Mark Williams, Chief Executive Richard Cohen, Deputy Chief Executive

Agenda for Development Management Committee Tuesday, 18 November 2014; 2.00pm

Members of the Committee Venue: Council Chamber, Knowle, Sidmouth, EX10 8HL View directions Contact: Hannah Whitfield 01395 517542, Issued 6 November 2014 Please note that there are new speaking arrangements for this Committee. Speaking on planning applications In order to speak on an application being considered by the Development Management Committee you must have submitted written comments during the consultation stage of the application. Those that have commented on an application being considered by the Committee will receive a letter or email (approximately 9 working days before the meeting) detailing the date and time of the meeting and instructions on how to register to speak. The letter/email will have a reference number, which you will need to provide in order to register. Speakers will have 3 minutes to make their representation. Please note there is no longer the ability to register to speak on the day of the meeting. The number of people that can speak on each application is limited to:

Major applications – parish/town council representative, 5 supporters, 5 objectors and the applicant or agent

Minor/Other applications – parish/town council representative, 2 supporters, 2 objectors and the applicant or agent

The day before the meeting a revised running order for the applications being considered by the Committee will posted on the council’s website (http://new.eastdevon.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/committees-and-meetings/development-management-committee/agendas). Applications with registered speakers will be taken first. Parish and Town Councils – please register one representative to speak on behalf of the Council by midday, 3 working days before the meeting by leaving a message on 01395 517525 or emailing planningpublicspeaking@eastdevon.gov.uk Speaking on non-planning application items A maximum of two speakers from the public are allowed to speak on agenda items that are not planning applications on which the Committee is making a decision (items on which you can register to speak will be highlighted on the agenda). Speakers will have 3 minutes to make their representation. You can register to speak on these items up until midday 3 working days before the meeting by emailing planningpublicspeaking@eastdevon.gov.uk or by phoning 01395 517525. A member of the Democratic Services Team will only contact you if your request to speak has been successful.

East Devon District Council Knowle

Sidmouth Devon

EX10 8HL

DX 48705 Sidmouth

Tel: 01395 516551 Fax: 01395 517507

www.eastdevon.gov.uk

1 Minutes for 21 October 2014 (page 4 -11) 2 Apologies 3 Declarations of interest 4 Matters of urgency 5 To agree any items to be dealt with after the public (including press) have been

excluded. There are no items that officers recommend should be dealt with in this way.

6 Planning appeal statistics (page 12 - 19) Service Lead – Planning

7 Cross boundary issues at Uplyme and Lyme Regis (page 20 - 29) Planning Policy Manager

8 Council Intervention to reduce height of hedge (page 30 - 32)

Service Lead – Planning 2 pre-registered speakers are permitted (details of how to register can be found on the front page of the agenda).

Please note that the order in which applications will be taken is subject to change. Applications for determination:

14/1001/OUT (Minor) (page 33 - 41) Coly Valley Home Farm Chalet, Home Farm Hotel, Wilmington, Honiton EX14 9JR

14/1768/FUL & 14/1767/LBC (Minor) (page 42 - 67) Exmouth Town Mamhead Slipway, Mamhead View, Exmouth 14/1820/FUL (Minor) (page 68 - 86) Exmouth Town Lavis’s Boatyard, 6A Camperdown Terrace, Exmouth

14/2212/CPL (Other) (page 87 - 90) Exmouth Town 102 St Andrews Road, Exmouth EX8 1AT

14/1905/MFUL (Major) (page 91 - 109) Newbridges Land south of A35 (land off George Lane), Gammons Hill, Kilmington 14/2313/VAR (Major) (page 110 - 119) Newbridges The Lyme Bay Winery, Seaton Junction, Axminster EX13 7PW

2

14/2122/OUT (Minor) (page 120 - 129) Raleigh Hayes House, Otterton, EX9 7JQ

14/1786/FUL (Minor) (page 130 - 135) Sidmouth Rural Land opposite 3 Millford Avenue, Sidford 14/2457/CPL (Other) (page 136 - 140) Sidmouth Sidford Peninnis, Windsor Mead, Sidford, EX10 9SJ

14/1795/FUL (Minor) (page 141 - 146) Trinity Axe Vale Canoe Club, Harbour Road, Seaton EX12 4AA

14/1567/OUT (Minor) (page 147 - 158) Woodbury and Lympstone Land adjacent to 21 Strawberry Hill, Lympstone

Please note: This meeting is being audio recorded by EDDC for subsequent publication on the Council’s website. Under the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014, members of the public are now allowed to take photographs, film and audio record the proceedings and report on all public meetings (including on social media). No prior notification is needed but it would be helpful if you could let the democratic services team know you plan to film or record so that any necessary arrangements can be made to provide reasonable facilities for you to report on meetings. This permission does not extend to private meetings or parts of meetings which are not open to the public. You should take all recording and photography equipment with you if a public meeting moves into a session which is not open to the public. If you are recording the meeting, you are asked to act in a reasonable manner and not disrupt the conduct of meetings for example by using intrusive lighting, flash photography or asking people to repeat statements for the benefit of the recording. You may not make an oral commentary during the meeting. The Chairman has the power to control public recording and/or reporting so it does not disrupt the meeting. Members of the public that have successfully registered to speak, but do not wish to be recorded, need to inform the Chairman who will instruct those taking a recording to cease while they speak. Decision making and equalities

For a copy of this agenda in large print, please contact the Democratic Services Team on 01395 517546

3

EAST DEVON DISTRICT COUNCIL

Minutes of a Meeting of the Development Management Committee held at Knowle, Sidmouth on 21 October 2014

Attendance list at end of document

The meeting started at 2.00pm and ended at 5.55pm. *27 Minutes

The minutes of the Development Management Committee meeting held on 23 September 2014 were confirmed and signed as a true record.

*28 Declarations of interest

Cllr David Atkins; 14/1303/MFUL; Personal Interest (remained in the Chamber during the debate but did not vote); Councillor is clerk to Newton Poppleford and Harpford Parish Council.

*29 Delivering Sustainable Drainage Systems Consultation The Chairman agreed for the Development Manager’s report to be taken as an urgent item in order for the Council to submit responses to the government consultation by the set deadline (this date was before the next scheduled Committee meeting). The Committee considered the report, which highlighted key points within the consultation document on delivering sustainable drainage systems (SuDs) and the Council’s proposed response to the questions posed. Members were advised that the consultation document detailed an alternative approach to the one that was consulted on in 2012. The new proposals built on the current planning system rather than introducing a new regime, including strengthening planning policy on surface water drainage issues and introducing national standards for sustainable drainage. The Development Manager advised that the new proposals would have an impact on resource, as local planning authorities would require access to expert advice in order to deal with SuDs. It was anticipated that the Council would need to employ at least one additional qualified engineer - the proposed response suggested that increasing the application fee could cover the additional resource required. In response to a question, the Development Manager advised that the consultation document suggested that the Environment Agency would remain a statutory consultee for applications that discharged into a watercourse. The importance of securing maintenance of SuDs was raised during discussion. The Chairman thanked the Development Manager for preparing the responses. RESOLVED: that the responses as set out on the Committee report be submitted to the Department for Communities and Local Government as the Council’s formal response to the consultation on delivering sustainable drainage systems (SuDs).

4

Development Management Committee 21 October 2014

*30 Planning appeal statistics

The Committee received and noted the Development Manager’s report setting out appeals recently lodged and ten appeal decisions notified, of which six had been dismissed. Members’ attention was drawn to the appeal decisions allowed. The Development Manager corrected an error in relation to the appeal decision for a proposal at land adjacent to 4 Cheese Lane, Sidmouth. The officer recommendation should have read ‘approve’.

*31 Update on the Local Plan and future work programme

The Committee considered the Planning Policy Manager’s update report on the progress of the emerging Local Plan and future work programme. The Planning Policy Manager advised that substantial progress was being made on background reports which would inform any recommended changes to the Plan, including the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA). A key element of the SHMA was to ensure that the projected future levels of job growth and the housing needs they might generate were taken into account. This issue was currently being assessed and consultants had advised that the SHMA would be completed in November 2014. The Committee also noted progress on other work currently underway that would inform any recommended changes to the Plan, including Residential Land Availability Assessment and Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessment. In respect of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), during examination the Inspector had raised some concerns about the proposed charges for the Cranbrook expansion. As a result, further assessment work was being undertaken. A CIL report would be considered at a special meeting of the Committee in December 2014/January 2015, along with a report setting out any proposed changes to the Local Plan. Points made during discussion included extending the end date of the Local Plan; using market signals to assess housing need; and ensuring that all the Inspector’s requirements set out in his letter were addressed.

The Chairman thanked the Planning Policy Manager for his report.

RESOLVED: that the ongoing work and future work programme for the Local Plan as set out in the Committee report, which would also be forwarded to the Local Plan Inspector, be noted.

*32 Potential AONB status for the Exe Valley

The Committee considered the report presented by the Development Manager outlining a proposal by Members of Mid Devon District Council to pursue the potential of designating the Exe Valley, part of which falls within East Devon, as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The Development Manager advised that the process was at a very early stage. However, if supported, Mid Devon District Council would be asked to consult closely with this Council and relevant parishes as the proposal progressed to ensure continued involvement and to monitor any future resource or planning implications.

5

Development Management Committee 21 October 2014

*32 Potential AONB status for the Exe Valley cont... RESOLVED: that the Committee supports Mid Devon District Council in their proposal to designate the Exe Valley as an Area of Outstanding natural Beauty and writes to them to this effect.

33 Annual update on section 106 planning obligations

The Committee considered the Section 106 Officer’s report providing a summary of all new signed planning obligations and unilateral undertakings registered in the last financial year (2013/14), an overall summary of receipts and details of where any contributions had been spent. The report also proposed changes to the charges for monitoring Section 106 Agreements. The Development Manager drew the Committee’s attention to the section of the report outlining the future of Section 106 Agreements following the introduction of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Members noted the implications of the rules within the CIL regulations that meant that the receipts of not more than five agreements made since 2010 could be pooled post April 2015

RESOLVED: that the annual update on Section 106 Planning Obligations be noted. RECOMMENDATION: that the changes to the monitoring charge as set out in paragraph 4.3* of the annual update report on Section 106 Planning Obligations be adopted.

* The current hourly rate used in the monitoring charge calculations was £45.00 (and mileage of 0.45 per mile). Following a 1% rise in salary the monitoring charge would be increased to £45.45 with a mileage average round trip of £4.50.

*34 Applications for Planning Permission and matters for determination

RESOLVED: that the applications before the Committee be determined as set out in Schedule 6 – 2014/2015. Attendance list Present: Committee Members Councillors: Helen Parr (Chairman) David Key (Vice Chairman) Mike Allen David Atkins Roger Boote Peter Burrows Bob Buxton Geoff Chamberlain Martin Gammell Mike Howe Ben Ingham Geoff Pook

6

Development Management Committee 21 October 2014

Peter Sullivan Mark Williamson Officers Richard Cohen, Deputy Chief Executive Matt Dickins, Planning Policy Manager Ed Freeman, Development Manager Henry Gordon Lennox, Principal Solicitor Hannah Whitfield, Democratic Services Officer Also present Councillors: Susie Bond Paul Diviani Roger Giles Graham Godbeer Tony Howard Andrew Moulding Philip Skinner Ian Thomas Apologies: Committee Members Councillors: Vivien Duval Steer Geoff Pook Non-Committee Members Councillors: David Cox Stephanie Jones Ken Potter

Chairman ................................................. Date ...............................................................

7

EAST DEVON DISTRICT COUNCIL

Development Management Committee Tuesday 21 October 2014; Schedule number 6 – 2014/2015

Applications determined by the Committee Committee reports, including recommendations, can be viewed at: http://new.eastdevon.gov.uk/media/434739/211014-combined-dmc-agenda.pdf Axminster Town (AXMINSTER)

14/2304/V106

Applicant: Chesters Commercial (Mr N L Jones)

Location: Land at Dukes Way, Axminster

Proposal: Variation of requirement for Affordable Housing in Section 106 Agreement pursuant to applications 09/1459/MFUL, 09/2350/MFUL and 11/0143/MFUL

RESOLVED: APPROVED with conditions as per recommendation.

Coly Valley (COLYTON)

14/0429/MOUT

Applicant: BDB Developments

Location: Peace Memorial Playing Fields Coly Road Colyton

Proposal: Residential development of up to 20 units, 40% affordable, access road and amenity land (outline application, all matters reserved)

RESOLVED: REFUSED (contrary to officer recommendation) with delegated

authority given to the Development Manager to draft reasons for refusal. Members felt the proposal was unacceptable for the following reasons:

The site was outside the Built up Area Boundary (BUAB); The development would increase flood risk and had not

been subject to a sequential test; Colyton’s housing need had already been met; It would result in overdevelopment of the site and an

unacceptable high density of development; the development would result in a loss of high grade

agricultural land; It was economically unsustainable due to the level of

employment opportunities in the town; It would have a detrimental impact on the setting the Area

of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the area.

8

Development Management Committee 21 October 2014 Newton Poppleford and Harpford (NEWTON POPPLEFORD AND HARPFORD)

14/1303/MFUL

Applicant: Strongvox Homes (Mr R Compton, Mrs S Stephenson, Mrs C Sand)

Location: Land at Down Close Newton Poppleford

Proposal: Construction of 15 dwellings (9 open market / 6 affordable) with associated access.

RESOLVED: REFUSED as per recommendation Ottery St Mary Town (OTTERY ST MARY)

14/2327/GPD

Applicant: Mrs E Donley

Location: 14 Longdogs Lane Ottery St Mary

Proposal: Construction of single storey rear extension measuring 4.36metres in depth, maximum roof height 3.3metres and height to eaves 2.25metres

RESOLVED: Prior approval not required Seaton (SEATON)

14/0187/MFUL

Applicant: Fosseway Transition Ltd, Mr Paul Mooney

Location: Fosse Way Court Seaton

Proposal: Refurbishment and extension of existing apartment blocks (inc additional levels) and construction of new link apartment block to provide an additional 30 no residential apartments and additional parking provision

RESOLVED: APPROVED (contrary to officer recommendation) subject to

a Section 106 agreement to secure a contribution of £203k (without an overage clause) and with delegated authority given to the Development Manger to impose appropriate conditions. Members considered the proposal provided a good solution for the site and that the scheme was acceptable.

9

Development Management Committee 21 October 2014 Tale Vale (AWLISCOMBE)

14/1016/FUL

Applicant: Mr Mark Diacono

Location: Land To East Of Paynes Cottages (Otter Farm) Weston

Proposal: Demolition of existing agricultural building; erection of winery, small shop and associated ancillary space; erection of kitchen garden school/dwelling

RESOLVED: APPROVED with conditions as per recommendation. Tale Vale (BROADHEMBURY)

14/1756/FUL

Applicant: Sophie, Harriet and Oliver Persey

Location: Pitmans Farm Dulford

Proposal: Conversion, alteration and extension of existing farm buildings to provide a dwelling house with garage parking.

RESOLVED: REFUSED as per recommendation Trinity (AXMOUTH)

14/1898/FUL

Applicant: East Devon District Council

Location: Land East Of River Axe (Axmouth Harbour) Axmouth

Proposal: Refurbishment of seating area to include "ship's bow", new area of decking at ground level and 2 no. interpretive pillars

RESOLVED: APPROVED with conditions as per recommendation

10

Development Management Committee 21 October 2014 Woodbury and Lympstone (WOODBURY)

14/1504/FUL

Applicant: Mr & Mrs T Payne

Location: (Land East Of ) Orchard Cottage The Avenue Exton

Proposal: Demolition of existing garage and proposed new dwelling and vehicular access

RESOLVED: REFUSED as per recommendation

11

East Devon District Council List of Planning Appeals Lodged

Ref: 14/0264/FUL Date Received 30.09.2014 Appellant: Mr B Ingham And Mrs S Lenygon Appeal Site: Runaway Courtlands Lane Exmouth EX8 5AB Proposal: Construction of detached garage incorporating studio

accommodation, hall and wet room. Planning Inspectorate Ref:

APP/U1105/D/14/2226573

Ref: 14/1253/OUT Date Received 07.10.2014 Appellant: Mr J J Robjant Appeal Site: Willowtrees Honiton EX14 9TS Proposal: Outline application for the creation of 2 no. dwellings (with

access, appearance, layout and scale to be assessed at this stage)

Planning Inspectorate Ref:

APP/U1105/A/14/2226294

Ref: 14/1234/FUL Date Received 10.10.2014 Appellant: Mr & Mrs R & A Sharp Appeal Site: Garathatch Bear Lane Budleigh Salterton EX9 7AQ Proposal: Replacement dwelling and associated works to include new

driveway and conversion of existing dwelling for retention as an ancilliary garage and studio

Planning Inspectorate Ref:

APP/U1105/14/2226591

Ref: 14/1672/PMB Date Received 10.10.2014 Appellant: Messrs W & T Bailey Appeal Site: Cattle Building Loxhill Courtlands Lane Exmouth EX8 5AB Proposal: Prior approval of proposed change of use of agricultural

building to dwellinghouse Planning Inspectorate Ref:

APP/U1105/A/14/2226269

12

Ref: 14/0613/FUL Date Received 22.10.2014 Appellant: Mr Johnson Appeal Site: Trebblehayes Farm Membury Axminster EX13 7UA Proposal: Erection of 11kw wind turbine (hub height 18.4m and 24.9m

to blade tip) Planning Inspectorate Ref:

APP/U1105/A/14/2227768

13

East Devon District Council List of Planning Appeals Decided

Ref: 13/2624/FUL Appeal

Ref: 14/00025/REF

Appellant: Mrs M Strickland Appeal Site: Land Adj To 5 Windmill Lane West Hill Ottery St Mary Proposal: Construction of 2no. residential dwellings (re-submission of

application 13/1433/FUL) Decision: Appeal Dismissed Date: 30.09.2014 Procedure: Written representations Remarks: Delegated refusal, countryside protection and amenity

reasons upheld. (EDLP Policies S5 & D1). BVPI 204: Yes Planning Inspectorate Ref:

APP/U1105/A/14/2216644

Ref: 13/2391/VAR Appeal

Ref: 14/00044/REF

Appellant: Mr McBain Appeal Site: Antique Complex Mcbains Antiques Exeter Airport Clyst

Honiton Exeter Proposal: Variation of condition 1 of planning permission 12/0891/VAR

for continuation of temporary use of land as a car park until 31 December 2014.

Decision: Appeal Dismissed Date: 01.10.2014 Procedure: Written representations Remarks: Delegated refusal, sustainability and employment reasons

upheld. (EDLP Policies S5, PUA4 & E3). BVPI 204: Yes Planning Inspectorate Ref:

APP/U1105/A/14/2221487

14

Ref: 14/0224/OUT Appeal Ref:

14/00043/REF

Appellant: Mr M Martineau Appeal Site: 6 Sarlsdown Road Exmouth EX8 2HY Proposal: Construction of detached dwelling (Outline application with

matters of appearance, layout, scale, landscaping and access reserved)

Decision: Appeal Dismissed Date: 01.10.2014 Procedure: Written representations Remarks: Delegated refusal, amenity reasons upheld (EDLP Policies

D1 & S4 and Design Statement for The Avenues, Exmouth SPG).

BVPI 204: Yes Planning Inspectorate Ref:

APP/U1105/A/14/2221700

Ref: 14/0011/VAR Appeal

Ref: 14/00029/REF

Appellant: Mr David Booth Appeal Site: Land To The North Of Old Highwood Farm Dunkeswell Proposal: Removal of conditions 7 & 9 and variation of condition 8 of

planning consent 12/2654/FUL (renewal of application 09/1851/FUL for conversion of barn to four units of holiday accommodation and owner/managers' accommodation, and formation of new vehicular access) to facilitate the use of units 1, 2 & 3 to become open market residential dwellings and maintain units 4 & 5 as holiday lets

Decision: Appeal Dismissed Date: 02.10.2014 Procedure: Written representations Remarks: Delegated refusal, sustainability, landscape and amenity

reasons upheld (EDLP Policies S5, TA1, EN1, D1 & D10). BVPI 204: Yes Planning Inspectorate Ref:

APP/U1105/A/14/2216182

15

Ref: 13/2757/FUL Appeal Ref:

14/00045/REF

Appellant: Mr Harry Carter Appeal Site: Land Adjacent To The Old Smithy Dalditch Lane Budleigh

Salterton EX9 7AH Proposal: Construction of two bedroom dwelling Decision: Appeal Dismissed Date: 13.10.2014 Procedure: Written representations Remarks: Delegated refusal, landscape and countryside protection

reasons upheld (EDLP Policies EN1 & S5). BVPI 204: Yes Planning Inspectorate Ref:

APP/U1105/A/14/2222000

16

Ref: 14/0640/FUL Appeal Ref:

14/00046/REF

Appellant: Mr Geoff Crawford Appeal Site: Merrist House 14 Douglas Avenue Exmouth EX8 2EY Proposal: Construction of detached dwelling and new vehicular and

pedestrian access. Decision: Appeal Dismissed Date: 13.10.2014 Procedure: Written representations Remarks: Delegated refusal, amenity reasons upheld (EDLP Policies

D1& S4). BVPI 204: Yes Planning Inspectorate Ref:

APP/U1105/A/14/2222348

Ref: 14/0367/FUL Appeal

Ref: 14/00047/REF

Appellant: Ms Jane Kingdon Appeal Site: Workshop To Rear Of 9 Morton Crescent Exmouth Proposal: Construction of new roof over existing private garage/hobby

workshop Decision: Appeal Dismissed Date: 14.10.2014 Procedure: Written representations Remarks: Delegated refusal, amenity reasons upheld (EDLP Policy D1). BVPI 204: Yes Planning Inspectorate Ref:

APP/U1105/A/14/2221736

17

Ref: 13/1378/MRES Appeal Ref: 14/00013/REF Appellant: Hoskins Farm Partnership Appeal Site: Waldrons Farm Sidmouth Road Farringdon Exeter EX5

2JX Proposal: Reserved matters application for approval of access, layout,

scale, appearance and landscaping pursuant to outline application 09/2193/MOUT for change of use of land and B2 (Industrial) and B8 (Storage and Distribution) Phase 1.

