South Hams Development Management Committee

Title: Agenda

Date: Wednesday, 1st July, 2015

Time: 10.00 am

Venue: Council Chamber - Follaton House Full Members: Chairman Cllr Steer Vice Chairman Cllr Foss Members: Cllr Bramble Cllr Hodgson Cllr Brazil Cllr Holway Cllr Cane Cllr Pearce Cllr Cuthbert Cllr Rowe Cllr Hitchins Cllr Vint

Interests – Members are reminded of their responsibility to declare any Declaration and disclosable pecuniary interest not entered in the Authority's Restriction on register or local non pecuniary interest which they have in any Participation: item of business on the agenda (subject to the exception for sensitive information) and to leave the meeting prior to discussion and voting on an item in which they have a disclosable pecuniary interest.

Committee Kathy Trant Specialist- Democratic Services 01803 861185 administrator: Page No

1. Minutes 1 - 6 to approve as a correct record and authorise the Chairman to sign the minutes of the meetings of the Committee held on 27 May 2015

2. Urgent Business Brought forward at the discretion of the Chairman;

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

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

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

6. Planning Applications To see Letters of Representation and further supplementary information relating to any of the Applications on the agenda, please select the following link and enter the relevant Planning Reference number: http://apps.southhams.gov.uk/PlanningSearchMVC/

(a) 14/0142/15/F 7 - 24 Redevelopment of existing Brimhay Bungalows to provide 32 new dwellings and associated highway. (12no. 1 bed apartments, 12no. market houses and 8 flats) – Development site at SX 7863 6192 Forder Lane, Dartington TQ9 6HT

(b) 11/0042/14/F -11/0045/15F 25 - 68

11/0042/14/F Erection of agricultural building (No1, washing), associated dwelling, new access road and site office. Resubmission of planning ref 11/1547/13/F - Land at SX 707 456, Bantham Cross, Churchstow, Kingsbridge, Devon TQ7 3QU Page No

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

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

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

(c) 15/0138/15/F 69 - 76 Demolish existing garages and reform as three garages with a loft apartment above Garages adjacent to 3 Sandquay Road, Dartmouth

(d) 21/27/2754/14/VAR 77 - 86 Variation of condition 2 of approval 21/2161/04/F to allow increase in the total floorspace devoted to the sale of certain goods Endsleigh Garden Centre, Endsleigh, Ivybridge, PL21 9JL

(e) 30/1799/14/F 87 - 96 Erection of 2.No. flats with garages and parking; Plot to rear of Inglewood Cottages, Higher Contour Road, Kingswear, TQ6 0AT

(f) 07/2752/14/VAR 97 - 104 Variation of conditions (b) and (c) and removal of condition (d) of planning consent 07/0294/83/4 to allow all year occupation, lengthen times to stay on site to 6 months and to allow all year use to include on-site warden/security Brixton Caravan And Camping Site, Steer Point Road, Brixton, Plymouth, PL8 2BN

(g) 30/1422/14/F 105 - 110 Erection of a single two storey dwelling and separation of part of garden The Anchorage, Redoubt Hill, Kingswear, Dartmouth TQ6 0DA Page No

(h) 27/57/0923/15/F 111 - 118 Construction of new dwelling and detached double garage with office accommodation over (resubmission of 27_57/1976/14/F) Godwell House, Godwell Lane, Ivybridge, PL21 0LT

(i) 04/0550/15/O 119 - 124 Outline application (all matters reserved) for erection of single dwelling The Beeches, Bickleigh Down Road, Roborough, Plymouth, PL6 7AD

(j) 23/0598/15/F 125 - 128 Householder application for proposed extensions to rear and front of dwelling The Linhay, Old Hazard Cottages, Harberton, TQ9 7LN

(k) 34/0711/15/F 129 - 134 Householder application for proposed rear single storey extension with flat roof 18 Brockhurst Park, Marldon, Paignton, TQ3 1LB

(l) 34/0861/15/F 135 - 138 Householder application for raising of roof and roof extensions to provide first floor accommodation and alterations to existing windows 39 Pembroke Park, Marldon, Paignton, TQ3 1NL

8. Planning Appeals Update 139 - 140 Dev Management 27.05.15

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE HELD AT FOLLATON HOUSE, TOTNES, ON WEDNESDAY, 27 MAY 2015

Members in attendance * Denotes attendance Ø Denotes apology for absence * Cllr I Bramble * Cllr J M Hodgson * Cllr J Brazil * Cllr T R Holway * Cllr B F Cane * Cllr J A Pearce * Cllr P K Cuthbert * Cllr R Rowe * Cllr R J Foss (Vice Chairman) * Cllr R C Steer (Chairman) Ø Cllr P W Hitchins * Cllr R J Vint

Other Members in attendance Cllr Tucker

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

DM.1/15 MINUTES

The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 15 April 2015 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

DM.2/15 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Members and officers were invited to declare any interests in the items of business to be considered but none were made.

DM.3/15 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

The Chairman proceeded to announce that the following members of the public had registered their wish to speak at the meeting:- • 18/2312/14/F : Objector – Mr John Littman: Supporter – Mr Brian Stoddart: Change of use of boathouse/workshop/sail loft to self contained dwelling – Proposed dwelling at SX 8656 5484, The Lane, Dittisham

DM.4/15 SITE INSPECTIONS

There were no site inspections to report.

DM.5/15 PLANNING APPLICATIONS

The Planning Case Officers submitted details of the planning applications as presented in the agenda papers.

Dev Management 27.05.15

During discussion of the planning applications, the following motions (which were in contradiction to the planning officer recommendation in the published agenda report), were PROPOSED and SECONDED and on being put to the vote were either CARRIED or LOST :-

a) In respect of application 18/2312/14/F: Change of use of boathouse/workshop/sail loft to self contained dwelling – Proposed dwelling at SX 8656 5484, The Lane, Dittisham, the Case officer outlined the application with plans, elevations and photographs. The main issues were the principle of development, residential amenity and highway safety. The proposal was recommended for refusal on the grounds of highway safety. Members asked detailed questions in relation to distances along the lane and the width, and also whether the property had been used for its original purpose. The Ward Member commented that he disagreed with the Highway Officer comments and supported the application, however he also shared the view of the neighbour in relation to overlooking.

It was then PROPOSED and SECONDED and on being put to the vote declared LOST :-

‘That the application be approved with an additional condition relating to agreement over boundary treatments’.

Members also raised concerns over light pollution, and after some discussion the following motion was PROPOSED and SECONDED and on being put to the vote declared CARRIED :-

‘That the application be approved with an additional condition relating to agreement over boundary treatments and an additional condition relating to addressing light pollution by using screens over rooflights’.

Reasons for Conditional Approval:

The Highways Officer comments were not applicable as the access was suitable to serve a single bedroom unit due to its proximity to the junction.

DM.6/15 PLANNING APPEALS UPDATE

The Development Manager updated Members on the detail of the listed appeals.

(Meeting commenced at 2.00 pm and concluded at 3:10 pm

______Chairman

Dev Management 27.05.15

Voting Analysis for Planning Applications – DM Committee 27 May 2015 Application No: Site Address Vote Councillors who Voted Councillors who Voted No Councillors who Absent Yes Voted Abstain 18/2312/14/F Proposed dwelling at SX Approval Cllrs Pearce, Steer (2) Cllrs Bramble, Brazil, Cuthbert, Cllr Cane (1) Cllr Hitchins (1) 8656 5484, The Lane, (without Foss, Hodgson, Holway, Rowe, Dittisham additional Vint (8) condition re lighting) 18/2312/14/F Proposed dwelling at SX Approval Cllrs Bramble, Brazil, Cuthbert, Cllrs Cane, Pearce, Steer (3) (0) Cllr Hitchins (1) 8656 5484, The Lane, (with Foss, Hodgson, Holway, Rowe, Vint Dittisham additional (8) condition re lighting) 14/0219/15/AD Totnes Congregation of Approval Cllrs Bramble, Brazil, Cane, Cllrs Hodgson, Vint (2) (0) Cllr Hitchins (1) Jehovah’s Witnesses, Cuthbert, Foss, Holway, Pearce, Kingdom Hall, Dartington Rowe, Steer (9) 15/0525/15/DC Garages adj to 3 Approval Cllrs Bramble, Brazil, Cane, (0) (0) Cllr Hitchins (1) Sandquay Road, Cuthbert, Foss, Hodgson, Holway, Dartmouth Pearce, Rowe, Steer, Vint (11)

Dev Management 27.05.15

APPENDIX A

REF NO. 18/2312/14/F

Description etc. Change of use of boathouse/workshop/sail loft to self contained dwelling

Parish or Town Council - Dittisham

Parish Council’s Views – No Objections

Officer Update – None

Recommendation – Refusal

Recommended Conditions - N/A

Committee Decision – Approval subject to conditions:

• Time Limit • Accord with plans • Details of boundary treatments • Screening to rooflights

Ref No. 14/0219/15/AD

Description etc. Advertisement consent for erection of 4no. information fascia signs .

Parish or Town Council – Dartington

Town Council’s Views – Objection

Officer Update – None

Recommendation – Conditional Approval

Recommended Conditions

Commencement , Standard advertisement conditions (must be kept clean and tidy; must be kept in a safe condition; must have the permission of the owner of the site on which they are displayed (this includes the Highway Authority if the sign is to be placed on highway land); must not obscure, or hinder the interpretation of, official road, rail, waterway or aircraft signs, or otherwise make hazardous the use of these types of transport; must be removed carefully where so required by the planning authority

Committee Decision – Approve

Dev Management 27.05.15

REF NO. 15/0525/15/DC

DESCRIPTION ETC Erection of community greenhouse pursuant to condition 8 of planning approval 15/1080/14/DC Car park and community greenhouse

Parish or Town Council – Dartmouth Town Council

Parish Council Views – Recommended Approval

Officer Update - None

Recommendation – Conditional Approval

Recommended Conditions:

• Standard Time Limit • Accord with plans

Committee Decision – Approve

PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT

Case Officer: Tom Sylger Jones Parish: Dartington

Application No: 14/0142/15/F

Agent/Applicant: Applicant: Mr Andrew Field South Devon Rural Housing Association Ltd Mr S Prime South Devon House Babbage Road Totnes, TQ9 5JA

Site Address: Development site at SX 7863 6192 Forder Lane, Dartington TQ9 6HT

Reason item is being put before Committee The Ward Member, in view of substantial local opposition, has requested that the application is considered by Committee.

This map is reproduced from the Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. South Hams District Council. 100022628. 2012 Scale 1 : 1250

Recommendation Conditional approval subject to the prior satisfactory completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure the following:

1. Provision of 10[no.] standard parking spaces for staff and visitors to Humpty Dumpty Nursery;and 2. Continuing use of the existing permissive footpath that runs between Brimhay Nursery and Forder Lane; 3. Affordable Housing occupancy; 4. Phasing of Affordable Housing and Market Housing; and 5. Management of buffer between eastern hedgerow buffer and fenceline in accordance with specification detailed within the Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP).

Conditions (list not in full) 1. Standard time limit for commencement; 2. Accord with Plans, Drawings and FRA; 3. GPDO Exclusion; 4. Unsuspected Contamination; 5. On-site highway works in accordance with plans / drawings; 6. Construction Management Plan to be submitted and approved prior to commencement; 7. Construction Method Plan to be submitted and approved prior to commencement; 8. Phasing Plan to be submitted and approved prior to commencement; 9. Surface water drainage layout and details to be submitted prior to commencement and the approved details completed and operational prior to occupation; 10. Adherence to the Arboricultural Impact Assessment, Tree Protection Plan and Arboricultural Methodology Statements; 11. Submission, prior to commencement, of a Lighting Strategy; 12. Renewable energy / energy efficiency details to be submitted and approved prior to commencement; 13. Submission and agreement, prior to commencement, of a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan. 14. Copy of a Dormouse European Protected Species Licence. 15. Adherence to measures within Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, and Bat Activity Survey Report.

Key issues for consideration The site is currently occupied by 18 one bedroom bungalows comprising 2[no.] bed sits, 1[no.] large bungalow (former wardens accommodation), and 15[no.] one bed bungalows. None of the properties meet the Decent Homes Standard and the financial investment required to renovate to an appropriate quality is disproportionate to the benefit that would accrue. The landowner wishes to maintain as many Affordable Housing (AH) units on site and has concluded that redevelopment in the manner proposed in the application represents an appropriate form of development in the context of the provisions of the Development Plan.

Alternative forms of redevelopment have been discussed with the applicant and with third parties. At the time of writing the Council is not aware of any viable alternative that would deliver the same level of benefits.

The site lies within the village of Dartington and is largely previously developed land. The key issue is, therefore, whether there are significant and demonstrable adverse impacts that would outweigh the benefits of development.

Consideration of the documents submitted with the application and the responses received from consultees and third parties has identified that potential impacts have been addressed adequately with respect to the following matters. • biodiversity • flood risk • air quality • contaminated land • traffic / highways • landscape

A more detailed consideration is provided later in this Report, which concludes that there are no adverse impacts that would outweigh what are substantial social and economic benefits.

Site description The site lies in the Parish of Dartington, sitting between Cott Lane to the east, Webbers Way Industrial Estate to the north-west and west and a residential estate to the south.

Forder Lane lies immediately to the north and north-west and currently provides access to Forder Lane House, which sits immediately outside the application boundary to the south- east and is a two storey community building. Gidley’s Meadow, an estate road, lies to the south and also provides access to the locality. The eastern boundary is formed by a woodland running along a stream. Humpty Dumpty Nursery and associated grounds, which are used for children’s play, abuts the woodland to in the south / south-east.

18[no.] one-bedroom dwellings, collectively known as Brimhay Bungalows, currently occupy the central part of the site. The western edge of the application area comprises landscaped open land that is associated with the bungalows. The eastern part of the site comprises landscaped open land that is also associated with the bungalows; and, beyond a post and rail fence, a semi-natural woodland that slopes with increasing steepness down to a stream, which forms the eastern boundary of the application area.

The site contains several individual trees with the northern boundary (Forder Lane) largely comprising a screen of hedgerow and mature trees, although there are some gaps around the pedestrian access. There are several small ornamental trees located within the site. The eastern part of the site is a wooded area with many mature trees and with bushes and scrub at low level.

The bungalows roughly form a quadrant with gaps at each corner and are surrounded by grassed lawns on all sides. The central are is private gardens linked by paths and with a permissive footpath running through to join Gidley’s Meadow with Forder Lane. A row of small gardens is located on the southern side of the southern row of bungalows fronting the highway and Forder Land House.

The site is open to the south with a short tarmac access road opening into Gidley’s Meadow, which is the estate road to the south providing access for vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians.

The southern and central part of the site is generally level although the northern area slopes gently down to the north east in the vicinity of an electricity sub-station and Coltwood House, a residential property, that sit outside the applicationn area.

Forder Lane House lies immediately to the south west and outside the application area. This property will not be altered, other than benefiting from additional parking, as discussed later in this Report.

Forder Cottage, a Grade II Listed Building, lies to the north of Forder Lane and beyond a substantial screen of mature trees. Lescaze Offices, a former Devon Longhouse and Grade II Listed Building, lies north west of Forder Lane.

The site is not affected by any designations.

The Proposal The application seeks the demolition of 18[no.] bungalows and redevelopment of the site with 32 residential units. The mix of properties is 12[no.] Affordable Housing (AH) units (one bedroom flats), which would be 100% rented, and for which a local connection will be required for occupancy; 8[no.] one, two and three bedroom flats, which would have shared occupancy independent living for people with learning disabilities, which would be ‘supported housing‘; and 12[no.] open market houses.

The development would replace existing bungalows that do not meet the Decent Homes Standard and need to be replaced. The properties are owned by South Devon Rural Housing Association (SDRHA), which is a Registered Provider of Affordable Housing that is regulated by the Homes and Communities Agency. Occupation is restricted to older people in housing need, but as residents have moved out they have not been replaced due to the poor quality of provision. Residents have no support services.

To summarise, the development would entail the loss of 18 AH units, the availability of which cannot currently be guaranteed in the long term, and their replacement with 12 AH units and 8 supported housing units with a level of assisted living (the ‘ROC’ building). The Torbay Development Agency has undertaken a review of viability and concludes that the applicant would receive no more than an acceptable level of profit.

The layout and design is led by the objective of maximising the number of AH units and funding the supported housing. With a density of 42 dwellings per hectare, the proposed development is at the higher end of what is typical, but the size, spacing and massing of the buildings meets appropriate standards.

The properties are arranged facing inwards around an access road that would be a cul de sac, although a permissive footpath would be retained to allow pedestrians and cyclists to access Forder Lane to the north. Front gardens would be used for parking with new planting and hedges to provide landscaping.

Rear gardens would back onto existing hedgerows in the west and north and to the woodland in the east. Whilst the former would be enhanced with additional planting, the upper part of the woodland / scrub area would be cleared to create the gardens. A close board timber fence would be erected at the rear of these gardens to protect the retained woodland and provide a screen to limit light spill.

The ROC building would be situated adjacent to Forder Lane House on the opposite side of the access road from Forder Lane, although through access from the Forder Lane car park would not be possible for general traffic. The ROC building is three storeys. Following discussion with Council Officers the design has been altered such that the eaves are not at a significantly greater height than those of Forder Lane House.

The site is well contained with limited views in or out. The aesthetic feel of being within the site would, however, change from a low density to a high density development and open space and habitat would be lost. When approaching from Forder Land via Forder Lane House, the change would be limited; looking from a position just in front of the fence to the Humpty Dumpty Nursery (outside the application boundary), the change would be noticeable in that views to trees on the boundary and outside the site, and which give a semi rural feel, would become limited.

In terms of design, whilst it is recognised that the Dartington legacy is important to the local community there are no formally recognised character areas at the site and its locality. With surrounding development ranging from industrial units and a housing estate to individual properties in landscaped gardens (bungalows and more substantial properties), there is no over-riding architectural style.

Additional parking would be provided to serve Forder Lane House and a separate application (reference 14/1135/45/F) has been submitted to create ten additional parking spaces at Humpty Dumpty Nursery. The latter is tied to this application through a s106 Agreement, the signing of which would be required ahead of the commencement of development.

The application is accompanied by the following documents: • layout plan, with access details; • cross sections, elevations, and floor plans; • drainage plan; • topographical plan; • landscape plan; • draft Heads of Terms for the Section 106 Agreement; • Design and Access Statement; • Flood Risk Assessment; • Preliminary Ecological Assessment, including bat survey; • Tree Survey, Tree Constraints Plan and Tree Protection Plan; and • Phase 1 Contamination Assessment / Ground investigation

The Draft Heads of Terms accompanying the application sets out provision for parking, retention of a permissive footpath, tenure of the AH units and phasing of the AH units and market units. Open Space, Sport and Recreation contributions do not accrue due to the number of dwellings falling below the threshold.

Consultations South Hams District Council (SHDC) The Drainage Engineer raises no objection, but requests conditions.

The Strategic Planning Officer raises no policy objection.

The Ecology Officer raised initial concern with respect to the loss of woodland and concern with respect to the potential impact on bats. Based on further survey and additional mitigation features secured during the determination period, there is no objection, however, subject to conditions and S106 requirements.

The Environmental Health Section has no objection with respect to air quality and requests a standard condition with respect to contaminated land.

The Council’s Affordable Housing Team strongly supports the proposed development as it provides much needed Affordable Housing (AH) in the Parish of Dartington. The Council has over 950 households on its housing register, Devon Home Choice and a key target in the Council’s Home Strategy is to increase the supply of AH for local people.

‘The existing bungalows at Brimhay are in a poor state of repair. Redevelopment would meet the Decent Homes Standard, which would include ensuring homes for the existing residents that are more affordable to heat and maintain. In the absence of grant funding the redevelopment is only viable through cross subsidy with market housing. 100% of the sales revenue from the sale of market housing would be used to fund the AH.

The scheme also meets the objective of the provision of accommodation for people with learning disabilities.’

The AONB Partnership makes no comment.

Devon County Council The initial response from the Highways Authority was an objection on the basis that insufficient parking was proposed and there was inadequate information with respect to drainage in terms of a legal easement. The applicant submitted revised proposals that would deliver sufficient parking and the Highway Authority has removed its objection subject to a satisfactory legal agreement to secure appropriate drainage. The Highway Authority requests three conditions that are set out at the beginning of this Report and cover layout and surface treatment, and an accompanying Construction Method Statement; phasing of development; and the agreement of a Construction Management Plan prior to development.

The County Archaeology Officer (Historic Environment Team) does not consider that the proposed development is likely to have a significant impact on any known heritage assets.

The County Strategic Planning Children’s Services raises no objection and no financial payment is sought.

South West Water (SWW) SWW has no objection subject to implementation in accordance with the FRA.

Environment Agency The Environment Agency has no objection subject to Permitted Development Rights being removed from Plots 10, 11 and 12 as this would prevent development within 3m of the planting zone adjacent to the stream, which falls within Flood Zone 3; and a condition requiring unsuspected contamination to be dealt with accordingly, if found.

The Environment Agency also recommends that provision is made to attenuate on site any occurrence of excess surface water.

Natural England (NE) NE has made no comment with respect to the detail of the application. Standing Advice is given in respect of protected species.

Devon and Cornwall Police Liaison Officer The Liaison Officer advises that the development should seek to achieve the objectives of Secured by Design.

Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Fire and Rescue advises that the proposal will need to comply with the access provisions for emergency vehicles within the Building Regulations.

Representations Dartington Parish Council (DPC) DPC raises an objection that is detailed in a letter dated 11th March 2015 and, in so far as it relates to ‘planning’ matters, is summarised: • no input from the SHDC’s Design Panel; • undermines the Neighbourhood Planning process; • poor public consultation; • reduced AH provision from 18 to 12; • lack of parking and vehicular access issues and consequent impact on Gidley’s Meadow; • loss of amenity, in particular interrupts the important off-road pedestrian route to Dartington Primary School; • inappropriate design given character and proximity of a Listed Building; • flood risk; • biodiversity; • energy efficiency; • undermines social cohesion; • more than 200 objections; • there is an alternative community led proposal; and • economic viability to be scrutinised

Letters of Objection At the time of writing this Report some 50 letters / emails of objection and 202 signed / addressed copies of a pre-printed card have been received. These are available on the website. The objections can be summarised as follows and are substantially covered in the comments submitted by Dartington Parish Council dated 11th March 2015: • local flooding, including risk to Forder Cottage (Grade II Listed); • need certainty that damage will be repaired should this occur to highway during construction; • increased traffic (congestion, environment and safety); • access arrangement and parking (safety) • light pollution (adverse impact on neighbours, bats and owls); • footpath link to shops; • insufficient parking for residents and carers; • scale of development and height of buildings inappropriate; • reduction in AH units from 18 to 12; • no lifts in the three storey building • inappropriately large number of vulnerable people at one location; • isolation of vulnerable residents; • over development; • loss of trees and green areas; • missed opportunity to meet higher standards of design; • tie in with Neighbourhood Plan; • not viable and would not raise sufficient funds for the ROC building; • loss of nursery play area; • inappropriate design; • inadequate consultation; and • unclear / unmet objectives

Letters of Support One letter of support for the development has been received. The letter emphasises that the use of brownfield land avoids development in the countryside; that it will provide work for the construction industry; that it will deliver housing more suited to contemporary needs, whereas renovation could not achieve this; and that it would deliver low cost housing in the absence of public funding.

Relevant Planning History None.

ANALYSIS Principle of Development This is a Full Planning Application for the demolition of 18[no.] AH units and redevelopment of the site for 32[no.] dwellings, including 12[no.] AH units and 8[no.] Social Rented properties with assisted living.

The plans submitted with the application illustrate the main access point, which is Gidley’s Meadow.

The principle of development at the site is not in question since the proposal is for redevelopment for the same use.

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

The Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policy CS1 (Location of Development) indicates that the site, which lies within the village of Dartington, is an appropriate location for development subject to detailed planning considerations such as access to the site; the scale, bulk and design of the proposal; and the effect on the neighbouring properties.

Sustainable Development

Paragraph 7 of the NPPF identifies three dimensions to sustainable development – economic, social and environmental – whilst Paragraph 12 sets out twelve core planning principles that should underpin planning decisions. These two paragraphs set the context in which to consider sustainability. The three dimensions stated in Paragraph 7 are the economic role, the social role and the environmental role. A consideration of these elements in the context of the Development Plan is set out below.

The Economic Dimension Housing development is recognised as an important driver of economic growth. Economic benefits would accrue to the construction industry from the proposed development. Once the dwellings were occupied there would be an increase in the level of disposable income from the occupants, which would be likely to be spent in the local area with some increase in the demand for local goods, services and facilities.

