that it had unanimous support from the Parish Council, and that Policy H29 has not been satisfactorily explored relating to Stowford.”

Further comments following clarification on policy H29 from case officer: “Stowford has no defined boundary when it comes to development, and considering the settlement of Portgate played a very important contribution to the village, if you could call it that, by providing the only village shop, Methodist Church, now used as a second home, the only village pub, which you may recall wanted to close its doors a

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS SOUTHERN AREA

while ago, and indeed the application site was another shop come filling station, I could go on”.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE

Reason for refusal: The proposed dwelling constitutes a new dwelling in the open countryside and is not considered to fulfil the functional and financial requirements, it does not constitute infill development under policy H29 nor the policy requirements of paragraph 55 of the NPPF, and would therefore result in harm to the intrinsic qualities of the open countryside and would is therefore contrary to the NPPF, Policy H29, H31, SP1, SP5 of the Development Plan.

The Proposal The current application seeks to replace the existing caravan with a 2 storey dwelling, to be sited to the northwest of the existing caravan and partially on the same footprint.

Site and Surroundings The application site relates to an existing caravan, which is currently sited within an existing area of curtilage. There is a small area of decking to the front of the existing caravan. The caravan is sited within a larger field and the application site includes an enlarged area of this field to be used as garden which is an increase from the existing curtilage area. There is a small domestic shed sited behind the caravan.

A detached garage is sited to the south west of the application site. This serves the detached dwellinghouse Spindlewood House, which is located further to the south west. Detached dwelling Woodlands is located to the east of the application site. The site is accessed from the C Road to the south via a private drive that also serves Spindlewood House. There is a TPO sited to the south of the application site and also mature trees sited along the north east boundary.

Consultations: County Highways Authority: If it can be argued that the residential use by way of the caravan is established it would be difficult to substantiate any highway concerns as effectively no change to highway implications. South West Water: No comments received Environment Agency: None – standing advice applies Drainage Engineer: Request more info 1. Updated comments: The applicant has confirmed that the existing septic system is to be used to serve this development. An evaluation of the capacity and condition of this is needed of the existing system is needed. The evaluation should consider the capacity of the existing tank and it’s capability to deal with the foul waste produced as a result of the increased occupancy. These details must be forwarded for review. 2. The e-mail attached confirms what is required with respect to surface water drainage

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS SOUTHERN AREA

Stowford Parish Council: Initial email querying floor area /foot print 03/09: They support approval of consent for a building to replace the caravan but the size and position of the proposed building are a cause for concern. Updated comments on amended plans: Support for the following reasons: The property is a much improved enhancement to the parish amenity compared to the caravan and it increases the sustainability of local amenities ie schools, post office restaurants etc. Local Residents\Interested Parties: None

Material Planning Considerations The key material planning consideration is the principle of the development. In addition there are design, landscape and drainage considerations.

Planning History 01540/2011 Use of land for the siting of a caravan for residential purposes and use of land as domestic curtilage. Consent 05/07/2011 1153/2000/TAV Siting of caravan Withdrawn 28/02/2001

Planning Policy National Planning Policy Framework

Local Plan Review: NE10 Protection of the wider countryside and other open spaces H29 Smaller Settlements H31 Residential Development in the Countryside H35 Replacement Dwellings in the Countryside T8 Car Parking T9 The Highway Network

Core Strategy: SP1 Sustainable Development SP5 Spatial Strategy SP17 Landscape Character

County Structure Plan 2001 - 2016: ST1 Sustainable Development ST16 Local Centres and Rural Areas

Analysis Background History The Certificate of Lawfulness for the siting of a caravan (01540/2011) was issued on the grounds that the evidence submitted was sufficiently precise and unambiguous to demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities, that there had been the use of land and siting of a caravan for residential purposes and the use of land as domestic curtilage for a continuous period of 10 years.

For clarity officers consider that the existing structure on site is a caravan. There has been the installation of a timber skirt and a decking area, but this has not affected

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS SOUTHERN AREA

the structure of the caravan and could easily be removed without altering the caravan structure.

Planning Policy and Principle of Development As there is no existing dwelling on site, the proposal is for a new dwelling in the open countryside. On this basis, there is a requirement for evidence of a need for the dwelling, based upon an essential agricultural, forestry or horticultural requirement. No justification has been submitted on this basis, nor on any other grounds of special circumstances.

The mobile home is not a dwelling, and as such, the proposed unit cannot be considered as a replacement dwelling. On this basis, consideration under the replacement dwelling policy (H35) is not relevant.

This has been the same consideration given originally to The Lodge at Holdstrong (01123/2010) which was refused on the grounds “The proposed dwelling is not considered to fulfil the functional and financial requirements necessary to justify a new dwelling in the open countryside, and is therefore contrary to PPS7 and Policy H31 of the West Devon Adopted Local Plan.” (This site was later subject to a CLEUD for a dwelling and therefore the principle of replacement was accepted).

The Ward Member has also raised the issue of whether the development would constitute infill development under H29. This only permits residential development within certain settlements, which includes Stowford. Whilst the application site is located within the Parish of Stowford, it is not located within the settlement of Stowford and therefore the infill policy is not applicable.

The proposal is seeking to establish a dwelling house in the open countryside, and is considered to consolidate an area of isolated sporadic development contrary to planning policy. It is not considered that there is the necessary justification required for the erection of a 2 storey dwelling on this site.

In addition, the existing mobile home is not visually intrusive and it is not considered that there would be any planning gain from the removal and replacement of the mobile home with a dwelling.

Only in exceptional circumstances, where material planning considerations indicate otherwise, would officers be able to make a recommendation contrary to policy. Where the LPA have previously accepted the replacement of a caravan for a dwelling, it has been in a small number of exceptional circumstances. One example was when the replacement had been smaller than the mobile unit on site, of a better design than the existing dilapidated structure, therefore contributing to the character of the area, which was located within a designated area (AONB). This application has none of these points as justification.

The agent has provided a number of examples from Cornwall where they have accepted the replacement of a caravan with a dwelling. Looking at one of these examples, the “Land at Pencuke” appeal decision, the Inspector states that the

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS SOUTHERN AREA

proposal is in fact contrary to policy (para 10), however found that other material considerations indicated otherwise (para 17) including this sites location within the AONB, so this site also had a justification in terms of its location within the AONB statutory designated landscape.

With regard to this scheme the proposal is not located within a designated area, the scale is much larger than the existing unit, and it is not considered that there are any other overriding material considerations that would justify a departure from policy.

Scale and Design The building is of a contemporary design consisting of slate roof, a mix of white render, natural stone, timber clad wall, and timber window frames. The height of the dwelling is 7m at its highest point. Amended plans have been received which has removed the integral garage from the scheme and modestly reduced the bulk of the dwelling, however the amount of residential accommodation has increased. If officers were to consider the application in terms of the size of the replacement, the existing caravan has a floor area of approx 30 sqm, the proposed dwelling has a floor area of 160 sqm which is a significant increase above the existing, and also above the maximum sized mobile home which would allow for a floor area of 136 sqm (20m x 6.8m).

Landscape Considerations There are no specific details provided regarding boundary treatment but this could be dealt with by condition.

Consideration needs to be given to a TPO oak sited within close proximity to the site. The amended plans appear to have increased the separation distance modestly from this tree. Previously there was a small portion that appeared to be located within the RPA. In the absence of landscape officer comments it is considered that the proposal would not harm the protected tree with the provision of conditions.

Highway Matters The Highways Officer has essentially advised that if there is an existing residential use then there would not be any significant change in highways implications. Therefore officers are not raising any objections in terms of highway safety.

Drainage There are outstanding drainage details however it is not considered that should result in a reason for refusal and is currently being addressed by the agent.

Amenity In terms of amenity, the separation distance to Spindlewood House is over 22m. The separation distance to Woodlands is approx 20m, and is also well screened by mature trees. On this basis the proposed scheme is not considered to give rise to any issues impacting upon the amenity of these properties.

Ecology/Biodiversity

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS SOUTHERN AREA

There are not considered to be any impacts upon any protected species or biodiversity.

Considerations under Human Rights Act Due regard has been given to the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, and in particular to the rights under Article 1 of the First Protocol of the owner of the site with respect to his rights to peaceful enjoyment of possession and protection of property. Due regard has also been given to the rights under Article 8 of the neighbouring properties, with respect to their rights for private and family life. In arriving at this recommendation, whilst the effect of the recommendation on the applicants is acknowledged, the impact has been carefully balanced against the wider community interest.

Conclusion The proposed dwelling represents a new unjustified dwelling in the open countryside, not in compliance with any local or national policy, and there are no exceptional circumstances that would justify a departure from policy. ______

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPEALS UPDATE

APPLICATION NO: 02958/2012 APPLlCANT: Ms I Chambers PROPOSAL: Change of use of part agricultural building for use as domestic garage to be used in conjunction with holiday let. LOCATION: Wilminstone Farm, Wilminstone, Tavistock, Devon, PL19 0JT APPEAL STATUS: APPEAL LODGED APPEAL DECISION APPEAL START DATE 25/10/2012 APPEAL DECISION DATE

APPLICATION NO: 02767/2012 APPLlCANT: Ms I Chambers PROPOSAL: Variation of condition 2 attached to planning consent 12518/2008/TAV limiting use to ancillary accommodation. LOCATION: Round House, Launceston Road, Tavistock, PL19 8NG APPEAL STATUS: APPEAL LODGED APPEAL DECISION APPEAL START DATE 25/10/2012 APPEAL DECISION DATE

APPLICATION NO: 02781/2012 APPLlCANT: Mr & Mrs A Whiteman PROPOSAL: Change of use of public house to dwelling. LOCATION: Harris Arms, Portgate, Lewdown, Okehampton, Devon, EX20 4PZ APPEAL STATUS: APPEAL LODGED APPEAL DECISION APPEAL START DATE 14/11/2012 APPEAL DECISION DATE

APPLICATION NO: 02132/2011 APPLlCANT: Mr J Russell PROPOSAL: Erection of replacement dwelling (existing bungalow to be demolished) and associated works including erection of detached garage. LOCATION: Bryher, Brentor, Tavistock, Devon, PL19 0NQ APPEAL STATUS: APPEAL DECIDED APPEAL DECISION Appeal Dismissed APPEAL START DATE 20/06/2012 APPEAL DECISION DATE 31/10/2012

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 PLANNING APPEALS UPDATE

ENFORCEMENT APPEAL DECISIONS

REF. NO: E/00851/2010 APPELLANT: Mr Tim Woodcock BREACH: Unauthorised building (garage/store) LOCATION: Tuzzies Barn, Tuell Down, Milton Abbot APPEAL STATUS: APPEAL DECIDED APPEAL DECISION Appeal Dismissed – compliance extended to 9 months DATE: 05/11/2012

REF. NO: E/00852/2010 APPELLANT: Mr Tim Woodcock BREACH: Breach of condition – Holiday let being used as full time dwelling LOCATION: Tuzzies Barn, Tuell Down, Milton Abbot APPEAL STATUS: APPEAL DECIDED APPEAL DECISION Appeal Dismissed – complaince extended to 9 months DATE: 05/11/2012

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 DELEGATED DECISIONS

WARD: Bere Ferrers APPLICATION NO: 02481/2012 LOCATION: Bere Barton, Fore Street, Bere Ferrers, Yelverton, PL20 7JL APPLICANT NAME: Mr & Mrs D Chapman APPLICATION: Listed Building GRID REF: 245880 63403 PROPOSAL: Listed building application for internal and external alterations and repair including replacement rainwater goods and works to stone entrance pillars. CASE OFFICER: Katie Graham DECISION DATE: 25/10/2012 DECISION: Conditional Consent

WARD: Bere Ferrers APPLICATION NO: 02823/2012 LOCATION: 68 Broad Park Road, Bere Alston, Yelverton, Devon, PL20 7DU APPLICANT NAME: Mrs V Atkinson APPLICATION: Full GRID REF: 244749 67036 PROPOSAL: Erection of single storey dwelling including alterations to access and associated works. CASE OFFICER: Ben Wilcox DECISION DATE: 12/11/2012 DECISION: Conditional Consent

WARD: Bere Ferrers APPLICATION NO: 03059/2012 LOCATION: Collins Farm, Ferry Road, Bere Alston, Yelverton, PL20 7EX APPLICANT NAME: Mr A Viggers APPLICATION: Full GRID REF: 243574 66916 PROPOSAL: Erection of agricultural building for rearing of calves, including hedgerow removal and reinstatement.

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 DELEGATED DECISIONS

CASE OFFICER: Ben Wilcox DECISION DATE: 01/11/2012 DECISION: Conditional Consent

WARD: Bere Ferrers APPLICATION NO: 03090/2012 LOCATION: Amble House, Weir Quay, Bere Alston, Yelverton, PL20 7BS APPLICANT NAME: Mr M Blong APPLICATION: Full GRID REF: 243163 65080 PROPOSAL: Householder application for the erection of an extension. CASE OFFICER: Cheryl Stansbury DECISION DATE: 09/11/2012 DECISION: Conditional Consent

WARD: Bridestowe APPLICATION NO: 03109/2012 LOCATION: Pastures, West Cleave Farm, Eworthy, Germansweek, Devon, EX21 5AL APPLICANT NAME: Mr and Mrs T Lake APPLICATION: Full GRID REF: 245898 95168 PROPOSAL: Householder application for extension to dwelling CASE OFFICER: Mr Louis Dulling DECISION DATE: 25/10/2012 DECISION: Conditional Consent

WARD: Bridestowe APPLICATION NO: 03124/2012 LOCATION: 7 Beech Tree Meadow, Bridestowe, Okehampton, Devon, EX20 4EF APPLICANT NAME: Mr M Al-Romaithi APPLICATION: Full GRID REF: 251506 89348 PROPOSAL: Householder Application for Erection of

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 DELEGATED DECISIONS

Garage CASE OFFICER: Mr Louis Dulling DECISION DATE: 06/11/2012 DECISION: Conditional Consent

WARD: Bridestowe APPLICATION NO: 03142/2012 LOCATION: Trescote, Bridestowe, Okehampton, Devon, EX20 4QE APPLICANT NAME: Mr and Mrs Baber APPLICATION: Discharge of Condition GRID REF: 251907 89988 PROPOSAL: Discharge of Conditions 2,3 and 6 of application 01864/2011 for Replacement dwelling CASE OFFICER: Laura Batham DECISION DATE: 25/10/2012 DECISION: Discharge of Conditions APPROVED

WARD: Buckland Monachorum APPLICATION NO: 02764/2012 LOCATION: Lopwell Barn, Roborough, Plymouth, PL6 7BZ APPLICANT NAME: The Zone (Youth Enquiry Service) Plymouth APPLICATION: Discharge of Condition GRID REF: 247454 64944 PROPOSAL: Discharge of conditions 7, 8, & 9 attached to planning permission 01778/2011 and 03017/2012 for alterations to building and associated works including installation of solar thermal array and change of use of part of building from studio and office to camping barn. CASE OFFICER: Katie Graham DECISION DATE: 01/11/2012 DECISION: Discharge of Conditions APPROVED

WARD: Buckland Monachorum

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 DELEGATED DECISIONS

APPLICATION NO: 03040/2012 LOCATION: The Infirmary Restaurant, Buckland Abbey, Buckland Monachorum, Yelverton, PL20 6EY APPLICANT NAME: National Trust APPLICATION: Listed Building GRID REF: 248720 66777 PROPOSAL: Listed Building application for installation of secondary glazing units. CASE OFFICER: Katie Graham DECISION DATE: 25/10/2012 DECISION: Conditional Consent

WARD: Buckland Monachorum APPLICATION NO: 03042/2012 LOCATION: Buckland Abbey, Buckland Monachorum, Yelverton, PL20 6EY APPLICANT NAME: National Trust APPLICATION: Listed Building GRID REF: 248720 66777 PROPOSAL: Listed Building application for installation of secondary glazing CASE OFFICER: Katie Graham DECISION DATE: 25/10/2012 DECISION: Conditional Consent

WARD: Buckland Monachorum APPLICATION NO: 03175/2012 LOCATION: 5 Woodside Terrace, Crapstone, Devon, PL20 7PL APPLICANT NAME: Miss T Bader APPLICATION: Full GRID REF: 250385 67850 PROPOSAL: Householder application for erection of extension and insertion of windows including demolition of conservatory. CASE OFFICER: Ben Wilcox DECISION DATE: 12/11/2012 DECISION: Conditional Consent

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 DELEGATED DECISIONS

WARD: Exbourne APPLICATION NO: 02921/2012 LOCATION: Ballhill Farm, Stockley, Okehampton, EX20 1SB APPLICANT NAME: Mr M Griffey APPLICATION: CLEUD GRID REF: 262617 95891 PROPOSAL: Use of annexe as dwelling (holiday let) CASE OFFICER: Mr Louis Dulling DECISION DATE: 14/11/2012 DECISION: Consent

WARD: Exbourne APPLICATION NO: 03060/2012 LOCATION: Rowan, Jacobstowe, Okehampton, Devon, EX20 3RQ APPLICANT NAME: Mr D Michie APPLICATION: Full GRID REF: 258546 101832 PROPOSAL: Householder Application for the erection of a conservatory, extension (single storey) and carport to existing garage CASE OFFICER: Mr Louis Dulling DECISION DATE: 25/10/2012 DECISION: Conditional Consent

WARD: Exbourne APPLICATION NO: 03108/2012 LOCATION: Lashbrook House, Jacobstowe, Okehampton, EX20 3RQ APPLICANT NAME: Mr and Mrs N Bowman APPLICATION: Full GRID REF: 258574 101637 PROPOSAL: Householder Application for installation of garage doors. CASE OFFICER: Mr Louis Dulling DECISION DATE: 14/11/2012

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 DELEGATED DECISIONS

DECISION: Conditional Consent

WARD: Lew Valley APPLICATION NO: 03034/2012 LOCATION: The Ashbury Hotel, Higher Maddaford, Southcott, Okehampton, Devon, EX20 4NL APPLICANT NAME: Mr and Mrs S Essex APPLICATION: Full GRID REF: 253973 94728 PROPOSAL: Proposed extension to swimming pool building CASE OFFICER: Laura Batham DECISION DATE: 29/10/2012 DECISION: Conditional Consent

WARD: Lew Valley APPLICATION NO: 03039/2012 LOCATION: Ashbury Mill, Ashbury, Okehampton, EX20 3PE APPLICANT NAME: Mr and Mrs Bettiss APPLICATION: Full GRID REF: 250704 98057 PROPOSAL: Householder application for Replacement garage and studio out-building CASE OFFICER: Laura Batham DECISION DATE: 29/10/2012 DECISION: Conditional Consent

WARD: Milton Ford APPLICATION NO: 02773/2012 LOCATION: Land at SX445864, Lewdown, Devon APPLICANT NAME: Mrs Alexandra Collins APPLICATION: Full GRID REF: 244577 86381 PROPOSAL: Erection of agricultural building for storage of fodder and agricultural machinery.