Decision: Appeal Allowed (with conditions)

Date: 17.10.2014

Procedure: Written representations Remarks: Officer recommendation to approve, Committee refusal.

Amenity reasons overruled (EDLP Policy D1). The Inspector considered that the proposed additional planting to the east, would help screen the building and provide a green buffer making it less stark in appearance. The proposed building would have a similar height and footprint as the existing building to the west and would be seen in conjunction with the existing group of industrial buildings when viewed from the open countryside to the north. He concluded that the proposed building would not have a detrimental impact on the character or appearance of the area.

BVPI 204: Yes Planning Inspectorate Ref:

APP/U1105/A/14/2214150

Ref: 14/0242/VAR Appeal

Ref: 14/00048/REF

Appellant: Ms D J Holding & Mr R Hawkins Appeal Site: The Cottage Fenny Bridges Honiton EX14 3BH Proposal: Removal of condition 3 of planning permission granted at

appeal under reference 98/P0015 to allow the building to be occupied as a permanent residence

Decision: Appeal Dismissed Date: 23.10.2014 Procedure: Written representations Remarks: Delegated refusal, sustainability reasons upheld. (EDLP

Policies S5, D10 & TA1). BVPI 204: Yes Planning Inspectorate Ref:

APP/U1105/A/14/2222913

18

Ref: 14/0225/FUL Appeal Ref:

14/00049/REF

Appellant: Mr Tony Smith Appeal Site: Land South Of Village Hall (Opposite Car Park) Offwell Proposal: Erection of four dwellings and provision of layby Decision: Appeal Dismissed Date: 28.10.2014 Procedure: Written representations Remarks: Delegated refusal, landscape and sustainability reasons

upheld. (EDLP Policies EN1 & TA1). Application for a full award of costs against the Council refused.

BVPI 204: Yes Planning Inspectorate Ref:

APP/U1105/A/14/2222273

19

Report to: Development Management Committee

Date of Meeting: 18th November 2014 Public Document: Yes Exemption: None Review date for release

None / Not Applicable

Agenda item:

Subject: Cross Boundary Issues at Uplyme and Lyme Regis

Purpose of report:

To update Members on cross boundary issues at Lyme Regis and Uplyme and seek endorsement of a report to be submitted for consideration by the planning inspectors for both the East Devon Local Plan and the West Dorset Weymouth and Portland Local Plan.

Recommendation: That Committee: 1 note the ongoing work in respect of cross boundary

issues at Uplyme and Lyme Regis; and

2 endorse the appended report for consideration by both the East Devon Local Plan Inspector and the West Dorset & Weymouth and Portland Local Plan Inspector.

Reason for recommendation:

To inform members of progress on cross boundary issues and update the local plan inspectors ahead of oral sessions in respect of the West Dorset Weymouth and Portland Local Plan and in due course for the East Devon Local Plan.

Officer: Matthew Dickins, Planning Policy Manager, mdickins@eastdevonn.gov.uk (01395 – 571540 - Internal Tel – Ext 1540)

Financial implications:

No additional financial implications have been identified. Budgets are already in place for the local plan inspection.

Legal implications: The legal implications in terms of cross-boundary duties are set out in the report and accompanying / related papers

Equalities impact: Low Impact No impacts are identified.

Risk: Low Risk

20

No risk implications from the report are identified. However in the absence of an agreed approach the counter-risk is that the planning inspectors may lack technical evidence and commitment to joint working to be able to find plan’s sound.

Links to background information:

• Links to background documents are included in the body of the report. A technical assessment paper is appended to this report.

Link to Council Plan: The Local Plan has direct links to all aspects of the Council Plan.

1 Background 1.1 The future growth of Lyme Regis and potential development options to accommodate

any growth have been identified as a cross boundary issue through the development of both the East Devon and the West Dorset and Weymouth and Portland Local Plan. The Localism Act of 2011 imposes a legal duty to co-operate with neighbouring planning authorities during the preparation of local plans. It is also in the interests of good strategic planning to consider the impacts of geography on relevant issues and to co-operate across administrative boundaries where appropriate.

1.2 During the preparation of the local plan discussions were held to consider the growth

needs of Lyme Regis and objections were made by both authorities to the wording of policies in the emerging plans. Further details can be found in the July 2013 East Devon Duty to Co-operate Statement http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/sd006-statementofcompliancewiththedutytoco-operate-july2013.pdf.

2 Joint Work 2.1 Cross boundary issues were considered in the oral sessions of the East Devon Local

Plan examination. Mr Thickett, in his letter of 1st March 2014, suggested that there was an opportunity for joint working in the preparation of evidence.

2.2 Further work has been undertaken by officers of both local planning authorities with

input from both the Dorset and East Devon AONB teams. The further work has led to the production of the technical paper appended to this report.

2.3 Options for growth around Lyme Regis were assessed using a standard approach.

This included assessing the sensitivity of the landscape to change using a template devised for East Devon. The results of this work are summarised in the meeting notes, which may be accessed through this link http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/lymeregisanduplymesites.pdf. The outcome of the work was that all the sites considered were sensitive to landscape change that could have significant impacts on the AONB landscape. The sites that were found to be least sensitive were both in West Dorset, Woodbury Down (currently being developed) and

21

the adjacent Timber Vale Caravan Park. The sites considered to be most sensitive to landscape change were at Timber Hill (in West Dorset) and Shire Lane (in East Devon).

3 The West Dorset Position 3.1 In response to a letter from their Inspector a further objective assessment of housing

need has been undertaken for West Dorset and Weymouth and Portland together with work on the housing supply, including an updated SHLAA. This indicates that Lyme Regis has a potential supply of 313 dwellings for and beyond the plan period plus around 38 from ‘minor identified sites’. In terms of future development patterns Lyme Regis is only considered to be suitable for limited local growth, rather than strategic or significant growth.

3.2 The minor amendments to the policy for Lyme Regis requested by this Council in

October 2013 are now supported in principle and will be drawn to the attention of the West Dorset Weymouth and Portland Local Plan Inspector.

4 Conclusions 4.1 The functional relationships across the county boundary between Uplyme and Lyme

Regis are recognised and development potential has been assessed consistently in East Devon and West Dorset. Officers from both authorities agree that the area is only suitable for limited local growth and that the least sensitive potential development sites are in West Dorset. Co-operation between the authorities will continue into the future, both in respect of local and neighbourhood planning activities.

4.2 In terms of the SHLAA site at Shire Lane there is agreement that this is an inappropriate site for housing in landscape terms (there may well be be other planning reasons that make this site unsuitable for development but at this point in time other detailed technical assessment has not taken place). No suitable sites for development have been identified in East Devon that could help to meet the future growth of Lyme Regis.

22

Joint duty to cooperate update statement on cross boundary issues at Uplyme/Lyme Regis

November 2014

Report jointly prepared by officers of and on behalf of East Devon District Council and West Dorset District Council

1 The issue 1.1 The town of Lyme Regis lies within West Dorset, but the county boundary runs close to the west of the town and the East Devon village

of Uplyme is adjacent to the north western boundary. Future development options for any growth of Lyme Regis have been identified as a cross boundary planning issue through the development of both the East Devon Local Plan (EDLP) and the West Dorset Weymouth and Portland Local Plan (WDWPLP).

1.2 This report has been prepared by officers from East Devon District Council and West Dorset District Council as an update to cross

boundary issues at Lyme Regis and Uplyme. It concludes that there are no outstanding cross boundary issues that require modifications to either local plan and has been endorsed by both of the relevant planning authorities (at October/November 2014 endorsement was being formally sought).

2 Background 2.1 The Localism Act of 2011 imposes a legal duty to co-operate with neighbouring planning authorities during the preparation of local

plans. It is also one of the tests of soundness against which local plans are assessed. Both the East Devon Local Plan (EDLP) and the West Dorset Weymouth and Portland Local Plan (WDWPLP) were submitted for examination in summer 2013. The duty to cooperate statement produced by West Dorset District Council in June 2013 is available here https://www.dorsetforyou.com/media/185571/Duty-to-Cooperate-Statement-June-2013/pdf/JW_fn_duty_to_cooperate_130618.pdf. The statement of compliance with the duty to co-operate produced by East Devon District Council in July 2013 is available here http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/sd006-

23

statementofcompliancewiththedutytoco-operate-july2013.pdf. This paper updates both of these statements in respect of cross boundary issues between East Devon and West Dorset.

2.2 West Dorset District Council objected to the East Devon Local Plan and sought changes to the wording of the plan to enable joint

working as part of the next review of plans (in the longer term on understanding and exploring the development options to meet local needs) http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/27wddcupdate.pdf.

2.3 East Devon District Council suggested changes to the wording of the West Dorset Weymouth and Portland Local Plan to ensure a joint

understanding of housing needs and comparative cross boundary site assessments before developing policy solutions http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/writtenstatement01legalandproceduralrequirementsv4final.pdf (please see Appendix 6 of this document from page 74).

2.4 An exploratory meeting was conducted into the WDWPLP in January 2014 and the issues covered included the duty to co-operate,

housing and affordable housing. The Inspector’s response in February 2014 found that the majority of matters he originally identified were capable of resolution through modifications to the plan. However, Mr Crysell raised concerns that the housing evidence was not sufficiently robust to support the current plan proposals and the examination was suspended to allow time for additional work to be undertaken.

2.5 Formal hearings into the EDLP were held in February and March 2014 during which representations were made. In addition to the

points made by WDDC, a third party proposed that a site within East Devon to the west of Lyme Regis should be identified to provide 350-400 homes to meet the growth needs of Lyme Regis within East Devon http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/17pinhayest-1-3-6s.pdf.

2.6 In his initial letter of 31st March 2014 the East Devon Local Plan Inspector, Mr Thickett, found that the plan was not currently sound and

raised concerns about the robustness of the housing evidence, housing distribution, length of plan period and gypsy and traveller provision. The examination was suspended to allow time for additional work to be undertaken. Mr Thickett also noted that the West Dorset Inspector, Mr Crysell, had indicated that further work was needed to assess housing needs for the WDWPLP. Mr Thickett suggested that there was an opportunity for East Devon to work with West Dorset in preparing evidence and this remainder of paper sets out the work that has subsequently been undertaken.

24

3 West Dorset Weymouth and Portland Local Plan Update 3.1 In response to the Inspector’s concerns further work has been undertaken on the WDWPLP including an objective assessment of

housing need and a review of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. Further proposed changes have been made to the plan and were published for consultation during summer 2014. Links to the documents are available here West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan and Community Infrastructure Levy Examination - dorsetforyou.com.

3.2 East Devon District Council welcomed the proposed changes and the specific comments may be viewed here

https://www.dorsetforyou.com/media/189986/Summary-of-August-October-Consultationon Modifications/pdf/Ex_fn_WDDC_Mods_Catalogue_2013_141023.pdf

Results of additional work (objectively assessed housing need) 3.3 The NPPF requires LPA’s to identify the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing and to significantly boost the

supply of housing in their areas. A Strategic Housing Market Report (SHMR) has been undertaken and is available to view at West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan and Community Infrastructure Levy Examination - dorsetforyou.com. This confirms that Weymouth and Portland together with West Dorset form a single housing market area.

3.4 The SHMR shows a housing need significantly higher than the figure used during preparation of the local plan. This reflects the

commitment to economic growth and allows for sufficient in-migration to produce an increase in the workforce in the plan area (taking account of the aging resident population). The consultation on plan changes included increasing the plan target to 15,500 to reflect the most recent evidence on objectively assessed housing need.

Results of Additional Work (housing supply) 3.5 West Dorset and Weymouth and Portland have updated their Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) and this is

available to view at Strategic housing land availability assessment - dorsetforyou.com. 3.6 This indicates a total supply for 2011 – 2028 of 14,040 dwellings and compares with a previous supply figure of 12,772. The revised

plan includes sufficient land supply to meet the new target figures over a thirteen year period from adoption.

25

3.7 SHLAA (Appendix A) indicates that at April 2014 plots for a total of 56 new dwellings already had planning consent at Lyme Regis. The plan allocation at Woodbury Down is under development and expected to deliver 44 new homes within the plan period (SHLAA Appendix B). Appendix C of the SHLAA identifies the submitted and large sites considered to have development potential. This shows a potential yield of 121 homes in Lyme Regis within 15 years and an additional 90 subject to policy change https://www.dorsetforyou.com/media/196333/West-Dorset-Weymouth-and-Portland-SHLAA-Update-2014---Appendix-C---Submitted-and-large-sites-with-potential/pdf/Appendix_C_-_Submitted_and_large_sites_with_potential.pdf. Of particular significance is the Timber Vale Caravan Park (Site WD/LYME/021) which is identified as having development potential subject to policy change (the site is currently outside the settlement boundary). In total, therefore based on data in Appendices A, B and C of the SHLAA there is a potential supply of 313 dwellings for and beyond the plan period. This does not include supply from minor identified sites, which is estimated to be in the region of 38 dwellings (50% discounted) in Lyme Regis.

Response to EDDC representations 3.8 In October 2013 East Devon Council submitted representations to the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan Modifications

Consultation requesting minor amendment to Policy Lyme2 and the supporting text. The Councils have not yet had the opportunity to amend the plan, but in principle supports the amendments proposed. These will be drawn to the attention of the Inspector at the forthcoming Local Plan Examination.

4 East Devon Local Plan Update 4.1 Work to establish the objectively assessed housing need for East Devon is ongoing as part of the Exeter Strategic Housing Market

Assessment. Initial demographic modelling work is being undertaken by Devon County Council to take account of specific local circumstances and will inform further work into factors such as affordable housing, market signals and economic development. A report to East Devon’s Development Management Committee setting out details of the situation as of 21st October 2014 may be accessed through this link http://new.eastdevon.gov.uk/media/356078/dm260814-emerging-housing-numbers.pdf.

26

5 Joint Work 5.1 Development options for growth around Lyme Regis have been assessed jointly by officers of both local planning authorities with input

from both the Dorset and the East Devon AONB teams. The sites considered are shown on the map below.

Note: Sites outlined on green are those outside the established development boundary considered to have development potential. Sites outlined in red were submitted for consideration as part of the SHLAA exercises but are not currently considered to have development potential

27

5.2 A standard approach to this exercise was adopted so that sites were considered on a consistent basis regardless of whether they are

located within Devon or Dorset. The approach taken was to visit each of the sites considered as part of a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA). The East Devon AONB and the Dorset AONB extend over the settlements and surrounding countryside. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) gives great weight to conserving the landscape and scenic beauty of such areas and states that planning permission should be refused for major developments except in exceptional circumstances (paragraphs 115 and 116).

5.3 Given the landscape status of Lyme Regis and the surrounding countryside as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty the potential

impact of residential development was carefully considered against a standard template devised for assessing landscape sensitivity to change. This approach was developed as part of the work to assess development options in the villages and small towns of East Devon and provided a good framework against which to assess the landscape sensitivity of all the development options. Site visits were undertaken jointly by officers and the initial assessments recorded in the meeting notes which may be viewed at http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/lymeregisanduplymesites.pdf. The West Dorset Landscape Officer subsequently completed the landscape assessments for Dorset sites and they were agreed with East Devon Officers. The West Dorset Landscape Officer also commented on the assessments undertaken previously for the two East Devon sites considered and the updated assessments are included in the meeting notes.

5.4 All of the sites are considered to have the potential for significant impacts on the AONB landscape. The sites least sensitive are

WD/LYME/003 – Land at Woodbury Down, which is currently being developed, and WD/LYME/021 – Land at Timber Vale Caravan Park. The landscape assessment concludes that part of this site has the potential to accommodate new residential development without significantly harming the landscape and visual character of the area (subject to detailed criteria). However, more detailed assessments would be needed before allocation of the site was considered and this would need to be done through a future plan review, having regard to need to demonstrate exceptional circumstances as set out in paragraph 116 of the NPPF. Alternatively, it is possible that this site could come forward through locally led neighbourhood planning. The two sites considered to be most sensitive to landscape change are WD/LYME/005 – Land at Timber Hill and E324 – Land west of Shire Lane.

28

6 Overall Conclusions 6.1 In terms of housing market area West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland have been found to constitute a single market area and East

Devon has been confirmed as forming part of the Exeter housing market area. The Planning Advisory Service technical advice note on objectively assessed need and housing targets (published in June 2014) states that HMA boundaries should not cut across local authority areas as it causes major difficulties in analysing evidence and drafting policy. Nevertheless the functional relationships across the county boundary at Lyme Regis and Uplyme are recognised and development potential has been assessed consistently in East Devon and West Dorset.

6.2 In terms of future development patterns, Lyme Regis and Uplyme are only considered to be suitable for limited local growth, rather than

strategic or significant growth. Potential development options have been examined jointly by officers of the two Councils and cooperation between the authorities will continue into the future, both in respect of Local and Neighbourhood planning activities.

29

Report to: Development Management Committee

Date of Meeting: 18 November 2014 Public Document: Yes Exemption: None Review date for release

None

Agenda item: 8

Subject: Council Intervention to reduce height of hedge

Purpose of report: This report seeks to obtain authorisation for direct action in respect of a high hedge which has been the subject of a remedial notice and where the hedge owner has failed to comply with the requirements of the Notice.

Recommendation: That direct action be taken to reduce the height of the hedge in accordance with the terms set out in this report and to recover the costs for the intervention from the owner through a charge on the property.

Reason for recommendation:

To reduce the height of the hedge and to significantly improve the amenity and reasonable enjoyment of the adjoining property. The alternative actions available to the Council (either a do nothing or a prosecution) – would not be in the public interest owing to the personal circumstances of the hedge owner and his visual impairment and the fact that such an approach would still not secure the reduction of the hedge

Officer: Ed Freeman – Service Lead - Planning

Financial implications:

The financial implications are as indicated within the report; the costs incurred will be recovered by a charge on the property. This obviously means that the council will incur the costs upfront but will not be reimbursed until such time as the property is sold.

Legal implications: Any reasonable expenses of direct action may be recovered from the owner or occupier of the land and are a local land charge which binds the land and subsequent owners. This ensures recovery of the Council’s costs. Otherwise the legislative background has been set out in the report.

Equalities impact: Low Impact Clearly this is not a policy decision but a specific case, however since the owner of the property is visually impaired we have communicated with him in an appropriate manner and must continue to do so.

Risk: There are risks in terms of finance both the upfront cost and risk of liability on the event that tree dies; adverse publicity; and potential obstruction of contractors by the hedge owner . While none are considered likely or to outweigh the benefits of securing this approach it is important that these are recognised.

30

Links to background information:

None

Link to Council Plan: Living in, working in, enjoying and funding this outstanding place.

Report in full 1.0 Background and History 1.1 Under Part 8 of Anti Social Behaviour Act 2003 a High Hedge complaint was received by

the Council and validated on the 23 February 2010. After formal assessment the complaint was upheld by the Council and a remedial Notice Issued on the 30 July 2010. This required that the hedge that runs parallel to the southwest boundary of 4 Needlewood Close West Hill and extending beyond it by a distance of 10 metres needed to be reduced in height along its entire length in the first instance to 12.5m and subsequently to further reduce it to 9.5 m in height when measured from ground level. A subsequent ongoing management height of 9.85m was also specified.

1.2 The hedge owner subsequently chose to exercise his right to appeal and an Inspectors

decision was later issued on the 5 January 2011. 1.3 The Inspector considered that the hedge at that time stood at around 19m in height and

dominated the outlook from the bungalow; towered over the garden and therefore detracted “significantly from the reasonable enjoyment of 4 Needlewood Close”.

1.4 The requirement of the remedial Notice were considered appropriate and reasonable. 2.0 Recent activity and current situation

2.1 The Notice provides the hedge owner with a period of 3 years and 4 months from the

operative date. Following the appeal this came into force on the 5 January 2011 providing the hedge owner with a period until 5 May 2014 to comply with its terms.

2.2 The Council wrote to the hedge owner on the 8 May 2014 advising that the period for

compliance had passed and sought that the works were undertaken within 28 days. 2.3 Following a request from the owner that the period be extended to take account of the bird

nesting season, a period until 31 September 2014 was then provided. 2.4 A site visit on the 7 October 2014 confirmed that the trees remained as before and had not

been reduced in height in line with the requirements of the notice. 3.0 Planning Viewpoint

3.1 It is recognised both in the original officer report and the Inspectors decision letter that the

trees form a considerable barrier to light and the reasonable enjoyment that the neighbour can expect within his domestic garden. While the rights of the hedge owner and the neighbour need to be balanced in any assessment these have already been considered both prior to the issuing of the remedial notice and within the subsequent Inspectors report

31

– the terms of the notice obtain that balance by requiring the trees only to be reduced to a height of 9.5m and then managed at 9.85m

3.2 Advice from the Council’s Arboricultural Officer recognises that the trees remain healthy

and living and should in the main be able to sustain the degree of intervention that is required by terms of the notice in one go. However the trees are without exception multi stemmed each with a number of dominant or co-dominant stems. In this regard the legislation and accompanying guidance prevents remedial works from killing or “removing” the hedge, it is considered that the reduction to 9.5m in a single cut would kill individual stems but not the whole tree or hedge. While the risk of death to the whole tree and the liability that comes with this is one that needs to be recognised within this report, the risk is considered low and that the action proposed complies with the terms of the legislation.