No adverse impacts have been identified with respect to the economic role.

The Affordable Housing Team has scrutinized the viability assessment provided by the applicant and is in agreement that the level of AH and enabling market units is appropriate for the site and proposed development.

Economic Dimension Balance Given the positive economic impact and that there is no evidence that the development would result in any significant adverse economic impact, with respect this element of sustainable development the balance is considered to be in favour of the development.

The Social Dimension The Council’s Affordable Housing Team strongly supports the proposed development as it provides much needed Affordable Housing (AH) in the Parish of Dartington. The Council has over 950 households on its housing register, Devon Home Choice and a key target in the Council’s Home Strategy is to increase the supply of AH for local people.

The existing bungalows at Brimhay are in a poor state of repair. Redevelopment would meet the Decent Homes Standard, which would include ensuring homes for the existing residents that are more affordable to heat and maintain. In the absence of grant funding the redevelopment is only viable through cross subsidy with market housing. The principle of cross subsidy is established in paragraph 54 of the NPPF. 100% of the sales revenue from the sale of market housing would be used to fund the AH.

The scheme also meets the objectives of the Council’s Homes Strategy, which seeks to enhance housing options and choice.

The AH units will be available to local people and market houses would be constructed to fund the whole development. In addition, social rented units for up to 15 people would be available within an assisted living facility. Given the NPPF priority (at paragraph 47) to boost significantly the supply of housing this provision carries significant weight in the balance.

In respect of the social aspect of sustainability a number of objections and concerns have been raised. Dartington Parish Council and third parties have, amongst other matters listed above, expressed concern with respect to increased vehicular movements leading to additional congestion on highways and insufficient parking leading to a risk to pedestrian safety; flood risk; and a loss of footpath link to shops. These impacts are considered later in this Report.

Objectors have also pointed to adverse impacts with respect to social cohesion and that the proposals should tie in with the Neighbourhood Plan. The Council is aware that the local community is actively working towards a Neighbourhood Plan. In the absence of such a plan having been adopted, however, there are no criteria against which to judge the proposed development and the Development Plan takes primacy. It is understood that a Neighbourhood Plan is likely to be issued for consultation in November 2015.

Concern has also been expressed with respect to the inappropriately large number of vulnerable people at one location, and that this location is isolated from services and that there would be an adverse impact on the Humpty Dumpty Nursery. The degree to which these are planning matters is limited. However, in the interests of being comprehensive in dealing with social concerns, it is reported that the Council is not aware that the Humpty Dumpty Nursery would experience any adverse impact to its operation. Conversely to this view the Council has requested and the applicant has agreed to provide additional parking to the benefit of the facility.

With respect to services for vulnerable people it is considered that the applicant has clearly articulated that the objective is to maximise the re-provision of AH units and to provide an assisted living facility for people with learning disabilities. Considering the condition of the existing dwellings it is the view of Officers that the development would result in enhanced provision for vulnerable people in a location with good access to services.

Objectors consider that the loss of green space and habitat is detrimental to the community. It is noted, however, that the gardens and landscaped areas are privately owned and would be replaced by, albeit in some instances smaller, similar provision. Objectors have stated that the central garden area has been used by the public throughout the time the development has existed as has the footpath through the development. Given that the current legal status of the land is as privately owned and that the footpath is a permissive route, this is an adverse impact that can be afforded only limited weight in the balance.

Impact on existing Infrastructure, facilities and services Consideration has been given to the impact of development on infrastructure and services.

With respect to education Devon County Council has confirmed that there is capacity within the Secondary and Primary Schools to cater for this development without any additional funding being required from the developer; and that these schools are within safe walking distance (Dartington Primary is 650m away, King Edward VI Community College is 1.9km away).

The site is within walking distance of a good variety of services and facilities, including a bus route. Whilst many of the residents may have limited access / desire to use a car, it is recognised that the application includes 12 market houses and that carers and visitors would also add to traffic movements. The issue of congestion is considered later in this Report and it is concluded that the development will not result in any significant adverse impact in this respect. The application also includes alterations to highway junctions and sufficient parking provision such that highway safety would be improved.

Impact upon Neighbours It is considered that there is sufficient area to accommodate the development with a layout that will not have any significant adverse impact on the residential amenity of the neighbouring dwellings.

Objectors have identified light pollution as a particular concern. In this respect it is noted that the current use of the site generates light throughout the day and night; and that the design of buildings, notably the ROC building has taken reasonable measures to limit additional light pollution. This matter is picked up again with respect to ecology later in this Report.

Social Dimension Balance The re-provision of AH units together with a supported living facility is considered to be substantially beneficial. There is, however, a theoretical loss of 6 AH units. This loss is significantly diminished since none of the existing properties meet appropriate current living standards and their renovation is not viable. A reasonable alternative for the landowner would be to increase the number of open market units and decrease the AH and assisted living units.

Objectors have raised a number of amenity issues including parking, highway access, flood risk and light pollution. The documents submitted with the application demonstrate that all these matters can be addressed appropriately and no consultee raises any objection in these respects.

The balance of the social dimension of sustainable development is, therefore, that the proposed development represents a substantial benefit and that there is a lack of harm from the other identified areas of concern. It is considered that the balance is positive in favour of the development.

The Environmental Dimension With respect to the environmental role of sustainable development, the elements that are considered to be especially relevant to the proposed development are impacts on biodiversity and surface water drainage.

Landscape Impact The application is supported by a Landscape Management Plan and associated Tree Protection Plan and Arboricultural Methodology Statement will be necessary prior to the start of the development. The detail of which trees would be lost and how additional planting would be provided at the periphery and landscape planting provided within the development are set out in these plans.

Whilst concern has been expressed by objectors with respect to the loss of part of the woodland area to the east, the concern is a matter of ecological impact rather than landscape. The landscape proposals are acceptable and would be secured through a standard condition.

Biodiversity A Preliminary Ecological Survey (Green Ecology October 2014) finds that the site is of low ecological value in general, although some features are of greater conservation importance. The defunct species rich hedge (northern boundary) is a local and national Biodiversity Action Plan priority habitat that would benefit from the proposed improvement. The mature oak trees within this hedge are also of local value and would be retained.

The mixed semi-natural woodland is of value providing habitat for dormice amongst other wildlife. The proposed development requires the partial clearance of this area to provide gardens for the houses on the eastern side. A close board wooden fence would be erected at the rear of the gardens to establish a buffer between the fence, new and existing hazel planting. Taking into account planting, the buffer, and securing ongoing positive management for dormice (and other wildlife) through a condition for a LEMP and S106 clause, it is considered that the adverse impact on wildlife using this habitat would be limited.

The Ecological Survey acknowledges that the removal of some semi-natural woodland will require a European Protected Species Licence for dormice. Accordingly, the LPA has considered the proposal against the ‘3 derogation tests’ (with respect to requirements under the Habitats Regulations). As has been detailed earlier within this report, it is considered that there is an Imperative Reason of Overriding Public Interest (namely the replacement of existing bungalows that do not meet the Decent Homes Standard with new affordable and supported housing units), there is No Satisfactory Alternative (improving existing unit would be uneconomical), and the ecologist has indicated that taking into account mitigation and compensation, that the Favorable Conservation Status of the dormice can be maintained.

Accordingly, the 3 derogation tests are considered met, and it is reasonable to consider that the proposal will be successful in obtaining a EPS Licence.

Although the site lies just within the South Hams Special Area of Conservation (SAC) sustenance zone for greater horseshoe bats (GHS), it should be noted that this sustenance zone refers to a hibernation roost. The proposed development site is at the edge of the hibernation roost sustenance zone (some 4km distant from the roost). Any foraging activity over the winter months associated with the roosts would be confined to within 1km of the roost. Accordingly, there is no potential for likely significant effect from this proposed development on the South Hams SAC (as defined within the Habitats Regulations).

The Bat Activity Survey (Green Ecology November 2014) reports that the majority of activity comprises bats commuting and foraging along the mature species-rich hedgerow that forms the western boundary of the Site and the eastern edge of the woodland to the east of the site. Passes by light averse bat species were recorded, however were in low numbers. Key measures to avoid / mitigate for potential impact are incorporated into the proposed development and including retention of the mature trees on the northern boundary (three of which are the subject of Tree Preservation Orders – TPOs); to enhance the hedgerow through new planting; to erect close board fencing; to direct lighting from the properties on the west side of the development, particularly the ROC building; and to undertake monitoring of bat activity. The submission of a Lighting Strategy prior to the commencement of development is proposed as a condition, and adherence to measures within the Bat Activity Survey Report will be conditioned.

In addition impact avoidance would be necessary during the construction phase and it is proposed to control this through imposing a condition requiring the submission of a Construction Management Plan.

Heritage, character and visual impact Forder Cottage, a Grade II Listed Building, lies to the north of Forder Lane and beyond a substantial screen of mature trees. There is no inter-visibility between the setting of this property and the application site. When accessing the proposed development from the north, the driver (vehicular access only to Forder Lane House) / pedestrian / cyclist would pass along a narrow, single carriageway, lane with substantial hedgerows and mature trees on either side. Initially passing Forder Cottage, which is on the right, glimpsed views may be available of that property in the winter. Travelling further along the lane, the application site lies on the left. During the construction phase, which would include creating a dedicated permissive way and some clearance of vegetation, there may be a limited sequential impact in respect to the aesthetic experience within the vicinity of Forder Cottage. The proposals include, however, landscape planting at this point such that the impact in the medium to long term would be negligible with respect to the setting of Forder Cottage.

Lescaze Offices, a former Devon Longhouse and Grade II Listed Building, also lies north west of Forder Lane. With intervening buildings and due to topography this historic asset would not be the subject of any impact with respect to its heritage designation.

With respect to the test of paragraphs 126 to 134 of the NPPF and of s66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, and the need to give special consideration to heritage assets, it is considered that there would be a limited adverse sequential impact in the short term with respect to Forder Cottage in terms of the experience of users of Forder Lane. It is not considered, however, that there would be an affect on the setting of the Listed Building, which is preserved. In the medium to long term there is no impact on Listed Buildings, with the settings and character of both Forder Cottage and Lescaze Offices preserved.

It is recognised that the bungalows and the locality have an interesting character that clearly, judging by the strength of public opinion, make a contribution to the area; and it is recognised that the Dartington legacy is important to the local community. This legacy has been described by some objectors as being led by community / social interest. It is considered that the overall objective of the proposal is certainly in keeping with this principle since it seeks to maximise the delivery of AH and to provide supported living to people with learning disabilities. Objectors consider, however, that in not retaining the character of the existing development in terms of its layout, massing and design, the proposed development is unnecessarily detrimental to the Dartington legacy. Representatives of the Community have prepared alternative plans that would provide the same number of units with a design and layout that they consider to be more inkeeping with the existing character and would include the retention of open space and the entire area of woodland. This proposal has been presented to the parties that control the land and, at the time of writing this Report, are not considered by those parties to be a viable alternative.

With respect to the application that is the subject of this Report, it is noted that there are no formally recognised character areas at the site and its locality. With surrounding development ranging from industrial units and a housing estate to individual properties in landscaped gardens (bungalows and more substantial properties), there is no over-riding architectural style.

Objectors have questioned why the proposed layout and design has not been reviewed by the SHDC Design Panel. Committee will be aware that the Panel is available for innovative design that does not adhere to existing design principles, but that it is not standard practice to take all applications to the Design Panel and there is no obligation to do so.

Surface Water Drainage / Flood Risk The Environment Agency and Council Drainage Engineers are satisfied that the development can be satisfactorily accommodated on the site without having any adverse impact from surface water drainage subject to conditions ensuring the provision of a fully designed scheme.

Objectors have expressed concern with respect to the potential to increase flood risk at the Grade II Listed Forder Cottage. Given the above and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is not considered likely that this on any other property would be subject to increased risk.

Air Quality There are no concerns with respect to air quality, other than possible emissions associated with construction. A standard condition requiring a Construction Management Plan is proposed.

Environmental dimension balance No significantly adverse impacts have been identified.

Concern has been raised by consultees and objectors with respect to the treatment of the northern boundary and the loss of part of the woodland. It is considered that the potential adverse impacts can be addressed to a satisfactory extent through the avoidance, mitigation and compensation measures that are proposed as part of the development and as set out in the Landscape Plan and Tree Protection Plan. The impact would remain, however, moderately adverse.

Other environmental impacts have been described above and none are considered to be adverse.

Sustainable development conclusion In terms of the economic and social dimensions of sustainable development, it is considered that there are substantial benefits from the proposed development and that where adverse impacts in these respects can be identified, there is no evidence to suggest that they represent a scale of significant and demonstrable impact as would outweigh those identified benefits.

Furthermore, given the NPPF’s priority, the additional dwellings to be provided must carry substantial weight in determination of the application.

Other matters Traffic Conditions / Highway Issues The Highways Authority has provided a comprehensive response to the application and concludes that the proposed development is acceptable subject to conditions and works to be carried out in accordance with plans that have been submitted.

Following an initial objection and in the light of concerns raised by numerous third parties, additional parking is to be provided prior to construction to increase spaces available for Humpty Dumpty Nursery and Forder Lane House.

Third parties have expressed concern with respect to the potential for construction traffic to damage the highway. This is a matter that will be addressed through the requirement for a Construction Management Plan.

Pedestrian and Cycle facilities Pedestrian and cycle access points are illustrated on the submitted (revised) plans. The principle and design of the routes are accepted by the Highway Authority.

Public Opinion Considerable local opposition exists to the proposed development, with some 200 objections received. The Planning Authority will always consider the views of local residents when determining an application although the extent of local opposition is not, in itself, a reasonable ground for resisting development. To carry significant weight, opposition should be founded on valid planning reasons that can be supported by substantial evidence.

The concerns raised have not been set aside lightly and the Council is mindful of the content of the Localism Act 2011. The objections raised in respect of this application have been carefully and objectively taken into account in forming a recommendation to Committee.

Consultation Objectors have expressed disappointment at the perceived lack of engagement with the community. In this respect the statutory requirement prior to issuing a planning decision is to allow three weeks consultation for consultees and third parties alike. This requirement has been met.

The Council encourages extensive and meaningful engagement with the public, but cannot require this. The applicant has attended at least one public meeting and this is considered to be acceptable.

Land ownership Third parties have questioned whether the applicant has control of the land. The Council has no evidence to suggest that this is not the case.

Third parties have questioned whether covenants affect the land that would prevent the development in the form proposed. The Council has no evidence to suggest that this is the case, which would, in any event, be a civil and not a planning matter.

The Planning Balance and Conclusion The application seeks to demolish 18 bungalows that are AH units reaching the end of their viable lifetime; and to replace them with 12(no.) AH, 12(no.) market houses and 8 flats (to accommodate up to 15 people) within a supported housing facility.

For the reasons as set out in this Report it is considered that the proposal satisfies the three dimensions of sustainable development. Given the view taken that the development is sustainable the question to be considered is whether there are any adverse impacts that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal when assessed against the policies in the NPPF as a whole.

It is considered that of the objections raised by third parties, and as detailed above, the applicant has demonstrated and consultees have confirmed that the proposed development is acceptable.

Concern has been expressed by third parties with respect to the changed character of the area and it is considered that this view has some merit. In addition a moderate adverse impact is likely with respect to ecology, although this impact can be in part mitigated through condition.

In the balance of sustainability and in the absence of a viable alternative of development that would ensure the re-provision and enhancement of AH and social services, the substantial social and economic benefits are such that it is appropriate to recommend approval of the planning application, unless other matters indicate otherwise.

No overriding technical objections have been raised and the impacts of the development have been assessed. There are no adverse impacts that would outweigh the benefits of the scheme.

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

This application has been considered in accordance with Sections 16,17, and 18 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990

Planning Policy

National Planning Policy Framework Paragraphs 6 -10; 11; 12; 14; 17; 28; 34; 36; 38; 47; 49; 50 112; 115; 118; 120 & 124

South Hams LDF Core Strategy CS1 Location of Development CS2 Housing Provision CS6 Affordable Housing CS7 Design CS8 Affordable Housing CS9 Landscape and Historic Environment CS10 Nature Conservation CS11 Climate Change Development Policies DPD DP1 High Quality Design DP2 Landscape Character DP3 Residential Amenity DP4 Sustainable Construction DP5 Conservation and Wildlife DP6 Historic Environment DP7 Transport, Access & Parking DP8 Open Space, Sport and Recreation DP9 Local Facilities DP11 Housing Mix and Tenure DP15 Development in the Countryside Affordable Housing DPD AH1 Affordable Housing Provision AH3 Provision on unallocated sites AH4 Mix and tenure of affordable housing

Open Space, Sport and Recreation DPD

South Devon AONB Management Plan

Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010

National Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006

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

PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT

Case Officer: Anna Henderson-Smith Parish: Churchstow

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

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

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

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

Recommendations: Approval of the erection of the agricultural building No. 1 (Washing), associated dwelling, new access road and site office, subject to the conditions below and a s106 legal agreement to secure the following:-

The Owner and the Applicant hereby covenant with the Council as follows: 1. The New Dwelling shall be occupied only by those persons (and any resident dependants) employed for the purposes of running or operating the Business and shall remain ancillary to the use of the Agricultural Buildings and the Site Office; 2. The Agricultural Buildings, the Site Office and the New Dwelling shall all be used only for the purposes of running or operating the Business in perpetuity and none of the Agricultural Buildings, the Site Office or the New Dwelling shall be sold separately; 3. The Development shall only be carried out in strict accordance with the following order of Phasing: 3.1 Form new site entrance as detailed in the Permission relating to Application Reference 11/0042/14/F of the Applications; 3.2 To carry out site excavation works and form bunds as detailed in the Permissions relating to the Applications; 3.3 To carry out the infrastructure works as detailed in the Permissions relating to the Applications; 3.4 To construct to practical completion the Agricultural Building (Building Number 1 Washing) and the Site Office detailed in the Permission relating to Application Reference 11/0042/14/F of the Applications; 3.5 To commence construction of the Agricultural Building (Building Number 3 Cold Store) detailed in the Permission relating to Application Reference 11/0044/14/F of the Applications; 3.6 To vacate the Existing Dwelling; 3.7 Commence construction of the New Dwelling as detailed in the Permission relating to Application Reference 11/0042/14/F of the Applications; 3.8 To complete construction of the Agricultural Building (Building Number 3 Cold Store) detailed in the Permission relating to Application Reference 11/0044/14/F of the Applications; 3.9 To construct to practical completion the Agricultural Building (Building Number 4 Grading Building) detailed in the Permission relating to Application Reference 11/0045/14/F of the Applications; 3.10 Complete and occupy the New Dwelling; 3.11 To construct to practical completion the Agricultural Building (Building Number 2 Cold Store) detailed in the Permission relating to Application Reference 11/0043/14/F of the Applications. 4. The existing agricultural use of the Applicant’s premises in Galmpton will cease and all buildings associated with the agricultural use of the land will be removed.

Conditions: 1. Standard 3 year time limit; 2. Accord with plans; 3. Level of buildings; 4. Use limited to produce washing and grading only no other B2 use 5. B2 use to be ancillary to agricultural use only 6. Surface water drainage; 7. Drainage accord with approved details and implemented prior to commencement of use; 8. Foul drainage; 9. Noise controls; 10. No mud/debris onto highway; 11. Permanent closure of existing access; 12. Construction Management Plan; 13. Details external lighting; 14. Landscaping – strategic planting; 15. Landscaping 1yr inspection; 16. Protection of hedgerows; 17. Submission of Extended Phase 1 habitat survey; 18. Access and manoeuvring/turning areas complete prior to use of agricultural buildings; 19. Materials schedule/samples; 20. Removal of GDO rights for agricultural/business buildings; 21. Site office for use in connection with business only; 22. Agricultural tie on dwelling; 23. Removal of GDO rights on dwelling; 24. Drainage for dwelling complete prior to occupation; 25. Access to dwelling complete prior to occupation. 26. Distribution of potatoes from site shall not be carried out between the hours of 2200 – 0800 Monday - Sunday

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

Recommendations: delegate to CoP LS to Approve agricultural building No. 2 (cold storage) subject to the above s106 legal agreement clauses and the following conditions:-

Conditions: 1. Standard 3 year time limit; 2. Accord with plans; 3. Level of buildings; 4. Use limited to produce washing and grading only no other B2 use 5. B2 use to be ancillary to agricultural use only 6. Surface water drainage; 7. Drainage accord with approved details and implemented prior to commencement of use; 8. Foul drainage; 9. Noise controls; 10. No mud/debris onto highway; 11. Permanent closure of existing access; 12. Construction Management Plan; 13. Details external lighting; 14. Landscaping – strategic planting; 15. Landscaping 1yr inspection; 16. Protection of hedgerows; 17. Submission of Extended Phase 1 habitat survey; 18. Access and manoeuvring/turning areas complete prior to use of agricultural buildings; 19. Materials schedule/samples; 20. Removal of GDO rights for agricultural/business buildings. 21. Distribution of potatoes from site shall not be carried out between the hours of 2200 – 0800 Monday - Sunday

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

Recommendations: Approval of the agricultural building No. 3 (cold store) subject to the above s106 legal agreement clauses and the following conditions:-

Conditions: 1. Standard 3 year time limit; 2. Accord with plans; 3. Level of buildings; 4. Use limited to produce washing and grading only no other B2 use 5. B2 use to be ancillary to agricultural use only 6. Surface water drainage; 7. Drainage accord with approved details and implemented prior to commencement of use; 8. Foul drainage; 9. Noise controls; 10. No mud/debris onto highway; 11. Permanent closure of existing access; 12. Construction Management Plan; 13. Details external lighting; 14. Landscaping – strategic planting; 15. Landscaping 1yr inspection; 16. Protection of hedgerows; 17. Submission of Extended Phase 1 habitat survey; 18. Access and manoeuvring/turning areas complete prior to use of agricultural buildings; 19. Materials schedule/samples; 20. Removal of GDO rights for agricultural/business buildings. 21. Distribution of potatoes from site shall not be carried out between the hours of 2200 – 0800 Monday - Sunday

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

Recommendations: Approval of the agricultural building (No. 4, grading unit for potatoes) subject to the above s106 legal agreement clauses and the following conditions:-

Conditions: 1. Standard 3 year time limit; 2. Accord with plans; 3. Level of buildings; 4. Use limited to produce washing and grading only no other B2 use 5. B2 use to be ancillary to agricultural use only 6. Surface water drainage; 7. Foul drainage; 8. Drainage accord with approved details and implemented prior to commencement of use; 9. Noise controls; 10. No mud/debris onto highway; 11. Permanent closure of existing access; 12. Construction Management Plan; 13. Details external lighting; 14. Landscaping – strategic planting; 15. Landscaping 1yr inspection; 16. Protection of hedgerows; 17. Submission of Extended Phase 1 habitat survey; 18. Access and manoeuvring/turning areas complete prior to use of agricultural buildings; 19. Materials schedule/samples; 20. Removal of GDO rights for agricultural/business buildings. 21. Distribution of potatoes from site shall not be carried out between the hours of 2200 – 0800 Monday - Sunday

Reason item is being put before Committee The applications were presented to the Development Management Committee on 16 April 2014, following a full Committee Site Inspection on 7 April 2014. The Development Management Committee resolved to delegate approval of the applications, subject to conditions set out in the report and subject to the completion of a s106 agreement to tie the proposed dwelling to the site office, agricultural buildings (Building No. 1 (Washing); Building No.2 (Cold Store), Building No.3 (Cold Store) and Building No.4 (Grading); to tie the agricultural buildings 11/0042/14/F (Building No.1 Washing), 11/0043/14/F (Building No.2 Cold Store), 11/0044/14/F (Building No.3 Cold Store) and 11/0045/14/F (Building No.4 Grading) to each other; and to ensure an appropriate phasing of development.

Following the Development Management Committee’s resolution, the S106 agreement was prepared and was amended over the following months. The S106 agreement has been agreed and signed by the Owners but has not been completed and no formal planning decision has been issued.

However, concerns were raised by a Third Party, in relation to the lawfulness of the Committee resolution and, in line with legal advice, the following additional consultations and advertisement have taken place:-

• The applications were advertised as affecting the setting of a Listed Building (as well as being Major Development) by way of site notices, which were posted, in the same four locations as the original site notices, on 17 February 2015, with an expiry date of 13 March 2015 ; • The applications have been advertised in the local press as affecting the setting of a Listed Building (as well as being Major Development). The advertisement was published on 20 February 2015, with an expiry date of 13 March 2015; • Consultations have been undertaken with the Environment Agency and with English Heritage; • The South Devon AONB Unit has been re-consulted, following the publication of the AONB Management Plan 2014 – 2019; • Churchstow Parish Council has been re-consulted due to the re- advertisement of the applications.