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 DELEGATED DECISIONS

CASE OFFICER: Mr Louis Dulling DECISION DATE: 01/11/2012 DECISION: Conditional Consent

WARD: Milton Ford APPLICATION NO: 03082/2012 LOCATION: Coryton Mill Farm, Coryton, Okehampton, Devon, EX20 4AA APPLICANT NAME: Mr Friend APPLICATION: Full GRID REF: 246247 83337 PROPOSAL: Erection of livestock building for sheep and cattle. CASE OFFICER: Ben Wilcox DECISION DATE: 08/11/2012 DECISION: Conditional Consent

WARD: North Tawton APPLICATION NO: 03131/2012 LOCATION: Four Corners, North Tawton, Devon, EX20 2BY APPLICANT NAME: Mr & Mrs Ford APPLICATION: Full GRID REF: 267556 101735 PROPOSAL: Householder application for erection of garden shed. CASE OFFICER: Mr Louis Dulling DECISION DATE: 14/11/2012 DECISION: Conditional Consent

WARD: Okehampton East APPLICATION NO: 03091/2012 LOCATION: 80 Crediton Road, Okehampton, Devon, EX20 1NY APPLICANT NAME: Mr S Turner

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 DELEGATED DECISIONS

APPLICATION: Full GRID REF: 259535 95634 PROPOSAL: Householder application for alterations and extensions to dwelling. CASE OFFICER: Cheryl Stansbury DECISION DATE: 07/11/2012 DECISION: Conditional Consent

WARD: Okehampton West APPLICATION NO: 03130/2012 LOCATION: 30 Station Road, Okehampton, Devon, EX20 1EA APPLICANT NAME: Mr A Carter APPLICATION: Works to Trees in Cons Area GRID REF: 258784 94822 PROPOSAL: Works to trees in a Conservation Area for the crown reduction of a Cherry located on the rear garden boundary of 30 Station Road adjoining the studio owned by 26 Station Road. CASE OFFICER: Georgina Browne DECISION DATE: 07/11/2012 DECISION: Tree works Exempt

WARD: Tamarside APPLICATION NO: 03069/2012 LOCATION: Old Crebor Farm, Gulworthy, Tavistock, Devon, PL19 8HZ APPLICANT NAME: Mr and Mrs Challis APPLICATION: Full GRID REF: 245718 72428 PROPOSAL: Householder application for proposed replacement garage including workshop and installation of PV panels CASE OFFICER: Katie Graham DECISION DATE: 06/11/2012 DECISION: Conditional Consent

WARD: Tamarside

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 DELEGATED DECISIONS

APPLICATION NO: 03072/2012 LOCATION: Land Adjacent To The Firs, Haye Down, Devon APPLICANT NAME: Mr J McLaughlin APPLICATION: Removal of Condition\Variation of Condition GRID REF: 245031 79574 PROPOSAL: Removal of Condition 3 of 12424/2008/TAV to allow commercial use of stables. CASE OFFICER: Katie Graham DECISION DATE: 05/11/2012 DECISION: Refusal

WARD: Tamarside APPLICATION NO: 03103/2012 LOCATION: Land adjacent to Hanging Cliff Wood, Gulworthy, Devon APPLICANT NAME: Dr H L Dimpel APPLICATION: Full GRID REF: 243779 73026 PROPOSAL: Retrospective application for the change of use of land to equestrian, retention of field shelter and caravan for uses ancillary to the land. CASE OFFICER: Ben Dancer DECISION DATE: 29/10/2012 DECISION: Conditional Consent

WARD: Tavistock North APPLICATION NO: 02919/2012 LOCATION: Flat 3, 4 Watts Road, Tavistock, PL19 8LF APPLICANT NAME: Mr & Mrs Pearce APPLICATION: Full GRID REF: 247606 74258 PROPOSAL: Householder application for the erection of conservatory and porch to existing flat CASE OFFICER: Ben Wilcox

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 DELEGATED DECISIONS

DECISION DATE: 19/11/2012 DECISION: Conditional Consent

WARD: Tavistock North APPLICATION NO: 03006/2012 LOCATION: ATS Tyre & Exhaust Centre, 2 Parkwood Road, Tavistock, PL19 0HQ APPLICANT NAME: ATS Euromaster Ltd APPLICATION: Advertisement GRID REF: 248432 74647 PROPOSAL: Advertisment application for replacement and additional signage, including internal illumination and pole mounted signs. CASE OFFICER: Ben Wilcox DECISION DATE: 25/10/2012 DECISION: Conditional Consent

WARD: Tavistock North APPLICATION NO: 03037/2012 LOCATION: Rockmount, Drake Road, Tavistock, PL19 0AX APPLICANT NAME: Mr T Walker APPLICATION: Full GRID REF: 248040 74563 PROPOSAL: Retrospective application for timber building associated with bed and breakfast accommodation. CASE OFFICER: Katie Graham DECISION DATE: 25/10/2012 DECISION: Conditional Consent

WARD: Tavistock North APPLICATION NO: 03092/2012 LOCATION: 63 Uplands, Tavistock, Devon, PL19 8EU APPLICANT NAME: Mr & Mrs C & T Pascoe APPLICATION: Full GRID REF: 247086 73732

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 DELEGATED DECISIONS

PROPOSAL: Householder application for erection of single storey extension. CASE OFFICER: Ben Wilcox DECISION DATE: 19/11/2012 DECISION: Conditional Consent

WARD: Tavistock South APPLICATION NO: 03084/2012 LOCATION: 8 Dolvin Road, Tavistock, Devon, PL19 9EA APPLICANT NAME: Mrs S Agnew APPLICATION: Works to Trees in Cons Area GRID REF: 248333 74485 PROPOSAL: Works to trees in a Conservation Area for the pollarding of an Alder located in the rear garden of 8 Dolvin Road CASE OFFICER: Georgina Browne DECISION DATE: 07/11/2012 DECISION: Tree works Exempt

WARD: Tavistock South APPLICATION NO: 03117/2012 LOCATION: Fairview, 22 Deer Park Crescent, Tavistock, Devon, PL19 9HH APPLICANT NAME: Mr and Mrs Sloman APPLICATION: Full GRID REF: 248522 74252 PROPOSAL: Householder Application for Revised scheme for alterations and extensions to dwelling CASE OFFICER: Katie Graham DECISION DATE: 12/11/2012 DECISION: Conditional Consent

WARD: Tavistock South APPLICATION NO: 03136/2012 LOCATION: Little Field Court, Green Lane, Tavistock, Devon, PL19 9FA APPLICANT NAME: Little Field Court Management Co. Ltd

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 DELEGATED DECISIONS

APPLICATION: Tree application GRID REF: 249052 74177 PROPOSAL: Application to carry out works to trees under Tree Preservation Order for the removal of a Sycamore located on the communal garden of Little Field Court, Green Lane, located behind 7 Little Field Court. CASE OFFICER: Georgina Browne DECISION DATE: 09/11/2012 DECISION: Conditional Consent

WARD: Tavistock South West APPLICATION NO: 03078/2012 LOCATION: 24 Beech Close, Tavistock, Devon, PL19 9DW APPLICANT NAME: Mr G Dutton APPLICATION: Full GRID REF: 248244 72963 PROPOSAL: Householder application for erection of pitched roof to existing garage and new car port, erection of porch, first floor extension and installation of roof light. CASE OFFICER: Ben Wilcox DECISION DATE: 09/11/2012 DECISION: Conditional Consent

WARD: Thrushel APPLICATION NO: 03081/2012 LOCATION: Shepherds Farm House, Stowford, Lewdown, Okehampton, EX20 4BZ APPLICANT NAME: Mrs S Adams APPLICATION: Listed Building GRID REF: 243260 86992 PROPOSAL: Listed building application for the insertion of new window. CASE OFFICER: Ben Wilcox DECISION DATE: 13/11/2012 DECISION: Conditional Consent

WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 04 DECEMBER 2012 DELEGATED DECISIONS

WARD: Thrushel APPLICATION NO: 03088/2012 LOCATION: Stowford House, Stowford, Lewdown, Okehampton, EX20 4BZ APPLICANT NAME: Mr C Bones APPLICATION: Full GRID REF: 243472 86942 PROPOSAL: Householder application for the erection of timber gates. CASE OFFICER: Ben Wilcox DECISION DATE: 14/11/2012 DECISION: Conditional Consent

WARD: Thrushel APPLICATION NO: 03166/2012 LOCATION: Leat Farm, Leat Road, Lifton, Devon, PL16 0DF APPLICANT NAME: Mr and Mrs S Armstrong APPLICATION: Discharge of Condition GRID REF: 239096 84884 PROPOSAL: Amended description : Discharge of conditions 4, 5, 7, 9, 11 and 12 attached to planning permission 01824/2011 for the conversion of barn to holiday let. CASE OFFICER: Katie Graham DECISION DATE: 14/11/2012 DECISION: Discharge of Conditions APPROVED

AGENDA AGENDA ITEM ITEM 8 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL 8

NAME OF COMMITTEE Planning and Licensing Committee

DATE 4 December 2012

REPORT TITLE Review of the Site Inspection Protocol

Joint Report of Development Manager Member Services Manager WARDS AFFECTED All

Summary of report: To review the current Site Inspection protocol to enable planning agents to attend but not take part, and to clarify the attendance of substitutes.

Financial implications: There are no financial implications attached to this report.

RECOMMENDATIONS: That the Planning & Licensing Committee RECOMMEND to Council that the Constitution be amended to reflect the changes to the Site Inspection protocol as outlined in Appendix A.

Officer contact: Malcolm Elliott, Development Manager Tel: 01803 861442 [email protected]

Kathy Trant, Member Services Manager Tel: 01803 861185 [email protected]

1. BACKGROUND 1.1 At previous meetings of the Planning and Licensing Committee, Members and officers raised the issue of agents being able to attend Site Inspections. This followed a question being raised by an agent as to whether he could attend the site inspection. The current protocol does not permit this. It is important that the decision making process is open and transparent. Quite clearly any site inspection carried out by Members is part of this process.

2. MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION 2.1 Following the Planning and Licensing Committee on 9 October 2012, Members and officers had a discussion on the current Site Inspection protocol.

2.2 A number of Members were of the opinion that allowing agents to attend Site Inspections would be helpful, as they would be available to answer questions and/or clarify any issues that arose. However, Members were clear that agents should not be entitled to speak, but only answer any questions that were put to them.

2.3 Members were mindful of the impact of the Localism agenda and the central government drive to be open and transparent, and wanted to ensure that the Site Inspection process was consistent with these requirements.

2.4 Members also discussed the issue of members of the public attending site inspections. Members of the public who attend Site Inspections will be advised of procedure. They are not permitted to participate and may not enter private land unless invited by the land owner.

2.5 The proposed amendments to the Protocol are shown in Appendix A.

2.6 As the Protocol is being amended, officers would like to take the opportunity to clarify the details in relation to substitutes and this is also shown in Appendix A. An amendment to the Protocol is sought in order to ensure that the Council’s adopted principles of decision-making and fairness are adhered to, with the effect that the same Member takes part in the Site Inspection and decision. This will avoid any potential challenges that decisions have been made unfairly or contrary to the principles of decision-making. It is proposed that Members attending Planning and Licensing Committee as substitutes do not to take part in the vote on an application that has come forward following a site inspection (unless they have acted as substitute at the initial meeting and the site inspection itself).

3. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS 3.1 The Council’s Constitution provides in its Council Procedure Rules (Rule 10) that substitutes are allowed on the Planning & Licensing Committee provided that the substitutes are deemed qualified to do so (by training or experience) by the Chief Executive. Any changes to the Council’s Procedure Rules must be approved by Council.

4. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 4.1 The resource implications of holding site inspections are within existing budgets and the amendments suggested in this report would not alter the resource implications.

5. RISK MANAGEMENT 5.1 The Risk Management implications are shown at the end of this report in the Strategic Risks Template.

6. CONCLUSION 6.1 Members of the Planning and Licensing Committee have discussed the Site Inspection protocol and with the emphasis on localism and a transparent process, would like to recommend that Council amend the Site Inspection Protocol as shown at Appendix A.

Corporate priorities Homes; Economy; Community Life; engaged: Environment Statutory powers: Considerations of equality N/A and human rights: Biodiversity considerations: N/A Sustainability N/A considerations: Crime and disorder None implications: Background papers: None Appendices attached: A – amended Site Inspection Protocol

STRATEGIC RISKS TEMPLATE

Inherent risk status No Risk Title Risk/Opportunity Impact of Chance Risk Mitigating & Management Ownership Description negative of score and actions outcome negative direction outcome of travel 1 Site Inspection The current process may Attendance of agents and Development protocol not be seen as open and 2 3 6 public will address this risk Manager transparent 

2 Site Inspection Too many members of 2 2 4 This is extremely rare, and Development protocol the public may attend enough staff in attendance will Manager  ensure that there are no safety issues

Direction of travel symbols   

Appendix A

The proposed amendments are shown in Bold type.

Procedure for Site Inspections

The purpose of the site visit is to enable Members to view particular aspects of an application in context. No decision is reached on site and there is no debate as to outcome at the site meeting.

The only participants at site inspections are Members of the Planning & Licensing Committee (or their named Substitutes providing that substitute took part in the Committee meeting), the respective Ward Members (if not a Member of P&L) and a representative of the respective Town/Parish Council.

Neither the applicant/agent nor any third party may participate in the site meeting. Specific requests to view the proposal from a particular place (e.g. objector’s home) may, however, be accommodated at the Chairman’s discretion.

PROPOSE THE ABOVE PARAGRAPH CHANGED TO: The applicant/agent may attend the site meeting but not participate. At the discretion of the Chairman, they may be allowed to answer questions of clarity. Specific requests to view the proposal from a particular place (e.g. objector’s home) may be accommodated at the Chairman’s discretion.

1. Chairman formally opens the site inspection and invites the Planning Officer to describe the application with particular reference to those issues for which the inspection has been called (e.g. Effect on amenity of adjoining occupiers.)

The Planning Officer then describes the proposal and guides the Members to appropriate vantage points which may be within and/or outside the site.

2. Opportunity for Members to seek clarification but not opinion from the Planning Officer.

3. Representative from Town/Parish Council invited to give their views.

4. Chairman formally closes the meeting.

AGENDA AGENDA ITEM ITEM 9 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL 9

NAME OF COMMITTEE Planning & Licensing

DATE 4 December 2012

REPORT TITLE Three-Yearly Review of Gambling Statement of Licensing Principles Report of Licensing Manager

WARDS AFFECTED All

Summary of report: To present Members with a reviewed Statement of Principles in line with legal timescales and to request that the Committee formally recommends to Council, sitting 11 December 2012, that the Policy be adopted.

Financial implications: The preparation and publication costs associated with the now completed consultation and the issuing of the Policy will be met from Gambling Act 2005 fees income.

RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. That the Committee considers the draft Statement of Principles and makes any changes it deems necessary.

2. That the Committee recommends to Council that the draft Statement of Principles (attached at Appendix A) is adopted as the Statement of Principles on 11 December 2012 so that the Council can perform its legal duties under the Gambling Act 2005.

Officer contact:

Sarah Clarke Licensing Manager [email protected] :01822 813 548 (direct dial)

1. BACKGROUND 1.1. The Council’s Licensing Authority has responsibilities under the Gambling Act 2005 (the “Act”) to issue premises licences, registrations, various types of permits and temporary permissions in respect of premises where it is proposed that gambling take place.

1.2. Section 349 of the Act requires the Licensing Authority to prepare and publish a statement of the principles that it proposes to apply in exercising its functions under the Act during the three-year period to which the Policy relates. West Devon Borough Council’s Statement of Principles was first adopted by Council 12 December 2006, and then re-adopted 15 December 2009. This third review of the Policy must be adopted in advance of January 2013.

1.3 On 14 August 2012, the draft Statement of Principles was approved by the Planning and Licensing Committee, and during the period of 15 August 2012 to 7 November 2012, the Policy was subject to a public consultation exercise. In accordance with the requirements of Section 349(3) of the Gambling Act 2005, the Licensing Authority sought the views of those organisations and persons so prescribed. A list of the organisations/persons consulted is provided at Appendix C. No consultation responses were received within this period.

2. ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION 2.1 At the time of the first review of the Policy in 2009, a number of changes were made to remove information relating to transitional matters and to include relevant changes in legislation and Gambling Commission Guidance.

2.2. In view of changes made in 2009, it is anticipated that there will be little need to make significant alteration to the Council’s extant Policy and therefore, the draft Policy at Appendix A remains largely unchanged. Information on the main changes made to the current Policy is provided, for ease of reference, at Appendix B.

2.3 The Gambling Commission reissued its Guidance to licensing authorities in September 2012. Having reviewed the updated document, there are no impacting changes that need to be accommodated within the Council’s draft Policy.

3. ADOPTION PROCEDURE 3.1 Legislation prescribes that Council is empowered to adopt the Draft Statement of Principles. Adoption can not be delegated to the Planning & Licensing Committee.

4. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS 4.1 Section 349 of the Act requires the Licensing Authority to prepare and publish a statement of the principles it proposes to apply in exercising its functions under the Act during the three-year period to which the policy relates.

4.2 Section 349(3) requires the Licensing Authority to consult the following persons/bodies: In England and Wales, the chief officer of police for the authority’s area; One or more persons who appear to the authority to represent the interests of persons carrying on gambling businesses in the authority’s area; One or more persons who appear to the authority to represent the interests of persons who are likely to be affected by the exercise of the authority’s functions under the Act.

4.3 Before publishing the revised Policy, the Licensing Authority is required to publish a notice of its intention to publish a statement or revision on its website andin/on one or more of the following places: A local newspaper circulating in the area covered by the statement; A local newsletter, circular, or similar document circulating in the area covered by the statement; A public notice board in or near the principal office of the authority; A public notice board on the premises of public libraries in the area covered by the statement.

5. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 5.1 The associated preparation and publication costs will be met in full from Gambling Act 2005 applications and annual fees income. Therefore, there are no financial implications to the Council from this report.

6. RISK MANAGEMENT 6.1 The Risk Management implications are shown at the end of this report in the Strategic Risks Template.

7. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

Corporate priorities Community Life, Environment & Economy engaged: Statutory powers: Gambling Act 2005 SI No. 636: The Gambling Act 2005 (Licensing Authority Policy Statement) (England and Wales) Regulations 2006 Considerations of equality Compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998 and human rights:

Biodiversity considerations: None

Sustainability None considerations: Crime and disorder Preventing gambling from being a source of implications: crime or disorder, being associated with crime and disorder, or being used to support crime is one of the licensing objectives underpinning the Gambling Act 2005. Background papers: Gambling Act 2005 & associated relevant Regulations Guidance issued by the Gambling Commission under the Gambling Act 2005 (September 2012 Ed.) West Devon Borough Council’s Statement of Principles, which expires January 2013 Local Government Association Statement of Principles Template (June 2012

edition) Past adoption reports of the Licensing Manager to Council, dated 12 December 2006 and 15 December 2009 Report of Licensing Manager to Planning & Licensing Committee dated 14 August 2012 Appendices attached: Appendix A - Statement of Principles Appendix B - Summary of Main Changes Appendix C - List of Persons/Organisations Consulted

STRATEGIC RISKS TEMPLATE

Inherent risk status No Risk Title Risk/Opportunity Impact of Chance Risk Mitigating & Management actions Ownership Description negative of score and outcome negative direction outcome of travel 1 Policy not Failure to produce a 4 3 12 Correct consultation process was Sarah adopted licensing policy  undertaken following approval of draft Clarke statement in accordance Policy by Planning & Licensing with the Gambling Act Committee on 14 August 2012. 2005 and its accompanying Planning & Licensing Committee on 4 Regulations is a breach December 2012 to recommend to of statutory duty and will Council that the Policy is formally render Council powerless adopted on 11 December 2012. to make decisions or exercise the licensing Council adopts Policy at 11 December objectives in its locality. 2012 Meeting.

Not adopting Policy could Licensing Manager publishes the leave Council open to Policy on Council website and places a criticism and legal Notice explaining the adoption at the challenge. Tavistock Office on 12 December 2012. 2 The Statement Duty on Council when 3 2 6 A 360 Assessment will be completed in Sarah of Licensing considering applications  advance of 11 December 2012. A Clarke Policy is not or enforcement action to verbal update and briefing note equality comply with Human explaining the outcome shall be given compliant. Rights Act 1998. to Members at the time of hearing the report. A record of the Assessment

shall be entered into the Council minutes. 3 Opportunity to Review ensures the 3 4 12 Revised Statement of Principles will Sarah set out Council’s Council, acting as the  take account of updated Government Clarke position regards Licensing Authority, is Guidance. licensing within doing all it can to the Borough. address the licensing objectives.

APPENDIX A

Statement of Principles

Under the Gambling Act 2005

FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 2013 TO JANUARY 2016

Table of Contents

Item Page Part A Contact Details & Foreword 3 Licensing Objectives 4 Introduction 4 Description of the Licensing Authority Area 5 Review of Statement of Principles (Consultation) 6 Declaration 7 The Overriding Principle 7 Relationship with other Legislation 7 Responsible Authorities 8 Interested Parties 8 Exchange of Information 9 Enforcement 9 Licensing Authority Functions 10 The Licensing Process 11

Part B – Premises Licences General Principles 11 Adult Gaming Centres 17 (Licensed) Family Entertainment Centres 17 Casinos 18 Bingo 18 Betting Premises 18 Tracks 19 Travelling Fairs 21 Provisional Statements 21 Reviews 22

Part C – Permits/Temporary & Occasional Use Notices Unlicensed Family Entertainment Centre Gaming Machine 24 Permits (Alcohol) Licensed Premises Gaming Machine Permits 27 Prize Gaming Permits 28 Club Gaming & Club Machine Permits 32 Temporary Use Notices 33 Occasional Use Notices 33 Vessels 33

Responsible Authorities – Appendix A 35 Glossary – Appendix B 38

Foreword

This document sets out a Statement of Principles (Licensing Policy) which will guide the Licensing Authority for the period of 2013 – 2016 when considering applications under the Gambling Act 2005.

This is the third review of our Policy, and following public consultation, the Council adopted this Statement of Principles 11 December 2012.

West Devon Borough Council Equality Vision

We are committed to acknowledging the full diversity of our community and to promoting equality of opportunity for everyone in policy making, service delivery, employment practice, regulation and enforcement.