3.3 Timing for the works must also be carefully managed. As the last 6 months have

demonstrated the opportunity for such action without the risk to birds that might be nesting in the trees, is limited to the period from the end of September to the end of March. Therefore unless a suitable survey is undertaken immediately prior to the works, such works should be undertaken out of season. Contractors acting for the Council would in any event need to comply with all wildlife legislation which could not be overridden by any authorisation resulting from this report.

4.0 Human Rights Act 1998

4.1 The works that would be secured by this action would seek to balance the human rights of

different neighbours. While it is unusual for the Council to effectively adjudicate between neighbours the legislation makes specific provision for such an approach in respect of high hedges. The Remedial Notice issued by the Council and which was also considered by an Appeal Inspector balances the right of the hedge owner to grow and keep a high hedge and the right of the neighbour to have a reasonable enjoyment of their domestic curtilage. It is considered the approach taken and steps required are reasonable, proportionate and fair in this instance.

5.0 Alternative Action 5.1 There are two alternative actions available to the Council –

Do nothing – without direct intervention it would be possible to leave the requirements of the notice to be complied with by the current or a future owner of the hedge. This risks leaving the trees in place for a considerable period of time while they continue to grow and continue to cause dominance to the garden and reasonable enjoyment of this by the neighbour.

5.2 Prosecute the hedge owner for failing to comply with the terms of the Notice. (This

approach can be taken either on its own or in association with the recommended option). Prosecution of the hedge owner could lead to excessive stress given their personal circumstances, visual impairment and unnecessary cost to the owner. Such action would not serve to address the issue that is causing harm and is unlikely to satisfy the public interest test.

32

Ward Coly Valley

Reference 14/1001/OUT

Applicant Mr & Mrs A Gray

Location Home Farm Chalet Home Farm Hotel Wilmington Honiton EX14 9JR

Proposal Replacement dwelling and creation of drive (outline application with all matters reserved)

RECOMMENDATION: Refusal

Crown Copyright and database rights 2014 Ordnance Survey 100023746

33

Committee Date: 18.11.2014

Coly Valley (WIDWORTHY)

14/1001/OUT

Target Date: 18.06.2014

Applicant: Mr & Mrs A Gray

Location: Home Farm Chalet Home Farm Hotel

Proposal: Replacement dwelling and creation of drive (outline application with all matters reserved)

RECOMMENDATION: Refusal

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The site refers to a chalet building, which is located close to Home Farm Hotel, within the settlement of Wilmington. The chalet occupies a site at the south eastern end of the Hotel grounds. There is also an older barn close by to the west. The chalet, the barn and the applicant's own dwelling are located on a similar terrace of land and lie within open countryside and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The proposal is for the construction of a replacement dwelling for the chalet building. An application was submitted in 2013 for a replacement dwelling but was withdrawn following concerns as to whether there was a recognised dwelling on the site due to there being no apparent records for the building and the various uses it has had in the past such as holiday accommodation. This application is again for a replacement dwelling with a more traditional design and supporting legal opinion as to the status of the building. However it is still considered by the Local Planning Authority that in the absence of any planning history for the building and the nature of the use of the building being uncertain that there is not a recognised dwelling on site. It would not comply with the provisions of policy H11 of the Local Plan which requires an existing, permanent and habitable dwelling to be in-situ before a replacement dwelling can be considered. It is considered that the use of the building needs to be proven through a Certificate of Existing Lawfulness. In the absence of such it is considered that this would result in the creation of a new dwelling in open countryside in an unsustainable location. The application is recommended for refusal.

34

CONSULTATIONS Local Consultations Coly Valley - Cllr G Godbeer As this application seems to hinge on the legal definition of a "Residence" and for any one opinion there is always a counter opinion I wish to support this application and should this differ from the officers recommendation would like it to come to the Development Management Committee. Parish Council Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed planning application. We note that our comments on the original application have been taken into account. It is suggested that to minimise the potentially overbearing impact of the proposed two storey building on high ground overlooking a number of dwellings on the lower ground opposite, it would be preferable to site the new building to the rear(southern boundary) of its plot and to retain/plant a tree screen on the north side of the building to protect the privacy of residents opposite. Technical Consultations County Highway Authority Highways Standing Advice Other Representations No letters of representation were received. PLANNING HISTORY Reference Description Decision Date 13/1579/OUT Replacement dwelling and new

driveway (outline permission with all matters reserved)

Withdrawn 12.02.14

POLICIES New East Devon Local Plan Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) TC2 (Accessibility of New Development) D3 (Trees and Development Sites) D2 (Landscape Requirements) Strategy 46 (Landscape Conservation and Enhancement and AONBs)

35

Strategy 7 (Development in the Countryside) EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) H6 (Replacement of dwellings in the Countryside) Adopted East Devon Local Plan Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) S5 (Countryside Protection) EN1 (Developments Affecting Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) TA7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) D5 (Trees on Development Sites) TA1 (Accessibility of New Development) EN6 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) H11 (Replacement of Existing Dwellings in the Countryside) Government Policy/Guidance National Planning Policy Framework National Planning Policy Guidance Site Location and Description The chalet occupies a site at the south eastern end of the grounds around Home Farm Hotel. There is an older barn close by to the west. The chalet, this barn and the applicant's own dwelling are located on a similar terrace of land. There is open ground between the site and the road to the north formed of a sloping grass area which falls initially quite steeply and then gradually to the road frontage. To the south and up hill of the site is a copse of woodland; there are other trees close to the building and barn to be demolished to the north. The site lies in open countryside within the East Devon AONB, as whilst the site is located within the environs of Wilmington the village does not have a built-up area boundary. The nearest neighbouring dwellings are located to the north on the other side of the A35 and to the west on the same side of the road, but these are relatively removed from the location for the proposal. Relevant Planning History There is no specific planning history for this 'Devon Lady' chalet, which appears to have been on site prior to the inception of East Devon as a District Council (1974). The chalet appears or is referenced on various plans and application documents for other applications relating to the Home Farm Hotel and the building known as the Old Forge alongside. In 2013 an application for the construction of a replacement dwelling was submitted (13/1578/OUT) but was withdrawn following concerns about the planning status of the chalet on the site. Whilst the building certainly seems to have been in place since 1999 according to an aerial photograph of that year, the Council has no information of the use of the building since it was placed on site. On that basis the Council requested that information be submitted to clarify the use of the building as an independent dwelling as opposed to additional accommodation for Home Farm hotel or ancillary accommodation for staff on an occasional basis.

36

Information was submitted relating to the previous uses such as a holiday let between 1992 and 1996 and some verbal information from the applicant that it has been used as overflow accommodation for guests of the hotel, the various timescales were considered to be unclear As such, it was considered that there is some doubt as to whether the chalet has a lawful use as a dwelling through it being occupied for the requisite time period (as opposed to the submission and granting of an actual certificate which has not been done) and therefore whether in principle the LPA should consider the replacement of the chalet with a dwelling. The application was to be refused but was withdrawn before this was carried out. Proposed Development The submitted application again seeks to replace the existing chalet with a dwelling but shows an indicative plan of a traditional style dwelling incorporating traditional design and proportions rather than the previously submitted modern design. A new access is proposed from the car park serving the hotel. The line of the proposed access would be to the north of the current terrace of land and existing way to the chalet. The application is made in outline with all matters reserved. The application is a companied by a Solicitors’ letter whose opinion considers that the building is a dwelling because it was built as a dwelling in the 1970s and has been occupied continuously as an independent dwelling ever since. ANALYSIS The matters to consider are: the principle of replacing the chalet and existing policy context; design, format and materials; impact on trees adjacent to the proposed site; neighbouring amenity; consideration of the character of the area including the wider AONB context; wildlife; highways impact and any other matters arising. Principle There is an absence of planning history relating to the chalet as outlined already. Accompanying the previous application information was submitted relating to previous uses such as a holiday let between 1992 and 1996, and some verbal information from the applicant that it has in the past been used for overflow accommodation for guests of the hotel. Currently the building is being let out, and a tenancy agreement from 2013 has been submitted. The various time scales for each of the uses is unclear and it is not known whether there has been a continuous use for some period for these uses. As such it is considered there is some doubt as to whether the chalet has a lawful use as a dwelling through it being occupied for the requisite time period (as opposed to the submission and granting of an actual certificate which has not been done) and

37

therefore whether in principle the LPA should consider the replacement of the chalet with a dwelling. Local plan policy H11(Replacement dwellings in the open countryside) states a number of criteria for consideration of replacement dwellings in the countryside one of which is that ”....there is an existing, permanent, habitable dwelling located on the site ...” In this particular case it is considered there is a lack of planning history that provides sufficient evidence that the building has been occupied regularly or over a sufficient period of time to provide a basis that the building can be considered a 'dwelling' as such. Whilst the applicant submitted some further information with the previous application, which was helpful, this, in conjunction with the records the Council hold as well as anecdotal evidence from the applicant, provides at best an irregular record of occupation both in time and uses the chalet has been put to. A legal opinion has been put forward by the applicants that the chalet is a lawful dwelling because it was constructed as a dwelling having all the necessary facilities and has never since lost that use so could be used as holiday accommodation or a dwelling. In addition the applicants have submitted a Tenancy agreement dated from July 2013 and argue that because the building looks like a bungalow, and was built as a bungalow and that there is no evidence that it has been used as anything other than a dwelling that it is a dwelling. A great deal of discussion has taken place between the Council Solicitor and the applicants Solicitor in respect of the interpretation of policy H11. It is considered that there is an ambiguity in respect of the historical use. A letter on the previous application dated 14th November 2013 from the agent when the ‘dwelling’ issue was first being considered refers to the applicant’s knowledge of the sites planning history and more particularly the use as being 'uncertain', although to the best of their knowledge the chalet has always served as an independent dwelling unit. The use of the building as a dwelling has also been passed to the Council Tax department who have no record that this property, if used as an independent dwelling, has been paying Council Tax. Given the uncertainty, the Local Planning Authority is therefore seeking certainty over its lawfulness given the requirements of Policy H11. Whilst the building may look like a dwelling, there is no evidence of a planning permission for the chalet in the first place. It is considered that it may well have been designed to be occupied as a dwelling but there is little actual evidence that it has been used for this purpose. Whilst someone might be living in the building now, current residential use does not mean that it can automatically fall under Policy H11. The applicants have been informed on both the existing application and the previous application that the way to regularise the situation is through an application for a certificate of lawfulness supported by evidence to demonstrate the use of the building is lawful. Until such a certificate is submitted, given the uncertainty over the building, it is considered that the provisions of the policy cannot be applied.

38

Setting aside this initial issue at present, the following principle issues also need consideration. The site being in open countryside, local plan policy S5 is relevant; this states that development in the countryside should be strictly controlled unless specifically permitted by another policy within the local plan; this stance is supported by Devon Structure Plan Policy ST5. These local policies need to be considered alongside the presumption in favour of sustainable development running through the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) but also the objectives in this framework to reduce the need to rely on travel by private vehicle. In regard to housing the NPPF advises that Local Planning Authorities should avoid new isolated new homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances (such as essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside; re-use of the a heritage asset or redundant building to enhance a setting; or a dwelling of outstanding and innovative design). None of these crtiteria apply in this case. There are limited public transport connections to the nearest towns, these being from within the village street of Wilmington itself. Access to services in the immediate local area are considered limited and the creation of a new home would undoubtedly increase the need to travel by private vehicle for access to employment, schools, main shopping requirements, health and cultural and other social and community facilities. These circumstances would not it is considered meet the objectives of the NPPF. The agent has raised an application that was approved by Members as a precedent for new dwellings within Wilmington. In 2013 an application made in outline for a bungalow at 'Bramleys' was approved contrary to Officer recommendation because Members considered that the site is sustainable and that the proposal would not cause significant landscape harm despite being within the AONB because of its close proximity to the A35 and the railway line. However every case must be determined on its own merits and it is still maintained by Officers that this is an unsustainable location for new dwellings for development in the countryside to reduce the need to travel by private vehicle and encourage the use of other more sustainable modes. Whilst a train line runs through the village there is no station enabling a train to stop. The nearest stations are actually located in either Axminster or Honiton, which would in themselves lead to a journey to these settlements to catch a train. It is considered that this is an unsustainable location for a new dwelling and as such the application is considered unacceptable in this regard. Access As the proposal is for one dwelling standing advice is normally applied to this type of application in respect of highways and access. It is considered that as a sufficient access from the main hotel site already exists this element would be acceptable in terms of access from the drive currently serving the road to the A35. There is no objection from the Highways Agency.

39

However an element that does require further consideration is the difficulties caused by the difference in levels between the proposed access way and the site for parking and turning alongside the dwelling. There are no details as to how this might be practically achieved as the gradient is significant at this point and there is a not insignificant difference between the relative heights of the land above and below the steeper slope. Whilst this no doubt could be technically overcome it may lead to a significant cut through the existing bank with consequent impact on the visual qualities of the area. Neighbouring amenity In terms of the amenity of neighbouring homes the proposed building is located well away from adjoining properties, both buildings and gardens, and therefore whilst acknowledging the scale of this larger replacement building it is not considered that any significant overbearing or overlooking would arise. Ecological impact A wildlife survey advises that bats are not using the barn and chalet to be demolished as a roost. Some mitigation is suggested in the form of a roost or gaps in external walls and these could be included in details to be confirmed at a later date. Suffice to say the removal of the buildings wouldn't appear to have a harmful effect on local bat populations; any approval should be conditional on development proceeding in accordance with the survey findings and recommendations. Arboricultural impact In terms of tree cover around the site, a tree survey suggests there is limited work that is required to facilitate the dwelling. Only one group of trees - labelled on the plan as G4 - is proposed to be removed to assist light into windows. Elsewhere if the proposal is acceptable in principle it is considered that given the open landscape to the north that this area (which is within the blue line of the application) could benefit from some additional planting to break up the massing and vertical emphasis of this proposed north east elevation as shown in the indicative plans. This could be achieved by a landscaping and planting scheme enabled by condition to any approval. However as acknowledged previously the north east elevation of the proposal would be more visible compared to the existing building given the proposal to remove the existing trees along that side, and therefore the benefits of an appropriate landscaping and planting scheme would be even more apparent. Design Turning to the design specifically this indicatively shows a traditional style dwelling and it is considered that there would not be any harm from this form of dwelling in the locality. There is a mixture of styles of dwellings in the village with a historic core of buildings with more modern mid to late 20th Century buildings towards the edges, and given these circumstances such a design would be considered acceptable. In

40

terms of the Parish Council comments regarding the location of the dwelling on the plot to retain a tree screen, this would be resolved at reserved matters stage. Impact on the AONB It is considered that harm to the qualities of the AONB would not be significant, and any initial effect through the new building could be addressed by a suitable landscaping and planting scheme. There would be an immediate view of the east side of the proposal from the nearest lane but other than that it is not considered that the dwelling would be overtly visible in the landscape due to the existing topography, orientation of the terrace of land on which the building would sit and natural screening. RECOMMENDATION REFUSE for the following reasons: 1. It has not been proven to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that

there is an existing dwelling on site to be replaced. Consequently the proposal would represent an unjustified additional dwelling in the open countryside which is remote from adequate services, employment, education and public transport and is likely to increase the need for travel by private vehicle which is unsustainable contrary to the requirements of Policies H11 (Replacement of existing dwellings in the countryside), S5 (Countryside Protection) and TA1 (Accessibility of New Development) of the East Devon Local Plan and Policies H6 (Replacement of existing dwellings in the countryside), Strategy 7 (Development in the Countryside) and TC2 (Accessibility of New Development) of The New East Devon Local Plan 2006 - 26 Proposed Submission (Publication) November 2012) and guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework.

NOTE FOR APPLICANT Informative: In accordance with the requirements of Article 31 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 in determining this application, East Devon District Council has worked proactively and positively with the applicant to attempt to resolve the planning concerns the Council has with the application. However the applicant was unable to satisfy the key policy tests in the submission and as such the application has been refused. List of Background Papers Application file, consultations and policy documents referred to in the report.

41

Ward Exmouth Town

Reference 14/1768/FUL & 14/1767/LBC

Applicant Ms A Hayward

Location Mamhead Slipway Mamhead View Exmouth

Proposal Redevelopment of Mamhead slipway and Mamhead View Gardens to provide realigned and enlarged slipway with associated vehicle manoeuvring. Provision of construction site compound to the Esplanade opposite Morton Crescent.

RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions

Crown Copyright and database rights 2014 Ordnance Survey 100023746

42

Committee Date: 18.11.2014

Exmouth Town (EXMOUTH)

14/1768/FUL & 14/1767/LBC

Target Dates: 14.11.2014 & 19.09.2014

Applicant: Ms A Hayward

Location: Mamhead Slipway Mamhead View & Exmouth Sea Wall, Esplanade

Proposals: 14/1768/FUL - Redevelopment of Mamhead slipway and Mamhead View Gardens to provide realigned and enlarged slipway with associated vehicle manoeuvring. Provision of construction site compound to the Esplanade opposite Morton Crescent. 14/1767/LBC - Removal of wall adjoining the western face of the listed sea wall, cleaning of the western end of the listed sea wall and re-pointing to enable the redevelopment of the slipway proposed under application 14/1768/FUL

RECOMMENDATION: 14/1768/FUL – Approval with conditions 14/1767/LBC – Approval with conditions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY These applications are before Committee as the applicant is East Devon District Council. The application proposes the replacement of the existing Mamhead Slipway with a new longer and wider slipway with associated vehicle manoeuvring area. In addition, the application proposes a temporary construction compound on the Esplanade. The provision of a replacement slipway is identified as a key development project within the Exmouth Masterplan and is also supported by policies in the emerging New Local Plan. Given this, and as the slipway is replacing an existing slipway, the proposal is acceptable in principle despite the loss of Mamhead Gardens to provide the vehicle manoeuvring area. The application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement detailing the impacts from the proposal and this has raised no objection from Natural England or the Environment Agency in terms of impact upon the estuary and its ecological value and designations subject to the provision of mitigation detailed

43

in the Environmental Statement. The relationship of the site to the Exe Estuary and any impacts have been considered in relation to the Habitat Regulations. Subject to the implementation of the mitigation measures outlined in the applicants Mitigation Strategy, the proposal will have no adverse effect on the integrity of the estuary. The proposal will have a suitable visual impact despite the loss of Mamhead Gardens and the works proposed to the end of the listed sea wall will not be harmful to the listed sea wall subject to conditions securing submission of suitable sample materials. The majority of the objections received to the application relate to the temporary construction compound on the Esplanade. The applicant has provided a justification for this and whilst there will be a visual impact and potential for some disturbance to surrounding residents and businesses, the construction period will be limited. Subject to submission of a Construction Environmental Management Plan, it is considered that any impact from the temporary construction compound will be acceptable. CONSULTATIONS Local Consultations Parish/Town Council Committee meeting 4th August 14 No objection. The committee asked that EDDC approach DCC Highways so consideration be given to a white line being painted along the centre of the road, particularly on the bend near the Beach Hotel, to improve traffic safety plus concern was shown on cars with trailers accessing the slipway via Victoria Rd and whether it should be one way. A condition to be applied to the usage of the construction site compound to restrict its usage before 7.30am and after 6pm so as to protect the amenity of the area for residents during the construction period. Technical Consultations County Highway Authority The Highway Authority has visited the site which is accessed off the C Class County highway which is restricted to 30 MPH. The proposal for the slipway with the adjusted visibility splays and the widening of the footway to accommodate cyclist on Drawing No. PB2004-0001 rev P6 is acceptable from a Highway Safety point.