The application was to be re-considered by the Committee in March 2015 but representations were received in relation to the published Committee report that needed to properly taken into account prior to bringing the applications to Members.

The comments received from the Environment Agency, South Devon AONB Unit and the Council’s Conservation Officer/English Heritage are included within this report, along with reference to additional letters of representation received. The applications have been reconsidered and the report re-drafted following these consultations and responses. Any further representations or consultation responses will be reported orally at the Committee meeting.

Key issues for consideration:

Consideration must be given to whether there is a need for the development proposed in the location identified, which lies within open countryside and the AONB. Great weight must be applied to the landscape and visual impact of the development on the AONB, with significant regard had to the impact on the setting of listed buildings in the locality (notably the Grade II*listed St Mary’s Church in the village of Churchstow). Consideration must also be given to matters of design, highways, ecology, drainage and residential amenity.

Site Description

The application site lies within open countryside, which is part of the South Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). It lies to the west of the village of Churchstow and is situated adjacent to the A381, approximately 100 metres south east of Bantham Cross, the roundabout junction between the A379 from Modbury/Aveton Gifford, the A381 from Churchstow to Malborough/Salcombe and the C Class road to Bantham village and beach.

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

The closest residential properties within the village of Churchstow are those at Woodlands and Woodlands Close, a cul-de-sac development on the southern edge of the village. These lie approximately 200 metres away at the closest point to the site. Planning permission was granted in June 204 for 13 units of affordable housing comprising 9 (nine) Affordable Rented Dwellings and 4 (four) Shared Ownership Dwellings under reference 11/0046/14/F approximately 170 metres north east of the site. Works on site have commenced. Other nearby residential development includes Tredayson, Rawhiti and Beechcroft, which lie approximately 200 - 250 metres north of the site; Offields, approximately 300 metres to the north west; Elston Farm/Elston Park, approximately 375 metres to the south west; Elston Cottages, approximately 350 metres to the south; Pullybanks Farm and Poole, approximately 450 metres to the east and, Higher Holditch, approximately 630 metres south east of the site.

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

Background Information

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

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

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

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

These planning applications have also been a material consideration in the determination of application 46/3044/13/F for the change of use from agricultural to development of 5no. dwellings with associated garaging, access road and landscaping (resubmission of 46/1578/13/F) The Nest Market Garden, Galmpton, Kingsbridge, TQ7 3HA. A decision notice on this application has not yet been formally issued, with Member delegated authority given for conditional approval subject to completion of a Section 106 Agreement. Again the Agreement has been signed by the Owners but not yet engrossed.

The officer report referred to the fact that on the 16 April 2014 there was a resolution of the DM Committee to approve this application (Bantham Cross Site). Whilst that was correct at the time, by the time the terms of the s106 were agreed it was clear to officers that the resolution could no longer be relied upon. It has been held in abeyance whilst officers focused on this application. The planning permission has not been issued.

The residential development on the edge of the hamlet of Galmpton is considered to be sustainable, particularly given the removal of large commercial vehicles from the local highway network, which consists of narrow lanes. Officers are satisfied that there would be an overall improvement in the environment at The Nest site, from the removal of the large agricultural buildings, their replacement with well designed dwellings and, the reduction in the extent of development at the site through the breaking up of a concrete base and grassing this part of the site. Concern about limited impact to landscape character from the proposed development is considered to be outweighed by the benefits of relocating the potato business to a more suitable site and the small positive contribution that the development will make towards the Council’s five year housing land supply.

Whilst the relocation of the existing potato business from the Galmpton site and consequent removal of commercial traffic from the local road network is considered to weigh heavily in favour of the Galmpton development, this development could only proceed once development of the Bantham Cross site (to which this report pertains) and the re-location of the business were commenced (as this would be controlled by the Section 106 Agreement). If planning permission for the current applications at the Bantham Cross site are refused, the development of The Nest site at Galmpton could not proceed.

The Proposals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consultations

• County Highways Authority The Highway Authority has commented separately on the applications.

In relation to application 11/0042/14/F (for building 1, the site office and dwelling), the Highway Authority has recommended refusal on sustainability grounds but stated that if the need for the business and dwelling in this location is justified, then this reason for refusal should not be imposed. This matter is addressed later in the report. The Highways Authority considers that there is adequate parking and turning is available on site and suggests that, should the local Planning Authority be minded to approve the application, conditions relating to “no mud/debris onto road; permanent closure of the existing access; and requiring a Construction Management Plan” should be imposed.

11/0043/14/F – 11/0045/14/F (buildings 2, 3 and 4). The Highway Authority has responded and not raised objections on each of these applications. The Highways Authority explains how it has:- “...had preliminary discussions with the applicant about the proposed access point into the site from the A381. An independent speed survey has been undertaken by the applicant at the proposed point of access and the applicant has demonstrated on darwing ACL.911.210 that adequate visibility can be achieved by setting the hedge back. This visibility (110m x 2.4m x 110 x 600mm height) is in accordance with the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. The Highway Authority considers that there is adequate parking and turning is available on site to cater for the development.”

The Highway Authority requests that conditions relating to “no mud/debris onto road; permanent closure of the existing access; and requiring a Construction Management Plan” be imposed.”

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

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

• Environment Agency No objections subject to conditions to ensure the construction and maintenance of a sustainable drainage system to control surface water and a system to dispose of foul drainage

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

• Historic England (previously English Heritage) Recommend that the applications be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of SHDC’s specialist conservation advice.

• SHDC Conservation Officer No objection

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

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

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

Representations

The applications have attracted both letters of objection and support.

78 letters of OBJECTION have been received (following both the original advertisement and subsequent re-advertisement, including a number of standard letters. The majority of objectors submitted the same comments in respect of all four applications) for the following summarised reasons:-

• Proposal is contrary to the Development Plan; • Large scale and height of buildings; • Negative visual impact and harm to AONB; • Prominent site for development; • Inappropriate industrial use in the AONB; • Harm to setting of St Mary the Virgin church at Churchstow, including consideration from public and private vantage points; • Destruction of wildlife habitats; • Landscaping will not grow on the exposed site; • Harm to road and pedestrian safety from increase in volume of traffic; • Harm to road and pedestrian safety from new access; • Increase of traffic through the bottleneck at Churchstow; • Concern over 24 hour use; • Noise and light pollution; • Residential amenity – dust, noise and vibration; • Pollution from vehicles and plant; • Proximity to existing development and Churchstow and proposed Village Housing Initiative site; • Questioning the adequacy of surface water drainage and the disposal of mud/dirt washed off the potatoes; • Concern raised about potential expansion of the business at the site; • Questioning the need for a dwelling without an agricultural tie; • Questioning the agricultural ‘need’ for the development and whether it is actually more for ‘convenience’; • Development on single site not ‘business critical’ • That the development should not have been submitted as four separate applications; • That the development should have been regarded as EIA development requiring an Environmental Statement; • Lack of public benefit; • Loss of agricultural land; • Harm to bats, the church structure and church bells from high frequency noise emitted from refrigeration units; • Short time for responses to re-advertisement and consultation/re-consultation; • Lack of consideration of alternative sites; • VIA unfit for purpose; • Applications should not have been registered; • Claims business would cease if applications are refused are not substantiated; • No control over who actually implements consent and operates from buildings; • Removal of section of hedgerow in advance of decision being made on applications; • Applicant is not from Churchstow and did not own the land when first applying for permission.

22 letters of SUPPORT for the applications have been received (following both the original advertisement and subsequent re-advertisement) for the following summarised reasons:-

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

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

• Keeps traffic on larger roads, away from built up areas and within the middle of the applicant’s potato growing area; • The development will allow a successful local business, employing local people, to grow and reduce costs; • The development will sustain local employment; • The development will benefit farming in the area; and • The development will not intrude visually.

Agent’s Response to Representations

The agent for the applicant has offered a written response to the concerns raised in the letters of objection.

• Application Format separate applications is not an uncommon approach. All the applications have been cross-referenced in documentation and the determination period has been extended (from 8 weeks to 13 weeks) to that required of “major development” in order to allow the development to be considered in its entirety • Pre-Application Consultation corrected the venue referred to for this meeting and stresses that the pre- application advice remains pertinent to the consideration of the current applications • Building Use The agent has confirmed that the operations proposed at the site will be the same as those carried out at the existing site in Galmpton • Potential Expansion of the Buildings/Site the agent has explained that no land outside the site is within the ownership or control of the applicant and that there would be insufficient space remaining on the site to add further buildings. • Business Plan The agent has explained that it is only crops grown by the applicant and business partners that would be dealt with at the site. • Size of Buildings buildings would be set approximately 20 metres from the main road, ground levels would be reduced by approximately 1.86 metres to lessen the height of the buildings, perimeter bunds and planting will help to provide screening. The agent also compares the heights of the proposed buildings to recently approved agricultural buildings at Holditch Farm, Churchstow, which have a ridge height of approximately 8.75 metres. • Local Economy development would bring employment opportunities beyond the 6 full-time and other seasonal part-time staff by preventing the need to outsource the majority of cold storage • Times of Operation only the cold storage aspect of the use that will run 24 hours a day and that this will only occur when the crop demands it. the core business activities would operate between 08.00 and 18.00, but that during busy harvest times there may be occasions when the crop is transported to the site later than 18.00. • Traffic Flow the majority of existing traffic movements associated with the business already travel through the Bantham Cross roundabout and how the development would substantially reduce overall traffic movement • Noise “permitted development” rights enable the installation of an air source heat pump on a dwelling, provided that it does not create more than 42dB of noise and is a minimum of 1 metre from the boundary of the site. The agent has also confirmed that he is unaware of any complaints about the activities at the current site in terms of noise and stresses how the applicant’s own dwelling would not be situated so close to the proposed buildings if it would result in noise nuisance • lighting the agent has confirmed that the activities at the site would take place within the confines of the buildings, that the only external lighting would be low level “convenience lighting” and how light from vehicles’ headlights would be screened by the courtyard buildings and perimeter bunding. • Dwellinghouse it has always been accepted that the dwelling would be subject to an agricultural tie, as the existing dwelling at the Galmpton site is subject to such a tie and states how the size of the dwelling has been reduced following concern raised by him.

All letters of representation can be viewed on the Council’s website and any letters received after the completion of this report will be orally reported to the Committee.

Relevant Planning History

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

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

This pre-application enquiry was submitted along with a separate pre-application enquiry regarding the proposed re-development of the existing site at Galmpton for residential.

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

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

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

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

46/3044/13/F Change of use from agricultural to development of 5no. dwellings with associated garaging, access road and landscaping (resubmission of 46/1578/13/F) This planning application, relating to the re-development of the existing site, The Nest Market Garden, was agreed under Member delegated authority, subject to the completion of a S106 agreement. Planning permission has not yet been issued.

Analysis

The development relates to the re-location and expansion of the existing premises of A. J. Lidstone and Son Ltd. from their current premises in Galmpton to a new site at Bantham Cross. It consists of the erection of four agricultural buildings, an associated site office, dwelling and new access covered by the 4 separate planning applications as set out above, whilst discussed as one whole development each needs to be separately determined.

Policy Context

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is the most up-to-date guidance in relation to the proposal. This Framework replaces the previous range of PPGs and PPNs and provides a framework of guidance for both policy preparation and decision making. In addition to this, the National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG) provides more detailed topic-related guidance.

The NPPF, at paragraph 7, sets out the economic, social and environmental roles which the planning system should perform and advises how these roles should not be undertaken in isolation, because they are mutually dependent. Therefore, in coming to a balanced decision on planning applications, the local planning authority should assess the economic, social and environmental considerations in coming to a conclusion whether a development is sustainable.

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

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

Paragraph 19 states how the “Government is committed to ensuring that the planning system does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth. Planning should operate to encourage and not act as an impediment to sustainable growth. Therefore significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system.”

With regard to supporting a prosperous rural economy, the NPPF seeks to ensure, at paragraph 28, that policies “support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of businesses and enterprise in rural areas, both through conversion of existing buildings and through well designed new buildings.”

Policy CS1of the LDF seeks to restrict development in the countryside, except where it can be delivered sustainably and in response to a local demonstrable need. Policy DP15 permits development in the countryside where it requires a countryside location and supports the essential needs of agriculture or forestry interests. It also permits agricultural dwellings where there is a proven essential operational need.

With regard to promoting sustainable transport, the NPPF advises at paragraph 34 how plans and decisions should ensure developments that generate significant movement are located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised. However this needs to take account of policies set out elsewhere in this Framework, particularly in rural areas. Policy CS11 Climate Change of the LDF seeks to manage the impacts of climate change through the design and location of development. Policy DP7 Transport, Access & Parking also ensures that developments have safe and adequate means of access, egress and internal circulation/turning arrangements for all modes of transport relevant to the proposal, do not materially impair highway safety and do not detract or conflict with the transport function of the road.

Section 7 of the NPPF relates to design and seeks to promote, in summary, good design and design that reflects local distinctiveness. This is echoed in LDF Policies CS7 Design and DP1 High Quality Design, which also ensure that development respects and responds to the South Hams character in terms of its settlements and landscape.

The NPPF, at paragraph 115, gives great weight to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in AONBs, giving them the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty.

Paragraph 116 advises how planning permission for major development in these landscape protected areas should be refused except in exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated they are in the public interest. It advises assessment of:- • The need for the development, including in terms of any national considerations, and the impact of permitting it or refusing it, upon the local economy; • The cost of, and scope for, developing elsewhere outside the designated area, or meeting the need for it in some other way; and • Any detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape and recreation opportunities, and the extent to which that could be moderated.

Policy CS9 of the LDF echoes the great weight given to conserving and enhancing AONBs and Policy DP2 Landscape Character seeks to ensure that development proposals conserve and/or enhance the South Hams landscape character.

The South Devon AONB Management Plan 2014 – 2019 contains a raft of policies and objectives relating to, amongst others, landscape character, natural resources and climate, historic environment and, rural economy and services. Policy Lan/P1 seeks to conserve and enhance the special qualities, distinctive character and key features of the South Devon AONB landscape. Policy HIST/P1 seeks to identify, protect and actively conserve the AONB’s cultural and historic environment. Policies Econ/ P2 and Econ/P3 seek to improve the processing and supply chain of products which are sustainably harvested from the land and waters of the AONB and support sustainable rural businesses and farm diversification initiatives, where they maintain or enhance the AONB and contribute to employment and prosperity.

Paragraph 118 of the NPPF seeks to ensure that Local Planning Authorities’ decisions conserve and enhance biodiversity and LDF Policies CS10 Nature Conservation and DP5 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation seek to conserve, enhance and/or restore biodiversity in the South Hams.

Paragraph 129 of the NPPF requires local planning authorities to identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal and paragraph 132 explains how significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. Paragraph 134 explains 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 ...” .

Furthermore, the Council has a statutory duty, under s66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas ) Act to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of Listed Buildings.

Policies CS9 Landscape and Historic Environment and DP6 Historic Environment of the LDF states how the quality of the historic environment will be conserved and enhanced.

Business Context

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

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

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

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

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

Concern has been raised by objectors about the development being more industrial than agricultural in nature. As part of the Committee site visit Members will be taken to the Applicant’s existing site at Galmpton to see the nature of the processing involved first-hand. The cold storage of potatoes is agricultural in nature, as farmers clearly store a variety of crops prior to selling them on. Whilst the potatoes are graded and washed before packing there is no other “food processing” involved. Whilst it is acknowledged that the physical size of the buildings is more industrial in scale than a traditional agricultural barn, the activities going on inside would be modern day agriculture.

With regard to the proposed dwelling, the Council’s Agricultural Advisor has accepted that, given the existing business is well established at its existing site at The Nest, Galmpton, a functional need to reside on-site is justified. However, the need for a dwelling on the site could not be considered to truly be justified until the agricultural buildings are substantially complete. Furthermore, there is an existing agriculturally tied dwelling at The Nest, which would be demolished as part of the proposed re-development of the site and the proposed dwelling would be a replacement tied dwelling in lieu of this so there would be no net increase in agricultural dwellings. This is controlled by the s106 Agreement. Officers are conscious that the dwelling should not be occupied until a time when the buildings are substantially complete and this timing is set out in the S106 agreement.

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

Details to support the business relocation was provided with the applications. Officers have carefully considered the “planning balance” that needs to be addressed for all issues associated with the proposed developments. These are considered as follows.

Principle of Development

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

The site has good transport links, lying immediately adjacent to the main road network and is close to a settlement, being approximately 200 metres from the outer edge of Churchstow, a village that is served by public transport. The location of the site is reasonably sustainable considering its rural context.

Functional/Local Need The proposed development is intrinsically linked with the applicant’s large scale agricultural crop growing throughout the South Hams and the proposed agricultural buildings are considered to support the essential needs of the agricultural enterprise. The Council’s Agricultural Advisor has offered absolute support for the development.

Officers have recognised and representations have commented on the fact that there is an element of B2 processing as part of the application. It is the officers view that this is related to the washing and grading of potatoes and as such is ancillary to the main agricultural use of the resultant planning unit.

As Officers are of the view that the processing element of the development is ancillary to the primary agricultural use of the site. The applications did not therefore need to be formally advertised as a ‘departure’ from the development plan as part of the statutory consultation process.

As the processing is ancillary to the agricultural use, the functional needs of the farming enterprise could not be met by an industrial building/s in a divorced location from the growing areas of the agricultural unit. This would be akin to farmers being forced to store grain etc on an industrial estate which would not be an appropriate use of an industrial/employment site. Officers are satisfied that the needs of the enterprise could not be met by existing buildings in a development boundary and are content that the site does require to be in a rural location, well connected with the agricultural holding. As such, the development is considered to demonstrate a local need and support the essential needs of agriculture.

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

In light of the above considerations and in view of the business case detailed in the preceding section, it is considered that the proposal can be delivered sustainably and in response to a demonstrable local need in accordance with CS1. Notwithstanding concerns raised in third party objection the Council’s professional agricultural advisor is satisfied there is a functional need for the development proposed.

Consideration of Alternative Sites Concern has been raised by a third party regarding the need to consider alternative sites for the proposed development, in particular sites outside the AONB. The Council has sought legal opinion as to whether it is necessary to do so in this case. . The NPPF states at para.116 that applications for major developments in AONBs should be refused except in “ exceptional circumstances ” and “ where it can be demonstrated they are in the public interest ”. It includes reference to considering the “scope” for development outside the AONB or meeting the need in some other way. It does not require a mandatory assessment of alternative sites for all major development proposals in the AONB. The advice concluded that it is a matter of discretion for the Council whether some assessment of alternatives as a matter of planning judgement is necessary. The Council’s local policies (specifically DP2, DP6 and DP15) similarly do not require a mandatory assessment of alternative sites. However, the matter has been given consideration.

A plan showing the distribution of growing sites used by the business is included within the ‘Planning Statement – Highway Use & Transport Implications’. In order to maintain the quality of the land is it is not possible to grow potatoes in the same fields every year, and as such a crop rotation system is used. The plan shows the sites extend across a large area of the South Hams and are predominantly within the AONB. The application site is located almost centrally within the growing area and is adjacent to the main A379 and A381 artery roads. Alternative sites in less central locations would raise similar issues to the existing site at Galmpton in terms of access and traffic generation and would thus be less sustainable. Alternative sites in close proximity to the growing areas would also still be in the AONB. Further consideration is given in the AONB section below.

The proposed development is considered to represent a local demonstrable need and support the essential needs of agriculture, in that it would meet the functional requirements of a local agricultural business, which has significance to the local economy of the area. There are currently 6 full time staff at the Galmpton site, plus additional part time/seasonal workers as required. Additional local employment opportunities would be presented if the development proceeds as there would be a need for further staff to carry out the work in the cold storage phase, which is currently carried out at various cold stores across the country. The NPPF gives great weight to the support for the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of businesses and enterprise in rural areas, through conversion of existing buildings and through well designed new buildings and the proposed development is considered to be consistent with Policies CS1 and DP15 of the LDF and the aims of the NPPF in relation to rural businesses and consideration of major applications.

Design

The NPPF seeks to promote good design and design that reflects local distinctiveness and this aim is echoed in LDF Policies CS7 Design and DP1 High Quality Design, which also ensure that development respects and responds to the South Hams character in terms of its settlements and landscape.

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

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

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

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

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

Landscape

Concern has been raised by third parties regarding the VIA submitted with the application, noting that a full LVIA prepared in accordance with best practice guidance should have accompanied the application. Officers acknowledge the inadequacies of the submission, however, the submission of an LVIA is not a legal requirement and where one is absent or submitted with limitations Officers will inform recommendations by carrying out their own appraisal. SHDC Officers have therefore undertaken their own appraisal of the landscape character and visual impact to further inform the recommendation and consider they have adequate information on which to base their views/recommendations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Impacts on the AONB The site lies within the South Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), where paragraph 115 of the NPPF ensures that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty. It states how Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. This is echoed in Policies CS9 and DP2 of the LDF.

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

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

With regard to the need for the development, there would be no significant impacts at a national level whether it be approved or refused. However, at a local level the proposal would support the local agricultural economy with potential negative effects if it were refused.

With regard to other possible alternative sites that could meet the functional needs of the site, these are unlikely to be outside the AONB. The vast majority of the growing areas of the applicant’s business (and large areas of agricultural land in the South Hams more generally) are located within the AONB and one of the purposes of the relocation is to site the business in a location where traffic movements would be reduced. A site outside the AONB would not meet this aspect of the functional requirement. With consideration to whether there would be scope to develop on either a previously developed site or to make use of existing buildings, there are very limited brownfield sites within the AONB and it is unlikely that one, of the scale required to meet the needs of the proposed development, would come forward in the AONB. There is also little prospect that existing buildings would meet the needs, due to the height and footprint requirements, particularly for the storage elements.

Consideration has also been given to the possibility of meeting the need in some other way, for example, by expanding the existing premises at The Nest, Galmpton. The existing premises are limited in scale and do not provide adequate on-site refrigerated storage, are situated close to residential properties, the closest being less than 40 metres away from the closest agricultural building and, are accessed via a poor lane network, which is restricted in width. Furthermore, the existing site is poorly related to the agricultural holding and generates heavy traffic movement along a poor road network. Therefore, the scope to expand the premises at this location is significantly constrained.

For reasons explained above in the landscape section of this report, the limited harmful impact on the landscape and environment could be moderated through the landscaping scheme and, although concern has been raised that the harm to the landscape would have a detrimental impact on tourism, the development would not harm recreational opportunities in the area in any other way than it would simply be visible on passing during a journey to such recreational activities.

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

With regard to the third party concerns about the industrialisation of the landscape, the buildings are considered to have been sympathetically designed and, to be well enclosed through ground level reduction, creation of new bunding and additional planting. This will help to screen the views of the buildings and to reduce their visual impact on the landscape.

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

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

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

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

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

Historic Environment

Legislative Framework, Principles and Guidance relating to the assessment of the impact of development on heritage assets

Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states: “In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority, or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses”

This statutory obligation is further reinforced through Section 12 of the NPPF.

National Planning Policy Framework The following paragraphs within Section 12 are of particular relevance to this case: Para. 128 states: “In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance.”

Para. 129 states. “Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise.

Para. 132 states. “When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification.”

Para. 133 states. “Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss.....”

Para 134 states. “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 .”

The recently launched National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) is also of relevance particularly the Section: Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment.

National Planning Practice Guidance Para 3. Decision-taking: historic environment – “Heritage assets may be affected by direct physical change or by change in their setting. Being able to properly assess the nature, extent and importance of the significance of a heritage asset and the contribution of its setting, is very important to understanding the potential impact and acceptability of development proposals.”

Under the same heading reference is made to the Setting of a Heritage Asset: “A thorough assessment of the impact on setting needs to take into account, and be proportionate to, the significance of the heritage asset under consideration and the degree to which proposed changes enhance or detract from that significance and the ability to appreciate it. Setting is the surroundings in which an asset is experienced, and may therefore be more extensive than its curtilage. All heritage assets have a setting, irrespective of the form in which they survive and whether they are designated or not. The extent and importance of setting is often expressed by reference to visual considerations. Although views of or from an asset will play an important part, the way in which we experience an asset in its setting is also influenced by other environmental factors such as noise, dust and vibration from other land uses in the vicinity, and by our understanding of the historic relationship between places”. Further guidance is given with regards to assessing harm: “ What matters in assessing if a proposal causes substantial harm is the impact on the significance of the heritage asset. As the National Planning Policy Framework makes clear, significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting. Whether a proposal causes substantial harm will be a judgment for the decision taker, having regard to the circumstances of the case and the policy in the National Planning Policy Framework. In general terms, substantial harm is a high test, so it may not arise in many cases. For example, in determining whether works to a listed building constitute substantial harm, an important consideration would be whether the adverse impact seriously affects a key element of its special architectural or historic interest. It is the degree of harm to the asset’s significance rather than the scale of the development that is to be assessed. The harm may arise from works to the asset or from development within its setting. While the impact of total destruction is obvious, partial destruction is likely to have a considerable impact but, depending on the circumstances, it may still be less than substantial harm or conceivably not harmful at all, for example, when removing later inappropriate additions to historic buildings which harm their significance. Similarly, works that are moderate or minor in scale are likely to cause less than substantial harm or no harm at all. However, even minor works have the potential to cause substantial harm.” Further advice and guidance is offered within the 2011 English Heritage publication: The Setting of Heritage Assets.