If you have any questions or queries about this document:

Write to us at: Licensing Section West Devon Borough Council Kilworthy Park Tavistock Devon PL19 0BZ

Or contact us by fax or email or via our website on:

Phone: 01822 813 600 Fax: 01822 813 731 Email: [email protected] Website: www.westdevon.gov.uk

This document can be made available in large print, Braille, tape format or in other languages upon request.

Statement of Principles

Text in the shaded boxes within this Statement is advisory only and intended to give assistance to applicants, interested persons and responsible authorities.

Part A

1 The Licensing Objectives

1.1 West Devon Borough Council (“the Licensing Authority”) has a duty under the Gambling Act 2005 (the “Act”) to carry out its licensing functions in a manner which is consistent with the three licensing objectives. The Licensing objectives are:

Preventing gabling from being a source of crime or disorder, being associated with crime or disorder, or being used to support crime

Ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way, and

Protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gabling

1.2 This Licensing Authority particularly notes the Gambling Commission’s Guidance, Para 5.28, to local authorities:

“In deciding to reject an application, a licensing authority should rely on reasons that demonstrate that the licensing objectives are not being, or are unlikely to be, met. Licensing authorities should be aware that other considerations such as moral or ethical objections to gambling are not a valid reason to reject applications for premises licences. This is because such objections do not relate to the licensing objectives. An authority’s decision cannot be based on dislike of gambling, or a general notion that it is undesirable to allow gambling premises in an area (with the exception of the casino resolution powers).”

Applicants are also advised to note Part B of this Statement: Premises Licences – General Principles.

2 Introduction

2.1 This Statement of Principles (Licensing Policy) is written pursuant to the provisions of the Gambling Ac 2005, associated Regulations, and Guidance issued under s25 of the Act by the Gambling Commission. This Statement outlines the way the Licensing Authority will deal with applications for a range of premises licences, permits and enforcement of the Act.

2.2 All references to ‘the Guidance’ refer to the Gambling Commission’s Guidance to licensing authorities, 4th Edition, published September 2012.

2.3 This Statement takes effect on 1 January 2013.

3 The Geographical Area

West Devon is one of the largest local authorities in England with a rural area of 458 square miles or 1160 km2 but it has a sparse population. The Borough extends from the northern outskirts of Plymouth to within 13 kilometres of Exeter. Its western boundary is the River Tamar, the boundary with Cornwall, from which it stretches eastward and northwards to encompass a major part of the Dartmoor National Park (520 km2).

Urban sites are primarily Okehampton and Tavistock, although Bere Ferrers, Buckland Monachorum, Hatherleigh, Horrabridge and North Tawton also have high levels of population. The influence of Plymouth and its environs is undeniable on the Tavistock side and in particular Bere Ferrers and Buckland Monachorum where many commuters choose to live.

With a population density of 0.17 person per acre, West Devon is the most sparsely populated district in southern England and one of the most sparsely populated districts in England as a whole. There are 21,800 households in the Borough and 90% of businesses employ fewer than 10 people.

The population is widely distributed and shows a tendency to be of the older age group, with the highest numbers within the 40-59 age groups.

4 Review of Statement of Licensing Principles (Consultation)

4.1 Licensing authorities are required by the Act to publish a statement of the principles which they propose to apply when exercising their functions. This statement must be published at least every three years. The statement must also be reviewed from “time to time”, and any amended parts re-consulted upon. The statement must then be re-published.

4.2 The Gambling Act 2005 requires that the following parties are consulted by Licensing Authorities: The Chief Officer of Police; One or more persons who appear to the authority to represent the interests of persons carrying on gambling businesses in the authority’s area; One or more persons who appear to the authority to represent the interests of persons who are likely to be affected by the exercise of the authority’s functions under the Gambling Act 2005.

4.3 Before adopting this Policy, the Licensing Authority consulted the following persons, bodies and organisations: All premises licensed to supply alcohol in the Borough British Beer & Pub Association Chambers of Commerce within the Borough Citizen’s Advice Bureau Club Premises Certificate Holders Devon and Cornwall Constabulary Devon County Council Children and Young Peoples Services Devon & Somerset Fire and Rescue Service Environmental Health Department of West Devon Borough Council Gamblers Anonymous Gambling Commission GamCare HM Commissioners of Customs & Excise Local businesses and their representatives Local residents and their representatives Local faith groups Mencap NSPCC Primary Care Trust Planning Department of West Devon Borough Council Representatives of existing licence-holders South Devon & Dartmoor Community Safety Partnership Devon Primary Care Trust Town and Parish Councils within the Borough Voluntary & Community organisations working with children & young people.

4.4 Proper weight will be given to the views of all those who have been consulted prior to the date of implementation of the Statement of Principles.

Our consultation took place between 15 August 2012 and 7 November 2012 and we followed the HM Government Code of Practice on Consultation (which was published in July 2008) and is available at http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file47158.pdf

4.5 The Policy was approved at a meeting of Council on 11 December 2012 date and was published via our website on 12 December 2012. Copies were placed in the public libraries of the area as well as being available for viewing at the offices of West Devon Borough Council, Kilworthy Park, Tavistock, PL19 0BZ.

4.6 Should you have any comments to make regards this Statement, please write to us at the above address or email [email protected]

4.7 It should be noted that this Statement will not override the right of any person to make an application, make representations about an application, or apply for a review of a licence, as each will be considered on its own merits and according to the statutory requirements of the Act.

5 Declaration

5.1 In producing this Statement of Principles, this Licensing Authority declares that it has had regard to the licensing objectives of the Gambling Act 2005, the Guidance issued by the Gambling Commission, and any responses from those consulted on the Statement.

6 The Overriding Principle

6.1 In exercising its functions under the Act, this Licensing Authority will aim to permit the use of premises for gambling in so far as it thinks fit: in accordance with the Gambling Act & associated legislation; in accordance with any relevant Codes Of Practice; in accordance with any relevant guidance issued by the Gambling Commission; as is reasonably consistent with the licensing objectives; and in accordance with the Authority’s Statement of Principles under section 349.

6.2 Each case will be considered on its own merits.

6.3 In deciding whether or not to grant a licence, this authority does not have regard to the expected demand for the facilities that are subject to the application

6.4 The overriding principle does not, however, apply to the consideration of an application for casino if this Authority resolves not to issue casino premises licences.

7 Relationship with other legislation

7.1 This Licensing Authority will seek to avoid duplication with planning or other statutory/regulatory systems where possible. This Authority will not consider whether a licence application is likely to be awarded planning permission or building regulations approval, in its consideration of it. It will though, listen to, and consider carefully, any concerns about conditions which are not able to be met by licensees due to planning restrictions, should a situation arise.

7.2 The grant of a licence does not imply the approval of other legislative requirements.

Applicants for Premises Licences for Casinos, Bingo Halls, Adult or Family Entertainment Centres (licensed or unlicensed) or Permits are advised to speak to the Planning Department of this Council and/or The Dartmoor National Park Planning Authority before making a formal application to the Licensing Authority.

8 Responsible Authorities

8.1 Responsible authorities are those public bodies, as specified by the Gambling Act, which must be notified of applications for premises licence. Such bodies are entitled to make representations to the Licensing Authority in relation to the applications. The Responsible Authorities are detailed at Appendix A.

8.2 The Licensing Authority is required by regulations to state the principles it will apply in exercising its powers under Section 157(h) of the Act to designate, in writing, a body which is competent to advise the Authority about the protection of children from harm. The principles are: the need for the body to be responsible for an area covering the whole of the licensing authority’s area , and the need for the body to be answerable to democratically elected persons, rather than any particular vested interest group.

8.3 In accordance with the suggestion in the Gambling Commission’s Guidance for local authorities, this Authority designates the Devon Safeguarding Children Board for this purpose.

9 Interested Parties

9.1 Interested parties can make representation about licence applications, or apply for a review of an existing licence. These parties are defined in the Gambling Act 2005 as follows: “For the purposes of this Part a person is an interested party in relation to an application for or in respect of a premises licence if, in the opinion of the licensing authority which issues the licence or to which the application is made, the person -

(a) lives sufficiently close to the premises to be likely to be affected by the authorised activities; (b) has business interests that might be affected by the authorised activities; or (c) represents persons who satisfy paragraph (a) or (b)”.

9.2 This Licensing Authority is required by regulations to state the principles it will apply in exercising its powers under the Gambling Act 2005 to determine whether a person is an interested party. The principles are: Each case will be decided upon its own merits. This Authority will not apply a rigid rule to its decision making. It will consider the examples of considerations provided in the Gambling Commission’s Guidance to local authorities at 8.11 to 8.18. Interested parties can be persons who are democratically elected such as Councillors and MP’s. No specific evidence of being asked to represent an interested person will be required as long as the councillor/MP represents the ward likely to be affected. Likewise, parish councils likely to be affected will be considered to be interested parties. Other than these, however, this Authority will generally require written evidence that a person/body (e.g. an advocate/relative) ‘represents’ someone who either lives sufficiently close to the premises to be likely to be affected by the proposed activities and/or business interests that might be affected by the proposed activities. A letter from one of these persons, requesting the representation is sufficient.

If individuals wish to approach Councillors to ask them to represent their views then care should be taken that the Councillors are not part of the Licensing Committee dealing with the licence application. If there are doubts then please contact the Licensing Section who may

be contacted at the address and on the telephone number set out at the beginning of this document.

10 Exchange of Information

Licensing authorities are required to include in their policy statement the principles to be applied by the authority in exercising its functions under s.29 and s.30 of the Act with respect to the exchange of information between it and the Gambling Commission, and the functions under s.350 of the Act with the respect to the exchange of information between it and the other persons listed in Schedule 6 to the Act.

10.1 The principle that this Licensing Authority applies is that it will act in accordance with the provisions of the Gambling Act 2005 in its exchange of information which includes the provision that the Data Protection Act 1998 will not be contravened. The Licensing Authority will also have regard to any Guidance issued by the Gambling Commission to Local Authorities on this matter, as well as any relevant regulations issued by the Secretary of State under the powers provided in the Gambling Act 2005.

10.2 Should any protocols be established as regards information exchange with other bodies then they will be made available.

11 Enforcement

Licensing authorities are required by regulation under the Gambling Act 2005 to state the principles to be applied by the authority in exercising the functions under Part 15 of the Act with respect to the inspection of premises; and the powers under s.346 of the Act to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the offences specified.

11.1 This Licensing Authority’s principles are that it will be guided by the Gambling Commission’s Guidance to Licensing Authorities and will endeavour to be: Proportionate: regulators should only intervene when necessary: remedies should be appropriate to the risk posed, and costs identified and minimised; Accountable: regulators must be able to justify decisions, and be subject to public scrutiny; Consistent: rules and standards must be joined up and implemented fairly; Transparent: regulators should be open, and keep regulations simple and user friendly; and Targeted: regulation should be focused on the problem, and minimise side effects

11.2 In line with the Gambling Commission’s Guidance for local authorities this Licensing Authority will endeavour to avoid duplication with other regulatory regimes insofar as possible.

11.3 This Licensing Authority has adopted and implemented a risk-based inspection programme, based on: The licensing objectives Relevant codes of practice

Guidance issued by the Gambling Commission, in particular at Part 36 The principles set out in this Statement of Licensing Policy.

The main enforcement and compliance role for this Authority in terms of the Gambling Act 2005 is to ensure compliance with the premises licences and other permissions which it authorises. The Gambling Commission is the enforcement body for the operating and personal licences. It is also worth noting that concerns about manufacture, supply or repair of gaming machines are not dealt with by this Licensing Authority but should be notified to the Gambling Commission.

This Licensing Authority also keeps itself informed of developments as regards to the work of the Better Regulation Executive in its consideration of the regulatory functions of local authorities.

Bearing in mind the principle of transparency, this Licensing Authority’s enforcement/compliance protocols/written agreements will be available upon request to the Licensing Section at West Devon Borough Council. Our risk methodology will also be available upon request.

12 Licensing Authority functions

12.1 Licensing Authorities are required under the Act to: Be responsible for the licensing of premises where gambling activities are to take place by issuing Premises Licences Issue Provisional Statements Regulate members’ clubs who wish to undertake certain gaming activities via issuing Club Gaming Permits and/or Club Machine Permits Issue Club Machine Permits to Commercial Clubs Grant permits for the use of certain lower stake gaming machines at unlicensed Family Entertainment Centres Receive notifications from alcohol licensed premises (under the Licensing Act 2003) of the use of two or fewer gaming machines Issue Licensed Premises Gaming Machine Permits for premises licensed to sell / supply alcohol for consumption on the licensed premises, under the Licensing Act 2003, where more than two machines are required Register small society lotteries below prescribed thresholds Issue Prize Gaming Permits Receive and Endorse Temporary Use Notices Receive Occasional Use Notices Provide information to the Gambling Commission regarding details of licences issued (see section on ‘information exchange’) Maintain registers of the permits and licences that are issued under these functions

It should be noted that this Licensing Authority will not be involved in licensing remote gambling. This being the responsibility of the Gambling Commission via Operator Licences.

13 The Licensing Process

13.1 A Licensing Committee, a Sub-Committee, or the Licensing Officer/Licensing Manager acting under delegated authority may carry out the powers of the authority under the Gambling Act.

13.2 Many of the licensing procedures are largely administrative in nature. In the interests of efficiency, non-contentious procedures are carried out by Licensing Officers.

13.3 The Licensing Authority ensures that all Licensing Officers and Members of the Licensing Committee have received adequate training for their role under the Gambling Act.

13.4 Where admissible and relevant representations are received in relation to an application for a premises licence, or in relation to the review of a premises licence, a Sub-Committee is delegated to hear the matter.

13.5 Applicants for premises licences are required to copy their applications in full to the responsible authorities as listed at Appendix A.

Part B - Premises Licences

1 General Principles

1.1 Premises Licences are subject to the permissions/restrictions set-out in the Gambling Act 2005 and regulations, as well as specific mandatory and default conditions which are detailed in regulations issued by the Secretary of State. Licensing Authorities are able to exclude default conditions and also attach others, where it is believed to be appropriate.

1.2 This Licensing Authority is aware that in making decisions about premises licences it should aim to permit the use of premises for gambling in so far as it thinks it: in accordance with any relevant code of practice issued by the Gambling Commission; in accordance with any relevant guidance issued by the Gambling Commission; reasonably consistent with the licensing objectives; and in accordance with the Authority’s Statement of Principles.

1.3 It is appreciated that as per the Gambling Commission’s Guidance, “moral objections to gambling are not a valid reason to reject applications for premises licences” (except as regards any ‘no casino resolution’ – see section on casinos below) and also that unmet demand is not a criterion for this Licensing Authority.

1.4 Definition of “premises” - In the Act, “premises” is defined as including “any place”. Section 152 therefore prevents more than one premises licence applying to any place. But a single building could be subject to more than one premises licence, provided they are for different parts of the building and the different parts of the building can be reasonably regarded as being different premises. This approach has been taken to allow large, multiple unit premises such as a pleasure park, pier, track or shopping mall to obtain discrete premises licences, where appropriate safeguards are in place. However, licensing authorities should pay particular

attention if there are issues about sub-divisions of a single building or plot and should ensure that mandatory conditions relating to access between premises are observed.

1.5 The Gambling Commission states in its Guidance at Para 7.14 states: “In most cases the expectation is that a single building/plot will be the subject of an application for a licence, for example, 32 High Street. But, that does not mean 32 High Street cannot be the subject of separate premises licences for the basement and ground floor, if they are configured acceptably. Whether different parts of a building can properly be regarded as being separate premises will depend on the circumstances. The location of the premises will clearly be an important consideration and the suitability of the division is likely to be a matter for discussion between the operator and the licensing officer. However, the Commission does not consider that areas of a building that are artificially or temporarily separated, for example by ropes or moveable partitions, can properly be regarded as different premises.”

1.6 This Licensing Authority takes particular note of the Gambling Commission’s Guidance which states that: licensing authorities should take particular care in considering applications for multiple licences for a building and those relating to a discrete part of the building used for other (non-gambling) purposes. In particular they should be aware of the following: The third licensing objective seeks to protect children from being harmed by gambling. In practice that means not only preventing them from taking part in gambling, but also preventing them from being in close proximity to gambling. Therefore premises should be configured so that children are not invited to participate in, have accidental access to. or closely observe gambling where they are prohibited from participating. Entrances to and exits from parts of a building covered by one or more premises licences should be separate and identifiable so that the separation of different premises is not compromised and people do not “drift” into a gambling area. In this context it should normally be possible to access the premises without going through another licensed premises or premises with a permit Customers should be able to participate in the activity names on the premises licence.

1.7 The Guidance also gives a list of factors which this Licensing Authority should be aware of, which may include: Do the premises have a separate registration for business rates? Is the premises’ neighbouring premises owned by the same person or someone else? Can each of the premises be accessed from the street or a public passageway? Can the premises only be accessed from any other gambling premises?

1.8 This Licensing Authority will consider these and other relevant factors in making its decision, depending on all the circumstances of the case.

The Gambling Commission’s relevant access provisions for each premises type are reproduced below from the Guidance, 7.26:

Casinos The principal access entrance to the premises must be from a street (as defined at 7.26 of the Guidance) No entrance to a casino must be from premises that are used wholly or mainly by children and/or young persons

No customer must be able to enter a casino directly from any other premises which holds a gambling premises licence

Adult Gaming Centre No customer must be able to access the premises directly from any other licensed gambling premises

Betting Shops Access must be from a street (as per Para 7.26 Guidance to Licensing Authorities) or from another premises with a betting premises licence No direct access from a betting shop to another premises used for the retail sale of merchandise or services. In effect there cannot be an entrance to a betting shop from a shop of any kind and you could not have a betting shop at the back of a café – the whole area would have to be licensed.

Tracks No customer should be able to access the premises directly from: - a casino - an adult gaming centre

Bingo Premises No customer must be able to access the premise directly from: - a casino - an adult gaming centre - a betting premises, other than a track

Family Entertainment Centre No customer must be able to access the premises directly from: - a casino - an adult gaming centre - betting premises, other than a track

Part 7 of the Guidance contains further guidance on this issue, which this licensing authority will also take into account in its decision-making.

1.9 Premises “ready for gambling”

The Guidance states that a licence to use premises for gambling should only be issued in relation to premises that this licensing authority can be satisfied are going to be ready to be used for gambling in the reasonably near future, consistent with the scale of building or alterations required before the premises are brought into use.

If the construction of a premises is not yet complete, or if they need alteration, or if the applicant does not yet have a right to occupy them, then an application for a provisional statement should be made instead.

In deciding whether a premises licence can be granted where there are outstanding construction or alteration works at a premises, this Licensing Authority will determine applications on their merits, applying a two stage consideration process:- First, whether the premises ought to be permitted to be used for gambling Second, whether appropriate conditions can be put in place to cater for the situation that the premises are not yet in the state in which they ought to be

before gambling takes place.

1.10 Applicants should note that this Licensing Authority is entitled to decide that it is appropriate to grant a licence subject to conditions, but it is not obliged to grant such a licence.

1.11 More detailed examples of the circumstances in which such a licence may be granted can be found at paragraphs 7.60 – 7.67 of the Guidance.

1.12 Location - This Licensing Authority is aware that demand issues cannot be considered with regard to the location of premises but that considerations in terms of the licensing objectives can. As per the Gambling Commission’s Guidance for local authorities, this Authority will pay particular attention to the protection of children and vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling, as well as issues of crime and disorder. Should any specific policy be decided upon as regards areas where gambling should not be located, this Statement will be updated. It should be noted that any such policy does not preclude any application being made and each application will be decided on its merits, with the onus upon the applicant showing how potential concerns can be overcome.

1.13 Planning - The Guidance states: 7.60 – “In determining applications the licensing authority has a duty to take into consideration all relevant matters and not to take into consideration any irrelevant matters, in effect those not related to gambling and the licensing objectives. One example of an irrelevant matter would be the likelihood of the applicant obtaining planning permission or building regulations approval for their proposal.”

This Licensing Authority will not take into account irrelevant matters as per the above guidance. In addition this licensing authority notes the following excerpt from the Guidance: 7.67 – “When dealing with a premises licence application for finished buildings, the licensing authority should not take into account whether those buildings have or comply with the necessary planning or building consents. Nor should fire or health and safety risks be taken into account. Those matters should be dealt with under relevant planning control and building regulation powers, and must not form part of the consideration for the premises licence. Section 210 of the Act prevents licensing authorities taking into account the likelihood of the proposal by the applicant obtaining planning or building consent when considering a premises licence application. Equally the grant of a gambling premises licence does not prejudice or prevent any action that may be appropriate under the law relating to planning or building.”