44

The location of the compound is I realise a separate issue from the proposed slipway, but still included on the application but not within the redline. The Highway Authority has a number of issues with this compound and location. The design and access statement refers to this location being the preferred option due to Camperdown Car Park being too remote from the site. I do not believe it would be appropriate use the Esplanade parking area to the extent you are describing for a compound at that time of year. You suggest that a 450sqm compound which will have the contractors welfare facilities and a site office, these can all be accommodated in Camperdown Car Park. The location is a key drop off and parking facility for the hotels on the north side of the road and for those wishing to use the harbour facilities. The hotels also have pedestrian access onto the Esplanade throughout the 200m shown on your plan. I think we should consider the impact of these works on local businesses and the outlook from the hotels should be a key consideration. There will also be a loss of revenue for Devon County Council as the proposed compound will be in their Pay and Display car parking bays. Recommendation: THE HEAD OF PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENT, ON BEHALF OF DEVON COUNTY COUNSIL, AS LOCAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY, RECOMMENDS THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE INCORPORATED IN ANY GRANT OF PERMISSION:- Prior to commencement of any part of the site the Planning Authority shall have received and approved a Construction Environment and Management Plan (CEMP) including: (a) the timescale of the works; (b) daily hours of construction; (c) any road closure; (d) hours during which delivery and construction traffic will travel to and from the site, with such vehicular movements being restricted to between 8:00am and 6pm Monday to Fridays inc.; 9,00am to 1.00pm Saturdays, and no such vehicular movements taking place on Sundays and Bank/Public Holidays unless agreed by the Planning Authority in advance; (e) the number and sizes of vehicles visiting the site in connection with the development and the frequency of their visits; (f) the compound/location where all building materials, finished or unfinished products, parts, crates, packing materials and waste will be stored during the demolition and construction phases; (g) areas on-site where delivery vehicles and construction traffic will load or unload building materials, finished or unfinished products, parts, crates, packing materials and waste with confirmation that no construction traffic or delivery vehicles will park on the County highway for loading or unloading purposes, unless prior written agreement has been given by the Local Planning Authority; (h) hours during which no construction traffic will be present at the site; (j) details of proposals to promote car sharing amongst construction staff in order to limit construction staff vehicles parking off-site; (k) details of wheel washing facilities and obligations; (l) The proposed route of all construction traffic exceeding 7.5 tonnes;

45

(m) Details of the amount and location of construction worker parking and welfare facilities. (n) Photographic evidence of the condition of adjacent public highway prior to commencement of any work. Natural England Thank you for your consultations dated 25 July 2013, which we received on the same day and the recently submitted Mitigation Strategy which we received on 16 October 2014 Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development. Internationally designated sites The application site is within or in close proximity to a European designated site (also commonly referred to as Natura 2000 sites), and therefore has the potential to affect its interest features. European sites are afforded protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, as amended (the 'Habitats Regulations'). The application site is partly within the Exe Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA) which is a European site. The site is also a Ramsar site1 and notified at a national level as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Please see the subsequent sections of this letter for our advice relating to SSSI features. In considering the European site interest, Natural England advises that you, as a competent authority under the provisions of the Habitats Regulations, should have regard for any potential impacts that a plan or project may have2. The Conservation objectives for each European site explain how the site should be restored and/or maintained and may be helpful in assessing what, if any, potential impacts a plan or project may have. Natural England notes that an HRA has not been produced by your authority, but that the applicant has provided "Information to inform a HRA" as part of their ES. As competent authority, it is your responsibility to undertake a HRA. We provide the advice enclosed on the assumption that your authority intends to adopt this HRA to fulfil your duty as competent authority: Natural England concurs with the assessment of likely significant effect, however we cannot agree with the assessment that a conclusion of no adverse effect on integrity can be reached, in combination with other plans or projects in the area, in particular the local plan housing allocations of East Devon, Exeter and Teignbridge Councils. However, subsequent to the submission of the "Information to inform HRA" the applicant has provided further details of a proposed Mitigation Strategy (14th October 2014). It is Natural England view that these measures, if secured, would enable a conclusion of no adverse effect on integrity to be reached. On the basis of information provided we therefore advise that the proposal can be screened out from further stages of assessment because adverse effects are

46

unlikely to occur, either alone or in combination. This conclusion has been drawn having regard for the mitigation measures built into the proposal that seek to avoid all potential impacts. Exe Estuary SSSI Natural England advises that there will be no additional impacts on the features of interest of the Exe Estuary SSSI sites resulting from the proposed development beyond those already identified with regard to the European wildlife site above. We have not assessed this application and associated documents for impacts on protected species. Natural England has published Standing Advice on protected species. The Standing Advice includes a habitat decision tree which provides advice to planners on deciding if there is a 'reasonable likelihood' of protected species being present. It also provides detailed advice on the protected species most often affected by development, including flow charts for individual species to enable an assessment to be made of a protected species survey and mitigation strategy. You should apply our Standing Advice to this application as it is a material consideration in the determination of applications in the same way as any individual response received from Natural England following consultation. The Standing Advice should not be treated as giving any indication or providing any assurance in respect of European Protected Species (EPS) that the proposed development is unlikely to affect the EPS present on the site; nor should it be interpreted as meaning that Natural England has reached any views as to whether a licence may be granted. Environment Agency Environment Agency Position - Flood Risk It is important that all sea waters that overtop the proposed development and all surface waters are drained back to the Estuary and are not drained back into the town where there are acute drainage capacity problems. Provision should be made to drain flood waters in the Esplanade out to the estuary via the new slipway as set out in the submitted Flood Risk Assessment (para 4). Given satisfaction on these points there are no objections to the proposal from the flood risk aspect. Environment Agency Position - Fisheries The Environmental Statement sufficiently demonstrates that vibration piling at this location will have a minimal impact on salmonids moving through the channel between Exmouth and Warren Point. We agree that no seasonal or tidal restrictions on working are necessary when using this method provided the scale and scope of the work does not increase. Percussive piling has been suggested as an option for construction should ground conditions mean that vibro piling is ineffective. If any percussive piling is to be conducted then the mitigation measures as outlined in the Environmental Statement should be implemented. This namely being the 'soft start' with low hammer energy.

47

We are satisfied that with the current scale of the works and in anticipation that percussive piling may only be required for a small proportion of it (if at all), risks to fish and fish migration will be limited due to; the restriction to only daytime working, the employment of the 'soft start' technique and the intermittent nature of the work. We therefore wouldn't implement restrictions on working times when use of this technique will be minimal. However, if it is found that this percussive piling is required more extensively for construction (i.e > 25%) we should be re-consulted to discuss further mitigation measures and any working time restrictions which may be necessary. Our general preference for working times for fisheries protection would be April - mid June, as this would avoid the typical migration peak for salmonids in the late Summer. We ask that the site team be vigilant for signs of any fish in distress during piling works, especially any of the more sensitive clupeid species which are known to be seasonally present in the Exe Estuary. If any concerns about fish are raised during construction, then works should stop and we should be notified immediately. Environmental Health I have considered the application and the Environmental Impact Assessment included within it. I am concerned to see that the piling operations proposed, which we appreciate are essential to this development, will cause significant noise disturbance. We would require an explanation from the applicant as to why quiet piling techniques are not proposed to be used. In any case the applicant must make an application to Environmental Health under S.61 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 in order that noise minimisation and mitigation measures can be agreed. The remaining environmental health elements of the EIA are comprehensive and acceptable. A construction and environment management plan will need to be provided and agreed prior to any works starting and a condition should be included on any approval. The condition is: A Construction and Environment Management Plan must be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to any works commencing on site, and shall be implemented and remain in place throughout the development. The CEMP shall include at least the following matters : Air Quality, Dust, Water Quality, Lighting, Noise and Vibration, Pollution Prevention and Control, and Monitoring Arrangements. Construction working hours shall be 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 1pm on Saturdays, with no working on Sundays or Bank Holidays. There shall be no burning on site. There shall be no high frequency audible reversing alarms used on the site. Reason: To protect the amenities of existing and future residents in the vicinity of the site from noise, air, water and light pollution."

48

English Heritage Recommendation This application should be determined in accordance with National and local policy guidance, and on the basis of your expert conservation advice Contaminated Land Officer This development is being carried out on a site which may have been previously made ground. However substantial excavation is required and I therefore anticipate that any materials of concern will be removed during the works. The applicant will be required to protect the adjacent water environment under requirements by the Environment Agency and Marine Management Organisation. There is therefore no further comment required by ourselves. However I recommend that the following condition is included on any application in the event that unexpected materials are encountered: Should any contamination of soil and/or ground or surface water be discovered during excavation of the site or development, the Local Planning Authority should be contacted immediately. Site activities in the area affected shall be temporarily suspended until such time as a method and procedure for addressing the contamination is agreed upon in writing with the Local Planning Authority and/or other regulating bodies. Reason: To ensure that any contamination existing and exposed during the development is identified and remediated. Other Representations At the time of writing this report, 7 letters of objection have been received to the planning application and the reasons for objection can be summarised as follows:

• Noise and disturbance from the construction compound; • Loss of 50 parking spaces on the sea front to provide the construction

compound; • Impact from the construction compound on the seafront walk; • Distress to residents and visitors from the plant using the seafront; • Chaos for tour coaches and hotel guests from the construction compound; • Could use Camperdown Creek car park for the construction compound as this

is less visible and will less disruption to residents; • The construction compound will make access to Morton Crescent difficult; • Visual impact from fencing and lights to the construction compound; • Slipway and the work is unnecessary; • Noise and pollution from increased use of Jet Skis on the estuary; • Loss of car parking revenue; • Loss of the green space to provide the slipway; • Increased danger to pedestrians around the new slipway; • Hazardous design of the pedestrian access to the footway on the sea wall.

No third party representations have been received in relation to the listed building application.

49

PLANNING HISTORY There is no planning history relevant to these applications. POLICIES New East Devon Local Plan Policies Strategy 5 (Environment) Strategy 6 (Development within Built-up Area Boundaries) Strategy 22 (Development at Exmouth) Strategy 42 (Green Infrastructure Provision and Strategy) Strategy 44 (Undeveloped Coast and Coastal Preservation Area) Strategy 45 (Coastal Erosion) Strategy 47 (Nature Conservation and Geology) Strategy 49 (The Historic Environment) D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) EN1 (Land of Local Amenity Importance) EN4 (Protection of Local Nature Reserves, County Wildlife Sites and County Geological Sites) EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) EN8 (Extension, Alteration or Change of Use of Buildings of Special Architectural and Historic Interest) EN14 (Control of Pollution) EN15 (Environmental Impacts, Nuisance and Detriment to Health) EN22 (Surface Run-Off Implications of New Development) EN23 (Coastal Erosion and Surface Water Run-Off) EN24 (Coastal Defence Schemes) EN25 (Development Affected by Coastal Change) RC1 (Retention of Land for Sport and Recreation) RC4 (Recreation Facilities in the Countryside and on the Coast) TC2 (Accessibility of New Development) TC4 (Footpaths, Bridleways and Cycleways) TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) TC9 (Parking Provision in New Development) Adopted East Devon Local Plan Policies S4 (Development Within Built-up Area Boundaries) D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) EN4 (Nationally Important Sites including Sites of Special Scientific Interest) EN5 (Protection of Local Nature Reserves, County Wildlife Sites and County Geological Sites) EN6 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) EN9 (Extension, Alteration or Change of use of Buildings of Special Architectural and Historic Interest) EN15 (Control of Pollution) RE1 (Retention of Land for Sport and Recreation) TA1 (Accessibility of New Development) TA4 (Footpaths, Bridleways and Cycleways) TA7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access)

50

TA9 (Parking Provision in New Development) SPG17 (Exmouth Masterplan) Government Planning Documents NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework 2012) NPPG (National Planning Policy Guidance) Site Location and Description Mamhead Slipway is a slipway into the Exe Estuary located on the eastern side of the estuary at the western end of the Esplanade in Exmouth. The slipway is adjacent to Pier Head, a small amenity gardens area and is the main point of access to the water for trailer-launched boats. The current slipway has been there for many years providing a 35m long concrete slab varying from 8m down to 6m in width. At present the slipway is at right angles to the road and accessed directly off Mamhead View with no turning or drop-off areas. In 2012 the slipway was closed following underwater surveys that found that the slipway had voids underneath and was unsafe for continued use. The application site comprises the following:

• The existing slipway; • An area off the existing slipway at 30 degrees projecting into the estuary; • The Mamhead Public Gardens to the west of the existing slipway; • The retaining wall adjoining the Grade II listed Sea Wall; • An area (4.5m by 100m) comprising 45 on-street car parking spaces further

along the Esplanade opposite Morton Crescent for provision of a temporary site compound.

The Proposals The planning application proposes the removal of the existing slipway and gardens and construction of a new enlarged slipway. The new slipway would maintain the current slope (1 in 6) but would be lengthened, rotated by 30 degrees to the west and widened. The new slipway would cover an area 12m wide and 40m long extending from the road to 1m below Mean Low Water Springs and would be constructed in concrete. The scheme would require the removal of the existing Mamhead Gardens to provide a triangular 40m by 16m hard-standing area for vehicles and trailers to turn and wait. This would necessitate lowering existing garden levels to road level by approximately 600-800mm. An entrance and exit at 6m wide would be provided to the area along with a widened footpath around the site frontage. The slipway toe, with a vertical drop down to the seabed, would be positioned approximately 1m below Mean Low Water Springs (MLWS).

51

Continued pedestrian access to the beach is proposed along with a new flood/wave wall bounding the vehicle turning and waiting area with flood defence gates to the access and exit. The associated listed building application has been submitted as the new slipway works necessitate the removal of the retaining wall adjoining the Grade II Listed Sea Wall. This will expose the western face of the Sea Wall. Once exposed, the listed Sea Wall would be cleaned and re-pointed. The slipway would be constructed predominately using land based plant as this involves less risk than the use of marine/floating plant. Piling of the new slipway is likely to commence from the land and be constructed in sections. Given this, a site compound is proposed on the public highway close to the slipway on the Esplanade opposite Morton Crescent. It would consist of temporary offices, storage of materials, welfare facilities and parking. The planning application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement as the proposals are subject to the EIA Regulations and Habitats Regulations given the potential impact from the proposal upon the Exe Estuary SPA and Ramsar Site. Alongside the need to secure planning permission, the applicant will need to secure a Marine Licence from the Marine Management Organisation as the proposals fall under the activity ‘Construct, alter or improve any works below Mean High Water Springs (MHWS)’. ANALYSIS Principle The application proposes a replacement slipway on the site of an existing slipway to improve recreational access to the estuary. The provision of improved recreational facilities is supported by the adopted local plan, emerging local plan, the NPPF, and in particular the Exmouth Masterplan. The Exmouth Masterplan includes within it the need to improve access to the water for boats and other water users. The Masterplan states that “There appears to be little opportunity to improve five of the slipways due to physical constraints and viability, however the Mamhead and Imperial Recreation Ground slipways could be considered as a primary focus in assessing the potential for investment in order to improve the existing access to water facilities.” In addition, Section 6.3 of the Masterplan lists regeneration opportunity projects including number 22 – Enhancements to the Mamhead Slipway. It states: “Mamhead Slipway is one of the priorities for investment to improve access to water. Primary users of the Mamhead Slipway include:

• Powerboats • Motor yachts and larger craft

52

• Sailing boats • More experienced users.

Initial proposals for the Mamhead Slipway could include:

• Ensuring adequate space is provided adjacent to the slipway for parking and manoeuvring to facilitate use of the slipway. Any new development in this area should not compromise the effective use of this slipway;

• Further survey work to assess the best way to improve this slipway and to assess the viability of any enhancements. Enhancement work is likely to include reducing the gradient of the slipway, extending the slipway and managing the tidal flow issues.

Further work is required to assess the viability of proposed improvements works to the slipway, and to develop a business case in order to inform any funding applications.” The proposal therefore fully accords with the Masterplan. In addition, the proposal accords with Strategy 22 of the Emerging New Local Plan in terms of promoting the town as a high quality tourist destination capitalising on the waterfront assets and as Strategy 22 includes Waterfront Redevelopment Sites (including Mamhead Slipway) as a Strategic Land Allocation for mixed use development including tourism and recreation uses. The loss of the Mamhead Public Gardens area of open space is contrary to policies that seek to retain public open space but the loss of this area is accepted in the Masterplan and the benefits to the use of the slipway and recreational provision are considered to outweigh the loss of the small area of open space. The design of the slipway follows consultation with the Mamhead Slipway user group who confirmed that the average size of vessel is between 4.5m and 7m. The maximum vessel size launched from the slipway is 10m. It is estimated that there would be an eight hour period of usage in every tidal cycle. The design life for the new slipway is 50 years. In light of the above, the principle of re-providing the existing slipway, albeit in a different configuration, is acceptable. Impact upon ecology and the Exe Estuary Mamhead Slipway is located within the Exe Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site. The proposals are also within 500m of the Dawlish Warren Special Area of Conservation (SAC). Given the location, nature and scale of the proposed works in relation to the Exe Estuary, the proposed development will need to comply with The Conservation of Natural Habitats and Wild Flora and Fauna (Habitats Directive) and an Environmental Impact Assessment has been undertaken by the applicant to identify the potential environmental effects of the proposed development. The application is

53

therefore accompanied by an Environmental Statement (ES). The ES also addresses the Water Framework Directive to ensure that the proposed development complies with this European Regulation to ensure improvements to the water. It is envisaged that the timescale for construction will take approximately four to six months over a spring/summer period. The ES is broken down into Chapters covering the following areas (matters of Landscape Impact, Impact upon Heritage Assets and Traffic and Transport are dealt with separately later in this report): Physical Environment: This section discusses the coastal process aspects of the physical environment associated with the Slipway. This covers issues such as geology, depth of the water, wave flows, tide levels and sedimentary movement. The chapter concludes that changes to these from the new slipway are likely to be relatively small and localised and the Environment Agency (EA) and Natural England have raised no objections to the proposal on this basis. As such, the conclusions in the ES are agreed with and no mitigation to address any impact upon these elements is required. Water and Sediment Quality: This section of the ES focuses on accidental pollution that may occur during the construction and operation of the slipway. The ES states that the main impact would be from accidental spills or leaks during the construction phase. Whilst any risks will be controlled by the implementation of an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) that will require approval from the Environment Agency, the ES outlines measures including the following to be put into place as good practice to prevent pollution:

• Wheel washing in suitable areas at least 10m from the water; • Concrete and cement mixing and washing at least 10m from the water; • Secure storage of fuel, oil and chemicals; • Keep a spill kit on site.

During the operation of the slipway, signage will be developed in association with the Environment Agency to reduce the likelihood of pollution. The EA and Natural England have raised no objection to the application on this basis and given the need for the applicant to agree an EMP with the EA, the risk of pollution is considered to be adequately addressed.

54

Ecology: This section relates to one of the main issues raised by the Environment Agency during the scoping phase of the EIA in regard to marine ecology, fish and shellfish and considers how the proposed development may affect fish and shellfish. On land, any ecological interest is limited to the small park area and a survey of this land has not identified any protected species or impact that would be an impediment to development. The ES assesses the impact from construction and use of the slipway on intertidal and sub tidal ecology. The main intertidal impacts will be upon barnacles, fucoids and limpets but the presence of these species is atypical of the area and of limited conservation importance. Such species will grow back within 5 years and as such the impact upon intertidal ecology is acceptable with no objection raised by Natural England or the EA on this basis. With regard to sub tidal ecology, the ES focuses on impacts to fish and shellfish as the estuary is home to many species of migratory and breeding fish such as Sea Trout and Salmon. The main impacts assessed result from comments raised at the pre-application and EIA Screening and Scoping stages by the EA regarding the need to assess any impact from construction noise on fish and their migratory or breeding patterns. The report identifies that piling activities, particularly using percussive techniques, can create underwater noise which can impact upon the fish, causing death in extreme cases. To address this, the application proposes the use of vibro-piling as this produces significantly less noise than percussive piling. If percussive piling is to be used (where ground conditions dictate), this will be for short periods of time with soft start techniques used. The EA in their consultation response to this application have accepted this approach subject to the following:

• The use of vibro piling where possible; • Soft start to any percussive piling; • Reconsultation with the EA if percussive piling is required for more than 25%

of the construction; • Preference for working times between April – mid June to avoid peak

migration of salmonids in late summer; • Site team to be vigilant for signs of fish in distress and to stop work

immediately if there are any concerns. Subject to a condition to provide a CEMP covering these areas, there is no objection in terms of impact upon fish or shellfish.

55

Ornithology: This section details potential impact upon birds given that the Exe Estuary is of international importance for wintering wildfowl and waders. The ES details that birds are most affected by the presence of people and by noisy machinery. The ES relates to various studies demonstrating that impacts from noise are generally confined to areas within 250m of the source of the disturbance. With Dawlish Warren in excess of 360m away and with no birds using, nesting or wintering on the site itself, and with the piling methods previously mentioned and no working over the winter months when birds are wintering, the impact upon birds from noise is acceptable. There are no objections from Natural England or the Environment Agency on the grounds of impact upon birds. The piling methods and time of construction can be controlled through a CEMP. Noise and Vibration: Unless unexpected ground conditions are encountered, all piling will be carried out using vibratory piling techniques powered by a diesel/hydraulic power pack. The rig will be sound proofed to reduce noise. Should vibratory techniques not be possible, then percussive piling will be employed. If this is required, a shroud will be provided for the impact pile hammer to reduce noise as far as possible. The ES also details best practice for the management of site noise and vibration and this can be secured through a CEMP that cross-references the ES. Subject to a condition controlling the piling method as per above, the impact from noise and construction upon wildlife is acceptable. Environmental Health have commented on the use of quiet piling techniques to protect nearby residents and businesses and this can be secured through the CEMP condition alongside the need to protect ecology. Air Quality: This section addresses the impact on local air quality proposing mitigation measures for the control of dust during construction. Subject to this mitigation being secured through condition, any impact upon air quality can be adequately controlled and mitigated. Navigation: This section considers the potential impacts of the proposed works and operational period on navigation in and around the slipway and channel.

56

The site is located close to Pier Head but risks to other vessels using the channel during construction or operation of the slipway are limited. The proposed slipway has been turned through 30 degrees to ensure that it is easier for crafts to be launched. The slipway will enter the water at a point where the tide is less strong due to its relationship with Pier Head. In addition, the lengthening of the slipway will enable vessels to be launched over a greater tidal period and this will spread the risk of crafts all wanting to launch or land at the same time. The proposal should therefore represent an improvement over the existing slipway. Socio-Economics, Recreation and Amenity: The main impacts will be from construction upon the adjacent, Waterfront Cafe, surrounding businesses and local residents and the loss of the Mamhead Gardens. Any impacts will mainly be constrained to the construction period. Whilst the ES details some of the construction times and details, it is considered that it is necessary to condition submission of a Construction and Environmental Management Plan to ensure that any impact upon local businesses and residents is adequately controlled during construction. During operation of the slipway, any impact from its use would be acceptable. Whilst a successful slipway would be likely to create more usage and activity over a greater time period than the existing slipway, any impacts are considered to be limited and acceptable and certainly an improvement upon the historic situation given the provision of a loading and unloading area that is currently absent and therefore historically resulted in congestion to the slipway access. Conclusion: It should be noted that neither the Environment Agency nor Natural England raise objection to the application given the contents of the ES and the mitigation proposed. It is considered that subject to the mitigation measures in the ES being carried out and secured by condition, the proposal will not have a detrimental impact upon ecology or the Exe Estuary and its designations. Habitats Directive With regard to the Habitats Directive, Natural England has advised that the Local Planning Authority should determine whether the proposal is likely to have a significant effect on any European site, proceeding to the Appropriate Assessment stage where significant effects cannot be ruled out. Natural England has advised on the following points to assist with the Habitats Regulations Assessment: “Natural England notes that an HRA has not been produced by your authority, but that the applicant has provided "Information to inform a HRA" as part of their ES. As competent authority, it is your responsibility to undertake a HRA. We provide the

57

advice enclosed on the assumption that your authority intends to adopt this HRA to fulfil your duty as competent authority: Natural England concurs with the assessment of likely significant effect, however we cannot agree with the assessment that a conclusion of no adverse effect on integrity can be reached, in combination with other plans or projects in the area, in particular the local plan housing allocations of East Devon, Exeter and Teignbridge Councils. However, subsequent to the submission of the "Information to inform HRA" the applicant has provided further details of a proposed Mitigation Strategy (14th October 2014). It is Natural England view that these measures, if secured, would enable a conclusion of no adverse effect on integrity to be reached. On the basis of information provided we therefore advise that the proposal can be screened out from further stages of assessment because adverse effects are unlikely to occur, either alone or in combination. This conclusion has been drawn having regard for the mitigation measures built into the proposal that seek to avoid all potential impacts.” Given the comments from Natural England, the proposal will have no adverse effect subject to the following mitigation being secured by condition in accordance with the 14th October 2014 Mitigation Strategy prepared by the applicant: 1. “On the opening of the slipway, promotional material will be produced which

aims to educate existing users on the sensitivity of estuary and promotes the use of Mamhead Slipway as the preferred location for powered water craft to launch and recover. Additionally, material should promote the idea that reduced usage of the inner estuary during the wintering months is likely to be beneficial to the conservation interests of the estuary. This is likely to take the form of communication with the Water Users Group established in 2012 following closure of Mamhead Slipway and the production of a leaflet which would be distributed both to the user group and boatyards around the area. The operators of local boatyards would be encouraged to pass the information on to their customers, some of whom are not locally based and therefore not members of the Water Users Group. Additionally, EDDC would seek to promote the slipway and the conservation features of the estuary via the online communication strands that are currently used, such as Facebook and Twitter. There would be a press release to local media, potentially coinciding with an informal opening ceremony, to which users would be invited. These measures are all in line with the recommendations in the South-East Devon European Site Mitigation Strategy (2013) which supports the relocation of users from other slipways in the estuary to the new Mamhead Slipway. All material will be agreed with the South-East Devon European Site Mitigation Strategy (SEDESMS) Delivery Officer (or should this person not be in post, Natural England).