The Setting of Heritage Assets – English Heritage Guidance 2011. In the introduction to this document it states: “The significance of a heritage asset derives not only from its physical presence and historic fabric but also from its setting – the surroundings in which it is experienced.” The document explains that to properly assess a development’s impact on the setting of heritage assets a sequential approach should be adopted. This approach is detailed on pages 17-22 and covers a 5-step approach categorised as follows: Step 1 – Identifying the heritage assets affected and their settings. Step 2 – Assessing whether, how and to what degree these settings make a contribution to the significance of the heritage asset. Step 3 – Assessing the effect of the proposed development on the significance of the asset(s) Step 4 – Maximising enhancement and minimising harm Step 5 – Making and documenting the decision and monitoring outcomes.

Recent Case Law In 2013 East Northamptonshire DC v. Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (known as the ‘Barnwell Manor’ case), the Court of Appeal held that Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 required decision makers to give “considerable importance and weight” to the desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings.

Further recent case law has reinforced this view, reiterating the view that the primary statutory duty for decision-makers is to favour preservation.

Paragraph 49 of the judgment on R. (on the application of (1) The Forge Field Society (2) Martin Barraud (3) Robert Rees) v Sevenoaks District Council [2014] EWHC 1895 states: “...an authority can only properly strike the balance between harm to a heritage asset on the one hand and planning benefits on the other if it is conscious of the statutory presumption in favour of preservation and if it demonstrably applies that presumption to the proposal it is considering.”

Information provided with the application Concern has been expressed by objectors regarding the level of information submitted with the applications regarding heritage impact. English Heritage (now Historic England) has been consulted on the proposal. They concluded that the applications should be determined in accordance with national and local guidance and on the basis of the Council’s specialist conservation advice. Officers have undertaken their own assessment to inform the recommendation. The setting of the nearby designated heritage assets and the impact of the proposal is considered below. The Conservation Officer visited the site with an Historic England Inspector as part of this assessment to ensure it is suitably robust.

Assessment of impact of the development proposal on heritage assets

The development is in close proximity to the historic village of Churchstow and its impact on the Grade II* listed church and other heritage assets has therefore been thoroughly assessed and considered. In accordance with Circular 01/2001 English Heritage has been consulted. Historic England were also notified under Regulation 5A(3) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Regulations 1990 as the application is judged to ‘ affect the setting of a listed building’.

The Council’s Conservation Officer visited the site with the Historic England Assistant Inspector of Historic Buildings on 25 th February 2015.

Historic England has commented as follows:-

“The scheme looks to provide 4 barns, two large storage barns, a washing and a grading shed as well as a single residential unit enclosed by a substantial landscaping scheme. The development will be a significant addition as the units are 7m in height and will sit on the brow of the hills within an area predominately characterised by open field systems, clumps of woodland and strongly defined hedged boundaries. The site also sits within the AONB.

The village of Churchstow is located approximately 500m from the proposed site. The historic core of the village is located on the same ridge as the development and has expanded down the hill linking previously dispersed settlements. The grade II* listed Church of St Mary sits at the highest point of the village. The distinguishing feature of the church, as identified in both the listing description and within Pevsner is the fine unadorned tower, with a simple crenulated detail around the top, full height set back, offset buttresses and octagonal stair turret. This is a prominent feature within the surrounding rural landscape; its visual primacy identified it as a spiritual landmark within the wider countryside.

The immediate setting of the church is relatively built up, with the pub and a number of terraced residential units sitting on the opposite side of the road. Even from the high ground level within the graveyard, views through to the application site appear to be screened by the existing buildings and the boundary will be reinforced by the new housing development being built to the west of the settlement.

The contribution made by the church’s setting within longer ranged views, primarily looks to reinforce the tower as the prominent landmark feature within the surrounding topography. Analysis of the site identified that the principal views to the church likely to be affected by the development are from the south and west, along the roads leading to the Bantham Cross roundabout. In both these viewpoints, the church can be seen as the prominent feature along the ridge. In views to the west the new development will be screened by the substantial hedgerow that lines the road, restricting views of the two assets together and therefore limiting the potential impact of the new development on the setting of the church. From the south, the development will form a significant and visible feature on the ridge, however, in terms of views of the church and the new development in conjunction with each other, the new development will be visible within the periphery of views towards the church tower and set against a wooded clump of trees, which the proposed landscaping scheme is intended to blend into. Therefore, we do not consider the new development would have a detrimental effect on the setting of the grade II* listed church and its role as a prominent landmark.

We would advise that there may be other vantage points, such as through the current gate into the site from the road, where the new development will form a more prominent feature within views to the church. However, this is only within a number of glimpsed views and we do not consider that these will have a significant impact on the experience of the church as a landmark structure within the wider countryside. Setting can also be affected by other elements including noise, dust and vibrations. It is not clear what the impact of the proposed uses maybe on the area, for example, the potential for additional noise or dust. We would ask that the LPA satisfies themselves that the potential consequence of this use does not have an adverse effect on the experience of the church.

We would recommend that the application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of your specialist conservation advice.”

The site is located on a slightly raised plateau approximately 450m west of the centre of Churchstow. It is close to an edge-of-village site that was granted permission for the development of 16 new dwellings in June 2014 (ref 11/0046/14/F). The principal sites from which the development would be publicly visible are the A381 moving north from Bowringsleigh Wood towards the site past Elston Cross and the lane that runs from Bantham Cross to the village of Bantham itself. The impact of the development on the listed buildings in the centre of Churchstow (The Church of St Mary, the churchyard wall, the pair of cottages due west of the church and the Church House Inn) and from the listed milestone due east of Bantham Cross was also considered. The impact upon non designated heritage assets within the churchyard environs have been taken into account in considering the effect upon the church and churchyard as a whole.

The tower of the Church of St Mary is visible for a considerable distance from the church and has a role as a landmark. This is notably the case from other elevated locations. As such, its setting includes all sites from which it is visible and that setting is a fundamental part of the significance of the building. The other nearby listed structures that have been considered - the church walls, the Church House Inn and the pair of thatched cottages west of the church, all listed Grade II, have settings that are much more locally confined, forming part of the character of the village centre. For this reason the potential impact on the setting of the church is judged the most significant concern.

Even taking into account landscaping works on the southern edge of the site, the new group of buildings would be clearly visible on passing the brow of the hill and approaching the site NW-bound on the A381. On approaching the site, the hedgerows are quite high and both the proposed development and the church are partly concealed. There are views of the church tower over hedges, which may come and go according to the management regime, and glimpses through gateways, including the present site access. At Elston Cross the tower is visible and the roofs of the proposed new buildings are likely to break the skyline within the same field of view. At the junction of the lane to Elston Park the tower is visible through the gateway opposite and the roofs of the proposed development may be visible over the hedge.

The lane to Bantham is bounded by hedgerows, which mostly allow only a constricted forward view. The view from the west towards Churchstow opens out on approaching Bantham Cross, but the church tower is only partially visible and is seen in the context of signs, lights and chevrons which dominate the roundabout. The proposed development would be well to the right (south) of the church tower in this view. The housing development currently in progress may also be visible in the foreground. There are existing agricultural buildings within views from this direction that are quite evident.

A representative vantage point on the lane to Bantham can be gained from the junction of the public footpath c.250m west of the roundabout. From here the tower could not be viewed at the time of assessment, but the upper part of the tower may be visible when hedges are cut back. The proposed development will be visible from the field entrance opposite the public footpath post, but without entering the field will not be seen in conjunction with the church tower. Again, no significant harm would be caused to the setting of the church due to screening by existing planting and the location of the approved edge of settlement development. The other listed buildings are not affected by these views. Views from further along the public footpath to the north would find glimpses of the development and the church tower in the same view but would not result in harm to historic setting that could be judged to be more than ‘less than substantial’.

From the churchyard, the Church House Inn and neighbouring cottages, the new development would be concealed by other buildings in the village at ground floor level, with perhaps glimpsed views from upper floor windows. No harm to their setting would occur as these potential views are not ‘designed’ views and are incidental to location. The view from the junction beside the Church House Inn is screened by buildings and planting and will provide only a potential for a glimpse of roofs, but would be seen in the context of later 20th century housing and would not result in additional harm to setting.

The setting of the Church of St Mary, the Church House Inn and cottages cannot be said to be characterised by tranquillity or a particular soundscape due to the frequent traffic noise, which has a noticeable existing negative impact on the experience of people visiting the church and, therefore, its setting. Whilst church bells are characteristic as an acoustic feature of setting, enjoyment of them will not be affected by the proposed development. Dust and smells are occasional elements of the rural locality, closely associated to accepted farming practice. Any dust associated with the proposed development is judged to be within usual parameters and not detrimental to the setting of the listed buildings such as to withhold planning permission.

The setting of the milestone just west of Churchstow is effectively limited to the road itself; again, the hedgerows are tall here and the development would be concealed from it (with a buffering field between it and the road).

The potential impact of the development was also considered from the A379 to the north west of Bantham Cross. Again, the church tower would have only limited potential to be seen in conjunction with the new development and any impact will be less than substantial.

The historic hedges in this area have been classified as being 15 th -18 th century in origin, however, as many have already been removed or significantly altered the Historic Environment team at Devon County Council have advised that the significance of these boundaries has been reduced. As such the relatively small scale of hedgerow works proposed as part of this application does not cause a heritage concern (and in themselves could be permitted under the Hedgerow Regulations).

In conclusion, due to its location, scale and form, it is considered that the proposal would result in some harm to the setting of designated heritage assets within the vicinity of the site. These impacts have been thoroughly assessed and are considered to be less than substantial. Full consideration has been attached to the impact on heritage assets in accordance with the NPPF, which states that in cases of less than substantial harm this needs to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

The development proposed would bring public benefits in terms of supporting the rural (agricultural) economy and reducing pressure on the local road network. It is considered that the public benefits of the proposal outweigh the less than substantial harm to the setting of heritage assets in the locality.

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

Neighbour Amenity

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

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

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

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

In terms of disturbance from vehicular movement on site, the agent has advised that the majority of movements would be between the hours of 0800 and 1800 hours, with occasional extended working days during the busy harvesting season. The courtyard arrangement of buildings will enclose any headlight pollution during hours of darkness and there is no external lighting proposed, with the exception of low level bollards at the corners of buildings. External lighting is to be conditioned. The development relates to agricultural activity in an agricultural area and it would not be reasonable to condition the movements of vehicles associated with ‘traditional’ agricultural practices, for example tractors bring potatoes in the from the fields at harvest time. A condition restring the hours when potatoes can be taken from the site by large distribution vehicles for sale is considered reasonable given the scale of the enterprise in the interests of amenity and is recommended accordingly.

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

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

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

Highways/Access

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

The Highway Authority has requested conditions be attached to any approval in relation to the following:- 1) No mud/stone/water or debris shall be deposited on the public highway from the site; 2) Details of how the existing site access is to be permanently blocked up and shall remain closed in perpetuity; 3) Requirement for Construction Management Plan, to include:- a) Timetable of the works; b) Daily hours of construction; c) Any road closure; d) Restriction of hours of delivery and construction vehicles to 0800 – 1800 hours Mondays – Fridays, 0900 – 1300 hours on Saturdays and none on Sundays or Bank Holidays; e) Number and sizes of vehicles; f) Compound/location of storage for construction materials; g) Areas on-site for lo9ading/unloading construction materials – none to park on County highway; h) Hours that no construction traffic will be present; i) Means of enclosure of site during construction; j) Details of proposals to promote staff car sharing; k) Wheel washing facilities and obligations; l) Route of any construction traffic exceeding 7.5 tonnes; and m) Details/amount of worker parking

The Highway Authority raised an objection on grounds of sustainability if there was no justification for the location of the development in respect of application 11/0042/14/F (Building No.1 and dwelling). Officers have made a balanced judgement that there is a justification for development in this location as detailed in preceding sections.

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

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

Ecology

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

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

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

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

Drainage

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

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

The Environment Agency has been consulted on the development. The Agency has provided a single response to all 4 applications, considering the applications acceptable, providing that conditions are included on any planning permission to ensure the construction and maintenance of a sustainable drainage system to control surface water and a system to dispose of foul drainage. The Agency has stated that :-

“The information provided with the application indicates that an appropriate scheme to deal with surface water and foul drainage could be achieved on site. We consider that this is sufficient information to recommend that you can condition the final detailed drainage design on the site.”

Conditions are proposed to be attached to any planning permission, which would deal with surface water disposal and foul drainage.

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

Other

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

1. Form New Site Entrance (11/0042/14/F) 2. Carry out site excavation and form bunds (11/0042/14/F – 11/0045/14/F) 3. Carry out infrastructure works (drainage, services etc) (11/0042/14/F – 11/0045/14/F) 4. Construct Washing Building (Building No. 1) (11/0042/14/F) 5. Commence construction of one smaller Cold Store (Building No. 3) (11/0044/14/F) 6. Move out of dwelling at Galmpton to allow demolition for re-development. 7. Commence construction of dwelling (11/0042/14/F) 8. Complete construction of smaller Cold Store (Building No. 3) (11/0044/14/F) 9. Construct Grading Building (Building No.4) (11/0045/14/F) 10. Complete and occupy dwelling (11/0042/14/F) 11. Construct second Cold Store (Building No. 2) (11/0043/14/F) This phasing forms part of the s106 agreement that will tie the agricultural buildings to each other and tie both the dwelling and site office to these buildings.

The agent has also referred to a current planning application relating to the residential re-development of the site of the existing business premises in Galmpton. The intention of this is to provide substantial financial investment for the new enterprise. Officers will be seeking to ensure that the capital receipt from that development is applied to the relocation at this site.

The application seeks full planning permission, under reference 46/3044/13/F, for the change of use from agricultural to development of 5no. dwellings with associated garaging, access road and landscaping (resubmission of 46/1578/13/F). The approval of the application would be subject to a S106 agreement tying the re- development of the site with the re-location and development of the Bantham Cross site.

Whilst Members are not being asked in this report to determine the residential development at the Nest, its current use and the proposed use at the Galmpton site are material planning considerations when assessing this application. Members need to carefully consider the need for the relocation of the business and the affect of enabling the redevelopment as outlined in this report.

The existing business is located on land close to the settlement of Galmpton. The DAS indicates that the viability of the proposed development is in part dependent on whether the application for the residential development is successful. That application was the subject of a separate officer report which was approved under delegated powers subject to a s106 Agreement. Whilst an Agreement was prepared and has since been signed by the interested parties it has not been executed by the Council and the permission has not yet been issued.

The reduction in the buildings on the Galmpton site and the removal of the use from this sensitive, “heart of the AONB”, coastal area is considered an environmental improvement and would help to ease existing traffic congestion along the narrow lanes in the Galmpton/Hope Cove area.

In the event that this application is approved officers would want to ensure that the existing buildings on the Galmpton site are demolished to prevent the agricultural business operating on both sites.

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

Concern has also been raised about potential expansion of the business at the site. Any applications for further development in or around the site would be considered on their own planning merits. Furthermore, the Local Planning Authority would have full control over development at the site as “permitted development” rights that may be enjoyed by the buildings currently proposed are to be removed by planning condition.

Concern has also been raised that the development could be implemented and operated by someone other than the Applicant to which the justification set out above does not apply. Officers are satisfied that there is sufficient planning justification for the proposed development for agricultural purposes and that other material planning considerations (such as landscape and heritage impacts) do not provide justifiable grounds for refusal. As such the proposed development is considered to be acceptable in planning terms regardless of the eventual operator of the site should planning permission be granted.

With regard to concern that the development should not have been submitted as four separate applications, this report sets out how the development proposed has been considered as one large scheme, consisting of contributing elements on each application, (with issues individual to each scheme highlighted where necessary). It is not for the Council to prescribe what development should be included in individual applications nor how a development is submitted.

In terms of whether the development should have been regarded as EIA development requiring an Environmental Statement, this has been carefully assessed by Officers. The development would not have a significant impact on the environment in terms of its character (size/use of natural resources/production of waste/pollution/nuisance/risk) and, although located within the South Devon AONB, can be satisfactorily assimilated within the landscape and would have limited impact on in terms of both geographic area and size of population affected. The development has been re-screened prior to being presented to the Committee to consider the cumulative impact with the Galmpton site. The revised Screening Opinion concludes that the combined effects of the development proposals on both sites do not constitute EIA development, taking into account the physical separation between them.

Concern has been raised about the potential harm to bats and the church structure from high frequency noise emitted from refrigeration units and, that this may also cause the church bells at Churchstow to ring.

The Council has contacted the Ecologist who prepared the Ecology Survey submitted with the application about this potential harm. He has advised as follows:- “I have carried out an ecological appraisal at Mr Lidstone's current potato processing plant in Galmpton, part of which included a bat activity survey. The current processing plant has a refrigeration unit similar to what will be installed at the new site. The bat survey observed pipstrelle bats foraging within the current processing plant around the storage & processing sheds. Using this evidence I could not say that the noise produced by the refrigeration units will have a negative impact upon bat activity or roosting bats .”

With regard to the potential harm to the structure of the church at Churchstow, advice has been taken that this is highly unlikely. It is possible for noise to affect the structure of buildings however, the noise would have to attain significant amplitude levels to cause any damage. Given that the units would be approximately 500 metres from the church and that restrictions that will be placed on noise emissions from the site, in the interests of local amenity, it is extremely unlikely that the church structure would be affected. Furthermore, the refrigerated units at the existing premises are located approximately 230 metres from the church in Galmpton and have not caused damage to the structure. Neither have they caused the bells to ring.

Concern has also been expressed by the public in relation to the short timescale for the submission of comments, following the re-advertisement of the applications. The report includes all letters of representation and consultee responses received at the time of writing (including those received in the run up to the March 2015 Committee when the applications had been due to be considered). Any additional letters of representation, or additional responses from consultees will be verbally reported at the Committee meeting.

The removal of part of the hedge prior to the applications being determined has also caused concern from objectors. The Council has been advised that the Applicant decided to create the entrance to the site so the works could be carried out in advance of the bird nesting season. It should be noted that the removal of hedges can be carried out separately from any planning consent under the Hedgerow Regulations. This matter would be investigated further if planning permission is not granted.

That the Applicant is not from Churchstow is not a material planning consideration. Any party can submit a planning application for development on land which they do not own providing the appropriate notice is served. The applications were submitted with a completed Certificate A on the grounds that the Applicant was the owner of the site at the time application, and no evidence to the contrary has been submitted.

The Planning Balance

The NPPF takes a three dimensional approach to sustainable development, involving economic, social and environmental considerations. It gives great weight to the conservation and enhancement of the scenic beauty of AONBs and ensures that major development is only undertaken in exceptional circumstances. It gives great weight to the conservation and enhancement of heritage assets and their settings. LDF policies echo these aims and the AONB Management Plan sets out in more detail how the conservation and enhancement of the AONB can be achieved. The NPPF also gives great weight to the need to support economic growth through the planning system.

The proposed agricultural development and erection of farm dwelling for the relocation of this business do merit support. It is accepted that the developments as a whole will have an impact on the protected landscape and, that the business activities, eg traffic generation, will change the character of the site. However, the extent of this harm is limited to a localised area and would have little impact on the wider AONB. The economic benefits of permitting the relocation of the established business and, its removal from a more sensitive location within the AONB and coastal area and, the reduction in the business’s carbon footprint from the reduction in travel associated with the business carries significant weight and should be a material consideration when assessing the planning balance Whilst great weight is given to the impact of the development on the AONB in this localised area, this impact is very restricted in extent and it is considered that the impacts of the developments can be assimilated by appropriate planning conditions and legal agreement. There would be less than substantial harm to the setting of heritage assets in the locality, as is evidenced by the views of the Conservation Officer in liaison with Historic England, which is been weighed against the public benefits of the proposal and is not considered to be overriding in this case. There are no technical objections to the proposed development, raised by the Drainage section, Environmental Health, the Environment Agency or the Highway Authority. Overall the application is considered to be in accordance with the relevant development plan policies and the NPPF.

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

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

Planning Policy

National Planning Policy Framework Planning Practice Guidance

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

Development Policies DPD DP1 High Quality Design DP2 Landscape Character DP3 Residential Amenity DP5 Conservation and Wildlife DP6 Historic Environment DP7 Transport, Access & Parking DP15 Development in the Countryside

South Devon AONB Management Plan 2014 - 2019

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

Case Officer: Ben Gilpin Parish: Dartmouth

Application No : 15/0138/15/F

Agent/Applicant: Applicant: Mr Simon French Mr Clements & Mrs Giles c/o agent

Site Address: Garages adjacent to 3 Sandquay Road, Dartmouth

Development: Demolish existing garages and reform as three garages with a loft apartment above

Scale 1:1250

This map is reproduced from the Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (c) Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. South Hams District Council 100022628. 2015. Scale 1:1250 For internal reference only – no further copies to be made

Reason item is being put before Committee:

Cllr Hawkins request for Planning Committee hearing on the grounds of: 1. Over development; 2. Un-neighbourliness Received on 20.03.2015.

Recommendation:

Conditional Approval

Conditions:

Standard Time Limit Accord with Plans Unsuspected Contamination Universal Contaminated Land Verification Report (Contamination) Materials (including timber finish and natural slate) Drainage Garage Doors Natural Stonework

Key issues for consideration:

Principle of Development Impact on Amenity Impact on Heritage Assets Impact on Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) Design Land Stability Proximity to Sewer System Over Development / Over Bearing Highway Safety Land Ownership

Site Description:

The site is located within the development boundary of Dartmouth. It is within the AONB but has no other statutory designation constraints.

The site is at the southern end of Sandquay Road at the junction of Floaters Road. The site is approximately 36 metres north (and beyond the boundary of) the Dartmouth Conservation Area (as extended)).

The site is set immediately adjacent to Sandquay Road, and below the level of the properties that the road serves.

The Proposal:

The proposal seeks consent to demolish the two existing garages and construct three garages with a loft apartment above.

Consultations :

• County Highways Authority

No objection subject to accordance with DCC Highways Standing Advice.

• Environmental Health Section

No objection subject to the inclusion of 3 planning conditions: 1. Universal condition for development on land affected by contamination; 2. Verification Report; 3. Unsuspected Contamination.

• Town/Parish Council

Recommend refusal on the grounds of 1. Overdevelopment in a Conservation Area; 2. Unneighbourly; 3. Encroachment.

• Others

South West Water:

“Should the development encroach on the 3 metre easement, the sewer will need to be diverted at the expense of the applicant. The applicant/agent is advised to contact the Developer Services Planning Team to discuss the matter further.

South West Water will only allow foul drainage to be connected to the public foul or combined sewer. Permission will not be granted for the surface water from this site to return to the public combined or foul sewerage network. We will request that investigations are carried out to remove the surface water using a Sustainable Urban Drainage System, such as a soak away. If this is not a viable solution to remove the surface water, please contact the Developer Services Planning Team for further information.”

Representations:

6 letters of objection have been received from members of the public. Objections have cited the following as reasons for refusal:

• Land stability / Drainage • Design (Out of Character) • Proximity to Public Sewer • Impact on Heritage Assets (Conservation Area / Listed Buildings) • Precedent • Over Bearing (in conjunction with other developments) • Impact on the AONB • Over Development • Highways Safety (Garage Doors over the Public Highway) • Land Ownership

Relevant Planning History

No planning history is applicable to this planning application.

ANALYSIS

Principle of Development:

The site is within the development boundary and as such development per se would be acceptable in principle (subject to accordance with adopted policies of the Development Plan).

Impact on Amenity:

For consideration in this instance is the impact the change from the existing double garage to three garages and a loft apartment above may have on residential amenity. The development and the positioning of associated fenestration (on the southern elevation and in the roof planes) are considered to have a minimal visual impact on the area and as such would not result in notable loss of neighbouring amenity (over looking / loss of privacy).

It is noted that a number of buildings leading towards the site have a white finished (it is accepted that the elevated properties on Sandquay Road are brick finished), and the introduction of a natural timber finish has caused concern and has been suggested as alien to the character of the area.