1.14 Duplication with other regulatory regimes - This Licensing Authority will seek to avoid any duplication with other statutory/regulatory systems where possible, including planning. This Authority will not consider whether a licence application is likely to be awarded planning permission or building regulations approval, in its consideration of it. It will listen to and consider carefully any concerns about conditions, which are not able to be met by licensees due to planning restrictions, should such a situation arise.

When dealing with a premises licence application for finished buildings, this Licensing Authority will not take into account whether those buildings have to comply with the necessary planning or buildings consents. Fire or health and safety risks will not be taken into account, as these matters are dealt with under relevant planning control,

buildings and other regulations and must not form part of the consideration for the premises licence.

1.15 Licensing objectives - Premises licences granted must be reasonably consistent with the licensing objectives. With regard to these objectives, this Licensing Authority has considered the Gambling Commission’s Guidance to local authorities and some comments are made below.

1.16 Preventing gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, being associated with crime or disorder or being used to support crime – This Licensing Authority is aware that the Gambling Commission will be taking a leading role in preventing gambling from being a source of crime. The Gambling Commission's Guidance does however envisage that licensing authorities should pay attention to the proposed location of gambling premises in terms of this licensing objective. Thus, where an area has known high levels of organised crime this authority will consider carefully whether gambling premises are suitable to be located there and whether conditions may be suitable such as the provision of door supervisors. This Licensing Authority is aware of the distinction between disorder and nuisance and will consider factors such as whether police assistance was required and how threatening the behaviour was to those who could see it, so as to make that distinction.

1.17 Ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way - This Licensing Authority has noted that the Gambling Commission states that it generally does not expect licensing authorities to be concerned with ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way as this will be addressed via operating and personal licences. There is however more of a role with regarding to tracks which is explained in more detail in the tracks section see Page 19.

1.18 Protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling - This Licensing Authority has noted the Gambling Commission Guidance to local authorities states that this objective means preventing children from taking part in gambling (as well as restriction of advertising so that gambling products are not aimed at or are, particularly attractive to children). This Licensing Authority will therefore consider, as suggested in the Guidance, whether specific measures are required at particular premises, with regard to this licensing objective. Appropriate measures may include supervision of entrances/machines, segregation of areas etc.

1.19 This Licensing Authority is also aware of the Gambling Commissions Codes of Practice as regards this licensing objective, in relation to specific premises.

1.20 As regards the term “vulnerable persons” it is noted that the Gambling Commission is not seeking to offer a definition but states that “it will for regulatory purposes assume that this group includes people who gamble more than they want to; people who gambling beyond their means; and people who may not be able to make informed or balanced decisions about gambling due to a mental impairment, alcohol or drugs.” This Licensing Authority will consider this licensing objective on a case by case basis.

1.21 Conditions - Any conditions attached to licences will be proportionate and will be: relevant to the need to make the proposed building suitable as a gambling facility directly related to the premises and the type of licence applied for;

fairly and reasonably related to the scale and type of premises: and reasonable in all other respects

1.22 Decisions upon individual conditions will be made on a case by case basis, although there will be a number of measures this Licensing Authority will consider utilising should there be a perceived need, such as the use of door supervisors, supervision of adult gaming machines, appropriate signage for adult only areas etc. There are specific comments made in this regard under each of the licence types below. This Licensing Authority will also expect the licence applicant to offer his/her own suggestions as to way in which the licensing objectives can be met effectively.

1.23 This Licensing Authority will also consider specific measures which may be required for buildings which are subject to multiple premises licences. Such measures may include the supervision of entrances; segregation of gambling from non-gambling areas frequented by children; and the supervision of gaming machines in non-adult gambling specific premises in order to pursue the licensing objectives. These matters are in accordance with the Gambling Commission's Guidance.

1.24 This Licensing Authority will also ensure that where category C or above machines are on offer in premises to which children are admitted: all such machines are located in an area of the premises which is separated from the remainder of the premises by a physical barrier which is effective to prevent access other than through a designated entrance; only adults are admitted to the area where these machines are located; access to the area where the machines are located is supervised; the area where these machines are located is arranged so that it can be observed by the staff or the licence holder; and at the entrance to and inside any such areas there are prominently displayed notices indicating that access to the area is prohibited to persons under 18.

These considerations will apply to premises including buildings where multiple premises licences are applicable.

1.25 This Licensing Authority is aware that tracks may be subject to one or more than one premises licence, provided each licence relates to a specified area of the track. As per the Gambling Commission's Guidance, this licensing authority will consider the impact upon the third licensing objective and the need to ensure that entrances to each type of premises are distinct and that children are excluded from gambling areas where they are not permitted to enter.

1.26 It is noted that there are conditions which the licensing authority cannot attach to premises licences. There are: conditions on the premises licence which makes it impossible to comply with an operating licence condition; conditions relating to gaming machine categories, numbers, or method of operation; conditions which provide that membership of a club or body be required (the Gambling Act 2005 specifically removes the membership requirement for casino and bingo clubs) and this provision prevents it being reinstated; and conditions in relation to stakes, fees, winning or prizes.

1.27 Door Supervisors - The Gambling Commission advises in its Guidance at Para 33.1 that “…if a licensing authority is concerned that a premises may attract disorder or be subject to attempts at unauthorised access (for example by children and young persons) then it may require that the entrances to the premises are controlled by a door supervisor, and is entitled to impose a premises licence to this effect.”

Where it is decided that supervision of entrances/machines is appropriate for particular cases, a consideration of whether these need to be SIA licensed or not will be necessary. It will not be automatically assumed that they need to be licensed, as the statutory requirements for different types of premises vary (as per the Guidance, Part 33).

2 Adult Gaming Centres

2.1 This Licensing Authority will specifically have regard to the need to protect children and vulnerable persons from harm or being exploited by gambling and will expect the applicant to satisfy this Licensing Authority that there will be sufficient measures to ensure that under 18 year olds do not have access to the premises. Appropriate licence conditions may cover issues such as: Proof of age schemes Self-exclusion schemes CCTV Door supervisors Supervision of entrances / machine areas Physical separation of areas Location of entry Notices / signage Specific opening hours Provision of information leaflets/helpline numbers for organisations such as GamCare.

(This list is not mandatory, nor exhaustive, and is merely indicative of example measures.)

3 (Licensed) Family Entertainment Centres

3.1 This Licensing Authority will specifically have regard to the need to protect children and vulnerable persons from harm or being exploited by gambling and will expect the applicant to satisfy the authority that there will be sufficient measures to ensure that under 18 year olds do not have access to the adult only gaming machine areas.

3.2 This Licensing Authority may consider measures to meet the licensing objectives such as: CCTV Door supervisors Location of entry Notices / signage Physical separation of areas Proof of age schemes Self-exclusion schemes Measures/training for staff on how to deal with suspected truant school children on the premises.

Provision of information leaflets/helpline numbers for organisations such as GamCare. Specific opening hours Supervision of entrances / machine areas

(This list is not mandatory, nor exhaustive, and is merely indicative of example measures.)

3.3 This Licensing Authority will, as per the Gambling Commission’s Guidance, refer to the Commission’s website to see any conditions that apply to operating licences covering the way in which the area containing the category C machines should be delineated. This Licensing Authority will also make itself aware of any mandatory or default conditions on these premises licences, when they have been published.

4 Casinos

4.1 This Licensing Authority has not passed a ‘no casino’ resolution under s.166 of the Gambling Act 2005, but is aware that it has the power to do so. Should this Licensing Authority decide in the future to pass such a resolution, it will update this policy statement with details of that resolution. Any such decision will be made by the Council.

5 Bingo premises

5.1 This Licensing Authority notes that the Gambling Commission’s Guidance states:

Paragraph 18.4 - Licensing authorities: “need to satisfy themselves that bingo can be played in any bingo premises for which they issue a premises licence. This is a relevant consideration where the operator of an existing bingo premises applies to vary their licence to exclude an area of the existing premises from its ambit and then applies for a new premises licence, or multiple licences, for that or those excluded areas”.

5.2 This Licensing Authority also notes the Guidance at paragraph 18.8 regarding the unusual circumstances in which the splitting of a pre-existing premises into two adjacent premises might be permitted, and in particular that it is not permissible to locate sixteen category B3 gaming machines in one of the resulting premises, as the gaming machine entitlement for that premises would be exceeded. In these cases, this Licensing Authority will have particular regard to the Gambling Commission’s Guidance on the ‘meaning of premises’ (7.13 – 7.21) and how it relates to the primary gambling activity.

5.3 Paragraph 18.6 - Children and young people are allowed into bingo premises, however they are not permitted to participate in the bingo and if category B or C machines are made available for use these must be separated from areas where children and young people are allowed.

6 Betting premises

6.1 Betting machines – This Licensing Authority will, as per the Guidance, take into account the size of the premises, the number of counter positions available for person-to-person transactions, and the ability of staff to monitor the use of the machines by children and young persons (it is an offence for those under 18 to bet)

or by vulnerable people, when considering the number/nature/circumstances of betting machines an operator wants to offer.

6.2 This Licensing Authority recognises that the design and layout of betting premises (or other premises including tracks) will vary so will have particular regard to the siting of age restricted gaming machines within each individual premises to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that staff properly monitor the use of these machines by children and young persons. This Licensing Authority reserves the right to request that gaming machines are re-positioned where circumstances demonstrate that it is appropriate to do so.

Factors to be taken into consideration will include the following: CCTV Re-location of the machines Door buzzers Remote cut off switches Training provision Any other factor considered relevant

7 Tracks

7.1 This Licensing Authority is aware that tracks may be subject to more than one premises licence, provided each licence relates to a specified area of the track. As per the Gambling Commissions Guidance, this Licensing Authority will especially consider the impact upon the third licensing objective (i.e. the protection of children and vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling) and the need to ensure that entrances to each type of premises are distinct and that children are excluded from gambling areas where they are not permitted to enter.

7.2 This Authority will therefore expect the premises licence applicant to demonstrate suitable measures to ensure that children do not have access to adult only gaming facilities. It is noted that children and young persons will be permitted to enter track areas where facilities for betting are provided on days when dog-racing and/or horse racing takes place, although they are still prevented from entering areas where gaming machines (other than category D machines) are provided.

7.3 This Licensing Authority may consider measures to meet the licensing objectives such as: Proof of age schemes CCTV Self-barring schemes Supervision of entrances / machine areas Physical separation of areas Location of entry Notices / signage Specific opening hours Provision of information leaflets/helpline numbers for organisations such as GamCare.

(This list is not mandatory, nor exhaustive, and is merely indicative of example measures).

7.4 Gaming machines – Where the applicant holds a pool betting operating licence and is going to use the entitlement to four gaming machines, machines (other than category D machines) should be located in areas from which children are excluded.

7.5 Applicants are advised to consult the Gambling Commission’s Guidance regarding where gaming machines may be located on tracks and any special considerations that should apply in relation to, for example, supervision of the machines and preventing children from playing them. This Licensing Authority will take note of this Guidance. This Licensing Authority will also, in line with the Gambling Commission’s Guidance, consider the location of gaming machines at tracks.

7.6 Betting machines – This Licensing Authority will take into account the size of the premises and the ability of staff to monitor the use of the machines by children and young persons (it is an offence for those under 18 to bet) or by vulnerable people, when considering the number/nature/circumstances of betting machines an operator proposes to offer.

7.7 On tracks where the potential space for such machines may be considerable, bringing with it significant problems in relation to the proliferation of such machines, the ability of track staff to supervise them if they are scattered around the track and the ability of the track operator to comply with the law and prevent children betting on the machines, this Licensing Authority will generally consider restricting the number and location of betting machines, in light of the circumstances of each application for a track betting premises licence.

7.8 Applications and plans - The Act (s151) requires applicants to submit plans of the premises with their application, in order to ensure that this Licensing Authority has the necessary information to make an informed judgement about whether the premises are fit for gambling. The plan will also be used for this Licensing Authority to plan future premises inspection activity.

7.9 Plans for tracks do not need to be in a particular scale, but should be drawn to scale and should be sufficiently detailed to include the information required by regulations.

7.10 Some tracks may be situated on agricultural land where the perimeter is not defined by virtue of an outer wall or fence, such as point-to-point racetracks. In such instances, where an entry fee is levied, track premises licence holders may erect temporary structures to restrict access to premises.

7.11 In the rare cases where the outer perimeter cannot be defined, it is likely that the track in question will not be specifically designed for the frequent holding of sporting events or races. In such cases betting facilities may be better provided through occasional use notices where the boundary premises do not need to be defined.

7.12 This Licensing Authority appreciates that it is sometimes difficult to define the precise location of betting areas on tracks. The precise location of where betting facilities are provided is not required to be shown on track plans, both by virtue of the fact that betting is permitted anywhere on the premises and because of the difficulties associated with pinpointing exact locations for some types of track. Applicants should provide sufficient information that this licensing authority can satisfy itself that the plan indicates the main areas where betting might take place. For racecourses in particular, any betting areas subject to the “five times rule” (commonly known as betting rings) must be indicated on the plan.

Only one premises licence may be issued for any particular premises at any time. There is one exception to this rule, namely a track (i.e. a horse race course, dog track or other premises where races or sporting events take place), which may be subject to more than one premises licence, provided each licence relates to a specified area of the track… The Act set out that there will be a main (betting premises) licence for the track, and in addition subsidiary premises licences for other gambling activities may be issued. The normal limitations in terms of access by children and young persons will apply, although in relation to a premises licence in respect of a track, children and young persons will be permitted to enter track areas where facilities for betting are provided on days when dog-racing and/or horse racing takes place. This is subject to the rule that children and young persons may not enter any areas where gaming machines (other than category D machines) are provided…In principle there is no reason why all types of gambling should not co-exist upon a track, however this licensing authority will want to think about how the third licensing objective is delivered by the co-location of premises. As with the granting of multiple licences in a single building, this licensing authority will need to ensure that entrances to each type of premises are distinct and that children are excluded from gambling areas where they are not permitted to enter.

Premises licences in relation to tracks are unusual in that, because the track operator does not need to have an operating licence (although may have one), the premises licence will need to contain requirements on the premises licence holder about his responsibilities in relation to the proper conduct of betting. The conduct of the betting on tracks will be regulated primarily through the operating licences that the persons offering betting on the track will need to hold (whether a general betting operating licence, or a pool betting operating licence). But the track operator will have a role to play in ensuring, for example, that the betting areas are properly administered, and licensing authorities will have an important role in regulating tracks, because of the particular rules surrounding on-course betting, and the sub-division of the track into different areas.

8 Travelling Fairs

8.1 Where category D machines and / or equal chance prize gaming without a permit is to be made available for use at travelling fairs, it will be this Licensing Authority’s responsibility to decide whether the statutory requirement that the facilities for gambling amount to no more than an ancillary amusement at the fair is met.

8.2 The Licensing Authority will also consider whether the applicant falls within the statutory definition of a travelling fair.

8.3 It has been noted that the 27-day statutory maximum for the land being used as a fair, is per calendar year, and that it applies to the piece of land on which the fairs are held, regardless of whether it is the same or different travelling fairs occupying the land. This Licensing Authority will work with its neighbouring authorities to ensure that land which crosses our boundaries is monitored so that the statutory limits are not exceeded.

9 Provisional Statements

9.1 Developers may wish to apply to this Licensing Authority for provisional statements before entering into a contract to buy or lease property or land to judge whether a development is worth taking forward in light of the need to obtain a premises licence.

There is no need for the applicant to hold an operating licence in order to apply for a provisional statement.

9.2 Section 204 of the Act provides for a person to make an application to this licensing authority for a provisional statement in respect of premises that he or she: - expects to be constructed; - expects to be altered; or - expects to acquire a right to occupy.

9.3 The process for considering an application for a provisional statement is the same as that for a premises licence application. The applicant is obliged to give notice of the application in the same way as applying for a premises licence. Responsible authorities and interested parties may make representations and there are rights of appeal.

9.4 In contrast to the premises licence application, the applicant does not have to hold or have applied for an operating licence from the Gambling Commission (except in the case of a track) and they do not have to have a right to occupy the premises in respect of which their provisional application is made.

9.5 The holder of a provisional statement may then apply for a premises licence once the premises are constructed, altered or acquired. This Licensing Authority will be constrained in the matters it can consider when determining the premises licence application, and in terms of representations about premises licence applications that follow the grant of a provisional statement, no further representations from relevant authorities or interested parties can be taken into account unless: they concern matters which could not have been addressed at the provisional statement stage, or they reflect a change in the applicant’s circumstances.

In addition, this Licensing Authority may refuse the premises licence (or grant it on terms different to those attached to the provisional statement) only by reference to matters: which could not have been raised by objectors at the provisional statement stage; which in this Licensing Authority’s opinion reflect a change in the operator’s circumstances; or where the premises has not been constructed in accordance with the plan submitted with the application. This must be a substantial change to the plan and this licensing authority notes that it can discuss any concerns it has with the applicant before making a decision.

10 Reviews

10.1 Requests for a review of a premises licence can be made by interested parties or responsible authorities; however, it is for the licensing authority to decide whether the review is to be carried-out. This will be on the basis of whether the request for the review is relevant to the matters listed below.

in accordance with any relevant code of practice issued by the Gambling Commission in accordance with any relevant guidance issued by the Gambling Commission reasonably consistent with the licensing objectives and in accordance with the Authority’s Statement of Principles

10.2 The request for the review will also be subject to the consideration by this Licensing Authority as to whether the request is frivolous, vexatious, or whether it will certainly not cause this licensing authority to wish to alter/revoke/suspend the licence, or whether it is substantially the same as previous representations or requests for review.

10.3 This Licensing Authority can also initiate a review of a particular premises licence, or a particular class of premises licence on the basis of any reason which it thinks is appropriate.

10.4 Once a valid application for a review has been received by this Licensing Authority, representations can be made by responsible authorities and interested parties during a 28 day period. This period begins 7 days after the application was received by this licensing authority, who will publish notice of the application within 7 days of receipt.

10.5 This Licensing Authority must carry out the review as soon as possible after the 28 day period for making representations has passed.

10.6 The purpose of the review will be to determine whether this Licensing Authority should take any action in relation to the licence. If action is justified, the options open to this Licensing Authority are: (a) add, remove or amend a licence condition imposed by this licensing authority; (b) exclude a default condition imposed by the Secretary of State (e.g. opening hours) or remove or amend such an exclusion; (c) suspend the premises licence for a period not exceeding three months; and (d) revoke the premises licence.

10.7 In determining what action, if any, should be taken following a review, this Licensing Authority must have regard to the principles set out in section 153 of the Act, as well as any relevant representations.

10.8 In particular, this Licensing Authority may also initiate a review of a premises licence on the grounds that a premises licence holder has not provided facilities for gambling at the premises. This is to prevent people from applying for licences in a speculative manner without intending to use them.

10.9 Once the review has been completed, this Licensing Authority must, as soon as possible, notify its decision to:

- the licence holder - the applicant for review (if any) - the Commission - any person who made representations - the chief officer of police or chief constable; and - Her Majesty’s Commissioners for Revenue and Customs

PART C

Permits / Temporary & Occasional Use Notice

1 Unlicensed Family Entertainment Centre (Unlicensed Family Entertainment Centre gaming machine permits Statement on Principles - Schedule 10, Para 7)

1.1 Where a premises does not hold a Premises Licence but wishes to provide gaming machines, it may apply to the licensing authority for this permit. It should be noted that the applicant must show that the premises will be wholly or mainly used for making gaming machines available for use (Section.238).

1.2 The Gambling Act 2005 states that a licensing authority may prepare a statement of principles that they propose to consider in determining the suitability of an applicant for a permit and in preparing this statement, and/or considering applications, it need not (but may) have regard to the licensing objectives and shall have regard to any relevant guidance issued by the Commission under section 25. The Gambling Commission’s Guidance for local authorities also states at Para 24.6: “In its Licensing Authority Statement of Policy, a licensing authority may include a statement of principles that it proposes to apply when exercising its functions in considering applications for permits. In particular it may want to set out the matters that it will take into account in determining the suitability of the applicant. Given that the premises will particularly appeal to children and young persons, licensing authorities may want to give weight to matters relating to child protection issues.”

1.3 Guidance also states: “...An application for a permit may be granted only if the licensing authority is satisfied that the premises will be used as an unlicensed FEC, and if the chief officer of police has been consulted on the application...” This Licensing Authority will require the applicant to demonstrate: a full understanding of the maximum stakes and prizes of the gambling that is permissible in unlicensed FECs; that the applicant has no relevant convictions (those that are set out in Schedule 7 of the Act; and that employees are trained to have a full understanding of the maximum stakes and prizes. (24.7)

1.4 It should be noted that a licensing authority cannot attach conditions to this type of permit.

1.5 Statement of Principles

1.5.1 This Licensing Authority has adopted a Statement of Principles in accordance with Paragraph 7 of Schedule 10 of the Act and they are for the purposes of clarifying the measures that the Council will expect applicants to demonstrate when applying for a permit for an unlicensed family entertainment centre. This will allow the Council to better determine the suitability of the applicant and the premises for a permit.