2. A commitment to provide a member of staff to visit the slipway, predominantly

to educate users regarding the use of the slipway as the preferred launch and recovery site and to outline the importance of the conservation interests of the estuary. It is proposed that this staff member would also monitor the use of the slipway and collect information on user numbers, types of water craft and

58

where possible, ask users where they are planning to visit that day. It is suggested that the staff member is available for the first 12 months following slipway completion and that they should visit the slipway at least five times a month for six hours at a time to cover different days (weekdays or weekends), seasons and tidal states. The information on usage of the slipway would be made available to Natural England.

3. Signage would be placed at the new slipway which promotes the Exe Estuary

voluntary code and the access and zoning arrangements within the estuary. It is also proposed that material regarding the interest features of the SPA be agreed with the SEDESMS Delivery Officer (or Natural England if this person is not in post) before it is installed at the site.

4. For other slipways that are within EDDC’s control, signage would be erected

which discourages the use of those slipways, particularly within the winter months, and recommends use of the slipway at Mamhead. For those slipways that are not in EDDC’s control, the Council will make the owners of each slipway aware of the desirability of limiting use of slipways within the inner estuary during the over-wintering season and seek opportunities to promote Mamhead as the preferred launch and recovery location. Table 1 summarises the proposed actions for each slipway listed within the alternatives assessment in the ES. There may be the opportunity to physically restrict access to some of these slipways but this requires further consideration and any proposals agreed within the council would be discussed with Natural England before implementation.

5. Finally, it is proposed that a forum is established where any potential issues

with the use of the slipway can be discussed and actions agreed. There are two possible options for this. One would be to use the established Exe Estuary Management Forum. However this forum has a relatively broad agenda that is not within EDDC’s control. The alternative option is to continue and expand the role of the Water Users Group. This has the advantage that its remit and agenda is within EDDC’s control, enabling a focus to be maintained on the issue of recreational access and use of the estuary. The group is also well placed to discuss the use of other slipways within the estuary. Natural England could be invited to participate in the group. This latter option is preferred as it would allow for direct communication between the authorities and the users, and would offer the opportunity to meet on a more regular basis if necessary.”

Visual impact The existing slipway has a functional appearance and the proposed slipway will have a similar functional appearance given that it is required to be a sturdy platform to launch craft whilst being able to withstand the strength of the sea, its tidal flow and any storms. The proposed slipway will be finished with a concrete surface with wooden or plastic wave breaks to one side. This will have a minimal visual impact from the water, as it will be viewed against the sea wall and backdrop of Exmouth.

59

The main visual impact will come from the replacement of the Mamhead Public Gardens with the new access and turning and waiting area. The existing Gardens, although not highly used except to access the temporary ticket office for Stuart Lines (it is expected that this ticket office will relocate to a unit at Pier Head), does provide an element of green and open relief to this part of the sea front. Whilst the loss of these Gardens are regrettable, the proposal has only generated 1 letter of objection that raises concerns at the loss and it is considered that the benefit to the users of the slipway and to highway safety outweigh the loss of this small area. Visually, whilst the grass will be replaced by a functional concrete turning and waiting area, the area will be active with cars and boats and its visual impact can be improved through the provision of stone facing to the walls as suggested by the Conservation Officer. The existing walls to the Gardens are faced in stone so such a condition is considered reasonable. Subject to the use of stone facing to the walls, the visual impact from the proposal is considered to be acceptable. Impact upon the appearance and setting of the listed Sea Wall The slipway is immediately adjacent to the Grade II Listed Sea Wall and in order to provide the improved slipway, the application proposes the removal of a later retaining wall and steps adjoining the western face of the Sea Wall. The loss of this retaining wall and steps is welcomed as they are later additions to the wall and the removal will enable the cleaning and re-pointing. The Conservation Officer has raised no objection to this but has recommended the use of a cement-based mortar given that it will be open to the sea and water. The applicant is agreeable to this and materials can be conditioned for submission. The proposal includes the provision of new steps and handrail abutting the Sea Wall and whilst no objection is raised to this, details and samples will need to be submitted and the applicant has agreed to the request from the Conservation Officer to face the end of the return to the retaining wall in masonry rather than concreted where it abuts the listed wall. The works for the wider slipway and parking area will change the setting for the Sea Wall but any change to the setting and visual impact of the listed Sea Wall will be minimal and acceptable. Highway Safety and Access The application proposes an in and out arrangement to the loading and unloading area secured by new floodgates and a low level wall. In addition, and as a result of the development, a widened footway/cycleway is proposed around the site linking it to the adjoining cafe footpath and to the pavement along the seafront.

60

Devon County Highways have confirmed that they have no objection to the new access arrangement, the visibility for drivers using the site or with regard to the footway or impact upon pedestrians. It is envisaged that once users have launched their craft, they will leave the site to find alternative locations to park their cars and trailers. There will be no car parking on site other than in association with the loading or unloading of craft. Users will need to make use of existing on-street parking or public car parks such as those at Pier Head or Camperdown. Whilst this is not ideal, this arrangement currently exists and as such will not be made worse by the proposal to an extent that could justify refusal of permission. Whilst County Highways have raised no objection to the proposal subject to a condition securing submission of a CEMP, they have raised concerns regarding the location of the construction compound on the Esplanade within on-street car parking bays. County Highways concerns relate to the fact that they feel Camperdown is a more appropriate location as the proposed site would impact upon parking for hotels on Morton Crescent, impact upon local businesses and remove seafront Pay and Display parking during busy summer months. Impact from construction compound Objections have been received to the application from residents of Morton Crescent who will look out onto the temporary construction compound proposed on the Esplanade. The objections raise concerns regarding loss of parking, loss of outlook, impact upon tourism noise and disturbance, visual impact from construction compound, loss of car parking revenue. Whilst there is little doubt that the location of the compound will impact upon the hotels and properties on Morton Crescent due to its location, the compound is proposed on the existing highway within parking bays and as such would not impact upon the seafront walkway, flow of traffic or access to Morton Crescent. The compound will change the outlook from the hotels and residential properties during the construction period but a loss of view, particularly for a temporary period, is not a planning matter. There is some potential for the compound to impact upon parking for guests to the hotels and visitors to residential properties but this will be short-term and the benefits from the proposal are considered to outweigh this impact and inconvenience. Impacts from construction and operations can be controlled to some degree through a CEMP secured by condition. It is understood that the applicant has agreed to compensate Devon County for the loss of revenue from the car parking spaces although this is outside of the remit of planning and it is for the applicant to gain the necessary consents and agreement from Devon County to use the parking bays for the compound.

61

Finally, County Highways have suggested that Camperdown Car Park would be a more appropriate location for the compound as it would not result in the loss of seafront parking spaces or impact on residents or hotels and tourism. Within the submitted Design and Access Statement the applicant has provided an assessment of alternative sites considered for the compound that included the site, Pier head, Camperdown and the Esplanade. The application site was discounted due to its restricted size being inadequate to construct the slipway whilst holding all the construction and storage compounds. Pier Head car park was discounted as it is unlikely to be available due to works taking place to improve the face of the Pier Head and due to likely construction of the flats next summer. Camperdown has been considered but contractors have advised that it is too distance from the site to be suitable for the main compound. In addition, access between the site and Camperdown would require the use of narrow heavily parked residential roads with a higher possibility of disruption, congestion and impact upon amenity. In light of the above, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable in terms of traffic and transport and highway safety. 14/1768/FUL - RECOMMENDATION APPROVE planning permission subject to the following conditions: 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three

years from the date of this permission and shall be carried out as approved. (Reason - To comply with section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act

1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the

approved plans listed at the end of this decision notice. (Reason - For the avoidance of doubt.) 3. Prior to commencement of any part of the development hereby approved, the

Planning Authority shall have received and approved in writing a Construction Environment and Management Plan (CEMP) including the following and covering the mitigation detailed in the Environmental Statement hereby approved:

(a) the timescale of the works (including the timescale for provision and

removal of the temporary compound); (b) daily hours of construction; (c) any road closure; (d) hours during which delivery and construction traffic will travel to and from the

site, with such vehicular movements being restricted to between 8:00am and 6pm Monday to Fridays inc.; 9,00am to 1.00pm Saturdays, and no such

62

vehicular movements taking place on Sundays and Bank/Public Holidays unless agreed by the Planning Authority in advance;

(e) the number and sizes of vehicles visiting the site in connection with the development and the frequency of their visits;

(f) the compound/location where all building materials, finished or unfinished products, parts, crates, packing materials and waste will be stored during the demolition and construction phases;

(g) areas on-site where delivery vehicles and construction traffic will load or unload building materials, finished or unfinished products, parts, crates, packing materials and waste with confirmation that no construction traffic or delivery vehicles will park on the County highway for loading or unloading purposes, unless prior written agreement has been given by the Local Planning Authority;

(h) hours during which no construction traffic will be present at the site; (j) details of proposals to promote car sharing amongst construction staff in

order to limit construction staff vehicles parking off-site; (k) details of wheel washing facilities and obligations; (l) The proposed route of all construction traffic exceeding 7.5 tonnes; (m) Details of the amount and location of construction worker parking and

welfare facilities. (n) Photographic evidence of the condition of adjacent public highway prior to

commencement of any work; (o) matters of Air Quality, Dust, Water Quality, Lighting, Noise and Vibration,

Pollution Prevention and Control, and Monitoring Arrangements; (p) no burning on site and no use of high frequency audible reversing alarms

used on the site; (q) construction working hours shall be 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday and 8am

to 1pm on Saturdays, with no working on Sundays or Bank Holidays; (r) timetable for construction to comply with the Environmental Statement and

consultee comments from the Environment Agency; (s) use of vibro piling where possible and agreed to consult the Local Planning

Authority and Environment Agency if percussive piling exceeds 25% of piling; (t) Use of soft start techniques if percussive piling is used. Thereafter, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the

approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

(Reason: To protect the amenities of existing and future residents in the vicinity

of the site from construction, noise, air, water and light pollution in accordance with Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and EN15 (Control of Pollution) and in the interest of ecology in accordance with Policies EN4 (Naturally Important Sites - including Sites of Special Scientic Interest) and EN6 (Wildlife and Habitats and Features) of the East Devon Local Plan).

4. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in full accordance with

the Mitigation Strategy dated 14th October 2014 prepared by Royal HaskoningDHV unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

(Reason: In order to address the Habitats Directive and to ensure the protection of wildlife in accordance with Policies EN4 (nationally Important Sites - including

63

Sites of Special Scientific Interest) and EN6 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

5. Notwithstanding the details on the plans hereby approved, before development

is commenced samples of the following shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.:

- facing stone to the new masonry clad retaining wall and the new flood/wave

wall; and - railings to the steps down to the beach. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. (Reason - To ensure that the materials are sympathetic to the character and

appearance of the area in accordance with Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) Policy EN9 (Extension, Alteration or Change of use of Buildings of Special Architectural and Historic Interest) and of the East Devon Local Plan.)

6. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in full accordance with

the Flood Risk Assessment received 10 July 2014 unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

(Reason: In the interests of preventing flood risk and in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework.)

7. Should any contamination of soil and/or ground or surface water be discovered

during excavation of the site or development, the Local Planning Authority should be contacted immediately. Site activities in the area affected shall be temporarily suspended until such time as a method and procedure for addressing the contamination is agreed upon in writing with the Local Planning Authority and/or other regulating bodies.

(Reason: To ensure that any contamination existing and exposed during the development is identified and remediated in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework.)

NOTE FOR APPLICANT Informative: In accordance with the requirements of Article 31 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 in determining this application, East Devon District Council has worked positively with the applicant to ensure that all relevant planning concerns have been appropriately resolved. Plans relating to this application: NON TECHNICAL SUMMARY

General Correspondence

10.07.14

STATEMENT OF General 10.07.14

64

COMM INVOLVEMENT

Correspondence

APPENDICES TO ENV STATEMENT

General Correspondence

10.07.14

ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

General Correspondence

10.07.14

TECHNICAL NOTE

Flood Risk Assessment 10.07.14

Statement of

Significance 10.07.14

Design and Access

Statement 10.07.14

PB2004-0002 REV P2

Sections 10.07.14

PB2004-0003 REV P2

Proposed Combined Plans

10.07.14

PB2004-0004 REV P2

Proposed Combined Plans

10.07.14

PB2004-0005 REV P1

Sections 25.07.14

PB2004-0001 REV P6

Proposed Combined Plans

20.10.14

MITIGATION General Correspondence 14.10.14 STRATEGY List of Background Papers Application file, consultations and policy documents referred to in the report. 14/1767/LBC – RECOMMENDATION APPROVE listed building consent subject to the following conditions: 1. The works to which this consent relates must be begun not later than the

expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this consent is granted.

(Reason - To comply with Sections 18 and 74 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.)

65

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the

approved plans listed at the end of this decision notice. (Reason - For the avoidance of doubt.) 3. Notwithstanding the details on the plans hereby approved, before development

is commenced samples of masonry and binding mortar for the new retaining wall at the end of the walkway as shown on drawing number PB2004-0003 Revision P2 Sectional Elevation D-D shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

(Reason - To ensure that the materials are sympathetic to the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and Policy EN9 (Extension, Alteration or Change of use of Buildings of Special Architectural and Historic Interest) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

NOTE FOR APPLICANT Informative: In accordance with the requirements of Article 31 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 in determining this application, East Devon District Council has worked positively with the applicant to ensure that all relevant planning concerns have been appropriately resolved. Plans relating to this application: STATEMENT OF COMMUNITY INVOLVE

General Correspondence

10.07.14

TECNICAL NOTE

General Correspondence

10.07.14

Design and Access

Statement 10.07.14

Statement of

Significance 10.07.14

PB2004-0003 REV P2

Proposed Combined Plans

10.07.14

PB2004-0002 REV P2

Sections 10.07.14

PB2004-0004 REV P2

Other Plans 10.07.14

PB2004-0001 Proposed Combined 20.10.14

66

REV P6 Plans PB2004-0005 REV P1

Sections 25.07.14

List of Background Papers Application file, consultations and policy documents referred to in the report.

67

Ward Exmouth Town

Reference 14/1820/FUL

Applicant Mr Anthony Griffin

Location Lavis's Boatyard 6A Camperdown Terrace Exmouth

Proposal Demolition of existing shed and construction of a two storey Sea Cadets building with external parade ground and boat storage with access from Camperdown Terrace.

RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions

Crown Copyright and database rights 2014 Ordnance Survey 100023746

68

Committee Date: 18.11.2014

Exmouth Town (EXMOUTH)

14/1820/FUL

Target Date: 22.09.2014

Applicant: Mr Anthony Griffin

Location: Lavis's Boatyard 6A Camperdown Terrace

Proposal: Demolition of existing shed and construction of a two storey Sea Cadets building with external parade ground and boat storage with access from Camperdown Terrace.

RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This application is presented to the Committee because the application site is in the ownership of the Council and as the proposal is related to the Council’s regeneration proposals and projects for Exmouth. The site forms part of Camperdown Creek and proposes a new building and yard for the Sea Cadets who currently occupy a building in a fairly poor condition to the east of the application site. The application site occupies a prominent position within Camperdown Terrace and is also open to longer distance views to the rear from Camperdown Creek, the Estuary and the Imperial Recreation Ground. The site has been identified as a key site for regeneration within the Exmouth Masterplan which recognises the area as becoming Exmouth's focal point for creative, marine, engineering and leisure-based industries. The aspirations of the Masterplan seeks high quality design whilst retaining a 'working' intimate, small scale, low key character and retaining boat storage within the area. The Masterplan actively encourages innovatively designed, contemporary buildings with architecture and materials used in the buildings to reflect the area's maritime character. The proposal is to replace the existing shed with a two storey building for the Sea Cadets with an external parade ground and boat storage area and is part of the wider re-development of the area helping to meet the aspirations of the Council for the regeneration of the town. A contemporary design approach has been taken which is considered to be both sympathetic to the street frontage along Camperdown Terrace in terms of its design, scale and massing and the grade II listed Sail Loft opposite. The

69

architecture and palette of materials are also considered to reflect the areas maritime location and proposed use for the building. The proposal is also considered to be acceptable in terms of its impact on highway safety, residential amenity, ecology and flood risk. The application represents an opportunity to improve and positively contribute to the character and appearance of the area through the regeneration of a prominent run down site within the Camperdown Creek area and to become a focal point for marine and leisure based activities and is therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions. CONSULTATIONS Local Consultations Parish/Town Council- 19.08.2014 Objection on the grounds that the application was contrary to Policy Points made under D1 in the Local Plan.

• Key characteristics and special qualities of the area. • Scale, massing and materials of the building relate well to their context. • Not adversely affecting the distinctive historic or architectural charter of the

area. The proposal is opposite a listed building. Recent storms had demonstrated that there was a risk of flooding. SWW were due to carry out works this Autumn to improve sewerage & drainage. The Committee fully support the Cadets and their need for premises but could not support this application. SWW & Environmental Health should be consulted before the application was considered or re-submitted in the future. Parish/Town Council 16.09.2014 No objection Other Representations At the time of writing this report, 7 letters of objection have been received including objections from Exmouth Civic Society (although they support the principle of new facilities for the Sea Cadets). The reasons for objection can be summarised as follows:

• Noise from the use impacting upon the amenity of local residents; • Visual impact of the building on Camperdown Terrace; • Materials should be red-brick to match the local area; • The design is foreboding; • Visual impact of the metal boundary fence; • Flood risk implications from proposed levels; • Impact upon on-street parking; • Building is too large for the plot; • Loss of an historic building; • Overlooking from the rear balcony/terrace and parade ground; • Loss of view;

70

• Overshadowing of adjoining residents; Technical Consultations County Highway Authority We have no comments to make on this application Environment Agency The proposed development is properly accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment dated 7th July 2014. Importantly this FRA recognises (para 3.3.3) that the site of the proposed development will form an integral part of the planned Exmouth Tidal Defence Scheme that the Environment Agency plan to build to defend lower parts of Exmouth from future risks of tidal flooding. Please find attached a plan prepared by our engineer Mr Jim Faux. Given the above we ask that this proposal be held in abeyance (or refused if this not possible) until such time as it has been formally confirmed by the applicant agents that the delivery of our planned flood defence will not be compromised by this proposal and that if possible this proposal will contribute to the delivery of our planned scheme. We ask that the FRA be revised to clarify this issues. Environmental Health I have considered the application and do not anticipate any environmental health implications once constructed. However this is a residential area and therefore I recommend that the following condition is included on any approval: a. There shall be no burning of any kind on site during construction, demolition or site preparation works. b. No construction or demolition works shall be carried out, or deliveries received, outside of the following hours: 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 1pm on Saturdays, and not at all on Sundays or Public Holidays. c. Dust suppression measures shall be employed as required during construction in order to prevent off-site dust nuisance . d. No high frequency audible reversing alarms shall be permitted to be used on any vehicle working on the site. Reason: To protect the amenity of local residents from smoke, noise and dust. Natural England Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development. THE CONSERVATION OF HABITATS AND SPECIES REGULATIONS 2010 (AS AMENDED) WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1981 (AS AMENDED) Internationally and nationally designated sites