The finish to the walls in the materials proposed (subject to a planning condition requiring details of the finish of the timber to be white at upper floor level (as well as details of other materials)) together with the roof finish, are considered to minimise visual impact and imbalance. The use of the site, being for the parking of vehicles, is not considered so detrimental to neighbour amenity as to warrant a recommendation for refusal in this instance (subject to accordance with DCC Highways Standing Advice).

Impact on Heritage Assets:

The site is not in the Conservation Area (CA), contrary to the assertion of objectors. The boundary of the CA is identified as being approximately 36 metres south of the proposed development (the CA being up to an including the properties on Coombe Road, Dartmouth). The nearest listed building is the Floating Bridge Public House (Grade II) which is also approximately 36 metres south of the proposed development.

In relation to the historic environment, Policy DP6, sub section 1, states that:

“Development will preserve or enhance the quality of the historic environment. The design, siting, bulk, height, materials, colours and visual emphasis of proposed new development should take into account local context and in particular the character and appearance of the historic building and its environment.”

The development that is the subject of this planning application is set up and back from the boundary of the CA. In addition, the structure will be finished in part with local stone with a natural slate roof. The only potentially visible element of the development will be the southern elevation and it is proposed that the walling to this elevation is to be finished with stone to match the stone retaining walls (and fenestration as detailed in the planning application).

Knowing the above, it is considered that the development would continue to preserve the setting of both the Listed Building and the CA in this instance when it is viewed from alongside the development, south to the Heritage Assets. Any perceived effect in this instance is not considered sufficient to support a recommendation for refusal.

Impact on Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB):

The site is within the AONB. In relation to landscape, Policy DP2, sub section 1, states that:

“Development proposals will need to demonstrate how they conserve and / or enhance the South Hams landscape character, including coastal areas, estuaries, river valleys, undulating uplands and other landscapes.”

The development that is the subject of this planning application is within the AONB, but is also within the development boundary (so would be seen in an urban context). In addition, the structure will be finished in part with local stone with a natural slate roof. The only potentially clearly visible element of the development will be the southern elevation and it is proposed that the walling to this elevation is to be finished with stone to match the stone retaining walls (and fenestration as detailed in the planning application).

Knowing the above, it is considered that the development would, subject to compliance with planning conditions, continue to preserve the character of the AONB and would not be to the detriment of the AONB in this instance.

Design:

The design of the scheme has been suggested as out of character with the surrounding area.

It is accepted that design is subjective and in this instance the criteria of policy DP1 need to be considered. The scheme seeks to replace the non-descript flat roofed garages with three garages and pitched roof finish.

The ground floor (garage element) would seek a natural stone finish and the roof finish would be in natural slate. These materials are considered appropriate in this location. Concerns have been raised in relation to the introduction of natural timber finish at the first floor level. In response, it is considered that this can be addressed by way of an appropriate and fair planning condition requiring the finish of timber to be white (to reflect the predominant ‘colour’ in this location). In terms of appearance, the scheme is not considered sufficiently detrimental as to warrant a recommendation for refusal.

In terms of massing and scale, the scheme would be 6.2 metres high (to ridge height), 5.4 metres wide and 12.7 metres long. The scale and massing of the scheme is greater than that currently in situ, but it is not so excessive as to warrant a recommendation for refusal in this instance.

Land Stability / Drainage:

Land stability has been cited as a reason for objection. The representations made have also been supported with photographic evidence of previous landslides in the vicinity of the site.

In addition, Land Stability is considered to be a material consideration in relation to decision making on planning applications (as prescribed by the Planning Practice Guidance note (March 2014) (PPGn)). The PPGn identifies that “failing to deal with this issue could cause harm to human health, local property and associated infrastructure, and the wider environment.”

The PPGn goes on to say that “The planning system has an important role in considering land stability by minimising the risk and effects of land stability on property, infrastructure and the public.” In light of this, consideration of the potential of the development to result in changes to land stability has been considered.

The structural integrity of the bedrock in this location has been questioned in objections. However, this information has been anecdotal with no supporting evidenced supplied to verify these claims. In addition, the properties to the west show no evident signs of damage as a result of geological movement.

In addition, Building Control would need to ensure they are satisfied with the structural integrity of the development (which would necessitate work on the bedrock) and as such, this regime should ensure these matters are suitably addressed.

Proximity to Sewer System:

Concerns raised have cited impact on the sewer system and the capacity of the sewer at present. In terms of smells from the sewer, were this to manifest as an odour nuisance, the Environment Agency regime would be in a position to remedy this. Therefore, this is not deemed material in this instance. In addition, no comments in relation to odour nuisance in this location have been raised in the response from the SHDC Environmental Health Officer.

The introduction of 1 additional lavatory, shower and wash basins to the current system are not considered sufficiently excessive as to justify a recommendation for refusal on the grounds of impact on the sewerage system or odour nuisance.

In relation to works near an existing sewer, the applicant can be informed as to what is required from South West Water by way of an informative.

Over Development / Over Bearing:

Concerns have been raised that this development, coupled with the development adjacent (the elements to the rear of 37-45 Sandquay Road) could result in an over bearing appearance and be un-neighbourly.

In this instance, with the proposed roof pitch moving (rising) from east to west, so allowing a relatively ‘open appearance’ to the street from this point (even with the proposed adjacent development) it is not considered sufficiently over bearing or un-neighbourly as to warrant a recommendation for refusal on these grounds.

In relation to over development of the site, the currently ‘open’ area (laid to hard core) is used as a car parking space. In essence, the removal of the two garages and external parking space would be replaced by three garages, so not excessively increasing the built / used footprint over or above that currently experienced. The introduction of loft accommodation above the garages, with there being a relative increase in built floor space is not considered suitably excessive as to warrant a recommendation for refusal in this instance.

Highway Safety:

Highway safety (notably to foot path users) has been suggested in the objections received. In relation to this point, it was noted at the time of site visits that the all the garage doors that form part of the longer block have ‘up and over’ doors.

The Devon County Council (DCC) ‘Management Advice for the Determination of Planning Applications’ (2008) does identify in section 3.9 matters relating to overhanging signs, buildings and vegetation. However, no subsequent reference is made in sections 3.9.1 to 3.9.3 about the implications of buildings on highway safety. However, reference is made in the aforementioned document that possible reasons for refusal can be ‘The garage doors / access gate / windows open over the carriageway / footway and therefore cause obstruction of the highway contrary to Policy’ .

To accord with the Standing Advice, details of garage doors where they open over the carriageway (as would be the case in this instance) can be secured by way of a reasonable planning condition that would mitigate safety issues (such a planning condition can seek the doors to be of a ‘roller’ design so ensuring no part of the door raises across the line of pedestrians who could be using the footway).

In relation to access / egress to the highway from the proposed garages, the scheme as detailed is considered to accord with the details contained in sections 3.2 and 3.11 of the Standing Advice.

Therefore, subject to the inclusion of a planning condition requiring details of garage doors prior to the commencement of development, the scheme would accord with the DCC Highways Standing Advice.

Land Ownership:

Following concerns that the site may not have been in the ownership of the applicant, a search via Land Registry confirmed this not to be the case and that the site in question is under the control of the applicant.

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

Planning Policy All standard policies listed (delete where not relevant, add others as relevant, including NPPF):

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

Development Policies DPD DP1 High Quality Design DP2 Landscape Character DP3 Residential Amenity DP6 Historic Environment DP7 Transport, Access & Parking

Considerations under Human Rights Act 1998 and Equalities Act 2010

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

Case Officer: Ben Gilpin Parish: Ermington & Ivybridge

Application No : 21_27/2754/14/VAR

Agent/Applicant: Applicant: Endsleigh Garden Centre Gregory Gray Associates c/o Agent Victoria House 18-22 Albert Street Fleet Hampshire GU51 3RJ

Site Address: Endsleigh Garden Centre, Endsleigh, Ivybridge, PL21 9JL

Development: Variation of condition 2 of approval 21/2161/04/F to allow increase in the total floorspace devoted to the sale of certain goods

.

Scale 1:5000

This map is reproduced from the Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (c) Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. South Hams District Council 100022628. 2015. Scale 1:5000 For internal reference only – no further copies to be made

Reason item is being put before committee: Cllrs. Holway/Barber have requested that the planning application be heard/discussed/determined at Planning Committee

Recommendation:

Conditional Approval

Conditions:

Standard Time Limit Accord with Plans Replication of Previous Planning Conditions (21/2161/04/F)

Key issues for consideration:

Principle of Development Impact on Ivybridge Town Centre / Retail Function

Site Description:

The site is an established Garden Centre to the south of the A38 / Ivybridge.

The Proposal:

The proposal seeks the variation of condition 2 of approval 21/2161/04/F to allow increase in the total floor space devoted to the sale of certain goods. The proposal does not seek to increase the physical footprint of the site over or above that currently in place.

Consultations :

• County Highways Authority

No objection.

• Environmental Health Section

No comments received – apply default Unsuspected Contamination planning condition if planning permission to be granted.

• Town/Parish Council

Ermington Parish Council:

Objection (full text in Representations below).

Ivybridge Town Council:

Objection (full text in Representations below).

• Others

SHDC Planning Policy

No objection (full text in Representations below).

Representations:

Ermington Parish Council:

No justification for its expansion. Application designed to confuse. Not appropriate to what is a garden centre. Not an outdoor shopping centre. Impact on Ivybridge Town Centre.

Ivybridge Town Council:

Ivybridge Town Council objects to this application and until it is able to understand exactly what is proposed and how new developments like the children’s play area and associated coffee shop are integrated into the overall plan for the site (as well as how they fit the planning criteria) it is unable to fully understand the nature of this application. It is believed that a site meeting supported by the South Hams District Council Planning Team is essential, accompanied by a detail layout of the plan as approved in 21/2161/04/F. This is a very complex development, operating well beyond its original concept as a garden centre and associated activities. Its impact on the vitality and viability of Ivybridge cannot be underestimated with its free car parking and a number of outlets within the site which directly compete with the retail centre.

The Town Council has tried to read through and understand the complicated offsetting of space and assumptions made by Endsleigh, but matters which come to the fore are:

Para 4.2 gives a list of items where the variation is requested – children’s clothing (on the excluded list, schedule 4). A lot of clothing and footwear that (even if accepted under schedule 2), should be restricted to no more than 50 square metres. Clearly clothing (as we have always contended) far exceeds the allowance and cannot be regarded as gardening clothes.

Para 4.3 then outlines more clothing, eg Cotton Traders, which on a previous visit included pyjamas so not generally considered as garden clothes. In 4.10 a quite massive increase in sales of clothing is proposed.

Confectionary and delicatessen are due, together, to be no more than 50 square metres – clearly far in excess with alcohol (a section 4 exclusion).

There is no issue with the pets and aquatic sections as they are within the unrestricted schedule 1.

Schedule 1 says catering to Garden Centre customers – yet the centre is promoted to conferences and community groups using the entrance and exit directly off the car park, without going into the garden centre. The size of the restaurant means that it is a destination in its own right, not ancillary to the garden centre, but over the years this trend has occurred, so flexibility has already been given to Endsleigh in this regard.

Ivybridge has a Town Team which has sought to address the reasons for the decline of the retail centre and outlets like Endsleigh, are undoubtedly detrimental. Even the display and information board to try and promote Ivybridge is often covered up by other in store promotional material / products or inaccessible to people wanting leaflets about the town.

The LDF (4.7) recognises that Ivybridge faces strong competition from Plymouth and out of town shopping stores.

In the original (July 2000) Endsleigh approval conditions were placed to “retain the character of the site as a garden centre; to protect the vitality and viability of Ivybridge town centre; and to ensure in schedule 2 that no individual category of product retailing predominates (thereby conflicting with the above).

The 2013 Ivybridge Town Centre Retail and Leisure Study in section 8.5 draws attention to the need for protection of the town centre and outlines how this should be achieved, but proposes that any out of town developments should be of a scale which is not out of proportion with retail unit sizes in the town, i.e., “Ivybridge is characterised by smaller units within its town centre. The provision of large units outside the town centre could potentially impact on the town centre for example, existing businesses may move out. It is considered therefore that a threshold that represents the average size of units in Ivybridge is an appropriate size. Based on existing unit sizes in Ivybridge Town Centre, as shown by the GOAD plan, it ios recommended that any out of centre retail applications proposing a net increase of 150 sq m or more should be accompanied by a Retail Impact Assessment that provides both a sequential sites assessment and an impact assessment.”

The size increase is the critical element of the above paragraph as the units in Ivybridge are small and hence the impact of increasing the floor space of concessions covered by schedule 2 from 430 sq m to 1150 sq m which directly compete with Ivybridge town centre is not therefore acceptable.

This application of variation does not also explain or cover the drift into schedule four of items not to be sold as for example in 2006 items on sale included ladies, men’s and children’s fashion clothing and shoes (not garden related), jewellery, luggage / backpacks, bathroom curtains and bead curtains, off licence (alcohol), furniture (not garden related), fire guards and companion sets, ready meals and rugs / bath mats.

Unfortunately despite repeated objections from this council Endsliegh has continued to trade in these items – straying into areas outside the original intention of the planning consent has been a regular occurrence.

This council strongly objects to the further increase in schedule 2 retailing area for the reasons outlined above and would request a site meeting, to understand the whole floor plan of Endsleigh, including the areas which have been newly introduced (but not mentioned in this application) and the incremental development of an out of town shopping centre which is contrary to both national and local planning policy.

SHDC Planning Policy :

In essence the application seeks to extend the floor area permitted for the sale of schedule 2 goods from 430 sqm to 1150 sqm, limit category 4 goods to 700 sqm, to delete 50 sqm floor space restriction relating to individual schedule 2 categories, and to include the sale of alcohol within schedule 2 from the delicatessen.

Therefore, the change is not really to the schedules but to the associated floor areas. Need clarification if the net retail floor space is increasing? It appears that they want to have more floor space dedicated to schedule 2 goods rather than schedule 1, i.e. those goods not traditionally associated with a garden centre.

I am concerned that the scale of the proposed increase of ‘Clothes & footwear associated with a garden centre’ is excessive, and would effectively sterilise any potential for a town centre offer of comparable goods – and that needs to be considered with equal weight to the arguments offered by the applicant regarding economic development.

I do however note that of the goods listed under schedule 1 of the 2004 decision notice, number 23 is ‘Garden clothes & garden wear, garden footwear and hats’. How the requirements of each category differs is difficult to determine, and the applicant has argued whether the category under schedule 2 is actually a duplication in terms of goods offered, and I am inclined to agree with that view.

To that effect, and given that the goods listed under schedule 1 are not subject to a specific floorspace, I am inclined to support the variation of condition offered by the applicant in terms of floorspace and the specific limit relating to ‘clothes & footwear associated with a garden centre’. I am not supportive of the removal of the 50sqm limit for the other schedule 2 categories however, but given that there is some degree of duplication between schedule 1 and 2 (Books appear on both lists for example) I don’t think we have policy justification for restricting the other items on schedule 2 to 50sqm.

The applicant has offered a recent appeal example (APP/D0121/A/14/2218749) that did have a number of similarities in terms of removing restrictions established by condition. Whilst each case needs to be assessed on its own merits, I do acknowledge that some weight should be given to this, and that flexibility needs to be applied when reviewing conditions first applied in 2004. The behavioural patterns associated with the purchase of alcohol are also markedly different now than when the condition was first applied, and for that reason I can see no reason not to agree with the applicants proposal for a minor amendment to clause 21 of schedule 4, and to permit the sale of alcohol associated with the delicatessen.

Relevant Planning History

21_27/0860/00/F – Extension and Redevelopment at Endsleigh Garden Centre (Conditional Approval: 05.07.2000)

21/2161/04/F – Variation of condition 5 schedule 3 (sale of Christmas goods) of planning permission 21_27/0860/00/F to extend the sale period of Christmas goods from 1st November to 15 th January extended to 1st October to 15th January in any one year (Conditional Approval: 14.2.2004)

21_27/1487/07/F – Resubmission of application 21_27/2293/06/F for the variation of schedule 3 of condition 2 (to allow Christmas sales between 1 September and 15 January) and variation of schedule 4 of condition 2 (to exclude conservatory furniture) of planning permission 21/2161/04/Fn (Conditional Approval: 16.08.2007)

NOTE:

For clarity and ease of understanding, please see Schedules 1, 2and 3 (as detailed in the decision notice of 21/2161/04/K) read as follows:

SCHEDULE ONE (Unlimited retailing area for products associated with gardening):

1. Plants of all types 2. Shrubs 3. Trees, bold ornamental, evergreen, deciduous, fruit 4. House plants of all types, Cacti, Bonsai 5. Fresh, dried & artificial flowers. 6. Plant care products, & associated goods 7. Floral art, flower arrangements & accessories 8. Patio plants, planted containers & planted arrangements 9. Vegetable plants, onion sets, seed potatoes 10. Seeds, bulbs, corms, tubers, bulk seed 11. Propagation, sundries, garden tidy & general garden related products 12. Growing media, Peat, mulch, compost, barks, grits, gravel 13. Top soil 14. Turf 15. Fertilisers, chemicals & plant food 16. Lawn seed, lawn care products 17. Garden tools & equipment 18. Plant containers, vases, pot covers, ceramics, terracotta, stone, plastic & other material 19. Garden play frames, slides, swings & large play items, play houses, children’s pools, gardening toys 20. Garden Ornaments, Statues, and garden decor 21. Ornamental plants 22. Basketware, Caneware 23. Garden clothes & garden wear, garden footwear, hats 24. Barbecues, fuel & accessories 25. Furniture for garden, patio & conservatories, picnic ware, table ware, 26. Garden machinery for sale or hire, repairs, servicing. 27. Green houses, conservatories, garden buildings, sheds 28. Construction materials, landscaping materials, equipment for construction, patio materials, walling pergolas 29. Fencing, trellis, 30. Products used to construct & maintain gardens, garden DIY, 31 Landscape design & garden services 32. Swimming pool, pool care & associated goods 33. Heaters for green houses, conservatories, fuels 34. Garden lighting & associated products 35. Watering systems and associated products 36. Aquatic gardens, garden pools, water gardening, decking, fountains, pumps, accessories, 37. Aquatic plants of all types 38. Catering to garden centre customers 39. Displays & exhibits related to products and services in schedule 1 40. Books, CD, audio tapes, Audio media related to items in schedule 1. 41. Aquatic and pet livestock, accessories, food and associated products

SCHEDULE TWO (Limits on retailing area for products not associated with gardening but have become established). Items not within Schedule One, limited to an area of 430 sq. m.

1. Stationery, cards, gift wrap 2. Pictures, frames kitchen ware, glass/china brass/copper ornaments 3. Arts & crafts, hobbies & toy 4. Clothes & footwear associated with a garden centre 5. Books, Videos, Children’s books 6. Displays & exhibits related to products and services in schedule 2 7. Confectionary, delicatessen. Provided that at any point in time, none of the 8 categories of goods and products listed in Schedule 2 shall have more than 50 sq m of floorspace individually dedicated to it.

SCHEDULE THREE* (Seasonal arrangement based on existing activity) 1. Area for Christmas goods limited to area 1,200 sq. m. - Christmas goods for the purposes of this condition shall be restricted to the following products:-

Christmas trees; Christmas decorations; cards; wrappings; candles; pictures; frames; Glass / China; Brass / Copper ornaments; books; videos; soft toys and games. The period for sale of these goods in this 1,200 sq. m. area shall be from 1 st October to 15 th January in any one year.

* This schedule was varied by the approval of planning permission for 21_27/1487/07/F.

ANALYSIS

Principle of Development:

The site is beyond the development boundary (so is in open countryside) but is an established retail operation. The site has no statutory designation constraints.

The site edged red (and identified on drawing number 2014-005-003) is approximately 5.55 hectares in area. The area for sales (excluding land, delivery areas and car parking in the applicant’s ownership) is approximately 1.69 hectares.

The planning permission that is sought to be revised restricts items for sale and identified in Schedule 2 to have a retail area of no more than 430m 2. Of overall sales space (1.69 hectares), this constitutes 2.5% of retail space. The proposal seeks to revise this area up to 1150m 2 and remove the 50m 2 constraint detailed in the planning permission (that restricts sales of items detailed in Schedule 2 to a space of no more than 50m 2). The change, were it permitted, would result in Schedule 2 items occupying 6.8% of retail floor space, meaning the remainder of the site would be used for the sale of goods identified in Schedules 1 and 3 (Schedule 4 details excluded goods) – meaning 93.2% of the sales area would still be focused on the core garden business.

Knowing the aforementioned to be the case, plus the fact that the planning application does not propose a physical increase in the footprint of the current operation (over or above that currently in place), development ‘per se’ would be acceptable in principle as the principle use of the site would remain as a Garden Centre.

Impact on Ivybridge Town Centre / Retail Function:

From the consultee objections, the concern and suggested reason for refusal is conflict with the function of Ivybridge Town Centre and that the variation of the planning condition could result in a detriment to the viability and vitality of the shopping area.

For consideration in this instance is saved policy SHDC 23 of the South Hams Local Plan 1996 and Chapter 2 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (Ensuring the vitality of town centres).

Policy SHDC 23 states:

1. Within the Central Shopping Areas defined at Dartmouth, Ivybridge, Kingsbridge, Modbury, Salcombe and Totnes:

a. Shopping development (Use Class A1) will be permitted; b. Proposals for non-shopping use, including Use Classes A2 (Financial and Professional Services) and A3 (Food and Drink) of ground floor premises will be permitted, providing it would not:-

(i) undermine the shopping character of the street; or (ii) detract from the appearance of the immediate environment; or (iii) adversely affect the amenity of the surrounding area through consequent noise, smell, litter, congestion on pavements or disturbance arising from late opening hours.

2. In these towns, outside of the Central Shopping Areas, only the following forms of development in Use Class A1 will be permitted:

a. small shops in outlying residential estates (not more than 46 sq.m. (500 sq.ft.) net); b. small scale retail outlets ancillary and subsidiary to industrial, craft or service uses. In this instance, only limited weight could be applied to accordance with policy SHDC 23 as the requirements of paragraph 215 of the NPPF apply. In addition, the saved policy refers to town centre uses and small scale shop[s / retail units outside Central Shopping Areas, but still within the towns identified in sub section 1.

Therefore, the proposal needs to be considered against the guidelines detailed in Chapter 2 (paragraphs 23-27 (paragraph 25 is not directly applicable)) of the NPPF. In relation to sequential assessment, the National Planning Practice Guidance note (NPPG), 2D, 10 also identifies the approach to be taken in relation to this.

Paragraph 23 relates to Local Plans and planning policy requirements.

Paragraph 24 states that:

“Local planning authorities should apply a sequential test to planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance with an up-to- date Local Plan.”

In this instance, the site is not in an existing centre, but the proposal would accord with the up-to-date Local Plan in that there are no policies detailed in the up-to-date Local Plan that would restrict such use in such a location.

Paragraph 26 requires applications to be accompanied by an Impact Assessment (as there is no locally set threshold, the default threshold is 2,500m 2 as prescribed). It states that an application should include assessment of:

• the impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal; and • the impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and trade in the town centre and wider area, up to five years from the time the application is made. For major schemes where the full impact will not be realised in five years, the impact should also be assessed up to ten years from the time the application is made.

The retail Assessment that was submitted in support of the planning application identifies, in paragraph 6.12 of the aforementioned report, that a sequential approach to site selection / identification has been applied and in this instance deemed appropriate. In chapter 7, notably paragraphs 7.17 and 7.18, impact on the viability and vitality of the town centre is considered minimal at worst, with the range of goods that are the subject of this application already being sold from the site, and the level of ‘overlap’ sales types with those in Ivybridge Town Centre being negligible.

In light of the above it is considered in this instance that the proposed variation would accord with the requirements of the NPPF and the NPPG, and as such a recommendation for refusal could not be supported for this proposal on these grounds.

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

Planning Policy All standard policies listed (delete where not relevant, add others as relevant, including NPPF):

South Hams LDF Core Strategy CS1 Location of Development

Development Policies DPD DP1 High Quality Design DP2 Landscape Character DP7 Transport, Access & Parking DP15 Development in the Countryside

South Hams Local Plan (please delete as necessary) SHDC 23 Shopping in Towns

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

Case Officer: Mrs Clare Stewart Parish: Kingswear

Application No : 30/1799/14/F

Agent/Applicant: Applicant: East Devon Estates Ltd Mr. P. Brinton Great Halls, Village Way Aylesbeare, Exeter EX5 2FFD

Site Address: Plot to rear of Inglewood Cottages, Higher Contour Road, Kingswear, TQ6 0AT

Development: Erection of 2.No. flats with garages and parking;

Scale 1:1250

This map is reproduced from the Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (c) Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. South Hams District Council 100022628. 2015. Scale 1:1250 For internal reference only – no further copies to be made

Reason item is being put before Committee

The Ward Member is concerned about the mass of development proposed and that the proposed development comes too forward of the building line.