1.5.2 Within this process the Licensing Authority will aim to grant the permit where the applicant is able to demonstrate that: they are a fit and proper person to hold the permit they have considered and are proposing suitable measures to promote the licensing objectives, and

they have a legal right to occupy the premises to which the permit is sought.

1.5.3 The measures suggested in this document should be read as guidance only and the council will be happy for applicants to suggest measures above and beyond those listed in the document and or to substitute measures as appropriate.

1.6 Unlicensed family entertainment centres

1.6.1 The term ‘unlicensed family entertainment centre’ is one defined in the Act and refers to a premises which provides category D gaming machines along with various other amusements such as computer games and penny-pushers. The premises is ‘unlicensed’ in that it does not require a premises licence but does require a permit to be able to provide its category D gaming machines. It should not be confused with a ‘licensed family entertainment centre’ which does require a premises licence because it contains both category C and D gaming machines.

1.6.2 Unlicensed family entertainment centres (uFECs) will be most commonly located at seaside resorts, in airports and at motorway style service centres, and will cater for families, including unaccompanied children and young persons.

1.6.3 The council will only grant an uFEC gaming machine permit where it is satisfied that the premises will be operated as a bonafide unlicensed family entertainment centre.

1.6.4 In line with the Act, while the Licensing Authority cannot attach conditions to this type of permit, the licensing authority can refuse applications if they are not satisfied that the issues raised in this “Statement of Principles” have been addressed through the application.

1.7 Supporting documents

1.7.1 The Licensing Authority will require the following supporting documents to be served with all uFEC gaming machine permit applications:

Proof of age (a certified copy or sight of an original birth certificate, a photo style driving licence, or passport – all applicants for these permits must be aged 18 or over) Proof that the applicant has the right to occupy the premises. Acceptable evidence would be a copy of any lease, a copy of the property’s deeds or a similar document The result of a criminal records basic disclosure [criminal conviction certificate] (the disclosure must have been issued within the previous month). This will be used to check that the applicant has no relevant convictions (those that are set out in Schedule 7 of the Act.) – Basic Disclosures can be obtained from Disclosure Scotland. For further details call their helpline number 0870 609 6006, or visit the website http://www.disclosurescotland.co.uk/ In the case of applications for an uFEC gaming machine permit evidence that the machines to be provided are or were supplied by a legitimate gambling machine supplier or manufacturer who holds a valid gaming machine technical operating licence issued by the Gambling Commission A plan of the premises for which the permit is sought showing the following items: (i) the boundary of the building with any external or internal walls, entrances and exits to the building and any internal doorways (ii) where any category D gaming machines are positioned and the particular type of machines to be provided (e.g. slot machines, penny-falls, cranes)

(iii) the positioning and types of any other amusement machines on the premises (iv) the location of any fixed or semi-fixed counters, booths or offices on the premises whereby staff monitor the customer floor area (v) the location of any ATM/cash machines or change machines (vi) the location of any fixed or temporary structures such as columns or pillars (vii) the location and height of any stages in the premises; any steps, stairs, elevators, balconies or lifts in the premises (viii) the location of any public toilets in the building

1.72 Unless otherwise agreed with the Licensing Authority, the plan should be drawn to a standard scale with a key showing the items mentioned above. The standard scale is 1:100.

1.8 Child protection issues

1.8.1 The Licensing Authority will expect the applicant to show that there are policies and procedures in place to protect children from harm. Harm in this context is not limited to harm from gambling but includes wider child protection considerations. The council will assess these policies and procedures on their merits, and they should (depending on the particular permit being applied for) include appropriate measures / training for staff relating to the following: Maintain contact details for any local schools and or the education authority so that any truant children can be reported Employ policies to address the problems associated with truant children who may attempt to gain access to the premises and gamble when they should be at school Employ policies to address any problems that may arise during seasonal periods where children may frequent the premises in greater numbers, such as half terms and summer holidays Maintain information at the premises of the term times of any local schools in the vicinity of the premises and also consider policies to ensure sufficient staffing levels during these times Display posters displaying the ‘Child Line’ phone number in discreet locations on the premises e.g. toilets Maintain an incident register of any problems that arise on the premises related to children such as children gambling excessively, truant children, children being unruly or young unaccompanied children entering the premises. (The register should be used to detect any trends which require attention by the management of the premises.) Ensure all young children are accompanied by a responsible adult. Maintain policies to deal with any young children who enter the premises unaccompanied The provision of satisfactory basic disclosure checks (criminal records checks) for all staff who will be working closely with children.

NB: Any supporting evidence of the above measures e.g. training manuals or other similar documents/written statements should be attached to the application.

1.9 Protection of Vulnerable Persons Issues

1.9.1 The Licensing Authority will expect the applicant to show that there are policies and procedures in place to protect vulnerable persons. Applicants should refer to the

section in the council’s ‘Statement of Licensing Policy under the Gambling Act 2005’ to familiarise themselves with who the council considers vulnerable. The Licensing Authority will assess these policies and procedures on their merits, however, they may (depending on the particular permit being applied for) include appropriate measures / training for staff relating to the following: Display GamCare helpline stickers on all gaming machines Display GamCare posters in prominent locations on the premises Training for staff members which focuses on building an employee’s ability to maintain a sense of awareness of how much (e.g. how long) customers are gambling, as part of measures to detect persons who may be vulnerable Consider appropriate positioning of ATM and change machines (including the display of GamCare stickers on any such machines.)

NB: Any supporting evidence of the above measures e.g. training manuals or other similar documents/written statements should be attached to the application.

1.10 Other miscellaneous issues

1.10.1 The applicant should also be mindful of the following possible control measures (depending on the particular permit being applied for) to minimise crime and disorder and the possibility of public nuisance: maintain an effective CCTV system to monitor the interior and exterior of the premises keep the exterior of the premises clean and tidy ensure that external lighting is suitably positioned and operated so as not to cause nuisance to neighbouring or adjoining premises consider the design and layout of the outside of the premises to deter the congregation of children and youths.

NB: Any supporting evidence of the above measures e.g. training manuals or other similar documents/written statements should be attached to the application.

Permits cannot be issued to vessels or vehicles.

The position of premises holding an alcohol licence is dealt with below.

Applicants for Permits for Adult or Family Entertainment Centres (licensed or unlicensed) (formerly known as ‘Amusement Arcades’) are advised to speak to the Planning Department of this Council/and or the Dartmoor National Park Authority before making a formal application to the Licensing Authority.

2 (Alcohol) Licensed premises gaming machine permits – (Schedule 13 Para 4(1))

2.1 There is provision in the Act for premises licensed to sell alcohol for consumption on the premises, to automatically have 2 gaming machines, of categories C and/or D. The premises merely need to notify the Licensing Authority. The Licensing Authority can remove the automatic authorisation in respect of any particular premises if: provision of the machines is not reasonably consistent with the pursuit of the licensing objectives;

gaming has taken place on the premises that breaches a condition of section 282 of the Gambling Act (i.e. that written notice has been provided to the licensing authority, that a fee has been provided and that any relevant code of practice issued by the Gambling Commission about the location and operation of the machine has been complied with) the premises are mainly used for gaming; or an offence under the Gambling Act has been committed on the premises.

The Licensing Authority will use its discretion to remove permits where appropriate, taking into account individual circumstances.

2.2 Permit – three or more machines: If a premises wishes to have more than 2 machines, then it needs to apply for a permit and the Licensing Authority must consider that application based upon the licensing objectives, any guidance issued by the Gambling Commission issued under Section 25 of the Gambling Act 2005 and “other such matters as the Authority think relevant.” This Licensing Authority considers that “such matters” will be decided on a case by case basis but generally there will be regard to the need to protect children and vulnerable persons from harm or being exploited by gambling and will expect the applicant to satisfy the authority that there will be sufficient measures to ensure that under 18 year olds do not have access to the adult only gaming machines. Measures which will satisfy the authority that there will be no access may include the adult machines being in site of the bar, or in the sight of staff that will monitor that the machines are not being used by those under 18. Notices and signage may also be help. As regards the protection of vulnerable persons this applicants may wish to consider the provision of information leaflets / helpline numbers for organisations such as GamCare.

2.3 It is recognised that some alcohol licensed premises may apply for a premises licence for their non-alcohol licensed areas. Any such application would most likely need to be applied for, and dealt with as an Adult Gaming Centre premises licence.

2.4 It should be noted that this Licensing Authority can decide to grant the application with a smaller number of machines and/or a different category of machines than that applied for. Conditions (other than these) cannot be attached.

2.5 It should also be noted that the holder of a permit to must comply with any Code of Practice issued by the Gambling Commission about the location and operation of the machine.

Applicants should be aware that only those premises which have a ‘bar’ (servery) at which alcohol is sold for consumption on the premises will be eligible for a machine in the bar area of the premises. This means that premises such as restaurants which do not have a bar for serving drinks or can only sell alcoholic drinks as an ancillary to food (the old Part IV restaurant licences under the former Licensing Act 1963) will fall outside the scope to which this section (s.279 – 284) of the Gambling Act 2005 applies.

3 Prize Gaming Permits – (Statement of Principles on Permits - Schedule 14 Para 8 (3))

3.1 The Gambling Act 2005 states that a licensing authority may “prepare a statement of principles that they propose to apply in exercising their functions under this Schedule” which “may, in particular, specify matters that the licensing authority proposes to consider in determining the suitability of the applicant for a permit”.

3.2 Statement of Principles

3.2.1 This Licensing Authority has adopted a Statement of Principles in accordance with paragraph 8 of Schedule 14 of the Act and they are for the purposes of clarifying the measures that the Licensing Authority will expect applicants to demonstrate when applying for a prize gaming permit. This will allow the council to better determine the suitability of the applicant and the premises for a permit.

3.2.2 Within this process the Licensing Authority will aim to grant the permit where the applicant is able to demonstrate that: they are a fit and proper person to hold the permit they have considered and are proposing suitable measures to promote the licensing objectives, and they have a legal right to occupy the premises to which the permit is sought.

3.2.3 This Licensing Authority will expect the applicant to set out the types of gaming that he or she is intending to offer and that the applicant should be able to demonstrate: that they understand the limits to stakes and prizes that are set out in Regulations; and that the gaming offered is within the law. clear policies that outline steps to be taken to protection children from harm.

3.2.4 In making its decision on an application for a prize gaming permit the Licensing Authority does not need to (but may) have regard to the licensing objectives but must have regard to any Gambling Commission guidance. (Gambling Act 2005, Schedule 14 paragraph 8(3)).

3.2.5 The measures suggested in this document should be read as guidance only and the Licensing Authority will be happy for applicants to suggest measures above and beyond those listed in the document and or to substitute measures as appropriate.

3.3 Prize gaming permits

3.3.1 Section 288 defines gaming as prize gaming if the nature and size of the prize is not determined by the number of people playing or the amount paid for or raised by the gaming. The operator will determine the prizes before play commences. Prize gaming can often be seen at seaside resorts in amusement arcades where a form of bingo is offered and the prizes are displayed.

3.3.2 A prize gaming permit is a permit issued by the licensing authority to authorise the provision of facilities for gaming with prizes on specified premises.

3.3.3 Applicants should be aware of the conditions in the Gambling Act 2005 with which prize gaming permit holders must comply. The conditions in the Act are: the limits on participation fees, as set out in regulations, must be complied with; all chances to participate in the gaming must be allocated on the premises on which the gaming is taking place and on one day; the game must be played and completed on the day the chances are allocated; and the result of the game must be made public in the premises on the day that it is played;

the prize for which the game is played must not exceed the amount set out in regulations (if a money prize), or the prescribed value (if non-monetary prize); and participation in the gaming must not entitle the player to take part in any other gambling.

3.3.4 In line with the Act, while the Licensing Authority cannot attach conditions to this type of permit, the Licensing Authority can refuse applications if they are not satisfied that the issues raised in this “Statement of Principles” have been addressed through the application.

3.4 Supporting documents

3.4.1 The Licensing Authority will require the following supporting documents to be served with all prize gaming permit applications:

proof of age (a certified copy or sight of an original birth certificate, photo style driving licence, or passport – all applicants for these permits must be aged 18 or over) proof that the applicant has the right to occupy the premises. Acceptable evidence would be a copy of any lease, a copy of the property’s deeds or a similar document the result of a criminal records basic disclosure [criminal conviction certificate] (the disclosure must have been issued within the previous month). This will be used to check that the applicant has no relevant convictions (those that are set out in Schedule 7 of the Act.) – Basic Disclosures can be obtained from Disclosure Scotland. For further details call their helpline number 0870 609 6006, or visit the website http://www.disclosurescotland.co.uk/. A plan of the premises for which the permit is sought showing the following items: (i) the boundary of the building with any external or internal walls, entrances and exits to the building and any internal doorways (iii) The location where any prize gaming will take place (including any seating and tables) and the area where any prizes will be displayed (iv) the positioning and types of any other amusement machines on the premises (v) the location of any fixed or semi-fixed counters, booths or offices on the premises whereby staff monitor the customer floor area (vi) the location of any ATM/cash machines or change machines (vii) the location of any fixed or temporary structures such as columns or pillars (viii) the location and height of any stages in the premises; any steps, stairs, elevators, balconies or lifts in the premises (ix) the location of any public toilets in the building

3.42 Unless otherwise agreed with the Licensing Authority, the plan should be drawn to a standard scale with a key showing the items mentioned above. The standard scale is 1:100.

3.5 Child protection issues

3.5.1 The Licensing Authority will expect the applicant to show that there are policies and procedures in place to protect children from harm. Harm in this context is not limited to harm from gambling but includes wider child protection considerations. The Licensing Authority will assess these policies and procedures on their merits, and

they should (depending on the particular permit being applied for) include appropriate measures / training for staff relating to the following: Maintain contact details for any local schools and or the education authority so that any truant children can be reported Employ policies to address the problems associated with truant children who may attempt to gain access to the premises and gamble when they should be at school Employ policies to address any problems that may arise during seasonal periods where children may frequent the premises in greater numbers, such as half terms and summer holidays Maintain information at the premises of the term times of any local schools in the vicinity of the premises and also consider policies to ensure sufficient staffing levels during these times Display posters displaying the ‘Child Line’ phone number in discreet locations on the premises e.g. toilets Maintain an incident register of any problems that arise on the premises related to children such as children gambling excessively, truant children, children being unruly or young unaccompanied children entering the premises. (The register should be used to detect any trends which require attention by the management of the premises.) Ensure all young children are accompanied by a responsible adult. Maintain policies to deal with any young children who enter the premises unaccompanied The provision of satisfactory basic disclosure checks (criminal records checks) for all staff who will be working closely with children.

NB: Any supporting evidence of the above measures e.g. training manuals or other similar documents/written statements should be attached to the application.

3.6 Protection of Vulnerable Persons Issues

3.6.1 The Licensing Authority will expect the applicant to show that there are policies and procedures in place to protect vulnerable persons. Applicants should refer to the section in the council’s ‘Statement of Licensing Policy under the Gambling Act 2005’ to familiarise themselves with who the council considers vulnerable. The council will assess these policies and procedures on their merits, however, they may (depending on the particular permit being applied for) include appropriate measures / training for staff relating to the following: Display GamCare helpline stickers on all gaming machines Display GamCare posters in prominent locations on the premises Training for staff members which focuses on building an employee’s ability to maintain a sense of awareness of how much (e.g. how long) customers are gambling, as part of measures to detect persons who may be vulnerable Consider appropriate positioning of ATM and change machines. (including the display of GamCare stickers on any such machines.)

NB: Any supporting evidence of the above measures e.g. training manuals or other similar documents/written statements should be attached to the application.

3.7 Other miscellaneous issues

3.7.1 The applicant should also be mindful of the following possible control measures (depending on the particular permit being applied for) to minimise crime and disorder and the possibility of public nuisance:

Maintain an effective CCTV system to monitor the interior and exterior of the premises Keep the exterior of the premises clean and tidy Ensure that external lighting is suitably positioned and operated so as not to cause nuisance to neighbouring or adjoining premises Consider the design and layout of the outside of the premises to deter the congregation of children and youths. NB: Any supporting evidence of the above measures e.g. training manuals or other similar documents/written statements should be attached to the application.

4 Club Gaming and Club Machines Permits

4.1 Members Clubs (but not Commercial Clubs) may apply for a Club Gaming Permit or a Clubs Gaming machines permit. The Club Gaming Permit will enable the premises to provide gaming machines (3 machines of categories B, C or D), equal chance gaming and games of chance as set-out in forthcoming regulations. A Club Gaming machine permit will enable the premises to provide gaming machines (3 machines of categories B, C or D).

4.2 Gambling Commission Guidance states at Para 25.5 that: “…members’ clubs must have at least 25 members and be established and conducted “wholly or mainly” for purposes other than gaming, unless the gaming is restricted to bridge or whist. Members’ clubs must be permanent in nature, but there is not need for a club to have an alcohol licence.”

4.3 The Guidance also notes at Para 25.40 that: “Licensing Authorities may only refuse an application on the grounds that: (a) the applicant does not fulfil the requirements for a members’ or commercial club and therefore is not entitled to receive the type of permit for which it has applied; (b) the applicant’s premises are used wholly or mainly by children and/or young persons; (c) an offence under the Act or a breach of a permit has been committed by the applicant while providing gaming facilities; (d) a permit held by the applicant has been cancelled in the previous ten years; or (e) an objection has been lodged by the Commission or the police.”

4.4 There is also a ‘fast-track’ procedure available under the Act for premises which hold a Club Premises Certificate under the Licensing Act 2003 (Schedule 12, Paragraph 10). As the Guidance states at Para 25.43: “Under the fast-track procedure there is no opportunity for objections to be made by the Commission or the police and the ground upon which an authority can refuse a permit are reduced.” In addition, and as per Para 25.43: “The grounds on which an application under the process may be refused are: (a) that the club is established primarily for gaming, other than gaming prescribed under schedule 12; (b) that in addition to the prescribed gaming, the applicant provides facilities for other gaming; or (c) that a club gaming permit or club machine permit issued to the applicant in the last ten years has been cancelled”

4.5 There are statutory conditions on club gaming permits that no child uses a category B or C machine on the premises and that the holder complies with any relevant provision of a code of practice about the location and operation of gaming machines.

5 Temporary Use Notices

5.1 Temporary use notices allow the use of premises for gambling where there is no premises licence but where a gambling operator wishes to use the premises temporarily for providing facilities for gambling. Premises that might be suitable for a temporary use notice, according to the Gambling Commission, would include hotels, conference centres and sporting venues.

5.2 This Licensing Authority can only grant a temporary use notice to a person or company holding a relevant operating licence, i.e. a non-remote casino operating licence.

5.3 The Secretary of State has the power to determine what form of gambling can be authorised by temporary use notices, and at the time of writing this Statement the relevant regulations (SI no 3157: The Act (Temporary Use Notices) Regulations 2007) state that temporary use notices can only be used to permit the provision of facilities or equal chance gaming, where the gaming is intended to produce a single winner, which in practice means poker tournaments.

5.4 There are a number of statutory limits as regards temporary use notices. The meaning of "premises" in Part 8 of the Act is discussed in Part 7 of the Guidance. As with "premises", the definition of "a set of premises" will be a question of fact in the particular circumstances of each notice that is given. In the Act "premises" is defined as including "any place".

5.5 In considering whether a place falls within the definition of "a set of premises", this Licensing Authority needs to look at, amongst other things, the ownership/occupation and control of the premises.

5.6 This Licensing Authority expects to object to notices where it appears that their effect would be to permit regular gambling in a place that could be described as one set of premises, as recommended in the Guidance.

6 Occasional Use Notices

6.1 The Licensing Authority has very little discretion as regards these notices aside from ensuring that the statutory limit of 8 days in a calendar year is not exceeded. This Licensing Authority will consider the definition of a ‘track’ and whether the applicant is permitted to serve the notice.

7 Vessels

7.1 The Licensing Authority when considering applications for premises licences in respect of vessels will give particular weight to the views of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency in respect of promoting the licensing objectives. Where in the opinion of this Licensing Authority any of the three objectives are undermined, and

this cannot be resolved through the imposition of conditions, the application will be refused.