71

The application site is within or in close proximity to a European designated site (also commonly referred to as Natura 2000 sites), and therefore has the potential to affect its interest features. European sites are afforded protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, as amended (the 'Habitats Regulations'). The application site is in close proximity to the Exe Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA) which is a European site. The site is also listed as the Exe Estuary Ramsar site1 and also notified at a national level as the Exe Estuary Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). 1 Listed or proposed Ramsar sites are protected as a matter of Government policy. Paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework applies the same protection measures as those in place for European sites. 2 Requirements are set out within Regulations 61 and 62 of the Habitats Regulations, where a series of steps and tests are followed for plans or projects that could potentially affect a European site. The steps and tests set out within Regulations 61 and 62 are commonly referred to as the 'Habitats Regulations Assessment' process. The Government has produced core guidance for competent authorities and developers to assist with the Habitats Regulations Assessment process. In considering the European site interest, Natural England advises that you, as a competent authority under the provisions of the Habitats Regulations, should have regard for any potential impacts that a plan or project may have2. The Conservation objectives for each European site explain how the site should be restored and/or maintained and may be helpful in assessing what, if any, potential impacts a plan or project may have. Objection/Further information required The consultation documents provided by your authority do not include information to demonstrate that the requirements of Regulations 61 and 62 of the Habitats Regulations have been considered by your authority, i.e. the consultation does not include a Habitats Regulations Assessment. In advising your authority on the requirements relating to Habitats Regulations Assessment, it is Natural England's advice that the proposal is not necessary for the management of the European site. Your authority should therefore determine whether the proposal is likely to have a significant effect on any European site, proceeding to the Appropriate Assessment stage where significant effects cannot be ruled out. Natural England advises that there is currently not enough information to determine whether the likelihood of significant effects can be ruled out. On the basis of the information provided, Natural England is able to advise the following to assist you with your Habitats Regulations Assessment. Decisions at each step in the Habitats Regulations Assessment process should be recorded and justified: The HRA of the Exmouth Town Centre and Seafront Masterplan identified that development of the Blue Infrastructure (Estuaryside Area) poses significant potential

72

for disturbance to Exe SPA and harm to Dawlish Warren SAC. Development at Camperdown Creek is listed under Projects with the increase in visitors posing significant potential for disturbance. Natural England consider that these proposals may increase use of the foreshore (e.g. for canoes) and/or the jetty and so pose additional disturbance risk to the European site. Boat storage and usage It will need to be established whether there will be a net increase in boat storage, which would indicate an increase in usage? If so, how can that potential increase in boat users of the estuary, particularly in the Winter months, be prevented? In order to establish the potential for increased usage and so disturbance, you will need to consider the following: - Will there be an increase in the number of boats stored on the new site compared to the existing site? - Will the boat storage at the existing location be removed or will it be taken over by others? - The proposed centre will be used seven days a week, 9am to 9pm. You may want to consider any impacts of external lighting directly affecting the estuary. HRA Process Stage 1 This is to decide whether the project is likely to have a significant effect on the European site. It is not a statutory requirement under the Habitats Regulations 2010 for a competent authority to consult with Natural England at this stage. Stage 2 If it is considered that the proposal is likely to have a significant effect on the site, an appropriate assessment must be carried out (pursuant to regulation 61(1) of the Habitats Regulations 2010). Regulation 61(3) clearly states that the competent authority must for the purposes of the assessment consult Natural England and have regard to any recommendations it may have. Natural England must be consulted on the findings of an Appropriate Assessment when it is completed and before any decision is made. This is necessary because Natural England will advise East Devon District Council, on the basis of the information contained in the appropriate assessment, whether it can be ascertained that the proposed scheme will not adversely affect the

73

integrity of the European site. Natural England will do this in order to inform the decision about site integrity that East Devon District Council will need to make in accordance with regulation 61(5) of the Habitats Regulations 2010. Exe Estuary SSSI Natural England advises that there will be no additional impacts on the features of interest of this SSSI site resulting from the proposed development beyond those already identified with regard to the European wildlife site above. Protected species We have not assessed this application and associated documents for impacts on protected species. Natural England has published Standing Advice on protected species. The Standing Advice includes a habitat decision tree which provides advice to planners on deciding if there is a 'reasonable likelihood' of protected species being present. It also provides detailed advice on the protected species most often affected by development, including flow charts for individual species to enable an assessment to be made of a protected species survey and mitigation strategy. You should apply our Standing Advice to this application as it is a material consideration in the determination of applications in the same way as any individual response received from Natural England following consultation. The Standing Advice should not be treated as giving any indication or providing any assurance in respect of European Protected Species (EPS) that the proposed development is unlikely to affect the EPS present on the site; nor should it be interpreted as meaning that Natural England has reached any views as to whether a licence may be granted. If you have any specific questions on aspects that are not covered by our Standing Advice for European Protected Species or have difficulty in applying it to this application please contact us at with details at consultations@naturalengland.org.uk. Local sites If the proposal site is on or adjacent to a local site, e.g. Local Wildlife Site, Regionally Important Geological/Geomorphological Site (RIGS) or Local Nature Reserve (LNR) the authority should ensure it has sufficient information to fully understand the impact of the proposal on the local site before it determines the application. Impact Risk Zones for Sites of Special Scientific Interest Natural England has recently published a set of mapped Impact Risk Zones (IRZs) for Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). This helpful GIS tool can be used by LPAs and developers to consider whether a proposed development is likely to affect a SSSI and determine whether they will need to consult Natural England to seek advice on the nature of any potential SSSI impacts and how they might be avoided or mitigated. Further information and guidance on how to access and use the IRZs is available on the Natural England website.

74

Contaminated Land Officer I have considered the application which is proposed on land previously used for potentially contaminative uses. I recommend that the following condition is applied to any approval to ensure that the developer is aware of the potential risks and react to any findings: Should any contamination of soil and/or ground or surface water be discovered during excavation of the site or development, the Local Planning Authority should be contacted immediately. Site activities in the area affected shall be temporarily suspended until such time as a method and procedure for addressing the contamination is agreed upon in writing with the Local Planning Authority and/or other regulating bodies. Reason: To ensure that any contamination existing and exposed during the development is identified and remediated. POLICIES New East Devon Local Plan Policies Strategy 6 (Development within Built-up Area Boundaries) Strategy 22 (Development at Exmouth) D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) EN8 (Extension, Alteration or Change of Use of Buildings of Special Architectural and Historic Interest) EN21 (River and Coastal Flooding) EN22 (Surface Run-Off Implications of New Development) RC5 (Community Buildings) RC6 (Local Community Facilities) RC7 (Shared Community Facilities) TC2 (Accessibility of New Development) TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) TC9 (Parking Provision in New Development) Adopted East Devon Local Plan Policies S4 (Development Within Built-up Area Boundaries) D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) EN6 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) EN9 (Extension, Alteration or Change of use of Buildings of Special Architectural and Historic Interest) C2 (Local Community Facilities) TA1 (Accessibility of New Development) TA7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) TA9 (Parking Provision in New Development) LEX 4 (Exmouth Waterfront) LEX 8 (Camperdown Depots Area) SPG17 (Exmouth Masterplan) C2 (Local Community Facilities) C3 (Shared Communal Facilities)

75

EN4 (Nationally Important Sites including Sites of Special Scientific Interest) EN15 (Control of Pollution) EN16 (Contaminated Land) Government Planning Documents NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework 2012) National Planning Policy Guidance Site Location and Description The site refers to Lavis's Boatyard, a prominent site on Camperdown Terrace backing onto Camperdown Creek and the estuary. There is an existing dilapidated boat shed on the site with a number of boats and boat parts behind security fencing. This area of Exmouth is characterised by a variety of uses, with the application site sitting in-between a Victorian Terrace and various maritime uses which includes the existing Sea Cadets site which contains a number of buildings. Immediately opposite the site is the Grade II listed Sail Loft building. The site is located within the built-up area boundary of Exmouth and is not the subject of any national or local landscape or townscape designations, although it is acknowledged that it is a prominent site in terms of views from the front in Camperdown Terrace and from the rear across the Estuary from the Imperial recreation ground. The sites topography falls by 0.85 metres from south to north and its entirety is designated as a Flood Zone 2 and 3a. Proposed Development; This application has been made by the Sea Cadets and planning permission is sought for the demolition of the existing boat shed and the construction of a new building providing facilities for the Sea Cadets. The building has been designed to be two storeys in height to reflect the height of the adjacent Victorian Terrace with a contemporary maritime character reflected in its form, architectural detailing and use of materials. The top half of the building would be constructed of horizontal cladding fibre cement wood effect under black profiled roof sheeting. The bottom half of the building would have a rendered finish. The design would incorporate a ramped entrance and red brick porch of flat roofed design to the front of the building. Internally the proposal would provide staff and cadets male and female changing rooms, disabled toilets, a kitchen, four classrooms, three offices, an armoury, a drill deck and workshop which would open out onto a parade yard and a boat storage area to the side and rear of the building. The proposal also includes raising the site levels to 3.30 metres (taking into account that the lowest part of the site is 2.51 metres to the rear. This is required to achieve a finished floor level of 3.3 metres upwards to comply with Environment Agency requirements for development in Flood Zone 3a. ANALYSIS The main issues to consider in determining this application are in terms of the principle of the use of the site, having due regard to the Exmouth Masterplan, the design, size and positioning of the new building and the impact it would have on the visual amenity of the site and the character and appearance of the area and the

76

setting of the grade II listed Sail Loft, the impact upon the residential amenities of the surrounding neighbouring properties, the ecological impact, an assessment of the impact in terms of flood risk and whether there are any highway safety issues. Principle The site is located within Exmouth in a sustainable location with good access to a variety of modes of transport. Located in close proximity to the Estuary, the site is perhaps an obvious choice for the relocation of the Sea Cadets with direct access for boats. Camperdown Creek has been identified as an area for regeneration within the Exmouth Masterplan. The Masterplan recognises the area as becoming Exmouth's focal point for creative, marine, engineering and leisure-based industries. The aspirations of the Masterplan seeks high quality design in the area whilst retaining a 'working' intimate, small scale, low key character and retaining boat storage. The Masterplan actively encourages innovatively designed, contemporary buildings with architecture and materials used in the buildings to reflect the area's maritime character. The principle of development on this site is considered to be acceptable and its use by the Sea Cadets would be in keeping with the quasi maritime- residential uses and character within the locality. It is considered that the re-development of the site with a new contemporary building would help to meet the aspirations of the Masterplan and aid in the regeneration of the Camperdown Creek area. Character and Appearance: It is important to ensure that the proposed development sets a good standard of design and architecture whilst ensuring that it is sympathetic in form and scale to both the residential character of Camperdown Terrace and the sites maritime backdrop which is prominent in views from Camperdown Creek, the estuary and the Imperial Recreation Ground. The new building would replace the existing Sea Cadets accommodation which is in a state of disrepair and makes no positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area. The proposed building would be two storeys, purposely designed with a height that would be 170 mm higher than the adjacent terrace and lower than the listed Sail Loft on the opposite side of the road. It would have a dominant twin gabled pitched roof with minimalistic detailing in an attempt to create a contemporary representation of a historic boat shed. The Design and Access statement outlines the design approach and explains how the overall footprint of the building would not allow for a single pitched roof design. Indeed a twin gabled pitched roof helps to considerably reduce the mass of the building allowing for a reduction in the ridge height so as to better respect the scale and roof line of the adjoining terrace without over dominating the listed Sail Loft building. It is accepted that design is a subjective matter and that this building has been designed to be prominent within the streetscene which would contrast with the existing Victorian terraces. With its ramped frontage onto Camperdown Terrace, the building would be read as a public/ civic building acting as a focal point for activity where there is already a distinct transition between the residential street and other

77

maritime uses. In this respect, it is considered that the scale, massing and form of the building has been designed to be appropriate to the character of the area, effectively continuing the two storey front building line along Camperdown Terrace and that it would make a positive contribution to the area. During the course of the application, amended plans have been received in response to officers concerns about the treatment and detailing of the front facade of the building which provides better articulation to the building and enhances its visual interest from public viewpoints outside of the site. The amendments include; verge detailing formed with an aluminium coping detail, horizontal as opposed to vertical boarding and the re-positioning of windows to provide more visual interest, re-proportioned window sizes to side elevations to create more uniform fenestration, a nautical design to the handrails with horizontal wires and re-design of the boundary around the perimeter of the site from a chain link fence to a timber framed fence with diagonal timber infill panels. In addition, following concerns that were expressed by the Town Council and local residents further thought has been given to the colour of the weatherboarding. Three different colour options were presented to replace the black Cedral weatherboard cladding originally proposed and it was considered that a dark grey colour would be more appropriate in terms of ensuring the building does not appear too heavy within the streetscene whilst providing enough of a contrast to the Victorian terrace. The boarding would be broken up by a light grey coloured render and a red brick flat roofed porch as a visual reference to the terrace. A condition is recommended requiring the submission of all materials and finishes. It is considered that the amendments to the design have added value to a building which would appear prominent within the streetscene and from views across the Estuary and beyond. The proposed building, parade ground and boat storage area takes its scale and massing from the adjacent Terrace and the Sail Loft opposite. In addition, the design and use of materials reflects the maritime location and proposed use for the building using quality and traditional materials to ensure a positive contribution to this prominent site in both its street and waterside setting. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) promotes high quality design and encourages developments which respond to local character and history and which reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials whilst not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation. In this respect, it is considered that the contemporary design approach to a boat shed building for the Sea Cadets would be acceptable and compatible with the area that would enhance the appearance of the existing site and in-turn, positively contribute to the wider regeneration aspirations of the Council for the Camperdown Creek area. The proposal is considered to comply with policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the East Devon Local Plan. Listed Building Impact: The site is located at the eastern end of Camperdown Terrace opposite The Sail Loft which is listed Grade II, occupying a prominent site within the street and visible across the water from the Playing Fields and Imperial Recreation Ground. The Sail Loft is a three storey stone rubble building with dressed stone quoins and brick window arches under a slate roof with coped gable ends. It is orientated gable end

78

onto Camperdown Terrace and is noticeably higher than the buildings around it because of its three storey form. The Council's Conservation Officer has raised no objections to the proposal which takes its scale and massing from the adjacent Terrace and the Sail Loft opposite. In addition, the design and use of materials is considered to reflect the maritime location and proposed use for the building. The proposed building would have a degree of impact upon the setting of The Sail Loft owing to its position on the opposite side of the street. In addition, when viewed from the rear of the site (i.e. the Imperial Recreation Ground and the Estuary) the proposed building would be positioned in front of the Sail Loft thus partly obscuring existing views of the building. Whilst the development would have a degree of impact on the setting of the Sail Loft, it is considered that the size and form of the proposed building has been designed to minimise the impact by taking its scale and massing from the adjacent Terrace and the Sail Loft opposite. In addition, the design and palette of materials reflects the maritime location and proposed use for the building. The actual materials and finishes will be very important, and as such should be appropriately conditioned, along with the fence and ramp and railing details to ensure the development makes a positive contribution to this prominent site in both its street and waterside setting. Residential Amenity The proposed building would have its greatest impact on the occupiers of no 10 Camperdown Terrace to the north west of the site. This property fronts onto Camperdown Terrace and has its side elevation (with ground and first floor windows) facing the site. It also has an extended rear garden which runs parallel to the access route down to Camperdown Creek. The increased footprint and height of a building on the site would have an increased physical impact upon the occupiers of this property and its rear garden. Whilst this would be the case, the site has been designed such that the building would be positioned a distance of 14.0 metres from the side of no 10, separated by the existing access road and the boat storage and vehicle parking area on the western side of the site. This is considered to be an acceptable distance so as not to result in a significantly harmful impact in terms of overbearing or over dominance. To a degree, the intensification of the use of the site by the Sea Cadets would also have a greater impact in terms of increased noise and disturbance from activity within the site. Whilst this may be the case, it is not considered that this would be significantly more harmful than boat repairs or maintenance which could be carried out on the existing site or within the existing building. No objections have been raised by the Council’s Environmental Health Officer in terms of the use proposed, although it is acknowledged that there is likely to be noise and disturbance during construction and a condition is therefore recommended to control hours of construction and delivery. The proposed building would have a number of windows on its north western elevation facing towards no 10. The floor plans show that these would serve classrooms and a changing room. Having due regard for the fact that there would be a distance of 14.0 metres between the side wall of the new building and no 10, coupled with the fact that the windows would serve classrooms used by the Sea

79

Cadets, it is not considered that it would give rise to significant levels of overlooking or loss of privacy to sustain an objection. Likewise, the proposed first floor balcony which runs along the rear elevation of the building has been designed to incorporate rendered privacy screens so as to prevent overlooking and loss of privacy to the rear garden of no 10. Views from the balcony would face towards the parade ground and the Estuary. Ecological Impact: Habitat Regulations: The application site is in close proximity to the Exe Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA) which is a European site and the Exe Estuary Ramsar Site and Exe Estuary Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). These European sites are afforded protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, as amended (the Habitat Regulations). In considering the European site interest, under the requirements of Regulations 61 and 62 of the Habitats Regulations Natural England has advised that the Local Planning Authority should determine whether the proposal is likely to have a significant effect on any European site, proceeding to the Appropriate Assessment stage where significant effects cannot be ruled out. Natural England has advised on the following points to assist with the Habitats Regulations Assessment: The Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Exmouth Town Centre and Seafront Masterplan identified that development of the Estuary side area poses significant potential for disturbance to the Exe SPA and harm to the Dawlish Warren SAC. Development at Camperdown Creek is listed under projects with the increase in visitors posing significant potential for disturbance. Natural England has advised that it is necessary to establish answers to the following questions to assess the impact of the development on these European sites:

• Whether there would be a net increase in boat storage which would indicate an increase in usage?

• Will there be an increase in the number of boats stored on the new site

compared with the existing site?

• Will the boat storage at the existing location be removed or will it be taken over by others?

• The proposed centre would be used seven days a week, 9am to 9 pm. Would

the impact of external lighting directly affect the estuary? The Sea Cadets have advised that the number of boats used and stored on the site will not increase and that the number of Cadets using the estuary at any one time will not increase. It is stated that this is governed by strict safety rules which impose limitations on numbers in relation to the capacity of the safety boat. In addition, the

80

Cadets do not use the upper Estuary and the boats would continue to be launched from Shelly Beach or the Mamhead Slipway. The applicants have also advised that instructors and Cadets receive instruction on the sensitivity of the Estuary and if it is thought necessary can easily arrange talks or lectures by suitable spokespersons from Natural England to be included in their training. It is considered that it has been suitably demonstrated that the proposal is unlikely to have a significant increased effect on the European site and therefore it is not necessary in this instance to undertake an Appropriate Assessment pursuant to regulation 61 (1) of the Habitats Regulations 2010. A condition is however recommended to ensure that activity levels do not increase and to secure the following:

• A commitment from the Sea Cadets to continue to receive instruction on the ecological sensitivity of the estuary and impacts from its use;

• Cadets continuing not to use the upper Estuary; • Continued launching of the boats from Shelley Beach or Mamhead Slipway; • Display of notices on site advising of the ecological sensitivity of the estuary

and the need to respect wildlife when using the estuary; and • No increase in the number of Cadets using the estuary at any one time.

There is unlikely to be a risk of the Sea Cadets operating from both sites as EDDC are landowners for both sites. Therefore once the new building has been constructed and ready for occupation, as landowners, EDDC would have control over the vacancy of the existing Sea Cadets site. Protected Species The application is accompanied by a Phase 1 Ecological Survey undertaken by Green Ecology. This survey covers a wider area but includes an assessment of the buildings on the existing Sea Cadets site and the boatyard site to which the application relates. A survey of the boat yard building and the Sea Cadets building concludes that it does not provide conditions suitable for bat roosting. The remainder of the site consists of hard standing which has low ecological value. It is not therefore considered that the proposal would have a significant impact on protected species. Flood Risk The site is located within an area designated as Flood Zone 3a due to risk from tidal flooding. The application is accompanied by a detailed Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and Drainage Strategy undertaken by WSP which has been considered by the Environment Agency. The Sea Cadets require their facilities to be adjacent to the water so they can launch their boats easily and a specific requirement for the development is the presence of a slipway. Based on the ‘flood risk vulnerability classification’ in table 2 of the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG), the development is classed as water compatible and less vulnerable. Based on table 3 ‘Flood risk vulnerability and flood zone compatibility’ this type of development is considered to be appropriate for construction in Flood Zone 3a. Therefore there is no

81

objection in principle to re-development of the site for the use proposed on flood risk grounds. The EA advised in their consultation response that the site of the development will form an integral part of the planned Exmouth Tidal Defence Scheme they plan to build to defend lower parts of Exmouth from future risks of tidal flooding. The EA originally raised concerns with the proposal as it is was uncertain as to whether the delivery of the planned flood defence would be compromised by the re-development and a request was made to the applicants to amend the proposal to contribute to the delivery of the planned scheme. The flood risk assessment has since been amended in consultation with the EA to include a higher level of protection to support the future proposed flood defence scheme. These additional measures comprise the following:

• A flood wall to the east of the proposed development, which ties into the development, constructed to a level of 4.315m. This wall is to be designed to accommodate full hydrostatic loading from the west.

• The provision of flood proofed doors on the northern elevation (accommodating off seating pressures to a level of 4.315m).

• All openings, on the northern elevation (other than the door) to be above 4.315m.

• The design of the northern elevation to accommodate hydrostatic loading to 4.315m, with the load coming from within the building.