Recommendation: Conditional Approval

Conditions

1. Time limit 2. Accord with plans 3. Final details (to be agreed prior to residential occupation of Flat 1) and obscure glazing to windows to NE1, NE2, SW1 and SW2 4. Details of privacy screen, to be installed prior to residential occupation of Flat 1 5. Fence to be installed prior to residential occupation of Flat 2 6. Timing of works outside bird nesting season 7. Development in accordance with Ecological Appraisal 8. Works in accordance with agreed Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Arboricultural Method Statement 9. Submission of and implementation of landscape scheme 10. Unsuspected contamination

Key issues for consideration:

Design and impact on street scene, impact on amenities of neighbouring properties, impact on TPO trees, ecology.

Site Description:

The application site and its surroundings fall within the Development Boundary of Kingswear fronting onto Higher Contour Road. The site is currently a vacant plot, with neighbouring residential properties are situated to the north west, south west and south east. The surrounding area is characterised as predominantly residential, which include two and three storey detached and terraced dwellings. The application site slopes from South to the North and is nestled between two residential dwellings: Orleans and Creggans. The site is typified by dense vegetation and two mature trees along its southern boundary. Trees within the site are subject to a Tree Preservation Order.

The site is located within the South Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

The Proposal:

Consent is sought to erect a detached building comprising 2.No. self-contained flats with associated garages. The development would be set into the slope of the land, appearing as a single storey structure when viewed from Higher Contour Road and 2/3 storey when viewed from Lower Contour Road and beyond. The building would feature predominantly hipped roof forms finished in natural slate with terracotta ridge tiles. The upper level of the development would be finished in render with natural local stone below with white pvcu windows. Internally the accommodation would be arranged with two bedroom units on the lower and middle levels with garaging accessed from Higher Contour Road on the upper level. A patio area would be constructed outside the lower unit, with a balcony serving the unit above.

The application is accompanied by a Tree Survey and Arboricultural Method Statement. Two individual Holm Oak trees are identified within the survey (both covered by a Tree Preservation Order), one of which would be retained. The submission includes methods for protection of the retained tree during the construction process.

Amended plans were submitted during the life of the application to clarify a discrepancy between the sizes of windows. An access path to the north east of the proposed building was also incorporated as well as a 1.5 metre high close-boarded fence along the boundary to the south west (similar to that already found on the boundary to the north east). The application was subsequently re-advertised for comments. Further plans were submitted prior to the consideration of the application at Committee to provide clarity on site levels, the relationship between the proposed development and neighbouring properties, along with revised details for the upper floor windows. The Parish Council and occupiers of Orleans and Creggans (as they would be the most directly affected by the revised window details) were notified of the additional information submitted.

Consultations :

• County Highways Authority – Standing Advice – Check parking standards are met. Check access safety.

• Environmental Health – No objection subject to unsuspected contaminated land condition to be placed on any permission granted

• Drainage – No objection

• Natural Environment (Ecology) – No objection subject to conditions regarding timing of works removal of rubble pile (in accordance with recommendation of submitted Preliminary Ecological Appraisal)

• Natural Environment (Trees) – No objection subject to conditions regarding accordance with Arboricultural Report and submission of a landscape plan

• Kingswear Parish Council – Objection – loss of light and sunlight for properties below site and concern over TPOs on existing trees, reduction in amenity value of environment, land stability, errors in application submission

Representations:

12 letters of representation objecting to the application have been received. The concerns raised are summarised as follows:

• Overdevelopment • Inappropriate design for this location. Houses not flats in this area. • Development forward of existing building line possibly resulting from tree T1 which would be removed • Impact on trees – Method Statement is not conclusive that protection measures will actually work • Loss of sunlight and overshadowing • Overbearing • Loss of privacy • Noise from parking area • Ground stability • Plans do not clearly show relationships with neighbouring properties • Vehicle access is at narrowest point of Higher Contour Road • Increased pressure on parking during and post construction • Waste effluent proposed to sent through neighbouring property • Damage to private property • Lack of clarity in drawings • Inadequate consultation by the Developer

Some representations noted that had no objection to the principle of development on the site.

Relevant Planning History

There is an extensive history of applications for residential development on the site which is summarised below:

• 30/2662/13/PREMIN, Pre-application enquiry for construction of two self-contained flats, Building plot at Higher Contour Road, Kingswear – partial support • 30/0065/13/PREMIN, Pre-application enquiry for construction of two self contained flats with garages and parking, Building site adjacent to Orleans & Creggans, Higher Contour Road, Kingswear – no officer support • 30/2024/12/TW, T1 - Holm Oak – Remove, Land between Orleans and Creggans, Higher Contour Road, Kingswear – withdrawn • 30/1003/12/TW, T3 – Fell, Land to rear of Inglewood, Higher Contour Road, Kingswear – refusal • 30/2847/11/TW, T1 - Holm Oak - Crown lift over highway to 5.5m and over footpath by 2.5m. Reduce back from properties opposite by 3m. Reduce remainder of crown by 4m. Remove primary split limb at 6. T2 - Turkey Oak - Fell - Infected. T3 - Holm Oak – Fell, Land to south of Inglewood Cottages and adjacent to Orleans, Higher Contour Road, Kingswear – Tree Works Allowed • 30/1425/03/F, Erection of detached house and garage, Plot between Orleans & Creggans & part garden Ingledene, Higher Contour Road, Kingswear – dismissed on appeal • 30/1981/02/F, Erection of detached house and garage, Plot between Orleans & Creggans & part of garden of Ingledene, Higher Contour Road, Kingswear – refused • 30/1417/02/F, Erection of detached house and garage, Garden of Ingledene, adjacent Orleans and Creggans, Higher Contour Road, Kingswear – withdrawn • 30/0987/01/F, Erection of detached dwelling and garage, Plot between Orleans and Creggans, Higher Contour Road, Kingswear – withdrawn • 30/0721/89/1, Erection of detached house and garage, Site Above Inglewood, Fronting Higher Contour Road, Kingswear – refused • 30/0261/78/1, Erection of one dwelling and garage, site at rear of Inglewood with frontage to Higher Contour Road Kingswear – refused

The most recent application for residential development was dismissed on appeal (30/1425/03/F). The Inspector’s Decision focuses on the impact of the development on trees within the site (one tree would have been lost with another put at risk).

ANALYSIS

Principle of Development:

The site is located within the Kingswear Development Boundary where new development is acceptable in principle subject to other relevant planning considerations. The most recent application on the site (30/1425/03/F) was refused on the grounds of the impact of the development on existing trees which made an important contribution to the appearance and character of the locality, a decision which was upheld at appeal. No objection was raised to the principle of the site being developed. Since that time one of the trees has been removed (under 30/2847/11/TW), and the current application seeks to secure the retention of a further tree within the site. Notwithstanding the previous refusals on the site the Council is now in a position to approve the development of the site subject to a satisfactory resolution to the outstanding tree issues and other material planning considerations (particularly design and neighbour impact) as detailed below.

Design/Landscape:

The general character of design for dwellings on Higher Contour Road show no uniformity to one another. Basic roofshapes are reflected to some degree with the presence of staggered rooflines. The proposal would retain this staggered roofline as its intended roof height sits approximately 1 metre beneath that of its neighbouring property to the north east and slightly above that of the neighbour to the south west. The footprint of the building would be reflective of others in the locality. The proposal would read as a single storey structure when viewed from Higher Contour Road, with the full extent of building more visible from the north west. The proposed development would not appear overly dominant by comparison to the immediate neighbouring properties or the roofscape of the wider area.

The proposed building would be of a predominantly hipped roof design, similar to neighbouring properties, with the use of windows on all elevations of appropriate scale and proportions for the proposed use. Overall the design is considered acceptable and would sit reasonably comfortably in the context of the surrounding street scene. Whilst concern has been expressed in representations regarding the building of flats rather than a house, it is considered that the building would read more as a house than a block of flats.

Given the scale of development proposed and location within the settlement boundary, there would be no significant impact on the wider AONB.

Trees:

As stated above trees within the site are subject to a Tree Preservation Order. A relatively recent approval permitted the removal of one tree, with two Holm oak trees remaining. The proposed development would result in the loss of one of these trees (T2), with T1 being retained. The Council’s Natural Environment team have reviewed the submitted information and history of the site, and have raised no objection subject to conditions to secure accordance with the recommendations of the Arboricultural Report and submission of a Landscape Plan to secure mitigation planting for the loss of T2 (Holm oak) and the previously felled Turkey Oak).

The above requested conditions form part of the recommendation. Notwithstanding concerns raised by third parties regarding the submitted details and likelihood of success of the proposed tree protection measures, the Council’s professional advisors consider the proposed approach is acceptable.

Ecology:

The application is accompanied by a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, which concludes that the site has very small potential for rare or protected species. Recommendations are included to minimise any possible risk. The Council’s Natural Environment have raised no objection on ecology grounds subject to conditions to ensure the recommendations are followed, and duly form part of the Officer recommendation.

Drainage:

The Council’s Drainage Engineer initially raised a holding objection to the proposed development, but following further discussions with South West Water (who have confirmed they will accept surface water into the combined sewer) have raised no objection.

Neighbour Amenity:

Due regard has been given to the impact of the proposal amenity, both in terms of the standard of amenity for future occupiers of the proposed development as well as occupiers of the existing neighbouring properties. It is considered that the proposed development would provide an adequate standard of amenity for future occupiers of the proposed units commensurate with other properties in the locality. The neighbouring properties which would be most likely to be affected by the proposals are the immediate neighbours on both sides, Creggans to the east and Orleans to the south west.

Impact on Creggans

The proposed development would be sited approximately 1.3 metres from the shared boundary with Creggans, with the neighbouring property itself set further back. Whilst the proposed development would clearly have some impact on Creggans compared with the currently vacant site, the overall scale, massing and location of development proposed would not result in a significant degree of overbearing or overshadowing such that the application could be refused on this basis.

In terms of overlooking, there are two windows serving the upper unit on the north east elevation and two serving the lower unit. The submitted plans indicate that all of these windows would be bottom opening and obscure glazed. This could be changed after the completion of the development if not controlled by a specific condition. It is not commonplace for ground floor windows to be conditioned as obscure glazed – on a dwellinghouse new windows can be inserted at ground floor level with no restrictions on glazing without planning permission (unless permitted development rights have been removed). There is an existing boundary fence between Creggans and the application site, with Creggans being set back from the shared boundary. It is not therefore considered reasonable to condition the retention of obscure glazed and restricted opening windows at the lower level (those serving Flat 2 as shown on the approved plans). At the upper level the windows to Flat 1 would serve a stairwell and a kitchen. Due to the topography of the land Creggans sits at a slightly higher ground level than the application site. This property already has a side window at first floor level which overlooks the application site. On balance it is considered that a condition requiring the retention of obscure glazing to the upper windows on the north east elevation (marked as NE1 and NE2 on the submitted plans) is considered reasonable to ensure an acceptable degree of privacy is maintained given the relatively close proximity to the neighbour’s existing window. These windows would serve a kitchen (which would open into the lounge where there would be a much larger window) and a stairwell, and as such this restriction would not unduly affect the standard of amenity enjoyed by the occupier. Prior to consideration of the application at Committee the Agent submitted details to show the proposed method of opening of the windows, confirming they would be bottom opening. The submitted elevations show the windows being casement style, and such it is recommended that a condition to secure the final details and ensure they would be maintained in obscure glazing is imposed if permission is granted.

The proposed balcony would be set back from Creggans beyond a bay window and it is considered would not result in an undue increase in overlooking.

On balance it is considered that the proposed development would not result in substantive harm to the privacy level currently enjoyed by Creggans such that the application could be refused on this basis subject to the above recommended condition regarding windows NE1 and NE2.

Impact on Orleans

The proposed development would be sited approximately 1.2 metres from the shared boundary with Orleans, which is itself in relatively close proximity to the shared boundary. Notwithstanding this, it is considered that the scale and massing of development proposed would not result in a significant degree of overbearing or overshadowing such that the application could be refused on this basis.

The proposed balcony would have a greater impact on Orleans than Creggans. Orleans has an existing terrace area which the new balcony could potentially overlook. It is considered reasonable to condition details of a privacy screen to be agreed and the screen installed prior to the residential occupation of Flat 1.

A new close-boarded fence is proposed along the shared boundary with Orleans in the interests of privacy. A condition requiring this fence to be installed prior to the occupation of the residential unit at the lower level is considered reasonable in this regard. Four windows are proposed on the south west elevation of the proposed building facing towards Orleans, again this are shown as bottom opening and obscure glazed on the submitted plans. Given there would be a close-boarded fence between the two properties it is not considered reasonable to require the retention of obscure glazing to the lower level windows (serving Flat 1, although one of these would be serving an en-suite bathroom so in all probability would be retained in obscure glazing). In terms of the upper level windows, one would serve an en-suite bathroom and the second a bedroom. As obscure glazing to the bathroom window (SW1) would protect the privacy of the occupier as well as the neighbour this does not raise an issue. The bedroom would only be served by the one obscure glazed (and bottom hung) window labelled SW2. This would be the secondary bedroom, with the bedroom at the front of Flat 1 benefiting from the en-suite bathroom and also a balcony with associated outlook. If window SW2 were not obscure glazed, this would result in an undue degree in overlooking towards Orleans. As this window would serve a secondary bedroom, it is considered reasonable to condition the retention of obscure glazing in this case. Prior to consideration of the application at Committee the Agent submitted details to show the proposed method of opening of the windows, confirming they would be bottom opening. The submitted elevations show the windows being casement style, and such it is recommended that a condition to secure the final details and ensure they would be maintained in obscure glazing is imposed if permission is granted.

Subject to the above conditions it is considered the relationship of the proposed development with Orleans would not constitute grounds for refusal.

As the proposal is for a development of two flats it is not necessary to remove permitted development rights in respect of the installation of additional windows as flats do not enjoy such permitted development rights.

Impact on other neighbouring properties

Further neighbouring properties are situated to the north east and north west of the site which front onto Lower Contour Road. These properties are situated at sufficient distance from the proposed development to minimise amenity concerns to an acceptable degree. Concern has been expressed regarding the location of the proposed building within the plot being forward of Creggans and Orleans, resulting in an overbearing impact on the properties below. Whilst the development of a currently vacant site will clearly have some impact on the neighbouring properties on Lower Contour Road, taking into account the scale of development proposed and separation distances it is considered that the proposed development would not result in a significant increase in overbearing such that the application could be refused on this basis.

Highways:

Devon County Highways have referred to their Standing Advice. It is considered that adequate parking provision would be made for the proposed residential units which would compensate for the perceived loss of parking on Higher Contour Road (parking on this section of Higher Contour Road is largely unrestricted). It is also considered that there would be safe access for those using the on-site parking given the relatively low speed of traffic on Higher Contour Road.

Other Matters:

In response to other matters raised in representations not considered above:

• Noise disturbance during construction – the scale and location of development proposed is not considered sufficient to justify control by condition. Any complaints regarding noise would be addressed by Environmental Health under separate legislation. • Ground stability – the physical construction of the development would be addressed through the Building Regulations process. • Accuracy of plans – the submitted plans meet the Council’s validation requirements and are considered sufficiently detailed to enable determination of this application. • Damage to private property – this is a civil matter and not a material planning consideration.

Due to recent changes in central government policy the development is exempt from any standard Section 106 financial contributions.

The Planning Balance:

The development proposal by virtue of its siting, design, scale and use of materials would not materially harm the amenities of neighbouring properties or result in any significant harm on the character of the streetscene or the wider AONB. The proposal includes satisfactory provision for parking that would be functionally and visually acceptable. Having regard to the material considerations and all other matters raised, Officers are recommending approval of the application subject to conditions as detailed above.

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

Planning Policy

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

Development Policies DPD DP1 High Quality Design DP3 Residential Amenity DP5 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation DP7 Transport, Access & Parking

South Hams Local Plan SHDC1 Development Boundaries DP7 Kingswear

Considerations under Human Rights Act 1998 and Equalities Act 2010

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

Case Officer: Mr Alex Sebbinger Parish: Brixton

Application No : 07/2752/14/VAR

Agent/Applicant: Applicant: Mr B Cane Brixton Caravan And Camping Site Steer Point Road Brixton Plymouth PL8 2BN

Site Address: Brixton Caravan And Camping Site, Steer Point Road, Brixton, Plymouth, PL8 2BN

Development: Variation of conditions (b) and (c) and removal of condition (d) of planning consent 07/0294/83/4 to allow all year occupation, lengthen times to stay on site to 6 months and to allow all year use to include on-site warden/security

Scale 1:2500 This map is reproduced from the Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (c) Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. South Hams District Council 100022628. 2015. Scale 1:12500 For internal reference only – no further copies to be made

Reason item is being put before Committee This application is before Committee as the application is made by Councillor B. Cane.

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Conditions:

• Time limit for commencement • In accordance with plans • Only to be used for holiday/tourist/short term residential visitor purposes and a visitors register to be kept • Warden accommodation solely occupied by the site warden and not for holiday accommodation or other residential purposes. • No caravan storage to take place at any time. • Outside of the period 15 th November to 15 th March only the northern field (as shown on the site plan received on 3/3/2015) shall be used, and for no more than twenty (20) caravans at any one time. • Touring caravans only and no statics • No pedestrian or vehicle access to the Class I road. • Landscaping

Key issues for consideration:

The main issues with this application relate to the acceptability of whether or not the conditions attached to the original planning consent for the use of the land for camping purposes can be removed. The original conditions restrict the use of the land to a period between March and November, restrict caravans/tents being on site for more than three weeks at a time and that no caravan shall be stored or occupied on the site during the period outside of March and November.

Site Description:

The application site comprises land used as a camping/caravan site, which is located to the south of the A379 and to the west of the settlement boundary of Brixton, where residences in Venn Drive, Court View, Meadow Drive and Holmbush Way adjoin the site. The site, which is within the AONB is bounded to the south and west by open fields, and to the north, by the A379. The Venn Farm Site has an amenity building with toilet and shower facilities with hot and cold running water. The site also has electrical hook-ups.

The Proposal:

This application is for the removal of conditions (b), (c) and (d) attached to planning permission reference 9/07/0294/83/4, “ Use of land for touring caravan/camping purposes ”.

The conditions themselves state:

(b) The touring caravans and tents shall only be occupied during the period from the 15 th March to the 15 th November in each year.

Reason: To ensure that the caravans and tents are not used for permanent occupation.

(c) No caravan or tent shall remain on the site for a period longer than three weeks in any one year.

Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is retained for the use by touring caravans and campers.

(d) No caravan shall be stored or occupied on the site during the period 15 th November to 15 th March.

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

This application seeks to lift these restrictions in order to provide year-round use of the site, with the removal of any restrictions that limit any specific time period for occupation or duration of stay. The applicants have advised that only the northern part of the field is to be used during winter months (November to March), that there would be no storage of caravans at any time, only occupied caravans being on-site and no static caravans would be stored. The applicants have also advised that no more than twenty caravans would be on-site over the winter-months.

Consultations :

• County Highways Authority – No objections.

• Environmental Health – Comments awaited.

• Parish Council – Objection.

- The site is unsuitable for year round use, due to water-logging on the pitches, poor drainage and poor access on the site road, which regularly floods. Any changes to the surfaces of the pitches will impact on local residential properties who already have runoff from the site. - The change in conditions will fundamentally change the feel of the site from a holiday location for families to accommodation for itinerant contractors. - Not enough information from SHDC regarding the previous 1983 conditions set. - There is no safe provision for children to play. - There is no provision for exercising of dogs or disposal of faeces. - Effect of noise, rubbish, nuisance, disturbance, parking on neighbours. - Alleged violations of established application conditions. - It was noticed that caravans etc. were still on site after 15 th November 2014. Councillors were informed by Phillip Daw, agent for the applicant that the present conditions state that the site should be cleared by 15 th November. The end of the holiday season.

Representations:

Around 26 letters of objection, 22 letters of support and 2 letters of comment, making the following comments in no particular order:

Objections:

• Noise, disturbance and unruly behaviour • Cars causing obstruction • Site will be used by contractors and travellers • Site is open during winter • Hedges used as unauthorised accesses/cut-through • Winter is the only respite residents get. • Rubbish is generated from site. • Never know who our neighbours will be. • Site is within the AONB • Brixton is a small village with limited services. • Threat of HGV influx to the village. • Condition (f) requires screening, but none is present. • Elderly residents live adjacent to this site. • Enforcement action must be taken to ensure adherence to the original conditions. • Detrimental impact on AONB.

Supports:

• Over winter closure is inconvenient • Will improve economic benefit to Brixton. • Not enough campsites in the area • Modern caravans and motor homes are suitable for year-round camping. • Will allow visitors to enjoy the South Hams all year round. • Site ideally situated for Plymouth. • Facilities and local amenities are excellent. • Provides support to local football team using facilities. • Campsite is not intrusive. • Site has been run for 50 years. • Site has always been seasonal however changes in holiday trends mean that more families holiday abroad and stay on site for a few days, or overnight to catch a ferry. • More reliance from business or commercial people as a result. • Site does not have a clubhouse and relies on local businesses to support visitors. • Other sites in the area open all year round.

Relevant Planning History

Various applications however the most relevant to this submission are:

07/0294/83/4 – Use of land for touring caravan/camping purposes. Granted permission on 13/4/1983

07/1063/05/F – Variation of conditions (b) and (c) of approved planning permission 07/0294/83/4 to extend the opening times to February 1 st – December 1 st and to lengthen the times of stay on site to up to 10 weeks. Withdrawn on 04/07/2005

ANALYSIS

Principle of Development/Sustainability:

Although this site lies outside of the development boundary, it is situated in a position which adjoins the existing development boundary for Brixton. In a similar manner, although within the AONB, this site is located on the very edge (which is marked by the A379). The site has been operating as a caravan/camping site for many years, the consent having been granted in 1983. In terms of the principle of development, the use of land as a caravan/camping site has long been accepted by the Council.

It is for this application to determine whether or not the restrictions (which ostensibly prevent use of the site outside of the months of March to November, and occupation longer than three weeks by any user) are able to be lifted in terms of their planning merit. Refusal on the basis of the use of the site, and indeed the way in which the site may or may not be operated would be very difficult to justify and a decision must be made in accordance with current planning policies.

Policy DP12 states, amongst other matters, that proposals for tourism and leisure development, including tourist accommodation will be permitted where they encourage an extended tourist season. The Policy also states that they must be located in accessible and sustainable locations, do not undermine the vitality or viability of nearby settlements and provide a high quality attraction.

The applicant has advised that there is a growing demand for retired visitors from abroad to have the ability to visit friends/family/the area for longer periods than currently permitted. It is also advised that with construction work taking place within the local area there is demand from visiting tradespeople to stay on the site for long enough to be able to sustain their contract period. Although this is acknowledged as not being strictly tourist accommodation, were the site a hotel, there would be no such restriction on such persons being able to stay on the site. The applicant has also advised that full home addresses and details are taken to enable monitoring of guests/visitors to take place.

Policy DP13 states that within the AONB, alterations to existing caravan, camping and chalet sites will only be permitted where certain criteria are met. It is noted however that this application does not seek to physically change or extend the existing site, so in terms of the built form/use of the land, the impact would be unchanged (aside from the duration in which the use permitted can take place).

Paragraph 28 of the NPPF advises, amongst other criteria that support should be given to the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of businesses in rural areas, and that sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments that benefit businesses in rural area, communities and visitors, and which respect the character of the countryside.

When considering whether or not a condition is valid and required, Paragraph 206 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that conditions should only be imposed where they are:

i. Necessary; ii. Relevant to planning; iii. Relevant to the development to be permitted; iv. Enforceable; v. Precise; and vi. Reasonable in all other respects.

It is considered that the conditions imposed at the time of granting the 1983 consent would not meet the above tests if they were imposed today. Given the planning policy presumption in favour of promoting tourism and the reference in Policy DP12 which states that development should be permitted to encourage an extended tourist season, the restriction on the length of stay, as well as the time in which the use can take place does not accord with being relevant to planning or being reasonable.

It is the case that the removal of these conditions and the replacement with a revised condition can adequately cover the need to ensure the site is used for holiday/tourist purposes/short term residential visitors. A condition that states the land shall only be used for the purposes of holiday/tourist accommodation would accord with the principles set out within the NPPF and adopted Planning Policy. The applicants have also advised that it is their intention to have a warden to control the site, who would reside in one caravan. The imposition of a condition stating that this be solely occupied by that warden (and any dependents) would ensure that no permanent residential occupation takes place.