Where a premises licence is sought in connection with a vessel which will be navigated whilst licensable activities take place, the licensing authority will be concerned following the receipt of relevant representations, with the promotion of the licensing objectives on-board the vessel. The licensing authority will not focus on matters relating to safe navigation or operation of the vessel, the general safety of passengers or emergency provisions, all of which are subject to regulations which must be met before the vessel is issued with a Passenger Certificate and Safety Management Certificate. It is expected that if the Maritime and Coastguard Agency is satisfied that the vessel complies with Merchant Shipping standards for a passenger ship, the premises will normally be accepted as meeting the public safety objectives. In respect of other public safety aspects, representations made to the licensing authority by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency will be given particular weight.

Appendix A

Responsible Authorities Contact Details

Responsible Authority Contacts -

The list of Responsible Authorities and their contact details may change where additional responsible authorities are designated by regulations from the Secretary of State or existing authorities change their address.

An up-to-date list of Responsible Authorities relating to West Devon with their contact details can be obtained by accessing the West Devon Borough Council licensing web pages, or on request to the Licensing Section at [email protected] / 01822 813 600.

The Licensing Authority The Licensing Manager West Devon Borough Council Kilworthy Park Tavistock Devon PL19 0BZ Tel: 01822 813 600 E-mail: [email protected]

The Gambling Commission Victoria Square House Victoria Square Birmingham B2 4BP Tel: 0121 233 1058 Email: [email protected]

Devon & Cornwall Constabulary Licensing Department (East) Devon & Cornwall Police HQ Middlemoor Exeter EX2 7HQ

Tel: 01392 452 225 Fax: 01392 452337 Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.devon-cornwall.police.uk/Pages/Default.aspx

6) Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Service (West Division - for Tavistock, Yelverton & Lifton and areas West of);

The Fire Safety Officer Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue West Division Headquarters Glenn Road

Plympton Plymouth PL7 3XT Tel: 01752 333 600 Email: [email protected]

(East Division - for Okehampton, Beaworthy, North Tawton, Winkleigh, Exeter, Newton Abbot & Crediton and areas East of) The Fire Officer Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Service East Division Headquarters Agriculture House (Ground Floor) Pynes Hill Rydon Lane Exeter EX2 5AZ Tel: 01392 872 200 Email: [email protected]

4) Child Protection Head of Safeguarding for the Children’s Service Child Protection Manager Children’s Services Division Parkers Barn Parkers Way Totnes Devon TQ9 5UF Tel: 01392 386657 http://www.devon.gov.uk/index/cyps/child-protection.htm

7) Environmental Health Department West Devon Borough Council Environmental Heath Department Kilworthy Park Tavistock Devon PL19 0BZ Tel: 01822 813 600 E-mail: [email protected]

8) Planning Development Management West Devon Borough Council Kilworthy Park Tavistock Devon PL19 0BZ Tel: 01822 813 600 Email: [email protected]

9) Dartmoor National Park Authority Dartmoor National Park Authority Parke Bovey Tracey Newton Abbot Devon TQ13 9JQ Tel: 01626 832093

Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Customs & Excise National Registration Unit Portcullis House 21 India Street Glasgow G2 4PZ Tel: 0141 5553633 Email: [email protected]

10) Maritime & Coastguard Agency (Boats only) The Safety Policy Coordinator for Inland Waterways Maritime & Coastguard Agency Plymouth Marine Office Fish Quay Plymouth Devon PL4 0LH Tel: 01752 266211 http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/mcga07-home

APPENDIX C

List of Persons/Bodies/Organisations Consulted

Responsible Authorities:

Chief Officer of Police, Devon & Cornwall Constabulary Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Service Devon County Council Children and Young Peoples Services West Devon Borough Council’s Environmental Health Department West Devon Borough Council’s Planning Department Dartmoor National Park Planning Authority HM Customs & Excise Maritime & Coastguard Agency Gambling Commission

Licence Holders/Representatives of Licence Holders, Interested Parties/Representatives of Interested Parties:

Existing Gambling Premises Licence Holders Representatives of existing licence holders Local Business Representatives West Devon Crime & Disorder Reduction Partnership Devon Primary Care Trust Local Residents and their Representatives Citizen’s Advice Bureau GamCare Gambler’s Anonymous Mencap NSPCC

AGENDA AGENDA ITEM ITEM 10 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL 10

NAME OF COMMITTEE Planning & Licensing

DATE 4 December 2012

REPORT TITLE Review of Environmental Health Licensing Fees, Gambling Premises Fees and Taxi Licensing Fees Report of Licensing Manager

WARDS AFFECTED All

------Summary of report: To seek Member approval that the proposed Fees and Charges, to cover the period 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2014, may be levied.

Financial implications: The proposed fees and charges, which have been calculated based on application and annual fee levels over the period of 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2012, will combined, increase annual Environmental Health Licensing, Taxi Licensing and Gambling Premises Licensing income by approximately £3,600 in the 2013/14 financial year. The increase in income aims to ensure that the licensing regimes to which the fees are applied are self-financing, without making a profit or subsidising another regime.

RECOMMENDATIONS: That the Committee resolve to increase 2013/14 Environmental Health Licensing Fees and Charges and Gambling Act 2005 Betting Premises Fees in line with the levels set out in Appendices A and B respectively as of 1 April 2013.

That the Committee resolve to increase 2013/14 Taxi Licensing Fees and Charges as per Appendix C to this report, and determine that the increases and decreases will have effect as of 1 April 2013, pending the outcome of consultation.

Officer contact: Sarah Clarke Licensing Manager [email protected] : 01822 813 548 (direct dial)

1. BACKGROUND 1.1 The Council has the power to levy fees and charges for the various services and functions it undertakes. Some of the fees are prescribed in statute while for others the Council can make reasonable charges for the services provided.

Environmental Health Licensing

1.2 Environmental Health Licensing fees and charges were last reviewed in September 2010 and should be set, where discretion is permitted, to ensure full cost recovery. A list of current and proposed fees and charges is provided at Appendix A.

Gambling Act 2005

1.3 The majority of fees and charges relevant to the Gambling Act 2005 are set out in statute; however, the Council has power to decide fees relating to gambling premises, subject to the maximum charge stated in the relevant Regulations. Gambling premises fees were last reviewed in June 2007 and only a small increase is proposed to ensure that as per Section 212 of the Gambling Act 2005, the Council equates income from fees as near as possible to the costs of providing the service to which the fees relate. A list of current and proposed fees and charges is provided at Appendix B

Taxi Licensing

1.4 Taxi licensing fees and charges were last reviewed in August 2010. The Council under Section 70(1) of Part II of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 is permitted to set licence fees to cover whole or part of:

The cost of carrying out by or on behalf of the Borough Council’s inspections of Hackney Carriages and Private Hire Vehicles to determine whether any such licence should be granted or reviewed.

The reasonable cost of providing Hackney Carriage Stands; and

Any reasonable administrative or other costs in connection with the foregoing and with the control and supervision of Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Vehicles.

1.5 Members are asked to please note that fees relating to the services at Para 1.4 are subject to a 28 day public consultation, within which time any person may object to the variation. If no objections are made, or if all objections are withdrawn, the fees come into effect at the end of the 28 day period. Where objections are not withdrawn, the Council should consider the objections before determining the fees level and setting a further date (not later than 2 months after the specified date), on which the new fees shall come into force.

1.6 Where during the statutory consultation period objections are made and not withdrawn, the Licensing Manager will provide a follow-up report to the Planning & Licensing Committee setting out the comments made and seeking further

consideration of the proposed fees and charges before agreeing the new fees structure.

1.7 With regards to other taxi licensing fees and charges, these should recover reasonable expenses incurred to issue licences and administer and control the service. There are no consultation requirements but it is considered good practice to consult with all current licence holders on all the proposed fees if members agree to increase them. A list of current and proposed fees and charges is provided at Appendix C.

2. ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION 2.1 There is a general requirement, established in R v Manchester City Council ex parte King, that the fees charged must be set at a level reasonably expected to cover the cost of providing the service. This principle was reinforced by the introduction of the Provision of Services Directive, which came into force 28 December 2009. The Directive (which does not apply to taxis) specifies that any fee charged can only be based on cost recovery and can include administration costs, initial visits, third party costs (e.g. services of a vet), management costs and local democracy costs. Third party enforcement costs may not be recharged to licensed operators by virtue of this Directive – a point that was recently affirmed in R (Hemming and Others) v Westminster City Council.

2.2 Members are asked to please note that the proposed taxi fees and charges were circulated on 30 October 2012 by the Licensing Manager to all Taxi Operators (company owners) for their initial, informal, comments; the deadline for responses being 20 November 2012. One response was received by the Licensing Team and is reproduced at Appendix D.

3. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS 3.1 The Council’s Constitution at Page 55 provides that it is the responsibility of the Planning & Licensing Committee to: “…keep under review the fees and charges for the Committee’s services where statutory authority exists for the levying of such charges and to levy the same where, in the opinion of the Chief Finance Officer, the levying of such charges will not give rise to a material adverse impact on the overall budget of the Council. In all other circumstances, the Committee to recommend the levying of fees and charges to the Resources Committee.”

4. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 4.1 Legislation requires that the Council’s licensing services are provided on a cost neutral basis, and with costs increasingly consistently, it is essential that the fees increase in line with the expenditure to ensure no additional cost to the Tax Payer.

5. RISK MANAGEMENT 5.1 The Risk Management implications are shown at the end of this report in the Strategic Risks Template.

6. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

Corporate priorities Community Life, Environment & Economy engaged: Statutory powers: s2 Gambling Act 2005 (s2)

SI 2007 No. 479 The Gambling (Premises Licence Fees) (England and Wales) Regulations 2007

Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982

Riding Establishments Acts 1964 and 1970

Animal Boarding Establishments Act 1963

Pet Animals Act 1951

Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976

Breeding of Dogs Act 1973

Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001 and Motor Salvage Operators Regulation 2002

Considerations of equality Compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998 and human rights: Biodiversity considerations: None

Sustainability None considerations: Crime and disorder None. implications: Background papers: Committee Reports: Review of Environmental Health Licensing Fees, dated 17 August 2010. Review of Taxi Licensing Fees, dated 22 June 2010. Setting of Gambling Act 2005 Fees, dated 28 June 2007. R v Manchester City Council ex parte King (1991) 89 LGR 696 R (Hemming and Others) v Westminster City Council Admin Court – Keith J, 16 May 2012 Audit Commission Report from Guilford

Borough Council 2010 Appendices attached: Appendix A – Proposed Environmental Health Licensing Fees & Charges

Appendix B – Proposed Gambling Act 2005 Fees & Charges

Appendix C – Proposed Taxi Licensing Fees & Charges

Appendix D – Proposed Taxi Fees Consultation Response

STRATEGIC RISKS TEMPLATE

Inherent risk status No Risk Title Risk/Opportunity Impact of Chance Risk Mitigating & Management actions Ownership Description negative of score and outcome negative direction outcome of travel 1 Judicial Review Challenge by way of Financial monitoring of income against Sarah of fees levels. Judicial Review in cases 4 2  expenditure and planned, regular, Clarke where fees are set at an meetings between Finance Officer and unreasonable level which Licensing Manager. does not relate to the cost of providing the service. 2 Income does not Income from licensing 4 2 Financial monitoring of income against Sarah match services does not ensure  expenditure and planned, regular, Clarke expenditure. full cost recovery and meetings between Finance Officer and impact on Tax Payer. Licensing Manager.

APPENDIX A

Environmental Health Licence Fees (All outside the scope of vat except where shown)

Licence Type Current Proposed Comments Fee Fee (2013/14) Acupuncture, Tattooing, Ear-piercing & The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 Electrolysis Part VIII requires businesses which carry out the following types of skin piercing to be registered with the Council. Register of Persons £100.00 £100.00 – acupuncture

– tattooing Register of Premises £100.00 £109.00 – cosmetic body piercing (including ear piercing) – semi-permanent skin colouring – electrolysis The Act requires registration to cover both the person carrying on the practice and the premises used for that purpose. Once an application has been made and a fee paid, an inspector will undertake an inspection of the premises. If the inspector considers the applicant's procedures and the premises to be suitable, then registration will be approved. The fees are only payable once. Once registered there is no need to reapply on an annual basis. Premises will be checked before registration is completed and on a regular basis to ensure that hygienic standards are being maintained.

Animal Boarding Establishment (All to Animal Boarding establishments are essentially kennels

31 December each year) and catteries. The fees are based on a ‘per animal’ basis with a minimum Licence (per animal) £4.30 £5.00 fee of £120.00 being proposed. Premises are regulated under the Animal Boarding Establishments Act 1963. A visit Minimum £110.00 £120.00 will normally be made to the establishment to check that licence conditions are being complied with. Checks will include ensuring that the accommodation is suitable in Maximum £160.00 £174.00 construction, size, numbers and facilities such as heating, lighting and ventilation are adequate. Checks are also made to ensure the correct welfare and management of the animals, fire precautions and emergency arrangements. Home Boarding (maximum fee charged) £110.00 £110.00 Revisits to premises may be required where minimum standards are not achieved. Visits may also be required on receipt of complaints. Regular checks will also be required. Home Boarding charges are being maintained at 2010/2011 levels to allow for the fact that such premises operate on a lower scale than commercial undertakings. Dangerous Wild Animal Licence £352.00 £383.00 Animals which are classified as "dangerous wild animals" and can be anything from an Aadvark to a Zebra, are identified in a schedule to the Dangerous Wild Animals Act. Plus Vets fees and expenses Act. Cost Act. Cost Anyone wishing to keep one of these animals requires a Licence issued by the local authority. Checks will be made on application to ensure that the person is suitable for the keeping of dangerous animals. A visit will then be made to the premises to ensure that the animals can be kept in an environment that protects their welfare and also that of public safety. Licence conditions often are specific to the type or property and animal being kept, so can require a significant amount of officer time to develop. The service of a specialist vet is often required (for which a separate recharge is made). A number of visits may often have to be made to ensure that licence conditions can be met. Visits may also have to be made on a regular basis to ensure welfare and safety standards are maintained. Public

nuisance issues may also have to be addressed. Dog Breeding Establishment A breeding establishment is where five or more litters are born, to one or more bitches, for the purpose of sale, in the Licence Fee (Initial & Renewal) £140.00 £152.00 period of one year. A licence is necessary for the interests of animal welfare and consumer protection relating to the Plus Vets fees and expenses (initial Act. Cost Act. Cost facilities in which the animals are kept and the extent to applications only) which they are bred. A visit will be made to the premises to ensure that welfare conditions are suitable. For initial applications a visit by a vet will also be required. Conditions may also be attached to the licence. Regular inspections will also be required to ensure compliance with conditions and to ensure that adequate records are kept. Hypnotism £50.00 £52.00 The control of hypnotism is via the Hypnotism Act (as amended). Anyone giving an exhibition, demonstration or performance of Hypnotism on any person or in connection with entertainment to which the public are admitted whether by payment or otherwise is required to obtain authorisation from the Council by way of consent. Hypnotism includes hypnotism, mesmerism and any similar act or process which produces or is intended to produce in any person any form of induced sleep or trance in which the susceptibility of the mind of that person to suggestion or direction is increased or intended to be increased. Once a completed application form is received and the information has been checked, liaison with a number of agencies such as the Police may take place. Checks will be made to ensure that the proposed event does not offend public decency and that vulnerable people will not be put at harm. Conditions will normally be attached to the licence to protect the public physical safety and mental health. Discussions may have to be held with the event organiser. Motor Salvage Operators (Statutory Registration of Motor Salvage Operators (scrap vehicles) is Fee) required. The local authority has to be satisfied that the Registration £70.00 £70.00 person is fit and proper to hold the registration. Liaison with

the police will occur. The fees are statutory and registration Certified copies of single entry of register £10.00 £10.00 lasts for 3 years. The Operator is obliged to keep detailed (max 5 copies) records of vehicles that pass through the business. There is a right of appeal if registration is refused. Pet Animal Auctions £176.00 £180.00 Pet Animal Auctions require to be licensed. The licence will specify conditions concerning the welfare of animals that are to be sold. Other checks will ensure that: – animals will at all times be kept in accommodation suitable as respects size, temperature, lighting, ventilation and cleanliness; – animals will be adequately supplied with suitable food and drink and (so far as necessary) visited at suitable intervals; – animals, being mammals, will not be sold at too early an age; – that all reasonable precautions will be taken to prevent the spread among animals of infectious diseases; – that appropriate steps will be taken in case of fire or other emergency; As the auctions are transient, the potential for animal neglect is higher. More stringent controls and inspection regimes will be required. Pet Shop Licences Pet shops will require licensing on an annual basis. As with Pet Animal Auctions checks and visits will be required to (Non-Statutory Annual Fee) £108.00 £118.00 ensure that:

– animals will at all times be kept in accommodation Plus Vets fees and expenses Act. Cost Act. Cost suitable as respects size, temperature, lighting, ventilation and cleanliness; – animals will be adequately supplied with suitable food and drink and (so far as necessary) visited at suitable intervals;

– animals, being mammals, will not be sold at too early an age; – that all reasonable precautions will be taken to prevent the spread among animals of infectious diseases; – that appropriate steps will be taken in case of fire or other emergency Visits will also need to be made to follow up on complaints. Riding Establishment Licences The Riding Establishments Act 1964 requires persons to obtain a licence from the local authority if they wish to Up to 10 horses £150.00 £163.00 operate a riding establishment. A 'riding establishment' means the carrying on of a business of keeping horses to Plus for each horse £7.40 £8.00 let them out on hire for riding, or for use in providing instruction in riding for payment, or both’. Plus for Vets fees and expenses Act. Cost Act. Cost The Act is concerned with ensuring the suitability of the licence holder and the welfare and suitability of the horses Maximum Fee £270.00 £294.00 and in particular:

– whether the person has suitable qualification or experience – the condition of the horses – the condition of feet – suitable accommodation – where appropriate, the condition of pasture – suitable food, drink, bedding and exercise facilities – suitable disease control – suitable precautions in event of fire – provision of adequate accommodation for forage, bedding and equipment. Adequate insurance cover will also have to be provided. The local authority will have to authorise a vet to inspect the establishment and to consider the report of their visit before

issuing the licence. Checks will be made to ensure that the premises continue to operate in a satisfactory manner. Sex Establishments (Shops & The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 Encounter Venues) requires the licensing of sex establishments (shops or cinemas) and also the licensing of sexual entertainment Per application (Inclusive of first year £5,600 £5,600 venues, by virtue of s27 of the Police and Crime Act 2009. annual licence) A sex shop means any premises, vehicle, vessel or stall Annual Fee/Renewal £450.00 £450.00 used for a business which consists to a significant degree of Transfer £1,300.00 £1,300.00 selling, hiring, exchanging, lending, displaying or demonstrating sex articles or acts of force or restraint Plus Premises Licence / Club Premises Statutory Statutory associated with such activity. A sex cinema has a similar Certificate if applicable – Licensing Act Fee Fee meaning but for the showing of films. A sexual 2003 entertainment venue would cover establishments such as lap-dancing clubs. Applications for sex establishments naturally attract a lot of interest and a number of objections to an application would normally be expected. While the Licensing officer would work with the applicant and objectors, it is likely that an application would go to Committee for their consideration. Refusal of an application could result in an appeal. Due to the potential workload involved, the fee level has been set relatively high. Annual renewal fees are set considerably lower to reflect the decreased workload associated. A sexual encounter venue is a new term that has been brought in as a separate licensable activity under the Licensing Act 2003. Legislation states that when one or more dancers expose breasts, genitalia and/or excretory organs a Sex Encounter Licence is required by law. Again, the officer and member input required could be significant. Zoo Licensing Act Zoos are required to be licensed by the local authority under the Zoo Licensing Act 1981. A zoo is defined in the Grant of Licence (Valid 4 years) £730.00 £795.00 Act as being 'an establishment where wild animals are kept for exhibition ... to which members of the public have Renewal of Licence (Valid for 6 years) £640.00 £697.00 access, with or without charge for admission, seven or more

days in any period of twelve consecutive months'. The Act Transfer of Licence £330.00 £359.00 aims to ensure that, where animals are kept in enclosures, they are provided with a suitable environment to provide an Partially exempt premises 70% of 70% of opportunity to express most normal behaviour. Inspection above fees above fees The process for licensing a zoo is complex and time- Actual Cost Actual Cost consuming. The process will involve liaison with a Secretary of State appointed vet, and inspections will be made to ensure that the zoo can operate in a manner that ensures public safety while maintaining a rich and rewarding environment for the animals. Checks will also have to be made to ensure that the zoo is actively involved in conservation measures. The level of specialist knowledge required is very high as is the amount of work required to effectively liaise with the zoo and Government vets. Inspections to ensure compliance can take several days to complete. Regular visits to ensure continued compliance are also required. The costs of arranging an inspection of the zoo by a Secretary of State appointed vet are met by the licence holder. The consequences of having a poorly-run zoo are great. Dispensation can be made for smaller zoos that do not require such a high level of input.