The FRA also details a proposed drainage strategy which has been designed to mimic the existing system with all surface water draining to the Exe Estuary. The impermeable areas of the development (building, parade ground, storage/ maintenance yard and slipway access) would be drained through a new surface water drainage system and therefore it is stated that there would be no increase in flood risk to the surrounding area as a result of surface water runoff. The EA have considered the revised FRA and advised that the development is now acceptable provided it is carried out in accordance with the submitted details. It is recommended that this is secured through a condition. A condition is also required to ensure that the building is only used by the Sea Cadets and no other uses within D1 (Non-residential Institutions) of the Use Classes Order which would not be classed as water compatible development. Highway Safety: The application proposes a vehicular access to the site from Camperdown Terrace with direct access into the parade ground and to the workshop for boat storage and with some spaces for car parking including for a mini bus. Camperdown Terrace is a 'C' class road where vehicle speeds are restricted to 30 mph. The proposed access is considered to be acceptable and whilst only a limited number of spaces are proposed, it is considered that owing to its location with the town and being accessible by various modes of transport that it would be difficult to sustain an

82

objection on lack of parking. The road immediately in front of the site has double yellow lines which would prevent cars from parking on the highway. Given the nature and operations of the sea cadets, transport movements to and from the site are likely to include cars with trailers carrying boats. Manoeuvring into the site would therefore have a degree of impact upon traffic movements along Camperdown Terrace. Whilst this is the case, it is important to note that such transport movements associated with boat repairs and maintenance could already be undertaken from the site and therefore traffic movements from the Sea Cadets is unlikely to have significantly greater impact. Traffic speeds along Camperdown Terrace are generally below 30 mph and on this basis it is not considered that traffic movements from the site would severely impact upon highway safety to a level that would sustain an objection. On this basis, it is not considered that the development would affect highway safety. Contaminated Land The Council’s Environmental Health Officer has advised that the application is proposed on land previously used for potentially contaminative uses. No objections have been raised although a condition has been recommended to ensure that the developer is aware of the potential risks and to react to any findings during the course of the development. RECOMMENDATION APPROVE subject to the following conditions: 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three

years from the date of this permission and shall be carried out as approved. (Reason - To comply with section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act

1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the

approved plans listed at the end of this decision notice. (Reason - For the avoidance of doubt.) 3. Before development is commenced, a schedule of materials and finishes, and,

where so required by the Local Planning Authority, samples of such materials and finishes, to be used for the external walls and roofs of the proposed development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

(Reason - To ensure that the materials are sympathetic to the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

4. Notwithstanding the submitted details, no development shall commence until

details of the handrails, perimeter fencing and access ramp to include their design, materials and finishes have been submitted to and approved in writing

83

by the Local Planning Authority. The development thereafter shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

(Reason - To ensure that the materials are sympathetic to the character and appearance of the area and the setting of the grade II listed building in accordance with Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and EN9 (Extension, alteration or change of use of buildings of special architectural and historic interest) of the adopted East Devon Local Plan.)

5. The development hereby approved shall be used by the Exmouth Sea Cadets

for use as a drill hall, workshop, boat storage, parade ground and classrooms and as detailed within the Design and Access statement and shall not be used for any other purpose within Class D1 (Non Residential Institutions) of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification).

(Reason: To prevent the use of the building by other non water compatible uses in the interests of flood risk and safety in accordance with the guidance contained within the National Planning Practice Guidance).

6. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the

ground levels final finished floor levels and ridge heights as shown on drawing no's 1223 L01.02 REV E, 1223 L04.01 REV E and 1223. L03. 01 REV E unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

(Reason: In the interest of the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the East Devon Local Plan).

7. Notwithstanding the submitted details and prior to commencement of

development, detailed cross sections at a scale of 1:2 or 1:5 through all major building thresholds including eaves, soffits, fascias and junctions between principle cladding materials shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development thereafter shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

(Reason: To safeguard the architectural and historic character of the listed building in accordance with in accordance with policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and EN9 (Extension, alteration of change of use of buildings of special architectural and historic interest) of the East Devon Local Plan.

8. Prior to the first use of the development hereby approved, details of the

provision and implementation of a mitigation strategy to minimise the impact upon the Exe Estuary shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The strategy shall include details covering the following matters:

o A commitment from the Sea Cadets to continue to receive instruction on the ecological sensitivity of the estuary and impacts from its use;

o Cadets continuing not to use the upper Estuary; o Continued launching of the boats from Shelley Beach or Mamhead Slipway; o Display of notices on site advising of the ecological sensitivity of the estuary

and the need to respect wildlife when using the estuary; and o No increase in the number of Cadets using the estuary at any one time.

84

The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the

approved details. (Reason: This condition is necessary to ensure the protection of wildlife and

supporting habitat and to secure opportunities for the enhancement of the nature conservation value of the site in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, National Planning Practice Guidance and Policies EN4 (Nationally Important Sites- including Sites of Special Scientific Interest) and EN6 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) of the East Devon Local Plan).

9. The development hereby approved shall adhere to the following: a. There shall be no burning of any kind on site during construction, demolition

or site preparation works. b. No construction or demolition works shall be carried out, or deliveries

received, outside of the following hours: 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 1pm on Saturdays, and not at all on Sundays or Public Holidays.

c. Dust suppression measures shall be employed as required during construction in order to prevent off-site dust nuisance .

d. No high frequency audible reversing alarms shall be permitted to be used on any vehicle working on the site.

(Reason: To protect the amenity of local residents from smoke, noise and dust

in accordance with Policy EN15 (Control of Pollution) of the East Devon Local Plan).

10. In the event of any contamination of soil and/or ground or surface water being

discovered during excavation of the site or development, the Local Planning Authority should be contacted immediately. Site activities in the area affected shall be temporarily suspended until such time as a method and procedure for addressing the contamination is agreed upon in writing with the Local Planning Authority and/or other regulating bodies.

Reason: To ensure that any contamination existing and exposed during the development is identified and remediated in accordance with Policy EN16 (Contaminated Land) of the East Devon Local Plan).

11. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the

mitigation measures and drainage strategy contained within the Flood Risk Assessment undertaken by WSP dated 16/10/14 and the details shown on drawing no 1223.L01.02 REV E.

(Reason: To ensure the development is adequately flood proofed and to prevent increased flood risk elsewhere in accordance with the guidance contained within the National Planning Practice Guidance).

NOTE FOR APPLICANT Informative: In accordance with the requirements of Article 31 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 in determining this

85

application, East Devon District Council has worked positively with the applicant to ensure that all relevant planning concerns have been appropriately resolved. List of Background Papers Application file, consultations and policy documents referred to in the report. Plans relating to this application: 1223.L03.01 REV

E Sections 24.10.14

Flood Risk Assessment 17.10.14 1223 L01.02 REV

E Proposed Site Plan 17.10.14

1223 L02.01 REV

E Proposed Combined Plans 17.10.14

1223 L04.01 REV

D Proposed Elevation 17.10.14

JULY 2014 Design and Access

Statement 25.07.14

1223 L01.01 A Location Plan 25.07.14 JULY 2014 Ecological Assessment 25.07.14

86

Ward Exmouth Town

Reference 14/2212/CPL

Applicant Mr J Burns

Location 102 St Andrews Road Exmouth EX8 1AT

Proposal Certificate of lawfulness to remove existing chimney

RECOMMENDATION: CPL Approve Part 1

Crown Copyright and database rights 2014 Ordnance Survey 100023746

87

Committee Date: 18.11.2014

Exmouth Town (EXMOUTH)

14/2212/CPL

Target Date: 04.11.2014

Applicant: Mr J Burns – East Devon District Council Housing and Social Inclusion

Location: 102 St Andrews Road Exmouth

Proposal: Certificate of lawfulness to remove existing chimney

RECOMMENDATION: Approve

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is to establish that the removal of the external parts of a chimney on a house of multiple occupation within Exmouth would not require planning permission. The application is brought to Committee as the building is in the ownership of East Devon District Council. Demolition outside conservation areas is permitted development under Part 31 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 as amended. No planning application is required because planning permission for the demolition is granted by the 1995 Order, subject to conditions set out in Part 31

No application for planning permission or prior approval is required to demolish:

• any building with a volume of under 50 cubic metres; and • the whole or any part of any gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure;

because these changes are not development having regard to the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Demolition – Description of Buildings) Direction 2014.

Accordingly it is recommended that the certificate be granted. CONSULTATIONS No consultations are required. Other Representations No third party comments have been received.

88

PLANNING HISTORY Reference Description Decision Date 14/0682/CPL Certificate of Lawfulness for

proposed change of use from dwelling (Class C3) to multiple occupancy dwelling (Class C4) including external alterations and removal of garage and provision of cycle and bin storage area in rear yard.

APPROVED 31.03.2014

08/1671/FUL Change of use to form 4 no residential flats and construct ground and first floor extension and construct dormer on rear elevation and rooflights on front elevation.

APPROVED 15.09.2011

11/1727/FUL Change of use to form 4 no residential flats and construct ground and first floor extension and construct dormer on rear elevation and rooflights on front (Renewal of planning permission 08/1671/FUL)

APPROVED 15.09.2011

LEGISLATION Part 31 (demolition of Buildings) of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended); The Town and County Planning (Demolition - Description of Buildings) Direction 2014. Site Location and Description 102 St Andrews Road is an EDDC owned property located within the built-up area boundary of Exmouth. It is a house of multiple occupation with accommodation over 3 floors including a rear tenement. The building is not included in the English

89

Heritage maintained register of Listed Buildings and the building is not located within Article 1(5) land (the town Conservation Area). Proposed Development The application seeks a certificate of lawfulness for clarification that planning permission or prior approval is not required for the removal of the external parts of an existing chimney. Assessment Planning permission is not considered to be required as (a) the chimney is not a building exceeding 50 cubic metres when measured externally; (b) the proposal does not include the whole or any part of any gate, fence, wall or means of enclosure; the building is not a listed building nor located within a Conservation Area. RECOMMENDATION APPROVE certificate of lawfulness as permitted development Plans relating to this application: Location Plan 09.09.14 P134-13-CH103 Proposed Floor Plans 09.09.14 P134-13-CH104 Proposed Elevation 09.09.14 List of Background Papers Application file, consultations and policy documents referred to in the report.

90

Ward Newbridges

Reference 14/1905/MFUL

Applicant Mr Peter Friend - Hastoe Housing Association

Location Land South Of The A35 (off George Lane) Gammons Hill Kilmington

Proposal Construction of 11no. affordable houses, 2no. open market houses and associated roads, sewers and car parking

RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions

Crown Copyright and database rights 2014 Ordnance Survey 100023746

91

Committee Date: 18.10.2014

Newbridges (KILMINGTON)

14/1905/MFUL

Target Date: 10.11.2014

Applicant: Hastoe Housing Association

Location: Land South Of The A35 (off George Lane) Gammons Hill

Proposal: Construction of 11no. affordable houses, 2no. open market houses and associated roads, sewers and car parking

RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application proposes the residential development of this edge of village site in the form of 13 no. houses with associated roads, sewers, parking and open space provision. The site would be accessed from George Lane, the local road that runs along the western boundary of the site, and which links with the A35 to the north. Development would be in the form of a cul-de-sac of two storey properties consisting of detached, semi-detached and short terraces of properties finished in a mix of flint block and render with brick detailing. Roofs are proposed as either natural slate or plain clay tiles. The proposals also include the construction of the associated access road and related landscaping proposals, which include two areas of amenity/open space one in the centre and one to the south side of the site. The development has a relatively low density reflecting that of the surrounding area and as befits its edge of village location. The scheme is brought forward predominantly as an affordable housing scheme but with some cross-subsidisation of the affordable units through the provision of 2 no. open market units. The scheme aims to help meet the affordable housing need identified within the January 2014 Housing Needs Survey. As this survey revealed the inability of respondents to secure sufficient funding, no shared ownership units are proposed. The retention of the affordable units, as such, in perpetuity will need to be secured by means of a s.106 agreement as will the long term maintenance of the open space/amenity land, however, due to the viability of the scheme no financial contributions are sought. Nevertheless, in this instance the benefits of the affordable housing provision are considered to outweigh the disbenefits of foregoing the usual infrastructure contributions and as such the scheme is recommended for approval.

92

CONSULTATIONS Local Consultations Parish/Town Council support Other Representations 7 letters of objection have been received to the application raising the following issues:

• Access to the site off George Lane, a narrow lane with inadequate passing provision and used widely by walkers, cyclists and dog walkers as well as vehicles would be hazardous

• The existing junction of George Lane at both ends with The Street and the A35 are dangerous and this will only increase with increased traffic movements from the development

• Danger from construction traffic using George Lane • This site should not be considered in isolation from the development of the

rest of the adjoining fields which could accommodate a new school if necessary

• Position of site access opposite those serving existing dwellings could cause conflict

• Loss of amenity/outlook for properties opposite • Potential increase in surface water flooding and contamination of private

water supplies • Is there a need for this number and type of affordable housing? • Loss of greenfield land • The proposal will place extra demands on local services i.e. education and

should therefore contribute towards these • The safety of pedestrians using any future footpath link (through the fields to

the east) to the village is in question. Technical Consultations Highways Agency Exeter We have no objections. TR110 provided. Housing Strategy Officer Paul Lowe We welcome this opportunity to provide much needed affordable housing in Kilmington. This proposal will help to meet the affordable housing need as identified within the January 2014 Housing Needs Survey. As this application appears to be consistent with the 'Interim Mixed Affordable and Market Housing Position Statement', we expect that East Devon District Council or it's approved Registered Provider have nomination rights, with all nominations being secured via the Common Housing Register, preference being given to individuals who have a Local Connection with the Parish of Kilmington, then cascading to named adjoining Parishes, and finally the

93

District. We note that unfortunately due to the lack of need and circumstances around the ability of individuals to secure sufficient funding no shared ownership units are proposed. It is also expected that all the affordable homes will be available in perpetuity, be tenure blind and constructed to at least Code Level 3 for Sustainable Homes, and to the Homes and Communities Agency Design and Quality Standards. Devon County Council Education Dept Further to your recent correspondence regarding the above planning application I write to inform you that a contribution towards school transport via a Section 106 agreement is sought. There is currently capacity at the nearest primary and secondary schools for the number of pupils likely to be generated by the proposed development. We will however require a contribution towards secondary school transport costs due to the development site being further than 2.25 miles from Axe Valley Community College. The costs required are as follows: - 4 secondary pupils £9.60 per day x 190 academic days x 5 years = £9,120 In addition to the contribution figures quoted above, the County Council would wish to recover legal costs incurred as a result of the preparation and completion of the Agreement. Legal costs are not expected to exceed £500.00 where the agreement relates solely to the education contribution. However, if the agreement involves other issues or if the matter becomes protracted, the legal costs are likely to be in excess of this sum. Should you require any further information regarding either of the above please do not hesitate to contact me. *These contributions should be adjusted on the date of payment in accordance with any increase in Building Cost Information Service (BCIS) all in tender price index. County Highway Authority The proposed development access has been the subject of discussion with the County Highway Authority (CHA) and the developer's highway consultant (TWP). Their original proposal for visibility splays at the access was based purely on their traffic survey that they had undertaken, which equated to 2.4m by 30m in both directions. Whilst the CHA does not contest the data contained in the traffic survey, it contends that the visibility splays should be maximised to the available land at the sites frontage onto George Lane, 2.4m by 39m in both directions. The applicant has therefore altered the proposal to the greater visibility distances and these are shown on the latest plan (14236-001 Revision B). The proposed development is situated in George Lane and a number of existing residents living in the area have contacted the CHA to raise their concerns regarding the proposed and the amount of increased of traffic that it is likely to attract in and

94

around George Lane and also the effect that the proposed access will have on existing accesses in George Lane. Firstly, the CHA believes that the amount of traffic attracted to the development would not have residual cumulative impact that would be "severe", and therefore it does not warrant a recommendation for refusal as described in the National Planning Policy Framework. This is view is also borne out by the response from the Highways Agency, who is the 'Street Operator' of the A35(T)/ George Lane junction, to the Local Planning Authority in that they have no objections to the proposals. Secondly, the CHA has considered the safety aspects of the proposed access to the development and its relation to properties opposite and their existing accesses. It does not agree that the proposed new access will adversely affect existing accesses or their ability to be safe for all road users. Because of the increase of width of George Lane in the vicinity of the new access, it is thought that this increase in width coupled with the enlarged passing bay forming part of the new access will actually improve the available turning space for the existing opposite access. Therefore safe and suitable access to the site (and to the access opposite) can be achieved for all people. Existing recorded personal injury statistics indicate that there have been no reported incidents within George Lane (01/01/2009 - 31/12/2013 Study Period). There have been 6 no. reported incidents on the A35 (T), 2 of which are close to the A35 (T)/George Lane Junction; however it is for the Highways Agency to comment on these incidents on their network. The CHA is aware that there has recently been a fatality on the A35 (T), but it is understood that this incident did not have any bearing on George Lane or the A35 (T)/George Lane Junction. The proposed internal layout is acceptable to the CHA, with shared access road widths of 5.5 metres and suitable turning geometries for large vehicles including refuse collection vehicles. Recommendation: THE HEAD OF PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENT, ON BEHALF OF DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL, AS LOCAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY, RECOMMENDS THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE INCORPORATED IN ANY GRANT OF PERMISSION:- 1. The site access and visibility splays shall be constructed, laid out and maintained for that purpose in accordance with the attached Diagram 14236-001 Revision B where the visibility splays provide intervisibility between any points on the X and Y axes at a height of 0.6 metres above the adjacent carriageway level and the distance back from the nearer edge of the carriageway of the public highway (identified as X) shall be 2.4 metres and the visibility distances along the nearer edge of the carriageway of the public highway ( identified as Y ) shall be 39.0 metres in both directions. REASON: To provide a satisfactory access to the site and to provide adequate visibility from and of emerging vehicles.

95

2. Prior to commencement of any part of the site the Planning Authority shall have received and approved a Construction Management Plan (CMP) including: (a) the timetable of the works; (b) daily hours of construction; (c) any road closure; (d) hours during which delivery and construction traffic will travel to and from the site, with such vehicular movements being restricted to between 8:00am and 6pm Mondays to Fridays inc.; 9.00am to 1.00pm Saturdays, and no such vehicular movements taking place on Sundays and Bank/Public Holidays unless agreed by the planning Authority in advance; (e) the number and sizes of vehicles visiting the site in connection with the development and the frequency of their visits; (f) the compound/location where all building materials, finished or unfinished products, parts, crates, packing materials and waste will be stored during the demolition and construction phases; (g) areas on-site where delivery vehicles and construction traffic will load or unload building materials, finished or unfinished products, parts, crates, packing materials and waste with confirmation that no construction traffic or delivery vehicles will park on the County highway for loading or unloading purposes, unless prior written agreement has been given by the Local Planning Authority; (h) hours during which no construction traffic will be present at the site; (i) the means of enclosure of the site during construction works; and (j) details of proposals to promote car sharing amongst construction staff in order to limit construction staff vehicles parking off-site (k) details of wheel washing facilities and obligations (l) The proposed route of all construction traffic exceeding 7.5 tonnes. (m) Details of the amount and location of construction worker parking. (n) Photographic evidence of the condition of adjacent public highway prior to commencement of any work; 3. No part of the development hereby approved shall be commenced until details of the treatment of the visibility splays required by condition above and the means of defining the boundary between the visibility splay and the remainder of the application site have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

96

REASON: To ensure that the visibility splays are provided to a standard acceptable to the Local Planning Authority. 4. This permission shall relate to the amended drawing No. 14236-001 Revision B received by the Local Planning Authority on 9th September 2014 REASON: For the avoidance of doubt. 5. The proposed estate road, cycle ways, footways, footpaths, verges, junctions, street lighting, sewers, drains, retaining walls, service routes, surface water outfall, road maintenance/vehicle overhang margins, embankments, visibility splays, accesses, car parking and street furniture shall be constructed and laid out in accordance with details to be approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before their construction begins, For this purpose, plans and sections indicating, as appropriate, the design, layout, levels, gradients, materials and method of construction shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To ensure that adequate information is available for the proper consideration of the detailed proposals. 6. A) The existing access shall be effectively and permanently closed by in accordance with details which shall previously have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority as soon as the new access is capable of use. REASON: To prevent the use of a substandard access and to minimise the number of accesses on to the public highway. 7. In accordance with details that shall previously have been submitted to, and approved by, the Local Planning Authority, provision shall be made within the site for the disposal of surface water so that none drains on to any County Highway REASON: In the interest of public safety and to prevent damage to the highway. Comments to follow within 21 days South West Water Development will not be permitted within 3 metres of the public sewer and ground cover should not be substantially altered. 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 Development 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 sewerae network. We will request that investigations are carried outto remove the surface water using a Sustianable Urban Drainage System, such as a soakaway. If this is not a viable solution to remove the surface water, please contact the Development Planning Team for further information.

97

POLICIES New East Devon Local Plan Policies Strategy 7 (Development in the Countryside) Strategy 27 (Development at the Small Towns and Larger Villages) Strategy 35 (Mixed Market and Affordable Housing Outside Built-up Area Boundaries) Strategy 48 (Local Distinctiveness in the Built Environment) Strategy 46 (Landscape Conservation and Enhancement and AONBs) D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) D2 (Landscape Requirements) D3 (Trees and Development Sites) EN14 (Control of Pollution) TC2 (Accessibility of New Development) TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) TC9 (Parking Provision in New Development) Adopted East Devon Local Plan Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) EN1 (Developments Affecting Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) EN6 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) S5 (Countryside Protection) TA1 (Accessibility of New Development) TA7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) TA9 (Parking Provision in New Development) D5 (Trees on Development Sites) H4 (Affordable Housing) RE3 (Open Space Provision in New Housing Developments) D4 (Landscape Requirements) EN15 (Control of Pollution) Government Advice; NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework) NPPG (National Planning Policy Guidance) SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The application site relates to part of an agricultural field located to the north of the private road known as The orchard and east of George Lane, from which there is an existing field access. The site is largely level, there is a slight slope from west to east, it extends to 0.65 ha. The boundary with George Lane is marked by a native hedgerow and that with the Orchard by a mature tree line. The site lies within the East Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty but is outside albeit adjacent to the built-up area boundary of Kilmington as defined by the Adopted East Devon Local Plan. The surrounding area is open countryside to the north and east and residential development of mixed design and age on the opposite side of the road to the west and to the south. The A35 runs on a southeast - northwest line to approximately 60 metres beyond the northern boundary of the site.