It is therefore considered that in principle there are no objections to the lifting of the conditions, subject to the imposition of a new condition setting out the restriction for holiday/tourist use only, and that a register of guests be maintained and made available for inspection when required.

Design/Landscape:

The applicants have also advised that it is intended that the northern field is to be used over winter months and that no more than twenty caravans would be sited during these months, with no storage of caravans taking place.

It is noted that this application does not seek to enlarge or expand the physical size of the camping site, so the impact on the landscape or AONB would not be made materially greater. It is acknowledged that the use of the land all year round could have the potential increase the length of impact of caravans/camping on the AONB and surrounding area, so a condition is recommended which restricts the winter use to the northern area of the site only, with no more than twenty caravans being sited at any one time. Furthermore, a condition can be added to restrict the storage of unoccupied caravans from taking place. Given the established use of the site and with these restrictive measures, it is considered that it would be difficult to sustain any objection in AONB or landscape terms.

Although it is noted that concern has been raised regarding the impact of the site and the screening of the development from the surrounding area, the condition regarding landscaping and the need to screen the development is not the subject of removal. In the event of any alleged breach of this condition, appropriate action can be investigated and taken if necessary.

Neighbour Amenity:

Significant concern has been raised regarding the potential for noise and disturbance arising from the use of the caravan site, and that the winter break offers respite to local residents. Whilst this is of course understood, the fact remains that the existing summer (March to November) use of the site is indeed authorised and any alleged anti-social behaviour which may arise is not a matter that could be controlled by way of the planning system. Due consideration has been given to the impact on amenity of a caravan site when the site was given consent originally. The extension of the use of the site by four months to enable year- round operation on part of the site is not considered to give rise itself to impacts on amenity.

In the event that anti-social behaviour does arise, there exists other measures (such as Environmental Health and Criminal legislation) that would seek to address this. Overall, were the application refused on the basis of alleged anti-social behaviour, it is considered it would be very difficult to defend in the event of an appeal, on the basis of planning reasoning.

Highways/Access:

Highway Officers have been consulted and raise no objections to the application. The site has an existing access, and whilst concerns have been raised from residents, there are no fundamental safety reasons why the site cannot have year-round use.

Conclusion:

The representations received have been carefully considered, however it is the case the original conditions no longer are appropriate given the guidance in the NPPF, when taken into account with the current planning policy framework. The application is recommended for APPROVAL, with the removal of conditions (b), (c), & (d) of the original permission, with the replacement with five additional conditions securing the use as being solely for holiday/tourist accommodation, ensuring that warden accommodation is used solely as such, that no caravan storage is to take place at any time, and that only the northern field shall be used in winter months and for no more than 20 caravans.

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

Planning Policy

National Planning Policy Framework: Section 1 – Building a strong, competitive economy. Section 3 – Supporting a prosperous rural economy

South Hams LDF Core Strategy CS1 Location of Development CS9 Landscape and Historic Environment

Development Policies DPD DP2 Landscape Character DP3 Residential Amenity DP7 Transport, Access & Parking DP12 Tourism and Leisure DP13 Holiday Caravan, Camping and Chalet Sites DP15 Development in the Countryside

South Hams Local Plan SHDC 1 Development Boundaries

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

PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT

Case Officer: Mr Alex Sebbinger Parish: Kingswear

Application No: 30/1422/14/F

Agent/Applicant: Applicant: Alex Marsh Mr M Bayliss Fuse Architecture The Anchorage Studio A Redoubt Hill Birdwood House Kingswear 44 High Street Dartmouth Totnes TQ9 5SQ TQ6 0DA Site Address: The Anchorage, Redoubt Hill, Kingswear, Dartmouth TQ6 0DA

Development: Erection of a single two storey dwelling and separation of part of garden

Reason item is being put before Committee: Councillor Hawkins has requested committee determination due to the impact on neighbouring properties, loss of public amenity and loss of view for the public.

This map is reproduced from the Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. South Hams District Council. 100022628. 2012 Scale 1 : 1250

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Conditions: Time limit for commencement In accordance with approved plans Permitted development restrictions Materials to be agreed Unsuspected contamination condition Details of foul and surface water drainage

Key issues for consideration:

The main issues with this application are the principle of development of erecting an additional dwelling within the development boundary, the design and appearance of the building and whether or not it is considered to result in visual detriment and/or harm upon the the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The impact on neighbours and any highway matters are other key considerations.

Site Description:

The site is situated to the east of the village centre of Kingswear on the north west slope, with views over River Dart towards the town of Dartmouth. The site is a piece of land set between the properties of The Anchorage and Windy Ridge with access drive to The Anchorage. The land slopes down to the boundary of neighbouring property of Wingtor and is partly terraced with a single garage and two adjoining parking spaces accessed from the road. The existing garage is built with brick walls rendered, metal up and over garage door and concrete tiled roof tiles.

The Proposal:

The proposal is for the separation of the garden from the property The Anchorage and the erection of a two storey dwelling house set into the hillside of the site and with provision of three car parking spaces and a log store on the east (front) elevation. The property will be constructed with local limestone lower ground walls with metal seem cladding for ground floor with standing metal seem roof. The doors and windows will be constructed in aluminium.

Consultations:

• County Highways Authority – No Objection

• Environmental Health Section – No Objection subject to unsuspected contaminated land condition to be placed on any permission granted.

• Drainage – Holding objection on ground of land drainage due to insufficient information

• Parish Council – Objection – application is contrary to Local Plan Policy DP7 (new development shall not be permitted within this location). A public view will be lost if this development is permitted. Urban design in an AONB rural setting in a very prominent position. Does not sit comfortably and jars on the eye. Kingswear is a very special place and public views and a sense of place need to be robustly protected. This building would remove the only unspoiled and cherished public vantage point from the road looking up the river valley towards Dartmoor. This must not be allowed to happen.

Representations:

Around 41 letters of representation (including a petition with 149 signatures) received raising the following objections in no particular order:

• Development is proposed in an area that is protected from future development and density under planning policy DP7; • Loss of public view from Redoubt Hill that is within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB); • The proposal is over development of the site, being sited too close existing dwelling house The Anchorage; • The proposed design and density of the building will result in overall harm upon the AONB; • The proposed design is not in keeping with the local vernacular of architectural styles; • Issues of dominance upon property to north west Dartwood House (Windy Ridge) and overshadowing of Wingtor; • Concern to land slippage and impact upon neighbouring properties; • No engineers report or supporting evidence have been submitted with the application to prove that the land could accommodate this new dwelling; • Loss of light to neighbouring property’s solar photovoltaic array at Wingator; • Loss of privacy to neighbouring properties in particular Wingator; • No provision for off street car parking is shown on the submitted drawings; • Traffic survey provided is inadequate the traffic flows are much higher than detailed in the assessment submitted; • The drawings have no dimensions detailed; • There is a covenant on the land stating that only one property is to be constructed and this should be investigated.

Relevant Planning History

30/1243/11/PREMIN – No Officer Support – Erection of two storey dwelling house 30/1974/04/F – Conditional Approval – Alterations and extensions to dwelling 30/2008/97/3 – Conditional Approval – Erection of car port and workshop 30/1899/96/3 – Conditional Approval – Construction of car port and store and erection of wall with gate at entrance

ANALYSIS

Principle of Development/Sustainability:

The application site is located within a residential area within the Kingswear Development Boundary. This application is for the removal of an existing single storey garage and for subdivision of the plot to erect an additional dwelling. As the site is within a residential area, within a Development Boundary the principle of development of an additional residential unit is considered acceptable in principle under established planning policies.

It is noted that representations refer to Saved Policy DP7 from the 1996 South Hams Local Plan. Whilst it is acknowledged that this policy states that “Development which would significantly alter the density of building or damage the landscape character of the Policy Area shown around Castle Road on the Proposal Map, will not normally be permitted”, this policy is now considerably out of date. The National Planning Policy Framework (which post- dates this Policy) advises that from a twelve month period (that expired in March 2013), due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans dependent on their consistency with the NPPF. It is not considered that saved Policy DP7 can carry significant weight given its age and how its scope does not accord with the principles that are found within the NPPF. Moreover, Paragraph 14 of the NPPF states that where relevant policies are out of date, planning permission should be granted unless there are any adverse impacts of doing so, that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the framework.

Consequently it is considered that the principle of a new residential unit is acceptable subject to compliance with all other relevant development control policies.

Design/Landscape:

Significant concern has been raised regarding the design and appearance of the building, which is of a contemporary modern design using powder-coated aluminium, limestone and seam cladding. The proposed dwelling is to be of a split level style and will have a flat roof. Whilst it is acknowledged that the building styles within the vicinity of the site are of a traditional style and vernacular, there is however no distinct dominant building style and the architectural patterns are varied overall. Although of a modern design, it is not considered that it would appear unduly intrusive in the street-scene.

Significant concern is also raised in respect of the loss of the public view with the proposed development from Redoubt Hill. What must be emphasised is that there is no right to a view under the planning system, and whilst the view that can be achieved at present from Redoubt Hill will be blocked, this is a view over private land and cannot be taken as a material planning consideration.

The site is within the AONB, and as it sits within the development boundary amongst other residential properties is not considered to be in itself an intrusive visual feature. Photomontages have been provided that demonstrate that the flat roof nature of the building will not be unduly visually intrusive, and against the backdrop of other buildings is not considered to give rise to any harm to the AONB.

Neighbour Amenity:

Concern has been raised regarding the potential for overlooking of neighbouring properties, as well as the dominance of the building. Overall, the position of the dwelling is elevated in relation to the property with the most potential for impacts; Wingtor. It is acknowledged that the sheer position would give rise to the perception for overlooking to occur, the angles and relationship between the private areas of Wingtor and its garden are not considered to give rise to serious or adverse levels of overlooking to that property.

The size of the building and the way in which it is set into the slope will ensure that any levels of light loss do not occur to an excessive degree. Significant concern has however been raised regarding the impact of the development on the ability of solar panels on the roof of Wingtor to function properly. The applicants have provided data that show that the panels (which function on daylight, not direct sunlight) would not be affected in a manner that prohibits their proper functioning however the refusal of planning permission on these grounds would be very difficult to defend on appeal.

Highways/Access:

No objection is raised by the Highway Officer. The comment that there has been no provision of off street car parking is shown on the submitted drawings is noted. However, three off street parking spaces have been indicated 1 at the front (east) of the property adjacent to the road and therefore provision has been provided and this comment is not a valid reason for refusal.

Contaminated land:

Environmental Health has recommended that an unsuspected contaminated land condition should be placed on any permission granted. This comment is noted though not considered to be necessary as the development is a householder application and there is no suspected contaminated land as historically used as a garden.

Other Matters:

South West Water has commented on the application detailing that the proposal is within 3m of a water main. An informative detailing this information to the applicant will be placed on any permission granted. Although drainage officers have raised an objection in terms of drainage, it is considered that the imposition of a condition that requires details of foul and surface water to be submitted can adequately address this and ensure that the development will cater for both foul and surface water disposal.

Conclusion

The application is considered to be acceptable and APPROVAL is recommended.

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

Planning Policy

Para. 56 states that ‘the government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development.’

South Hams LDF Core Strategy

CS1 Location of Development CS7 Design CS9 Landscape and Historic Environment CS10 Nature Conservation

Development Policies DPD

DP1 High Quality Design DP2 Landscape Character DP3 Residential Amenity DP4 Sustainable Construction DP5 Conservation and Wildlife DP6 Historic Environment DP7 Transport, Access & Parking

South Hams Local Plan (please delete as necessary)

SHDC 1 Development Boundaries DP7 Kingswear

Considerations under Human Rights Act 1998 and Equalities Act 2010

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

PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT

Case Officer: Development Management Parish: Ivybridge & Ugborough

Application No: 27_57/0923/15/F

Agent/Applicant: Applicant: Ian Hodgson Mr S LeMarechal DMR Design Godwell House 10 Priory Close Godwell Lane Ivybridge, PL21 9JG Ivybridge, PL21 0LT

Site Address: Godwell House, Godwell Lane, Ivybridge, PL21 0LT

Development: Construction of new dwelling and detached double garage with office accommodation over (resubmission of 27_57/1976/14/F)

Reason item is being put before Committee As the application was previously refused at Development Management Committee, against the positive recommendation of the case officer

This map is reproduced from the Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. South Hams District Council. 100022628. 2012 Scale 1 : 1250

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Conditions

Standard 3 year time limit Accord with plans Accord with details of submitted arboricultural assessment and associated plan Foul water drainage details prior to commencement of development Surface water drainage details prior to commencement of development Landscape design proposals prior to commencement of development Retention of parking for motor vehicles Office use to remain ancillary to dwelling Restrictions of Permitted Development Rights Obscure glass in first floor window on western elevation No use of the flat roof as amenity area Unsuspected contamination

Key issues for consideration:

The site is considered to be a sustainable location for development of a single dwelling given the close proximity to a site that has been allocated for development (I1) subject to planning application 27_57//1347/14/F. The application site lies within close proximity to services provided within Ivybridge.

The development will result in limited visual impact from public viewpoints. The design of the property is in keeping with the local context

The application site is already established residential curtilage with high levels of inter- visibility between the site and the neighbouring property The Old Barn. The development will not result in a significant loss of privacy to the occupiers of neighbouring properties given the orientation of the building, distance from boundaries and detailed design of the fenestration. This proposal has less of an impact on the living conditions of adjoining existing properties than the previous scheme as the ground level will be reduced by one metre and the garage/ancillary office building has been moved further away from Godwell Cottage. Overall, the impact of this development on the amenity of neighbouring properties is considered acceptable.

Site Description:

The application site is established residential curtilage serving a large detached dwelling ‘Godwell House’, within Godwell Lane, to the east of the town of Ivybridge. The site is located outside of the Ivybridge Development Boundary and is immediately adjacent to the allocated site ‘I1’ which is the largest residential allocation within the district and subject to planning application 27_57/1347/14/F. The residential curtilages of two adjacent properties ‘Godwell Cottage’ and ‘The Old Barn’ are located immediately to the west and south.

The land falls away from Godwell House southwards and the site has been terraced, taking the form of a typical residential garden. Vegetation at the boundaries separates the site from the curtilage of Godwell Cottage and the allocated site. However, the site shares an open boundary with The Old Barn, with high intervisibility between the two residential curtilages and from the garden of Godwell House across towards the Old Barn dwelling itself.

The Proposal:

Planning permission is sought for the erection of a new dwelling and detached garage with office accommodation above. The house is sited on the terraced level below the gravelled area. This ground level would be lowered by one metre. It is two storey being ‘L’ shaped at first floor with the void filled in on the ground floor as a garden room. It is finished in weather boarding with a small amount of natural stone under a slate roof with aluminium windows.

The double garage is sited in the gravelled area to the north east of the proposed house to be finished in matching materials matching those of the proposed house. Access is from the existing driveway serving Godwell House to the north.

Due to the relief of the land the front door of the dwelling is at first floor level. The main living accommodation remains at ground floor, with dining and living areas opening into a garden room. A set of doors allow access from the garden room out into the garden. The dwelling will be sited on a new ground level one metre below the existing level. Four bedrooms and associated facilities are located within the first floor. The detached outbuilding is located to the north east of the house. It is single storey with a home office located within the roof.

Consultations:

• County Highways Authority

No objections

• Environmental Health Section

No objection subject to the unsuspected contamination condition

• Town Council

Object on grounds of overlooking, loss of privacy, overlooking, harm to character and concerns over drainage and construction traffic.

Representations:

There are three letters of representation, two from the same person. They raise the following concerns:

• It will have an overbearing and over-dominant impact on Godwell Cottage and The Old Barn; • The scale and size of the development is the same as before; the lowering of the ground and re-siting of the garage and office building do not overcome the previous objections; • Loss of privacy; • Overlooking from the windows in the western and southern elevations; • Overshadowing and loss of light; • Not in keeping with the area; • Opposed to the principle of sub-dividing large plots in a rural part of the town, notwithstanding the surrounding land is allocated for development; • If development were to be allowed the boundary landscape screening would need to be substantial and permanent.

Relevant Planning History

Application site

27_ 57/1976/14/F - Erection of a dwelling and detached garage and office - REFUSED

Adjoining land to east of the site at Torrhill Farm

27_57//1347/14/F - Residential development comprising 222 dwellings with green infrastructure, public open space, flood attenuation provisions, vehicle access points, internal roads and pedestrian/cycle links and associated works – TO BE DETERMINED.

Analysis

The previous application for a similar proposal was recommended for conditional approval by officers but refused by the Development Management Committee for the following reason:

“The development, by reason of its scale, massing and location within the site, would have an overbearing and dominant impact on the adjacent properties 'Godwell Cottage' and 'The Old Barn' which will also result in an unacceptable degree of overlooking and loss of privacy. As such, residents would experience an unacceptable loss of amenity, contrary to Adopted Development Plan Document Policy DP3.”

The applicant has resubmitted a similar application. The main differences are that the ground level would be lowered by one metre and the garage and ancillary office building would be sited on the eastern side of the plot further away from Godwell Cottage.

This report is based on the one for the previous similar application, reference 27_57/1976/14/F.

Principle of Development/Sustainability:

Although this application represents a departure from the Development Plan due to its proposed location outside of any Development Boundary, officers acknowledge that the location of the site is immediately adjacent to the Ivybridge I1 residential allocation, which is the largest in the district, and is also within close proximity to Ivybridge and the services provided there. That adjoining land is subject to an existing planning application for 222 dwellings that has still to be determined.

Following completion of the residential development at I1, the site will essentially be located within a wider urban environment surrounded on all sides by development and is considered to be equally as sustainable as surrounding sites with regard to access to services. Although Godwell Lane does not benefit from a designated footway, there are already a number of dwellings within the streetscene in a similar situation.

Despite the urban character of the wider area, Godwell Lane itself largely retains its historic and rural disposition and new development should seek to retain this and not erode the existing, low density, character of Godwell Lane.

In this instance the site is set back from the highway and will provide only a limited and distant visual impact from the public realm. The site is linked to the highway by an existing access which is unaltered by this proposal, preventing the need for a new, potentially intrusive, access to be created. On balance, officers conclude that the principle of development in this specific location is considered to be acceptable.

Design, massing, materials and visual impact

With regard to massing, the proposed building is large, but considered by officers to be proportionate to other dwellings within the area. The proposed dwelling takes a traditional form, with gable ends and a dual pitched roof. The proposed finish materials are predominately weather boarding, with some natural stone elements under a natural slate roof taking reference from the historic agricultural buildings in the vicinity.

Overall, the building is considered to take adequate reference from local distinctiveness but avoids simply being a pastiche of the historic houses and agricultural conversions which surround it, leading, overall, to an acceptable design response in accordance with policies DP1, DP2, CS7 and CS9 and paragraphs 56 – 58 of the Framework.

Living conditions

The immediate neighbouring properties are Godwell Cottage and The Old Barn. Godwell Cottage and its rear garden are to the west, with the residential curtilage of The Old Barn directly to the west and a part of the curtilage extending to south of the application site.

Impact on Godwell Cottage

This property currently enjoys a pleasant outlook eastwards, with existing trees and vegetation at the boundary offering a level of screening. The proposed dwelling and associated garage will change this outlook and lead to some additional loss of light. The impact compared with the previous application is less as the ground level would be reduced by one metre and the garage and office building is considerably further away from the nearest part of the back of Godwell Cottage by 27m compared with 13m. The loss of sunlight will be confined to the morning due to the location of the building east from the neighbouring property. In addition, the separation between the two proposed buildings will ensure that Godwell Cottage will retain an acceptable level of outlook.

Overlooking could be possible from the first floor window in the side elevation of the dwelling but this is a small non-habitable en-suite bathroom. The window will be conditioned to be obscure glazed. Permitted development rights will be removed which will control the creation of additional openings.

Some oblique overlooking will be possible from the first floor entrance deck to the proposed house. This is a small area used mainly for going in and out of the house and is unlikely to be used as an outdoor amenity area. Its distance from the shared boundary is about 14m and it is about 23m from the back of Godwell Cottage.

For these reasons the impact on this property is, on balance, considered to be acceptable. External lighting at the front door is considered to be sufficiently distance from the neighbouring property so as not to cause material harm, and will be partially obscured by landscaping at the boundary, details of which can be secured by condition.

Impact on The Old Barn

The application site is existing residential curtilage and, due to the lack of substantial boundary treatments, there is intervisibility between the site and the residential curtilage of the neighbouring property, The Old Barn. Officers believe that there would not be undue overlooking from the first floor as it is restricted only to the oblique views offered from the bedroom window within the gable end. The proposal is to the north east of the main amenity space serving the Old Barn. It is considered that there would not be unacceptable overlooking or loss of light to this property.

The garden area immediately surrounding the proposed dwelling is already established residential curtilage. A landscape condition is recommended to ensure additional screening at the sensitive western boundary of the site to ensure improved privacy between the application site and The Old Barn.

Impact on dwellings within allocated site

Due regard has been given to the impact on the amenity of proposed dwellings within allocated site under planning application reference 57/1347/14/F. The part of the allocation potentially overlooked by the proposed property is predominately a parking area and associated garages. This, and the distance separating the proposed dwelling from the allocated site will provide acceptable living conditions in terms of privacy, overlooking and lack of over-dominance.

For these reasons officers still believe that the living conditions of the existing adjoining properties, proposed adjoining properties to the east and application site would be safeguarded to comply with policy DP3.

Parking and access

The development proposes two parking spaces within a detached garage and two parking spaces for visitor parking, which is considered proportionate for a dwelling of this scale. These spaces will be retained in perpetuity through the imposition of a relevant planning condition.

The specialist highways officer has issued no objection, instead requiring consideration of the standing DCC highways advice. The proposal utilises the existing access which already serves Godwell House. It is considered that the access and parking arrangements are acceptable and comply with policy DP7.

Drainage

The Council’s drainage engineer has raised concerns that there is inadequate information to demonstrate that adequate drainage could be provided. This varies from his advice with the previous application indicating that adequate land is available on site to accommodate both the soakaway and septic tank. Drainage matters were then considered to be acceptable, subject to a condition requesting the submission and approval of the detailed specification of both foul and surface water drainage before the commencement of development. Officers still believe that the foul and surface water drainage issues can be dealt with by pre- commencement conditions to comply with policy DP4.

Landscaping

The current site is pleasantly landscaped and the trees and vegetation provide a positive contribution to this environment. However, none of these trees benefit from statutory protection and could be removed at any time without the need for consent. Nonetheless the application is accompanied by a comprehensive landscape assessment and arboricultural impact assessment.

Officers consider it necessary to recommend the addition of a landscape condition and arboricultural method statement securing a sympathetic landscape scheme and the retention of existing trees where appropriate. As indicated within the above analysis, the landscape condition also represents an opportunity to provide additional landscape screening at the sensitive western boundary of the site. The proposal subject to conditions is acceptable in landscaping terms to comply with policies DP1 and DP2.

Town Council and letters of representation

Concerns raised by Ivybridge Town Council and within third party representations are considered within the above analysis. None of the issues raised are considered to constitute a material reason for refusal of this application which could be sustained at any subsequent appeal.

Conclusion

The site is considered to be a sustainable location for development of a single dwelling given the close proximity to a site that has been allocated for development (I1) subject to current application 27_57/1347/14/F . The application site lies within close proximity to services provided within Ivybridge

The development will result in limited visual impact from public viewpoints. The design of the property is in keeping with the local context

The application site is already established residential curtilage with high levels of inter- visibility between the site and the neighbouring property The Old Barn. The development will not result in a significant loss of privacy to the occupiers of neighbouring properties given the orientation of the building, distance from boundaries and adjoining houses and detailed design of the fenestration. Overall, the impact of this development on the amenity of neighbouring properties is considered to be acceptable. This application is therefore recommended for approval subject to appropriate conditions.

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

Planning Policy

South Hams LDF Core Strategy

CS1 Location of Development CS7 Design CS9 Landscape and Historic Environment CS10 Nature Conservation

Development Policies DPD

DP1 High Quality Design DP2 Landscape Character DP3 Residential Amenity DP4 Sustainable Construction DP6 Historic Environment DP7 Transport, Access & Parking DP15 Development in the Countryside

South Hams Local Plan

SHDC 1 Development Boundaries

Considerations under Human Rights Act 1998 and Equalities Act 2010

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

PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT Case Officer: Mr Matthew Jones Parish: Bickleigh

Application No: 04/0550/15/O

Agent/Applicant: Applicant: Mr P Hitchins Mr P Hitchins The Beeches Bickleigh Down Road Roborough Plymouth, PL6 7AD

Site Address: The Beeches, Bickleigh Down Road, Roborough, Plymouth, PL6 7AD

Development: Outline application (all matters reserved) for erection of single dwelling

Reason application is put before Development Management Committee:

The applicant is an elected member for South Hams District Council

This map is reproduced from the Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. South Hams District Council. 100022628. 2012 Scale 1 : 1250

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Conditions

Time limit condition Accord with plans No development until reserved matters approved Unsuspected contamination Drainage condition – sewage further details prior to commencement of development Drainage condition – soakaway further details prior to commencement of development Landscape plan prior to commencement of development Trees – submission of details – prior to the commencement of development

Key issues for consideration:

The main issues are the principle of residential development outside of a Development Boundary as a departure from the Development Plan, the impact of the development on the character of the area, trees and any impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties.