APPENDIX B

Gambling Act 2005 Fees (All outside the scope of vat except where shown)

Licence Type Current Proposed Comments Fee Fee (2013/14) Bingo Premises Fees relating to New Premises Licence, Variation of (fee capped by Regulations) Premises Licence and Provisional Statements remain as per the band maxima established in supporting Regulations Premises Licence £3,500.00 £3,500.00 to the Act. Fees have been set at maximum levels to ensure full cost recovery, given that applications of this Provisional Statement (Premises) £3,500.00 £3,500.00 nature are likely to invite representations and demand significant officer attention. Provisional Statement (with new £720.00 £784.00 application – maximum fee which can be charged is £1,200.00)

Variation of Premises Licence £1,750.00 £1,750.00

Transfer of Premises Licence £720.00 £784.00 (maximum fee which can be charged is £1,200.00)

Reinstatement of Licence £720.00 £784.00 (maximum fee which can be charged is £1,200.00)

Change of circumstances £30.00 £35.00 (maximum fee which can be charged is £50.00)

Copy of Licence £15.00 £20.00

(maximum fee which can be charged is £25.00)

Annual Fee £650.00 £708.00 (maximum fee which can be charged is £1.000.00)

Betting Premises (not on course)

Premises Licence £3,000.00 £3,000.00

Provisional Statement (Premises) £3,000.00 £3,000.00

Provisional Statement (with new £720.00 £784.00 application – maximum fee which can be charged is £1,200.00)

Variation of Premises Licence £1,500.00 £1,500.00

Transfer of Premises Licence £720.00 £784.00 (maximum fee which can be charged is £1,200.00)

Reinstatement of Licence £720.00 £784.00 (maximum fee which can be charged is £1,200.00)

Change of circumstances £30.00 £35.00 (maximum fee which can be charged is £50.00)

Copy of Licence £15.00 £20.00 (maximum fee which can be charged is

£25.00)

Annual Fee £390.00 £420.00 (maximum fee which can be charged is £600.00)

Betting (on-course)

Premises Licence £2,500.00 £2,500.00

Provisional Statement (Premises) £2,500.00 £2,500.00

Provisional Statement (with new £570.00 £621.00 application – maximum fee which can be charged is £950.00)

Variation of Premises Licence £1,250.00 £1,250.00

Transfer of Premises Licence £570.00 £621.00 (maximum fee which can be charged is £950.00)

Reinstatement of Licence £570.00 £621.00 (maximum fee which can be charged is £950.00)

Change of circumstances £30.00 £35.00 (maximum fee which can be charged is £50.00)

Copy of Licence £15.00 £20.00 (maximum fee which can be charged is £25.00)

Annual Fee £650.00 £708.00 (maximum fee which can be charged is £1,000.00)

Adult Gaming Centre

Premises Licence £2,000.00 £2,000.00

Provisional Statement (Premises) £2,000.00 £2,000.00

Provisional Statement (with new £720.00 £784.00 application – maximum fee which can be charged is £1,200.00)

Variation of Premises Licence £1,000.00 £1,000.00

Transfer of Premises Licence £720.00 £784.00 (maximum fee which can be charged is £1,200.00)

Reinstatement of Licence £720.00 £784.00 (maximum fee which can be charged is £1,200.00)

Change of circumstances £30.00 £35.00 (maximum fee which can be charged is £50.00)

Copy of Licence £15.00 £20.00 (maximum fee which can be charged is £25.00)

Annual Fee (maximum fee which can be charged is £650.00 £708.00 £1,000.00)

Family Entertainment Centre

Premises Licence £2,000.00 £2,000.00

Provisional Statement (Premises) £2,000.00 £2,000.00

Provisional Statement (with new £570.00 £621.00 application – maximum fee which can be charged is £950.00)

Variation of Premises Licence £1,000.00 £1,000.00

Transfer of Premises Licence £570.00 £621.00 (maximum fee which can be charged is £950.00)

Reinstatement of Licence £570.00 £621.00 (maximum fee which can be charged is £950.00)

Change of circumstances £30.00 £35.00 (maximum fee which can be charged is £50.00)

Copy of Licence £15.00 £20.00 (maximum fee which can be charged is £25.00)

Annual Fee £487.50 £531.00 (maximum fee which can be charged is £750.00)

APPENDIX C

Hackney Carriage & Private Hire Licensing Fees (All outside the scope of vat except where shown)

Licence Type Current Fee Proposed Fee Comments (2013/14) Driver Licence (incl. Renewal)* £90.00 £98.00 Increase takes into account 2011 and 2012 RPI increases which were not levied in that period. Driver Licence (incl. Renewal) (3 years)* - £264.00 The addition of three-yearly driver licences is in line with Guidance issued by the Department for Transport. Operator Licence (incl. Renewal) £115.00 £118.00 Increase takes into account 2011 and 2012 RPI increases which were not levied in that period. Operator Licence (incl. Renewal) (5 years) - £531.00 The addition of three-yearly operator licences is in line with Guidance issued by the Department for Transport. Private Hire Vehicle Licence (incl. Renewal) (Non-Wheelchair £140.00 £152.00 Increase takes into account 2011 and Accessible) 2012 RPI increases which were not levied in that period. Private Hire Vehicle Licence (incl. Renewal) (Full Wheelchair - £121.00 In order to incentivise business Accessible) owners/operators to license vehicles catering to persons with diverse transport needs, it is proposed to offer a 30% discount on the normal licence cost to those businesses offering fully wheelchair-accessible vehicles.

Hackney Carriage Vehicle Licence (incl. Renewal) (Non- £150.00 £163.00 Increase takes into account 2011 and

Wheelchair Accessible) 2012 RPI increases which were not levied in that period.

Hackney Carriage Vehicle Licence (incl. Renewal) (Full - £130.00 In order to incentivise business Wheelchair Accessible) owners/operators to license vehicles catering to persons with diverse transport needs, it is proposed to offer a 30% discount on the normal licence cost to those businesses offering fully wheelchair-accessible vehicles. Transfer of Ownership/vehicle £50.00 £50.00 No increase is deemed necessary as current fee enables full cost recovery.

Miscellaneous Fees *Initial Driver Application Fee (for New drivers only) – fee is in £35.00 £40.00 This additional fee is levied as initial addition to the above Driver Licence fee driver applications incur additional officer and administrative time. Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Plate £15.00 £20.00 Above RPI 2011 and 2012 increases proposed in order to ensure full cost recovery. Replacement Driver Badge £10.50 £15.00 Above RPI 2011 and 2012 increases proposed in order to ensure full cost recovery. CRB Check Administration Fee £5.00 £5.00 No proposed increase as admin charge is sufficient at this level to enable full cost recovery. Vehicle Inspection Fee - - - Act. Cost.

SUMMARY OF LICENSING ACT 2003, GAMBLING ACT 2005 & LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 1982, PLUS OTHER MISCELLANEOUS LICENCES, ISSUED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS 1 APRIL 2011 – 31 MARCH 2012

Licences issued under Licensing Act 2003:

LICENCE TYPE NAME OF PREMISES DATE OUTCOME RECEIVED New Premises The Tavy Club 24.04.11 Granted by Officer New Premises Tavistock Methodist Church 16.05.11 Granted by Officer New Premises Dingles Fairground Heritage Centre 18.05.11 Granted by Officer New Premises Crapfest 07.06.11 Granted by Officer New Premises Toast 11.10.11 Granted by Officer New Premises Roots and Vines 04.01.12 Granted by Officer New Premises Simmons Park, Queens Jubilee Event 07.03.12 Granted by Officer Variation of Premises Licence Morrison’s, Tavistock 26.10.12 Granted by Officer Variation of Premises Licence New Carlton Cinema 09.12.11 Granted by Officer Variation of Premises Licence Tavistock Town Hall 13.01.12 Granted by Officer Variation of Premises Licence Three Crowns (pub & restaurant) 27.03.12 Granted by Officer Minor Vary of Premises Licence Somerfield 26.04.11 Granted by Officer Minor Vary of Premises Licence Oxenham Arms 12.05.11 Granted by Officer Minor Vary of Premises Licence Royal Oak 13.07.11 Granted by Officer Minor Vary of Premises Licence Devon Tors Hotel 20.09.11 Refused by Officer Minor Vary of Premises Licence Tavistock Rugby Football Club 19.10.11 Granted by Officer Minor Vary of Premises Licence Mill End Hotel 09.01.12 Rejected by Officer

LICENCE TYPE NUMBER ISSUED OUTCOME Personal 69 Issued by Officer Transfer of Premises Licence 31 Issued by Officer Change of DPS 41 Issued by Officer Temporary Event Notice 340 Acknowledged by Officer

Licences issued under Gambling Act 2005:

LICENCE TYPE NAME OF PREMISES DATE OUTCOME RECEIVED New Premises Betfred, Okehampton 26.05.11 Granted by Officer

LICENCE TYPE NUMBER ISSUED OUTCOME Gaming Machines (Cat C or D) 1 Issued by Officer New Small Society Lottery 14 Issued by Officer Club Machine Permit 3 Issued by Officer Occasional Use Notice 3 Acknowledged by Officer

Taxi Licences issued under Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982

LICENCE TYPE NUMBER ISSUED OUTCOME Joint Hackney Carriage/Private Hire 128 Issued by Officer Driver & Private Hire Driver Hackney Carriage/Private Hire 155 Issued by Officer Vehicle Private Hire Operator 3 Issued by Officer

Miscellaneous Licences issued under Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 & Police, Factories, etc (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1916

LICENCE TYPE NUMBER ISSUED OUTCOME Animal Boarding Licence 17 Issued by Officer (New/Renewal) Pet Shop Licences (New/Renewal) 4 Issued by Officer Dog Breeding 2 Riding Establishments 5 Issued by Officer (New/Renewal) Accupunture/Skin 9 Issued by Officer Piercing/Tattooing (New) Motor Salvage Operator 1 Issued by Officer Scrap Metal Dealer 0 Issued by Officer

House to House Collection Permit 22 Issued by Officer Street Collection Permit 3 Issued by Officer

At a Meeting of the PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE held at the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Kilworthy Park, Drake Road, TAVISTOCK on TUESDAY the 4th day of DECEMBER 2012 at 10.00 am.

Present: Cllr C M Marsh – Chairman Cllr L B Rose – Vice-Chairman Cllr S C Bailey Cllr W G Cann OBE Cllr C Hall Cllr L J G Hockridge Cllr D M Horn Cllr T G Pearce Cllr D Whitcomb

Development Manager Area Planning Officer (North) Area Planning Officer (South) Principal Planner Senior Planning Officer Solicitor Member Services Manager

In attendance: Cllr R E Baldwin Cllr D Cloke Cllr A Leech Cllr N Morgan Cllr J B Moody Cllr P J Ridgers Cllr J Sheldon

P&L 50 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Cllr D M Wilde.

P&L 51 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Cllr S Bailey – Applications 02698/2012; 02757/2012; 02961/2012; 03103/2012 – Personal – Ward Member Cllr L J G Hockridge – Application 02917/2012 – Personal – Ward Member Cllr C M Marsh – Personal – Chairman of HATOC Cllr T G Pearce – Personal – Member of Devon Building Control Partnership Cllr D Whitcomb – Application 02769/2012 – Personal – Ward Member

*P&L 52 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES The Minutes of the Meeting held on 6th November 2012 (page 3 to the Agenda) were confirmed and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

*P&L 53 PLANNING, LISTED BUILDING AND ADVERTISEMENT REPORTS RELATING TO THE NORTHERN AREA OF THE BOROUGH The Committee considered the applications prepared by the Development Manager relating to the Northern Area of the Borough (page 13 to the Agenda) and considered also the comments of Parish Councils together with other representations received, which are noted below, and RESOLVED:

WARD: Bridestowe APPLICATION NO: 02917/2012 LOCATION: Lower Brockscombe Coppice, Germansweek, Beaworthy, Devon, EX21 5AL APPLICANT NAME: Miss J Henderson APPLICATION: Full PARISH: Bratton Clovelly GRID REF: 246192 94978 PROPOSAL: Change of use of land and siting of structures and erection of buildings to form a camping facility and associated works. CASE OFFICER: Cheryl Stansbury TARGET DATE: 19/09/2012

Reason item is being put before committee: Cllr Hockridge wishes the application to be determined by Committee given the large number of objections received from local residents and the Parish Council.

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION The Committee having, debated the proposal, listened to the speakers and heard the clear views of the Ward Member, RESOLVED to NOT GRANT conditional consent.

It was then moved and seconded that the application be refused on the grounds of concerns over highway access issues, detrimental impact on the rural area, being of no benefit to local residents and concerns over pollution to the River Wolf.

Upon voting the application was REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. The road giving access to the site is, by reason of its inadequate width and poor alignment, unsuitable to accommodate the increase in traffic likely to be generated by the development, which would result in a risk to the safety of pedestrians and cyclists, contrary to Policy TR10 of the Devon County Structure Plan and Policy T2 of the West Devon Local Plan Review.

2. The development, by reason of the site’s remote rural location, several miles from the nearest facilities and poorly served by public transport is considered to represent unsustainable development, which fails to provide any over-riding economic or community benefit. As such, the proposal is to the detriment of the rural area, contrary to Policies NE10 and TLS2 of the West Devon Local Plan Review, SP1 of the West Devon Core Strategy and ST1 of the Devon Structure Plan.

3. The proposed drainage system would present a risk of pollution of the River Wolf, which adjoins the application site. The application is therefore contrary to Policy SP1 of the West Devon Core Strategy and ST1 of the Devon Structure Plan.

The Proposal This is a full planning application for the change of use of land, the siting of structures and erection of buildings to form a camping facility. The proposal involves the siting of 4 insulated timber tents, 2 “Showman’s” wagons, communal buildings, office/shed/shower area, composting toilet, log store, poly tunnel and car parking area. A 5th timber tent and 2 camping pitches were proposed, and the applicants did intend to run environmental based training courses from the site, however, these aspects have now been omitted from the application.

The existing access point is to be used, with the gates widened and a new gravelled parking area is to be provided with parking for 5 cars, 1 of which is intended for staff parking.

Foul drainage is proposed through 2 composting toilets and a septic tank, with discharge to reed beds and a pond, with eventual clean water discharge to the watercourse.

Consultations: Bratton Clovelly Parish Council County Highways Authority Devon Building Control Partnership South West Water Natural England WDBC Countryside Officer Environment Agency Environmental Health Drainage Engineer WDBC Economy Manager (Tourism) Devon County Rights of Way Officer Ruby Country Project Coordinator WDBC Landscape Officer Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service Local Residents\Interested Parties - 63 representations received

SPEAKERS: Mr P Waters – Objector Miss J Henderson – Applicant

WARD: Drewsteignton APPLICATION NO: 03085/2012 LOCATION: Land at SX704 977, Spreyton, Devon APPLICANT NAME: Powerhawk Limited APPLICATION: Full PARISH: Spreyton GRID REF: 270462 97721 PROPOSAL: Erection of single wind turbine with a hub height of 50m and 77m to blade tip and creation of new access track, widening of existing access and associated works. CASE OFFICER: Anna Henderson-Smith TARGET DATE: 12/11/2012

Reason item is being put before committee: This application has been called in by Cllr Ridgers: ‘I would like to call the above planning application to committee, if the West Devon recommendation is to approve the application.

My grounds for objecting are: 1. Visual intrusion and impact on the landscape and on surrounding villages, Spreyton and Bow and with particular reference to the visual impact from and to Spreyton Church. 2. Proximity to several immediate private dwellings that will suffer noise above 35db (10db at night) and also shadow flicker 3. Cumulative effects of this turbine in relation to other existing and proposed turbines in the immediate and surrounding area, especially the Den Brook turbines 4. The current planning application only shows photo montages from a limited amount of places, this needs to be expanded to neighbouring villages and also address cumulative effects with other turbines approved. Concern over accuracy of the existing photographic images. 5. No amplitude modulation assessments supplied in the application.’

Councillor Ridgers then went on to send the following on 5th November 2012:

‘Further to our earlier conversation, the community interest, large scale and detailed technical aspects of this application, I would like to refer it to the planning committee.

I maintain my opposition to the application and trust that the views I have previously supplied will be included in the report.’

REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. The proposal by reason of its siting and size would have a substantial detrimental effect upon the setting of, views from and the enjoyment of, nearby listed properties. It is not considered that the public and environmental benefits of the proposal would outweigh this harm to the heritage of the locality. As such this proposal is contrary to policies ST1, CO8 and CO12 of the Devon Structure Plan, SP1, SP3 and SP18 of the Core Strategy and NE10 and BE3 of the Local Plan and the guidance of the NPPF. 2. The proposal by reason of its scale, movement and location would have a significant localised visual impact affecting the properties and area at the north of Spreyton. This together with a wider cumulative impact, particularly in views from DNP, loss of local tranquillity and diminution of landscape character are considered too adverse to be outweighed by the benefits of the scheme. As such this proposal is contrary to policies ST1, CO1, CO2 and CO12 of the Devon Structure Plan, SP1, SP3 and SP17 of the Core Strategy and NE10 of the Local Plan and the guidance of the NPPF.

The Proposal The application is for the erection of a single 500kw wind turbine with a hub height of 50m and a height of 77m to blade tip and creation of a new access track, widening of existing access and associated works such a crane pad and vehicular turning area. Consultations: Spreyton Parish Council County Highways Authority English Heritage Conservation Officer

South West Water Landscape Officer Countryside Officer Mid-Devon District Council Environment Agency DCC Archaeology NATS CAA MOD Exeter Airport Environmental Health Section Local Residents\Interested Parties – 135 representations received

SPEAKERS: Mr A Stockel – Objector Mr N Leaney – Agent Mr K Whitaker – Chairman, Spreyton Parish Council

Conclusion Overall it is not considered that the harm to the setting and enjoyment of the three nearest listed properties of Stockhay, Coombe and Weeke and the dominance of the turbine upon the small village of Spreyton and its residents’ enjoyment of the relatively undeveloped, historically rich rural area is outweighed by the environmental benefits of this proposal.

*P&L 54 PLANNING, LISTED BUILDING AND ADVERTISEMENT REPORTS RELATING TO THE SOUTHERN AREA OF THE BOROUGH The Committee considered the applications prepared by the Development Manager relating to the Southern Area of the Borough (page 61 to the Agenda) and considered also the comments of Parish Councils together with other representations received, which are noted below, and RESOLVED:

WARD: Tamarside APPLICATION NO: 02769/2012 LOCATION: Camplehaye Residential Home, Lamerton, Tavistock, Devon, PL19 8QD APPLICANT NAME: Avens Care Homes Ltd APPLICATION: Removal of Condition\Variation of Condition PARISH: Lamerton GRID REF: 2445450 768220 PROPOSAL: Removal of conditions attached to planning consent 11230/2007/TAV. CASE OFFICER: Ben Dancer TARGET DATE: 13/08/2012 Reason item is being put before committee: The application has been brought before Committee at the request of Cllr. Whitcomb, who states that:

“I wish this application to be determined by Committee given the objections received by residents and the Lamerton Parish Council”.

APPROVAL

Reason for Approval: This application has been determined in accordance with Section 38 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which states that planning applications must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. This application has been determined in accordance with approved Development Plan Policies; relevant Government planning policy guidance; and approved in the absence of any other overriding material considerations and having given due weight to all other matters raised in this application including technical and other representations received. The relevant Policies are the National Planning Policy Framework, Devon Structure Plan Policies ST1, ST3, CO9, TR5, TR10 West Devon Borough Core Strategy Policies SP1, SP8, SP19 and West Devon Local Plan Review Policies NE10, H34, RB2 and T9.

Special regard has been given to the representations about the history of the building, the intended use and the preference for the building to either be kept as a care facility or demolished, but these were not considered to be overriding given that evidence has been provided to show that the re-use of the building for care provision of varying natures has been sought. The proposal would not lead to a detrimental impact upon the amenities of the site or surrounding area, inclusive of any neighbouring residents.

List of conditions: 1. Standard time limit

The Proposal The application is for the removal of a planning condition (condition 5) originally applied to planning consent 7540/2005/TAV and then subsequently amended by an appeal decision relating to planning application 11230/2007/TAV.

The condition is reproduced below for reference:

“The occupation of the dwelling shall be limited to the owner or an employee and dependants thereof of Camplehaye Residential Home, and/or the provision of residential accommodation and care to people in need of care. The building the subject of this appeal shall not be occupied at any time other than for these purposes and in connection with the use of the main building as Camplehaye Residential Care Home. The building the subject of this appeal shall not be sold off or let separately from the main building Camplehaye Residential Home”.