Overall, the specific site characteristics are considered by officers to provide the mitigating circumstances which allow the departure from the Development Plan to be supported. A dwelling can be accommodated within this location without materially harming the amenity of neighbouring residential properties. All matters are reserved and details regarding drainage and biodiversity can be dealt with by condition.

Site Description:

The application site is residential curtilage attached to the detached bungalow dwelling ‘The Beeches’. The site is bounded by trees and vegetation with two very large trees located within the site. It does not currently benefit from vehicular or pedestrian access but bounds the highway which is directly to the north. The site does not benefit from a footpath where it meets the highway, but, a designated public footpath is present approximately 80m to the west.

The site is outside of any Development Boundary. However, the Roborough Development Boundary is only 80m to the west, beyond the curtilage of The Beeches and the dwelling ‘Trencrom’. The surrounding area maintains an ‘urban fringe’ character due to the close proximity to the City of Plymouth.

The Proposal:

Outline consent is sought, with all matters reserved, for the erection of a single dwelling.

Consultations:

• County Highways Authority

No objection – standing advice

• Environmental Health Section

Suggest unsuspected contamination condition

• SHDC Drainage

No objection subject to conditions

• SHDC Ecologist

No objection subject to conditions

• Bickleigh Parish Council

Recommend approval

Representations:

None received

Relevant Planning History

None

Analysis

Principle of Development and potential impact on neighbouring properties

The application site is located outside of the Development Boundary and therefore this proposal represents a departure from the Development Plan due to conflict with policies CS1, DP15 and saved policy SHDC1. However, in the absence of a five year housing supply the National Planning Policy Framework challenges the amount of weight which should be given to these policies on a site by site basis, and with reference to all other material planning considerations. .

In this instance, great weight is given to the close proximity of the site to the Development Boundary, which is approximately 80m to the west. In addition, it is also acknowledged that the character of the area is one of a rural lane which has already experienced modern residential development, resulting in a suburban streetscene on the urban fringe of Plymouth.

This site is located centrally within a row of four existing dwellings of commensurate plot size. It will be read as an appropriate addition to the existing grain of residential development. A new dwelling within this location will subsequently not change the established character of the streetscene. The site is also considered to be sustainable with specific regard to access to services, being a short walk to the range of services provided at Woolwell and to public transport links to Plymouth City Centre.

Overall, the specific characteristics of this site are considered to outweigh the conflict with policies CS1, SHDC1 and DP15. The principle of residential development can therefore be supported.

Although neighbour impact will be judged in detail at any Reserved Matters application, officers are satisfied, in principle, that it is possible to site a dwelling within this location without materially harming the amenity of adjacent properties.

Ecology and biodiversity

Officers note the presence of two large trees and various other vegetation at the application site. However, after careful consideration the Council’s specialist tree officer has concluded that the trees do not provide sufficient public amenity value to justify their retention through the serving of a Tree Preservation Order. Approval of any Reserved Matters application will require the approval of both a comprehensive arboricultural impact assessment and landscape plan. This requirement is secured through the addition of two relevant planning conditions.

Access and parking

Although there is no designated footpath directly outside of the site, there is a footpath 80m to the west. The existing properties within the streetscene cope with this arrangement and the lack of a footpath directly adjacent the site is not considered to result in additional risk to highways safety to the extent that refusal on this basis could be justified.

The DCC highways officer has issued no objection, instead requesting consideration of the DCC standing advice. The given advice offers some guidance to the extent of visibility splay that will be required for a Reserved Matters application. The applicant is considered by officers to have control over enough frontage with the highway to ensure an adequate access will be accommodated.

Parish and Third Parties

Bickleigh Parish Council is in support of this application and no letters of representation have been received at the time of writing this report.

Conclusion

Overall, the specific site characteristics are considered by officers to provide the mitigating circumstances which allow the departure from the Development Plan to be supported. A dwelling can be accommodated within this location without materially harming the amenity of neighbouring residential properties. All matters are reserved, and details regarding drainage and biodiversity can be dealt with by condition. This application is therefore recommended for approval subject to appropriate conditions.

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

Planning Policy

South Hams LDF Core Strategy

CS1 Location of Development CS7 Design CS9 Landscape and Historic Environment CS10 Nature Conservation

Development Policies DPD

DP1 High Quality Design DP2 Landscape Character DP3 Residential Amenity DP5 Conservation and Wildlife DP7 Transport, Access & Parking DP15 Development in the Countryside

South Hams Local Plan (please delete as necessary)

SHDC 1 Development Boundaries

The National Planning Policy Framework (2012)

Considerations under Human Rights Act 1998 and Equalities Act 2010

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

PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT Case Officer: Wendy Ormsby Parish: Harberton Application No: 23/0598/15/F

Agent/Applicant: Applicant: Steve Bryan Mr G King-Smith Mr S Bryan The Linhay Ashfield Gables Old Hazard Cottages Ashfield Road Harberton Torquay TQ9 7LN

Site Address: The Linhay, Old Hazard Cottages, Harberton, TQ9 7LN

Development: Householder application for proposed extensions to rear and front of dwelling

Reason item is being put before Committee: The Ward Member understand the reasons for refusal, but believes the applicant has need and states that it may be against policy but I believe a need for common sense to be used, it can't be correct in this day for people to use an outside bathroom with young children.

This map is reproduced from the Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. South Hams District Council. 100022628. 2012 Scale 1 : 1250

Recommendation: Refusal

Reasons for refusal

The proposed development, by reason of its location, design, massing and scale, would have a detrimental impact on the character of the existing building and the character of the converted barn complex of which it forms a part. It is contrary to Policies CS7, CS9, DP1, DP2, DP6 and DP17 of the South Hams LDF, contrary to the guidance contained in the South Hams Barn Guide and contrary to Section 7 and Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

Key issues for consideration:

The application property is part of a complex of barn conversions. The property is currently a modest and simple building. It is proposed to add a large front extension and a rear extension introducing large areas of contemporary glazing. The proposed extensions will dominate the existing building, significantly altering the character of the converted barn and the area. As such the extensions are contrary to national and local planning guidance and it is recommended that planning permission be refused.

Site Description:

The site is part of a group of farm building that were converted to residential units in the 1980’s; they were part of Hazard Farm and are located south of the Totnes to Avonwick Road. The converted buildings sit around a central courtyard, used as a parking and turning area. Many of the converted buildings are two storey; the application property is a small two bedroom single storey stone barn conversion that is opposite the entrance into the courtyard and therefore the frontage is clearly visible from the public highway. When planning permission was granted for these barn conversions permitted development rights were removed to retain control over further development of this sensitive site

The Proposal:

It is proposed to add a single storey front sitting room extension projecting some 3.5m forward and to add an entrance lobby with bathroom also at the front, projecting some 4.3m. A large proportion of the extended roof and front elevation will be glazed in a contemporary style. The original front elevation and roof of the building will be completely obscured behind the large front extension.

It is also proposed to add a single storey rear kitchen extension by adding a gable projection to part of the rear elevation. This will also include a significant amount of contemporary style glazing running up to the eaves.

Consultations:

• County Highways Authority - no comments

• Town/Parish Council – no objection

Representations:

Two letters of support, stating that larger family accommodation is to be welcomed and that the design is sympathetic

One letter not objecting in principal but expressing concern about possible nuisance from sun glare caused by the glazing

Relevant Planning History

23/0587/76/1 – conversion of farm buildings to six dwellings

23/0389/83/3 – conversion of existing buildings into 8 dwellings

ANALYSIS

Principle of Development/Sustainability:

The site is located within the Countryside where new dwellings are not normally permitted. This complex of dwellings was permitted as an exception to this policy so that buildings of merit within the countryside could be re-used; alterations and extensions to such developments are more tightly controlled than with purpose built dwellings, to protect the character of the buildings and the area.

Design/Landscape:

Policy DP17 refers to residential extensions in the countryside and states that they will be permitted where there will be no detrimental effect on the character, appearance and amenities of the site and surroundings. Extensions should also be subordinate in scale and proportion to the original dwelling.

The South Hams Barn Guide states that barn conversions should seek to limit the introduction of new openings and that extensions to barn conversions are less likely to be acceptable as in many cases they will harm the integrity of the building.

The application property is a simple converted farm building maintaining its original proportions and still reflecting its historic agricultural use. The proposed extensions will significantly increase the size of the building and will dominate the property. The entire front elevation will be obscured by the extension and the large area of contemporary glazing will completely change the character of the building and the surrounding area. This elevation is important as it is directly opposite the entrance into the courtyard.

The proposed rear extension would add an inappropriate gable feature onto the simple rear elevation, again incorporating a significant element of contemporary glazing out of place on this rural barn conversion.

The design, scale and massing of the proposed extensions will adversely affect the character of the original building and the character of the area.

Neighbour Amenity:

There would be no adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties.

Highways/Access:

No highway issues arise.

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

Planning Policy

NPPF

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

Development Policies DPD DP1 High Quality Design DP2 Landscape Character DP3 Residential Amenity DP6 Historic Environment DP7 Transport, Access & Parking DP17 Residential Extensions and Replacement Dwellings in the Countryside

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

PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT

Case Officer: Wendy Ormsby Parish: Marldon

Application No: 34/0711/15/F

Agent/Applicant: Applicant: Mr A Board Mr T Willcocks Thats The Plan 18 Brockhurst Park Smokey Cottage Marldon Harbertonford Paignton Totnes, TQ9 7PS TQ3 1LB Site Address: 18 Brockhurst Park, Marldon, Paignton, TQ3 1LB

Development: Householder application for proposed rear single storey extension with flat roof

Reason item is being put before Committee

The Ward Member has requested that this item be considered by Committee as the Parish Council has objected.

This map is reproduced from the Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. South Hams District Council. 100022628. 2012 Scale 1 : 1250

Recommendation: Conditional Approval

Conditions

Time Accords with plans Materials to match existing No windows to be inserted in north and south elevations Fencing not to exceed 1.8 m in height above existing ground level except where it lies adjacent to the deck, where the height shall be 1.8m from the finished floor level of the deck.

Informative – SW Water Informative – Party Wall Act

Key issues for consideration:

The key issue for consideration is the impact of the proposed development on the amenities of neighbouring properties with particular regard to loss of light, privacy and overbearance. Also relevant is the impact of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area and the impact on nearby protected trees. It is considered that there is no significant harm caused with regard to any of these matters and as such it is recommended that planning permission be granted.

Site Description:

18 Brockhurst Park is a modest sized terraced house built in the late 1990s as part of a larger development on the edge of Marldon. It forms part of a mock Georgian style, crescent shaped terrace of some 16 properties. The application proposes development in the rear garden of the property. At the bottom of the garden (to the west) there is a rear access footpath and to the west of the footpath is a row of mature trees which are covered by a Tree Preservation Order. Open land lies to the west of the tree line.

The rear garden slopes gently away from the back of the house. There is fencing of approx 1.8m high on each boundary of the rear garden

The Proposal:

It is proposed to build a single storey rear extension at the rear of the property, covering the full width of the building and projecting by 3m. The extension will have a flat roof and will be 2.8m high rising to 3.2 m high where there is a roof lantern. The extension will have large glazed doors opening out onto a proposed deck that will be 3m deep before it then steps down into the garden. Due to the sloping nature of the land the deck’s height above the existing ground level will vary from 300mm to 400mm; to either side of the steps will be raised planting beds, level with the deck. The deck will be at the same ground level as the existing patio. It is proposed to provide boundary fencing that is a minimum height of 1.8m above the finished level of the deck.

Within the lower part of the garden it is proposed to dig the land out to provide a level area for the construction of a fire pit. This will comprise a central fire area 1.2m across enclosed by a circular seating area with a raised wall behind. The highest point of the structure above ground level is 1.25m

Consultations:

• County Highways Authority - no comment

• Environmental Health Section - unsuspected contaminated land condition recommended

• Natural Environment and Recreation – no objection

• Town/Parish Council – Objects on the grounds summarised as follows:

There have been objection from neighbours Un-neighbourly Out of scale with existing house Loss of light to neighbours

• South West Water – advisory letter forwarded to applicant

Representations:

Two letters of objection have been received, the contents of which are summarised as follows:

• Detrimental impact upon the street scene and the character of the area. • Site is within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty • Loss of light • Overbearing • Adverse impact on protected trees and bank beyond the access lane if it is necessary to use this narrow lane to bring in materials • Adverse impact of the fire pit on the protected trees. • Fire pit is fire hazard • Adverse impact on stability of adjoining properties due to location of foundations. • Overlooking from development and loss of privacy • Loss of view • Loss of green garden land • Party Wall issues • Restricted access to a SWW sewer • Encroachment of foundations

Relevant Planning History

Since 2000, planning permissions have been granted to erect rear conservatories at nos. 36, 16, 27, 11, 7 and 45 Brockhurst Park

ANALYSIS

Principle of Development/Sustainability:

The site lies within the Marldon Development Boundary where the principal of residential development is acceptable, subject to all other material planning considerations being satisfied.

Design/Landscape:

Concerns have been raised about the design and landscape impact of this proposed extension. The rear garden of 18 Brockhurst Park is largely screened from view by existing fencing and by mature trees close to the western boundary. There are some wider views of the rear of Brockhurst Park but these will mainly focus on the upper floors of the development which will not be affected by this proposal. The site is not within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty nor is it in a Conservation Area. Brockhurst Park is a modern pastiche development and the ground floor rear elevations are not considered to be especially sensitive. A number of properties in this development have been granted planning permission for single storey rear conservatories of a similar bulk and massing to the application proposal.

The impact of the appearance and character of the area is considered to be acceptable.

Neighbour Amenity:

The proposed extension falls within the size limits of permitted development. Planning permission is required only because permitted development rights for the property have been removed. It is clear that national policy accepts that a single storey extension up to 3m in depth on the rear of a terraced property is considered to have an acceptable impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties in terms of loss of light and dominance. This relationship is commonplace in many extended properties. There are no unusual circumstances regarding the relationship with the neighbouring properties that would make this development unacceptable in this regard.

The construction of decking up to 300mm above ground level is also normally permitted development. In this case the deck will rise to 400mm due to the change in ground levels. The applicant proposed to erect a 1.8m fence on either side of the deck to prevent overlooking to the neighbours’ properties. This deck will be set at the same level as the existing patio from where there are no issues of overlooking at present as this is prevented by the 1.8m fence.

A combination of the raised deck and the 1.8m fence will result in a barrier on the boundary up to 2.2m tall. The standard height for fencing which can be erected as permitted development is 2m, slightly less than what is proposed. On balance this relationship is considered to be acceptable but to keep the impact to a minimum it is proposed to include a condition that states that fencing shall not exceed 1.8 m in height, this will ensure that the fence height lower down the garden where levels are not being changed will be maintained to the current height.

Concerns are raised about loss of outlook and loss of view. These are not material planning considerations

The impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties is considered to be acceptable

Trees

Close to the rear boundary, on the other side of the rear access passage is a row of protected trees. Concerns have been raised about the possible impact of bringing in materials up this path and the potential impact on the trees.

The applicant has not indicated how they propose to bring in construction materials to the site and this is not information usually required as part of a householder planning application. Officers are not aware any such information was required for any of the approved conservatories within this terrace and Officers consider it unnecessary in this case.

Concern has been expressed about the potential fire hazard of the fire pit and the impact on the protected trees.

Any householder within this development has the right, subject to certain limitations, to have a bonfire or BBQ in their garden. It is the officer’s opinion that a fire pit offers no greater risk than either of these activities and it could be argued that the fire pit offers a more controlled environment for such an activity.

The Council’s Tree Officer has been consulted on this proposal and has raised no objection.

Encroachment/Party Wall Issues

The grant of planning permission for the proposed development does not override any civil matters regarding land ownership nor does is override the need to comply with the Party Wall Act where relevant. It is proposed to add an informative to this effect.

Other Matters:

The advisory letter from South West Water regarding the sewer crossing the land has been passed to the applicant who will need to liaise directly with SWW on this matter. SWW have not objected to this planning application.

With regard to undermining the stability of adjoining properties, this is not a planning matter but is an issue likely to be addressed via Building Control.

Conclusion

Careful consideration has been given to the objections raised by the neighbouring properties but it is considered that the proposed development will have no significant adverse impact, is in accordance with local and national planning policy and should be approved.

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

Planning Policy

NPPF

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

Development Policies DPD DP1 High Quality Design DP2 Landscape Character

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

PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT

Case Officer: Wendy Ormsby Parish: Marldon

Application No: 34/0861/15/F

Agent/Applicant: Applicant: Mr & Mrs M Peakman Mr & Mrs M Peakman 39 Pembroke Park 39 Pembroke Park Marldon Marldon Paignton Paignton TQ3 1NL TQ3 1NL

Site Address: 39 Pembroke Park, Marldon, Paignton, TQ3 1NL

Development: Householder application for raising of roof and roof extensions to provide first floor accommodation and alterations to existing windows

Reason item is being put before Committee: The Ward Member has requested that this application be considered by Committee as the Parish Council has objected.

This map is reproduced from the Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. South Hams District Council. 100022628. 2012 Scale 1 : 1250

Recommendation: Conditional Approval

Conditions

Time Accordance with plans Materials to match Side facing velux windows to be obscure glazed

Key issues for consideration:

The key issues for consideration are the impact on the character and appearance of the area, the impact on the character and appearance of the dwelling and impact on residential amenity. It is considered that the impact of the proposed development in all these regards is acceptable

Site Description:

39 Pembroke Park is a modest bungalow built as part of a 1960’s style residential development set around an attractive green area on the edge of Marldon. Properties within Pembroke Park are mostly bungalows many of which have been altered and extended to include rooms in the roof space.

The Proposal:

It is proposed to raise the height of the main roof by 600mm, to add a large single width dormer at the rear with a low pitched roof, to add a small ground floor extension at the front at the south west corner and to extend the hipped front projection over this extension to create a larger front gable with a first floor window. Two front facing and 3 side facing velux windows are proposed in the roof slope.

Consultations:

• County Highways Authority - standing advice

• Town/Parish Council – objection on the grounds summarised as follows:

Un-neighbourly and out of character with the area. Similar requests refused in the past. To pass this would set an undesirable precedent.

Representations:

None received

Relevant Planning History

No relevant history for this property

34/0366/02/F – alterations to roof and extension to dwelling – 38 Pembroke Park, Marldon – Refused 16/4/2002

34/2335/04/F – loft conversion – 37 Pembroke Park, Marldon – Refused 22/07/2004

34/1921/13/F – roof extension including raising ridge – 34 Pembroke Park, Marldon – Refused 30/09/2013

Numerous planning approvals have been granted for rear roof extensions (dormers) and other extensions/alterations.

ANALYSIS

Principle of Development/Sustainability:

The site is located within the Development Boundary of Marldon; within development boundaries the principle of residential development including extensions is acceptable subject to all other material planning considerations.

Design/Landscape:

The front elevation of the building will incorporate a larger front gable in place of a smaller hipped projection and the roof height will increase by 600mm. The width of the house will not change. A mono-pitched, single, rear facing dormer is proposed, spanning the width of the rear roof slope. Small velux windows are proposed in the front and side facing roof slopes. A large window is proposed in the upper part of the front gable.

The houses within Pembroke Park were originally bungalows, many of which have been extended, but the majority retain their original roof height. This proposal includes raising the roof ridge by 600mm. At this part of Pembroke Park the land is sloping which means that the height of the roofs relative to their neighbour varies. As a consequence it is considered that allowing the roof height of this property to increase slightly, such that it becomes level with the roof height of the neighbouring property, will not appear intrusive or out of character with the area.

The application includes adding a gable onto the front of the property which will increase the bulk of the roof when viewed from the side. This will not have a significant impact on the character of the area nor will it appear as an overdevelopment of the site. The building will still appear as a bungalow of a scale that is appropriate for the area.

The large rear facing dormer has a mono pitch roof which is a less intrusive feature than the many large flat roof dormers that have been built in the area and which exist on both of the neighbouring properties. The design of the proposed rear facing dormer is considered to be acceptable.

The design and impact of the proposed extensions on the character of the area is considered to be acceptable.

Neighbour Amenity:

There will be no impact on neighbouring amenity; there will be no significant loss of light nor will the extensions appear overbearing. It is proposed to require that the side facing velux windows are obscure glazed to ensure there is no potential for overlooking.

Planning History:

The Parish Council have referred to previous schemes which have been refused for similar development in Pembroke Park. Two schemes including bulky side facing box dormers which would have been visible from the front were refused planning permission, a further scheme for a similar development, at the neighbouring property, No 38, was refused in 2002; this scheme included extending the raised roof over the existing flat roofed garage which would have resulted in a much bulkier building. It is considered that the current application is not directly comparable with any of the schemes that have previously been refused.

Planning Balance:

No significant harm will arise from the proposed development and as such it is recommended that planning permission be granted.

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

Planning Policy

NPPF

South Hams LDF Core Strategy CS1 Location of Development CS7 Design

Development Policies DPD DP1 High Quality Design DP3 Residential Amenity

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

SOUTH HAMS DISTRICT COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE Wednesday, 1 July, 2015 PLANNING APPEALS UPDATE (28-May-2015 to 17-Jun-2015)

APPLICATION NO : 47/1379/14/F APPELLANT : Mr J Wood PROPOSAL : Householder application to enlarge existing dormer window LOCATION : 18 Links Court, Thurlestone, TQ7 3JS APPEAL STATUS : APPEAL DECIDED APPEAL START DATE : 17-Dec-2014 APPEAL DECISION : Dismissed - (REFUSAL) APPEAL DECISION DATE : 28-May-2015

APPLICATION NO : 47/1377/14/F APPELLANT : Mrs C Washington-Smith PROPOSAL : Householder application to enlarge existing dormer window LOCATION : 17 Links Court, Thurlestone, TQ7 3JS APPEAL STATUS : APPEAL DECIDED APPEAL START DATE : 17-Dec-2014 APPEAL DECISION : Dismissed - (REFUSAL) APPEAL DECISION DATE : 28-May-2015

APPLICATION NO : 33_46/2577/14/VAR APPELLANT : C G Fry & Son Ltd PROPOSAL : Retrospective Variation of condition 2 (to amend approved plans) of approval 33_46/1890/11/F for mixed tenure residential development comprising 10 open market and 7 affordable dwellings associated landscaping, access and other works. LOCATION : Land adjacent to Alston Nursery, Alston Gate, Malborough, TQ7 3BT APPEAL STATUS : APPEAL DECIDED APPEAL START DATE : 9-Feb-2015 APPEAL DECISION : Upheld (Conditional Approval) APPEAL DECISION DATE : 29-May-2015

APPLICATION NO : 41/2636/14/F APPELLANT : Mr A Nicholls PROPOSAL : READVERTISEMENT - Retrospective householder application for replacement garden shed LOCATION : The Grange, Cliff Road, Salcombe, TQ8 8JQ APPEAL STATUS : APPEAL LODGED APPEAL START DATE : 1-Jun-2015 APPEAL DECISION : APPEAL DECISION DATE :

APPLICATION NO : 41/2637/14/LB APPELLANT : DP9 Ltd PROPOSAL : READVERTISEMENT - Retrospective listed building consent for replacement garden shed LOCATION : The Grange, Cliff Road, Salcombe, TQ8 8JQ APPEAL STATUS : APPEAL LODGED APPEAL START DATE : 1-Jun-2015 APPEAL DECISION : APPEAL DECISION DATE : SOUTH HAMS DISTRICT COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE Wednesday, 1 July, 2015 PLANNING APPEALS UPDATE (28-May-2015 to 17-Jun-2015)

APPLICATION NO : 22/1896/14/F APPELLANT : Mr & Mrs Ward PROPOSAL : Retrospective change of use of land to holiday accommodation, for positioning of 2no. yurts with timber bases and installation of sewage treatment plant (resubmission of 22/0454/14/F) LOCATION : Chittlesford Mill Barn, Halwell, Totnes, TQ9 7HZ APPEAL STATUS : APPEAL LODGED APPEAL START DATE : 15-Jun-2015 APPEAL DECISION : APPEAL DECISION DATE :