Consultations: Lamerton Parish Council County Highways Authority South West Water Services Local Residents\Interested Parties: 2 representations received

SPEAKER: Mr A Avens – Applicant

Conclusion In this instance the removal of the condition relates to an existing residential unit that has a condition limiting its occupancy and so is already regarded as being a dwelling in planning terms. The re-use of existing buildings is also detailed within Local Plan Policy RB2 and is in principle acceptable subject to the provisions previously outlined within this report.

Given the above and the ability of the site and building to accommodate the unfettered occupancy of the building without detriment to near neighbours, the environment or the highway network it is officer opinion that the impact of the removal of the condition would not lead to a detrimental impact upon the amenities of the site or surrounding area, inclusive of any neighbouring residents.

WARD: Tavistock North APPLICATION NO: 02698/2012 LOCATION: 16 Buddle Close, Tavistock, Devon, PL19 0EG APPLICANT NAME: R.M Builders Ltd APPLICATION: Full PARISH: Tavistock GRID REF: 247941 75014 PROPOSAL: Erection of 2 dwellings and associated works. CASE OFFICER: Ben Dancer TARGET DATE: 13/07/2012

Reason item is being put before committee: The application is before Members at the request of Cllr. Moody who comments: “Given the many concerns of local Buddle Close residents regarding the proposed development which include material planning issues such as scale, over dominance, overlooking, sense of enclosure as well as traffic and parking issues, I would, therefore, ask for the planning application to be considered by the planning committee”.

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION The Committee having, debated the proposal, listened to the speakers and heard the clear views of the Ward Members, RESOLVED to NOT GRANT conditional consent.

It was then moved and seconded that the application be refused on the grounds of overbearing development, being out of character with the streetscene and detrimental impact on neighbour amenity.

Upon voting the application was REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. Proposed development by reason of its scale, design, bulk, massing and siting would have an overbearing impact upon the adjacent properties (16 and 17 Buddle Close) affecting the amenities of those residents 2. Out of character with the streetscene and wider area The Proposal Erection of 2 dwellings and associated works.

Consultations: Tavistock Town Council County Highways Authority South West Water Services Environmental Health Officer

Senior Engineer Local Residents\Interested Parties: 20 representations received

SPEAKERS: Mr S Gill – Agent for Objectors Mr E Persse – Agent

WARD: Tavistock North APPLICATION NO: 02757/2012 LOCATION: Land Adjacent To 77, Bannawell Street, Tavistock APPLICANT NAME: Endeavor Homes Ltd APPLICATION: Full PARISH: Tavistock GRID REF: 247963 74610 PROPOSAL: Erection of building containing 5 flats with associated works including demolition of existing garages. CASE OFFICER: Ben Dancer TARGET DATE: 15/08/2012

Reason item is being put before committee: The application has been brought before the Committee at the request of Cllr. Moody who has stated that:

“Given the local residents’ concerns regarding the over development of the site, the over-supply of flat accommodation in the area, insufficient off street parking for the size of the development and the acknowledged historic on-street parking problems in the area I would, therefore, request that this application be considered by committee”.

CONDITIONAL APPROVAL

Reason for Approval: This application has been determined in accordance with Section 72 of the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 in respect of planning applications which affect Conservation Areas which requires that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of Conservation Areas and determined in accordance with Section 66 of the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 in respect of planning applications which affect a listed building or its setting which requires that special regard shall be had to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interests which it possesses. This application has been determined in accordance with approved Development Plan Policies; relevant Government planning policy guidance; and approved in the absence of any other overriding material considerations and having given due weight to all other matters raised in this application including technical and other representations received. The relevant Policies are the National Planning Policy Framework, Devon Structure Plan Policies ST1, CO6, CO7, CO8, TR5, TR10, West Devon Core Strategy Policies SP1, SP4, SP9, SP18 and SP20 and West Devon Borough Local Plan Policies BE1, BE2, BE3, BE7, BE8, BE13, BE16, H28, T5, T9, PS2 and PS3.

Special regard has been given to the representations about the impact upon the highway due to the level of parking proposed, the impact of the building upon the area including the Conservation Area, World Heritage Site and adjacent Listed viaduct and the impact of the proposal upon neighbouring residents by way of loss of light but these were not considered to be overriding because the development is considered to be located within a sustainable and accessible location close to the town centre and would provide a suitably designed development which does not detract from the character and appearance of this designated area. Furthermore it complies with the Development Plan Policies and National Planning Framework which seek the re-use of brownfield sites and to make the most efficient use of the land in keeping with the qualities of the area. The previous planning history has also been considered in arriving at this determination

List of conditions: 1. Standard time limit 2. Hard and soft landscaping (inclusive of minor structures) 3. Landscaping to be maintained and replaced 4. Drainage Assessment 5. Approval of surface water drainage design 6. Drainage maintenance to be approved and implemented 7. Drainage to be completed prior to first occupation 8. Roof verge, rainwater goods and window details to be approved 9. Materials to be approved 10. Railing and railing plinth details to be approved 11. Removal of PD rights Part 40 Classes A-G 12. Parking provided prior to first occupation and maintained thereafter 13. Dust suppression scheme to be approved 14. Compliance with dust suppression scheme for duration of construction 15. Contaminated land survey, risk assessment and remediation 16. Windows shown as obscure glazed to be permanently retained as such unless otherwise agreed by Local Planning Authority 17. Compliance with amended plans

The Proposal Erection of building containing 5 flats and associated works including demolition of existing garages.

Consultations Tavistock Town Council County Highways Authority South West Water Services Conservation Officer Landscape Officer Senior Engineer RSPB Local Residents\Interested Parties: 4 representations received

Conclusion In respect of the current full application it is considered that the proposed increase in density from 4 flats to 5 flats does not in itself create any further impact upon the amenities of neighbouring residents or the character of this designated area that would warrant the refusal of the scheme. The proposed development reutilises brownfield land, is situated within the Tavistock settlement boundary and is located within a sustainable location close to the town centre. The proposed design is considered to be akin to the previously approved planning application, with some variance to design elements and fenestration. Conditions can be applied to any consent to cover matters relating to materials, minor design elements, drainage and contaminated land.

Accordingly the proposal is considered to comply with the listed Development Plan Policies.

WARD: Tavistock North APPLICATION NO: 02961/2012 LOCATION: 3 Duke Street, Tavistock, PL19 0BA APPLICANT NAME: Colvase Estate Ltd APPLICATION: Full PARISH: Tavistock GRID REF: 248176 74511 PROPOSAL: Two new shop fronts to facilitate subdivision of shop to two units. CASE OFFICER: Katie Graham TARGET DATE: 26/09/2012

Reason item is being put before committee: This application has been called to Committee by Councillor Sheldon on the following grounds: “I have to state that I am the Chair of the Tavistock Town Council Plans Committee. We give due consideration to all plans and without fail in CA, WHS areas we make reference to the Conservation Officer.

I would wish this matter to go to Committee as the side premise involved fronts onto Pepper Street. There is already a bricked up part of this building that defaces the ground floor. Only from the first floor upwards has character over successive years been retained. In the commercial retail environment that this building stands I believe it is in the public interest to encourage new small self contained shop units, of which there are two. Assisting traders who wish to follow the path of becoming independent retailers that Tavistock is known for. Tavistock does not lack traders to do this; home based businesses could be encouraged to take part.

Pepper Street is made up of shops with various frontages and is a natural thoroughfare to shops in Barley Market Street. Businesses are varied and they are likely to profit and gain from the addition of footfall these small shops units should bring. Material considerations involve employment and regeneration that supports other businesses and the Town Centre.“

DELEGATE to Development Manager to REFUSE application (subject to no new representations raising new material planning considerations being received on the 4th December).

Reason for refusal: The proposed new shop fronts by reason of their form, proportion and design including the addition of plywood sign boards will fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area and would harm the OUV of the WHS and the setting of the Listed Buildings The proposal is therefore

contrary to Development Plan Policies BE1, BE3, R2, SP18, SP20, Structure Plan Policies CO6, CO7 and the NPPF.

The Proposal This is a Full planning application for the creation of two new shop fronts, on the Pepper Street elevation of 3 Duke Street. This will allow for the creation of 2 new units, to be formed from underused space currently serving the one of the retail units occupying 3 Duke Street. There has been a variety of amendments for this scheme. The final scheme, now in front of Members for consideration proposes a set of glazed entrance doors with 2 windows sited on either side of the glazed doors and a timber framed sign board over the windows and doors.

Consultations: County Highways Authority South West Water Environment Agency Tavistock Town Council Conservation Officer Local Residents\Interested Parties: 1 representation received

SPEAKER: Mr M Coles – Applicant

Conclusion The existing building is considered to positively contribute to the Conservation Area and WHS. The proposed shop fronts, due to their proportion and form, and affixed timber sign board, are considered to harm the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the OUV of the WHS. In addition, it is not considered that the public benefits of the proposal outweigh this harm.

WARD: Tavistock North APPLICATION NO: 03106/2012 LOCATION: 20 Plymouth Road, Tavistock, PL19 8AY APPLICANT NAME: Mrs E Baker APPLICATION: Full PARISH: Tavistock GRID REF: 247959 74278 PROPOSAL: Change of use of office to beauty therapy room. CASE OFFICER: Katie Graham TARGET DATE: 21/11/2012

Reason item is being put before committee: site owned by West Devon Borough Council.

CONDITIONAL APPROVAL

Reason for Approval: This application has been determined in accordance with Section 72 of the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 in respect of planning applications which affect Conservation Areas which requires that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of Conservation Areas. This application has been determined in accordance with approved Development Plan Policies; relevant Government planning policy guidance; and approved in the absence of any other overriding material considerations and having given due weight to all other matters raised in this application including technical and other representations received. The relevant Policies are NPPF, Core Strategy: SP1, SP10, SP18, Local Plan: BE1, BE3, T8, Structure Plan: ST1, ST15, ST20, CO7, TR4, TR9

Special regard has been given to the representations about public visitation, noise and parking but these were not considered to be overriding due to the small scale and siting of the proposed use, visitor numbers and noise is not considered to give rise to any harm, and the lack of onsite parking is not considered to give rise to any harm taking into account the town centre location.

List of conditions: 1. Standard Time Limit 2. Restriction on hours of opening (10am – 6pm Monday to Friday, 10am – 2pm Saturdays and no Sunday or bank holiday working – as copied from application forms) 3. The proposed use shall be restricted to beauty therapy only and shall be used for no other purpose

The Proposal The proposal is for the change of use of an office room on the first floor of the existing building, to be used for beauty therapy.

Consultations: County Highways Authority Conservation Officer South West Water Environment Agency Tavistock Town Council Local Residents\Interested Parties: 1 representation received

Conclusion The proposed change of use, which is small in scale and sited conveniently adjacent to both the bus station and public car park, is considered to be acceptable in terms of planning policy. WARD: Thrushel APPLICATION NO: 02926/2012 LOCATION: Land at Spindlewood House, Newton Down, Lifton, Devon, PL16 OAS APPLICANT NAME: Ms K Sargent APPLICATION: Full PARISH: Stowford GRID REF: 2413065 856885 PROPOSAL: AMENDED PLANS: Erection of dwelling in place of caravan in use for residential purposes. CASE OFFICER: Katie Graham TARGET DATE: 20/09/2012

Reason item is being put before committee: This application has been called in to Committee by Cllr Horn on the grounds within the following comments: “Thanks for the report, it was how I expected and I can understand the way you came to a decision but I consider there is room for debate on how Policy H29 applies to these small rural Hamlets that make up the Parish of Stowford. So I would like to call this Application into Committee on the grounds that it had unanimous support from the Parish Council, and that Policy H29 has not been satisfactorily explored relating to Stowford.”

Further comments following clarification on policy H29 from case officer: “Stowford has no defined boundary when it comes to development, and considering the settlement of Portgate played a very important contribution to the village, if you could call it that, by providing the only village shop, Methodist Church, now used as a second home, the only village pub, which you may recall wanted to close its doors a while ago, and indeed the application site was another shop come filling station, I could go on”.

REFUSED

Reason for refusal: The proposed dwelling constitutes a new dwelling in the open countryside and is not considered to fulfil the functional and financial requirements, it does not constitute infill development under policy H29 nor the policy requirements of paragraph 55 of the NPPF, and would therefore result in harm to the intrinsic qualities of the open countryside and would is therefore contrary to the NPPF, Policy H29, H31, SP1, SP5 of the Development Plan.

The proposal by reason of its increased curtilage area as a result of the siting and scale of the dwelling would lead to increased domestication of the rural area and along with its associated usage and paraphernalia would harm the intrinsic qualities of the open countryside. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies NPPF, NE10, SP1, SP17, ST1.

The Proposal The current application seeks to replace the existing caravan with a 2 storey dwelling, to be sited to the northwest of the existing caravan and partially on the same footprint.

Consultations: County Highways Authority South West Water Environment Agency Drainage Engineer Stowford Parish Council Local Residents\Interested Parties: None

SPEAKER: Mr I Tomlin – Agent

Conclusion The proposed dwelling represents a new unjustified dwelling in the open countryside, not in compliance with any local or national policy, and there are no exceptional circumstances that would justify a departure from policy.

*P&L 55 PLANNING APPEALS UPDATE

APPLICATION NO: 02958/2012 APPLlCANT: Ms I Chambers PROPOSAL: Change of use of part agricultural building for use as domestic garage to be used in conjunction with holiday let. LOCATION: Wilminstone Farm, Wilminstone, Tavistock, Devon, PL19 0JT APPEAL STATUS: APPEAL LODGED APPEAL DECISION APPEAL START DATE 25/10/2012 APPEAL DECISION DATE

APPLICATION NO: 02767/2012 APPLlCANT: Ms I Chambers PROPOSAL: Variation of condition 2 attached to planning consent 12518/2008/TAV limiting use to ancillary accommodation. LOCATION: Round House, Launceston Road, Tavistock, PL19 8NG APPEAL STATUS: APPEAL LODGED APPEAL DECISION APPEAL START DATE 25/10/2012 APPEAL DECISION DATE

APPLICATION NO: 02781/2012 APPLlCANT: Mr & Mrs A Whiteman PROPOSAL: Change of use of public house to dwelling. LOCATION: Harris Arms, Portgate, Lewdown, Okehampton, Devon, EX20 4PZ APPEAL STATUS: APPEAL LODGED APPEAL DECISION APPEAL START DATE 14/11/2012 APPEAL DECISION DATE

APPLICATION NO: 02132/2011 APPLlCANT: Mr J Russell PROPOSAL: Erection of replacement dwelling (existing bungalow to be demolished) and associated works including erection of detached garage. LOCATION: Bryher, Brentor, Tavistock, Devon, PL19 0NQ APPEAL STATUS: APPEAL DECIDED APPEAL DECISION Appeal Dismissed APPEAL START DATE 20/06/2012 APPEAL DECISION DATE 31/10/2012

ENFORCEMENT APPEAL DECISIONS

REF. NO: E/00851/2010 APPELLANT: Mr Tim Woodcock

BREACH: Unauthorised building (garage/store) LOCATION: Tuzzies Barn, Tuell Down, Milton Abbot APPEAL STATUS: APPEAL DECIDED APPEAL DECISION Appeal Dismissed – compliance extended to 9 months DATE: 05/11/2012

REF. NO: E/00852/2010 APPELLANT: Mr Tim Woodcock BREACH: Breach of condition – Holiday let being used as full time dwelling LOCATION: Tuzzies Barn, Tuell Down, Milton Abbot APPEAL STATUS: APPEAL DECIDED APPEAL DECISION Appeal Dismissed – complaince extended to 9 months DATE: 05/11/2012

*P&L 56 DELEGATED DECISIONS The Committee received and noted the listed of delegated decisions (page 106 to the Agenda).

P&L 57 REVIEW OF SITE INSPECTION PROTOCOL The Member Services Manager presented a joint report with the Development Manager (page 119 to the Agenda) proposing a review of the current site inspection protocol to enable planning agents to attend site inspections but not to take part and to clarify the attendance of substitutes. Presented with the report at Appendix A (page 123 to the Agenda) was the current site inspection procedure and this showed the proposed changes to allow applicants\agents to attend.

With the proposal to amend the site inspection protocol came the opportunity to clarify the position of named substitutes attending site inspections. It was proposed that when a named substitute attended a site inspection that person should also attend the Committee meeting following to ensure that the Council’s adopted principles of decision- making and fairness are adhered to.

During discussion, Members asked for minor amendments to the proposed procedure, to ensure clarity that planning officers did not give opinions but only answer questions, and to ensure that the procedure stated that the Ward Member was able to give their views at the site inspection.

It was RESOLVED to RECOMMEND that the Constitution be amended to reflect the changes to the Site Inspection Protocol as set out in the Appendix and including the amendments suggested for clarity. (Revised version at Appendix A to the minutes).

P&L 58 THREE-YEARLY REVIEW OF GAMBLING STATEMENT OF LICENSING PRINCIPLES

Arising from Minute No P&L 28 – 2012/2013, the Licensing Manager presented a report (page 124 to the Agenda) on the three-yearly review of the Gambling Statement of Licensing Principles. The Council’s current Statement of Principles had been the subject of an extensive consultation exercise and the resulting proposed Statement of Principles for the 3-year period January 2013 to January 2016 was presented as Appendix A to the report (page 129 to the Agenda). Also presented with the report at Appendix B (page 166 to the Agenda) was a summary of the main changes to the Statement and, at Appendix C (page 168 to the Agenda), a list of consultees.

It was RESOLVED to RECOMMEND that the proposed Statement of Principles be approved and presented at the Council’s Meeting on 11th December 2012 for formal approval so that the Council can fulfil its legal duties under the Gambling Act 2005.

*P&L 59 REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LICENSING FEES, GAMBLING PREMISES FEES AND TAXI LICENSING FEES The Licensing Manager presented a report (page 169 to the Agenda) proposing a revision to the fees and charges for the Environmental Health Licensing Fees and Charges and the Gambling Act 2005 Betting Premises Fees for the period 1st April 2013 to 1st April 2014. Four appendices were presented with the report: Appendix A (page 175 to the Agenda) the proposed Environmental Health Fees and Charges; Appendix B (page 182 to the Agenda) the proposed fees in respect of Betting Premises; Appendix C (page 187 to the Agenda) the proposed fees in respect of Taxi Licensing Fees and Charges; and, Appendix D a consultation response to the Taxi Licensing Fees consultation.

It was RESOLVED that: (i) the 2013/2014 Environmental Health Fees and Charges and the Gambling Act 2005 Betting Premises Fees as set out in Appendices A and B be approved and adopted from 1st April 2013; and, (ii) the 2013/2014 Taxi Licensing Fees and Charges as set out in Appendix C be approved and adopted from 1st April 2013, pending the outcome of consultation.

*P&L 60 SUMMARY OF LICENSING ACT 2003, GAMBLING ACT 2005, TAXI LICENSING, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LICENSING AND CHARITABLE COLLECTIONS PERMISSIONS ISSUES 1st APRIL 2011 – 31st MARCH 2012 The Committee received and noted the list of licences and permits issued during the period 1st April 2011 to 31st March 2012 (page 190 to the Agenda).

(The Meeting terminated at 1:25 pm)

APPENDIX A TO MINUTES OF P&L COMMITTEE HELD 4 DECEMBER 2012

The proposed amendments are shown in Bold type.

Procedure for Site Inspections

The purpose of the site visit is to enable Members to view particular aspects of an application in context. No decision is reached on site and there is no debate as to outcome at the site meeting.

The only participants at site inspections are Members of the Planning & Licensing Committee (or their named Substitutes providing that substitute took part in the Committee meeting), the respective Ward Members (if not a Member of P&L) and a representative of the respective Town/Parish Council.

Neither the applicant/agent nor any third party may participate in the site meeting. Specific requests to view the proposal from a particular place (e.g. objector’s home) may, however, be accommodated at the Chairman’s discretion.

PROPOSE THE ABOVE PARAGRAPH CHANGED TO: The applicant/agent may attend the site meeting but not participate. At the discretion of the Chairman, they may be allowed to answer questions of clarity. Specific requests to view the proposal from a particular place (e.g. objector’s home) may be accommodated at the Chairman’s discretion.

1. Chairman formally opens the site inspection and invites the Planning Officer to describe the application with particular reference to those issues for which the inspection has been called (e.g. Effect on amenity of adjoining occupiers.)

The Planning Officer then describes the proposal and guides the Members to appropriate vantage points which may be within and/or outside the site.

2. Opportunity for Members to seek clarification from the Planning Officer.

3. Representative from Town/Parish Council invited to give their views.

4. The Ward Member to give their views.

5. Chairman formally closes the meeting.