98

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Planning permission is sought for the residential development of the site for 13 no. dwellings. Development would be in the form of a cul-de-sac of two storey properties consisting of detached, semi-detached and short terraces of properties finished in a mix of flint block and render with brick detailing, roofs to be a mixture of natural slate and plain clay tiles. The proposals also includes the construction of the associated access road and related landscaping and amenity space proposals. It is proposed that 11 of the units would be for affordable rent consisting of 4 no. 1 beds, 4 no. 2 beds, 2 no. 3 beds and 1 no. 4 bed, the remaining 2 no. 3 bed units would be for sale on the open market. ANALYSIS The application is brought before Development Management Committee as a departure from the Local Plan. It is considered that the main issues in the determination of the application relate to:

• The principle of the proposed development inc. Housing Need • Design and impact on the character and appearance of the area • The wider landscape impact • Economic benefits of the scheme • Impact on trees • Impact on residential amenity • Highway Safety and Access • Ecological Impacts

Principle In the acknowledged absence of the required five year supply of available and deliverable housing land across the District, the NPPF places a presumption in favour of sustainable development over relevant policies relating to the supply of housing, including the weight that may be given to the defined settlement boundaries set out in planning policies. It is therefore necessary to consider the proposal in the context of the extent to which it is compliant with the provisions of the NPPF with particular regard to the three dimensions of sustainable development that it defines, namely the economic, environmental and social roles. The site is located within an area of open countryside adjacent to the built-up area boundary of Kilmington and is therefore subject to the provisions of Policy S5 of the Local Plan that precludes development except where explicitly permitted by other policies and where it would not harm the distinctive landscape, amenity and environmental qualities of the area within which it is located. However, in the absence of a demonstrable and up to date 5 year land supply of housing this policy in so far as it relates to defined built-up area boundaries, carries little weight. The proximity of the site to the edge of the village, which itself is considered to be

99

sustainable and which benefits from a range of services including: a primary school, farm shop, garage and shop, village hall, two public houses etc. is considered to weigh in favour of the site in terms of an assessment of its sustainability. The proximity of the site to the A35 and public transport links to the wider range of services available in Axminster weighs further in favour of the sustainability credentials of the site. The site is promoted under the mixed affordable housing and open market position statement whereby there is support for schemes of up to 15 no. dwellings on the edge of settlements with built-up area boundaries where they would look to meet a local housing need and where at least 66% of the units would be affordable in perpetuity. Strategy Policy 35 proposed in the New East Devon Local Plan looks to provide similar policy support for such schemes, albeit this can be attributed little weight at this time. The scheme looks to meet the housing need identified in the Local Housing Needs Report prepared by The Community Council of Devon on behalf of the Devon Rural Housing Partnership; this was published in January 2014 and revised in April 2014. The report recommendations identified a need for 13 affordable homes within the next 5 years, the need being primarily for rented homes (11 rented and 2 shared ownership). Whilst the proposal is considered to represent sustainable development where it looks to meet a local housing need this is not a location where any wider residential development is likely to be considered appropriate. In terms of addressing the 3 strands of sustainable development defined in the NPPF, the scheme can be considered to meet a social role in aiming to meet a recognised housing need and would provide some direct and indirect economic benefits to the rural economy to fulfil an economic role, however its environmental impact would also need to be considered. In terms of landscape impact this is considered in further detail below, however there is a presumption against major development in AONBs set out at paras. 115 and 116 of the NPPF except in exceptional circumstance and where it can be demonstrated that they are in the public interest. What constitutes major development in this respect is not defined in the NPPF but in the context of the scale of the village the development is at least significant. However, it is considered that in principle the provision of affordable housing to meet a recognised local need is in the public interest and adds further weight in support of the principle of the development. Design and Impact on the Character and Amenity of the Area The relatively suburban form of the development, laid out as a cul-de-sac, is a result of the site constraints including the need to minimise the encroachment of the development into the surrounding countryside and the fact that sharing an access with existing development in The orchard has not been achievable due to land ownership issues and the presence of a line of mature trees on the southern site boundary. Despite these constraints the layout does look to provide some presence onto George Lane with two detached properties fronting onto this and utilising natural materials in terms of stone and slate to reflect the style of traditional properties in the village. The remaining properties are also arranged to provide an interesting and varied streetscape when viewed from George Lane, the two

100

properties at the eastern end give a sense of enclosure and a focal point at the end of the road. In the centre of the site is an open area of green space to give an area of informal amenity space and which also reflects the traditional village green. To the south of the site is a strip of land indicated as amenity space, this area has the potential to be used as a wilderness area or potentially allotments but would not be suitable for development due to the presence of overhead lines and the proximity to mature trees. The design of dwellings reflects traditional features including pitched roofs, rendered or stone walling, chimney stacks and porch canopies, they are arranged as a pair of detached dwellings either side of the access road with the remainder being largely semi-detached or short terraces. Wider Landscape Impact The site lies on the very edge of the settlement and therefore has the potential to impact on the surrounding landscape more significantly than development further from the settlement edge. The proposal site is though of a similar scale to surrounding development and would be softened to an extent by the provision of a new hedgebank to the northern and eastern site boundaries. Although the proposal would result in the loss of an established hedgerow along the front of the site this has been assessed to be of limited ecological value and would be replaced with new planting to this side of the site. It is not considered that the proposal would have a significant landscape impact although it would clearly alter the character and appearance of the site and immediate environs. Economic Benefits of the scheme The proposal would provide some direct economic benefits by supporting jobs within the construction industry for the course of the development. In addition the proposal is likely to bring about wider benefits to the local economy through supporting local shops and service providers which might help to sustain these in the longer term. Impact on Trees A small group of multi-stem trees would be lost on the George Lane boundary as these are required to be removed to provide necessary visibility. These trees are considered to be of limited amenity value and there are opportunities for some replacement tree planting within the site and within the new hedge banks to the site boundaries. There is a further group of more substantial mature trees to the south of the site, running parallel with The Orchard; these trees are protected by an area Tree Preservation Order. There is no above ground development proposed within the immediate vicinity of these trees but surface water attenuation tanks were originally indicated within the RPA of these trees, amended plans have now been submitted which show these positioned outside of the root protection zone. Subject to details of tree protection during development being controlled by condition there is no objection on this issue.

101

Impact on Residential Amenity The proposal has the potential to impact on the privacy and amenity of existing residents adjoining or close to the site. To the south of the site the nearest properties are those running along the south side of The Orchard, these properties would be separated form the proposed development by the proposed amenity area, the line of mature trees and the private road itself. It is considered that there is adequate separation distance to this side to avoid any adverse impact. To the west are existing properties along that side of George Lane, the two closest and therefore having the greatest potential to be affected being Combe and Beckford. Combe sits opposite plot 1 with Beckford opposite plot 2 in each case the respective properties would be slightly offset from each other. Combe is a large period property, dating from the late 19th or early 20th century, it is set in a large plot back from the road edge and elevated slightly above the level of the lane. It is separated from the lane by a stone boundary wall with hedge planting to the rear of this. It has an open lawn forward of the building between it and the boundary wall. Beckford is a more recent late 20th century detached property again this is set in a generous plot back from the lane and separated from it by stone wall and hedge planting. Both properties view toward the site and are served by private drives in the north-eastern corner of each plot. Clearly plots 1 and 2 will afford some views over the front garden areas of these properties but these are areas that are already visible to an extent from public areas and as such do not appear to be areas of private amenity space. In addition there would be a minimum separation distance of at least 20 metres between facing elevations and this would be sufficient to avoid any direct overlooking. There are likely to be some additional impacts particularly during any construction phase of development but conditions can be imposed to seek to minimise disruption for existing residents. Outside of the construction phase it is considered that there would be no significant impact on local residents that would warrant formal objection to the development on these grounds. Highway Safety and Access The application proposes the construction of a new access to serve the site which would be located opposite the existing access that serves Combe. Concerns have been raised by local residents in relation to the location of this access and the potential for conflict with traffic related to the house opposite and also more generally the suitability of George lane to accommodate the additional traffic likely to be generated by the development. The Highways authority originally requested amendments to the visibility splays at the site access in order to maximise these within land in the applicant's control, amended plans have subsequently been submitted that indicate these. The amended visibility splays are considered to be suitable for the level, nature and speed of traffic using George Lane. The Highways Authority has also confirmed that they consider that the proposed access arrangements would have no adverse impact on vehicles exiting or entering the access to Combe and indeed are likely to represent an improvement.

102

The Highways Authority has also advised that they do not consider that the development would have a severe residual cumulative impact that or one that would warrant a recommendation for refusal. In addition in relation to traffic flow the Highways Agency, who operate the A35 to the north and which George Lane feeds onto, have also raised no objections in this regard. Finally, on this matter the Highways Authority has advised that existing recorded personal injury statistics indicate that there have been no reported incidents within George Lane dating from 2009. Whilst there have been some incidents recorded on the A35(T) t the north it is unclear whether these are related to the junction of George Lane with the trunk road and the Highways Agency has raised no concerns in this respect. Ecological Impacts An Extended Phase 1 survey has been submitted with the application. This report assesses the site to consider its likely value for protected species and other wildlife. The report summary advises that the site hedge boundaries have some potential for value by breeding birds and that some evidence of badger foraging were found but no sett. There was no evidence of the use of the site by any other species protected by law or of conservation status. The report makes recommendations with regard to the timing of any works and the need to consult an ecologist with regard to hedgerow removal works these matters can be covered by condition. Other Issues A Flood risk Assessment has been submitted with the application which confirms the site is in Flood Zone 1 and therefore in an area at low probability of flooding. The surface water drainage strategy proposes a Sustainable Urban Drainage Scheme which would look to mimic existing Greenfield run-off rates such that there should be no increase in surface water run-off over current levels, this strategy can be controlled by condition. S.106 Issues The application proposes the erection of 11 no. affordable units all proposed to be made available for affordable rent. The Councils' Housing department has advised that the development is welcomed and will help to meet the identified affordable housing needs of the parish and in turn the wider district. It is expected that East Devon District Council or its approved Registered Provider will have nomination rights and that all the affordable homes will be available in perpetuity, be tenure blind and constructed to at least Code Level 3 for Sustainable Homes, and to the Homes and Communities Agency Design and Quality Standards. These matters will be secured through a s.106 agreement. A scheme of this nature would normally result in a requirement for contributions towards public open space/recreation infrastructure to meet any recognised deficit and in some instances education infrastructure. In this instance Devon County Council has also requested contributions towards the costs of transporting pupils to secondary school.

103

Viability information has been submitted with the application which suggests that even without any financial contributions being taken into account and including grant funding by the Homes and Community Agency the viability of the scheme is in question and that the additional burden of financial contributions could not be sustained. An assessment of this data shows that the HCA grant covers less than 15% of the total costs with the rest being borrowed and repaid over many years. The only initial income is through the sale of the 2 open market units with the remaining income being derived from rental income from the affordable rent units. The revenue arising from the rent of the properties only exceeds the costs of the loan after 36 years. On this basis it is considered unreasonable to place further costs on this development which would further jeopardise the delivery of these affordable units. The benefits of the development in terms of affordable housing provision are considered to outweigh the impact on open space/education provision. The development looks to provide an area of informal open space in the centre of the development as well as a further parcel of amenity land to the south of the site. The land to the south does not have a defined end use although the applicant has advised that it could be used for a variety of purposes by the residents. It is clear that this area of space could be used for purposes including allotments, a wilderness area or a community orchard, but is not suitable for building on. The submitted Landscape and Ecological Management Plan indicates this area will be sown as a wildflower meadow and used as amenity space, this is considered to be acceptable. It is considered that the long term management of this and the central area of amenity space should be secured as part of a s.106 agreement. RECOMMENDATION APPROVE subject to the following conditions and to the applicant entering into a s.106 agreement to secure the matters above relating to affordable housing and long term landscape management: 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three

years from the date of this permission and shall be carried out as approved. (Reason - To comply with section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act

1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the

approved plans listed at the end of this decision notice. (Reason - For the avoidance of doubt.) 3. No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the

construction of the external surfaces of the building hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

(Reason - To ensure that the materials are sympathetic to the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policy D1 (Design and Local

104

Distinctiveness) and EN1 (Development in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

4. Prior to the commencement of development, a 2-3 square metre sample panel

of stone walling to be used shall be constructed on site for inspection by an officer of the Local Planning Authority. Any such sample provided shall be agreed in writing with the Authority and any variations as to coursing, pointing and the type of stone to be used. All stone walling as may be agreed, shall be completed prior to the initial occupation of the building to which it relates.

(Reason - In the interests of the appearance and character of the area in accordance with Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and EN1 (Development in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

5. Prior to the occupation of any of dwellings hereby approved elevation details

and material finish of the shed/outbuilding to serve that unit as indicated on drawing no. 133033 15 Rev A shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall then proceed in accordance with details as approved.

Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the development in accordance with policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and EN1 (Developments Affecting Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan.

6. Prior to commencement of any part of the site the Planning Authority shall have

received and approved a Construction Management Plan (CMP) including: (a) the timetable of the works; (b) daily hours of construction; (c) any road closure; (d) hours during which delivery and construction traffic will travel to and from the

site, with such vehicular movements being restricted to between 8:00am and 6pm Mondays to Fridays inc.; 9.00am to 1.00pm Saturdays, and no such vehicular movements taking place on Sundays and Bank/Public Holidays unless agreed by the planning Authority in advance;

(e) the number and sizes of vehicles visiting the site in connection with the

development and the frequency of their visits; (f) the compound/location where all building materials, finished or unfinished

products, parts, crates, packing materials and waste will be stored during the demolition and construction phases;

(g) areas on-site where delivery vehicles and construction traffic will load or

unload building materials, finished or unfinished products, parts, crates, packing materials and waste with confirmation that no construction traffic or delivery

105

vehicles will park on the County highway for loading or unloading purposes, unless prior written agreement has been given by the Local Planning Authority;

(h) hours during which no construction traffic will be present at the site; (i) the means of enclosure of the site during construction works; and (j) details of proposals to promote car sharing amongst construction staff in

order to limit construction staff vehicles parking off-site (k) details of wheel washing facilities and obligations (l) The proposed route of all construction traffic exceeding 7.5 tonnes. (m) Details of the amount and location of construction worker parking. (n) Photographic evidence of the condition of adjacent public highway prior to

commencement of any work (Reason:- In the interests of highway safety in accordance with policy TA7

(Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) of the East Devon Local Plan.) 7. No part of the development hereby approved shall be commenced until details

of the treatment of the visibility splays required by condition above and the means of defining the boundary between the visibility splay and the remainder of the application site have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: To ensure that the visibility splays are provided to a standard

acceptable to the Local Planning Authority in accordance with policy TA7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

8. The proposed estate road, cycle ways, footways, footpaths, verges, junctions,

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

REASON: To ensure that adequate information is available for the proper

consideration of the detailed proposals in accordance with policy TA7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) and TA9 (Parking Provision in New Development) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

9. The existing access shall be effectively and permanently closed by in

accordance with details which shall previously have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority as soon as the new access is capable of use.

106

REASON: To prevent the use of a substandard access and to minimise the

number of accesses on to the public highway in accordance with policy TA7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

10. In accordance with details that shall previously have been submitted to, and

approved by, the Local Planning Authority, provision shall be made within the site for the disposal of surface water so that none drains on to any County Highway

REASON: In the interest of public safety and to prevent damage to the

highway. in accordance with policy TA7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

11. Before any development commences, details of finished floor levels and

finished ground levels in relation to a fixed datum shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

(Reason - To ensure that adequate details of levels are available in the interests of the character and appearance of the locality in accordance with Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the East Devon Local Plan).

12. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted

landscaping scheme set out on drawing No. CD/HH/466-01A prepared by Eden Design and received 31st October 2014. The hard landscaping shall be carried out prior to occupation of the dwellings with the soft landscaping scheme, which includes the planting of trees, hedges, shrubs and areas to be grasses, to be carried out in the first planting season after commencement of the development, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall be maintained for a period of 5 years. Any trees or other plants which die during this period shall be replaced during the next planting season with specimens of the same size and species unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

(Reason: In the interests of amenity and to preserve and enhance the character

and appearance of the area in accordance with Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness), EN1 (Developments Affecting Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) and D4 (Landscape Requirements) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

13. Notwithstanding the details indicated on submitted plan no. 04281 TPP

10.10.2014 and the recommendations set out in the Arboricultural Impact Assessment Report, prepared by Aspect Tree consultancy and dated 10/10/2014 no development shall commence until a final Tree Protection Plan and Arboricultural Method Statements have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

107

The TPP and AMS shall adhere to the principles embodied in BS 5837:2012 and shall indicate exactly how and when the trees will be protected during the development process.

Provision shall be made for the supervision of the tree protection by a suitably

qualified and experienced arboriculturalist and details shall be included within the AMS.

The AMS shall provide for the keeping of a monitoring log to record site visits

and inspections along with: the reasons for such visits; the findings and any necessary actions; all variations or departures from the approved details and any resultant remedial action or mitigation measures. On completion of the development, the completed site monitoring log shall be signed off by the supervising arboriculturalist and submitted to the Planning Authority for approval and final discharge of the condition.

(Reason: The submitted details are in draft form only and to ensure the

continued well being of retained trees in the interests of the amenity of the locality and wider Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty in accordance with policies D5 (Trees on Development Sites) and EN1 (Development in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

14. Development shall proceed in accordance with the recommendations set out in

the Extended Phase I Survey Report prepared by Abbas Ecology and dated September 2013.

(Reason - In the interests of the conservation and protection of protected species and in accordance with policy EN6 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

15. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted Flood Risk

Assessment (and amended Surface Water Drainage Strategy) prepared by TWP Consulting Structural and Civil Engineers and dated July 2014.

(Reason - In the interests of flood risk management in accordance with Government Guidance set out in the National Planning Policy Framework)

NOTE FOR APPLICANT Informative: In accordance with the requirements of Article 31 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 in determining this application, East Devon District Council has worked positively with the applicant to ensure that all relevant planning concerns have been appropriately resolved. The development hereby approved shall be read and implemented in accordance with the s.106 legal agreement dated...... Plans relating to this application: 08 C Proposed Floor Plans 01.10.14

108

07 D Proposed Elevation 01.10.14 05 E Proposed Elevation 01.10.14 06 C Proposed Floor Plans 01.10.14 18 A Perspective Drawing 01.10.14 16 A Perspective Drawing 01.10.14 14236-050 C Other Plans 13.10.14 15 A Proposed Site Plan 01.10.14 14236-001 B Layout 04.09.14 01 C Proposed Elevation 04.08.14 02 B Proposed Floor Plans 04.08.14 03 C Proposed Elevation 04.08.14 04 B Proposed Floor Plans 04.08.14 09 C Proposed Elevation 04.08.14 10 B Proposed Floor Plans 04.08.14 11 C Proposed Elevation 04.08.14 12 A Proposed Floor Plans 04.08.14 13 C Proposed Elevation 04.08.14 14 A Proposed Floor Plans 04.08.14 17 Perspective Drawing 04.08.14 19 Location Plan 04.08.14 List of Background Papers Application file, consultations and policy documents referred to in the report.

109

Ward Newbridges

Reference 14/2313/VAR

Applicant Mr N Howard - Lyme Bay Cider Company

Location The Lyme Bay Winery Seaton Junction Axminster EX13 7PW

Proposal Variation of condition 4 on application 14/0342/MFUL to vary restriction limiting use of building

RECOMMENDATION: Refusal

Crown Copyright and database rights 2014 Ordnance Survey 100023746

110

Committee Date: 18.11.2014

Newbridges (SHUTE)

14/2313/VAR

Target Date: 22.12.2014

Applicant: Mr N Howard - Lyme Bay Cider Company

Location: The Lyme Bay Winery Seaton Junction

Proposal: Variation of condition 4 on application 14/0342/MFUL to vary restriction limiting use of building

RECOMMENDATION: Refusal

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application seeks a variation of a condition imposed on an earlier permission for the construction of a further large warehouse/storage building to the southeast of the existing storage building only recently constructed under (11/2813/FUL and 13/0286/FUL). The building approved would physically abut the south east elevation of the existing building running perpendicular to it and extending out toward the road. It would utilise matching materials and would form an enclosed courtyard area with the existing warehouse and storage buildings. The extension benefits from permission, granted by Development Management Committee earlier in the year, under application 14/0342/MFUL and has only recently been subject of an application to vary a condition on that permission restricting its use (14/1358/VAR refers). The revised wording of the condition restricted the use of the building to a B2 or B8 use and only in conjunction with the use of the wider site of which it forms part. This revised wording removed reference in the original condition to a named company i.e. Lyme Bay Winery and as such sought to make it possible to control the use of the building whilst allowing the owner to secure funding to deliver the building. However, the applicants have advised that the condition still remains too restrictive to allow bank funding to be secured and have provided further evidence in support of this view. It remains the case that the condition in place is considered necessary to prevent an unrestricted use here and one which would be unsustainable given the site's location if the building were subdivided and/or used by businesses with no need to be located in this sensitive location. It also remains the case that it was only the fact that the permission would allow the expansion of the existing business, which made the proposed extension acceptable. However, in light of the further information provided it needs to be considered whether the current

111

condition would meet the further test of being 'otherwise reasonable'. The applicant has argued that without the condition being further varied funding for the building could not be secured, this would affect the prospects of the building being delivered. If the building is not brought forward this in turn is likely to affect the growth and expansion of the business and therefore the socio-economic benefits that the original permission sought to secure. The applicants have been at pains to point out that they have no intention of using the building for any purpose other than that for which permission was originally granted i.e. for the production or storage of wine, cider and liqueurs and that it is only the concern over securing finance for the building that has led to the current application. They also highlight significant economic benefits deriving from the development including the creation of 8 additional jobs associated with a contract to pack wines for another company starting from January that is worth over £1 million per year and has involved the investment of £300k in new equipment. The space is also need to store a harvest of grapes from Cotleigh which is increasing in size each year as the vineyard matures. This is a somewhat unusual and balanced case but despite further consideration and whilst it is recognised that other buildings on the site might not be so restricted and that there may be difficulties in securing finance, it remains the case that an unrestricted building would not have been permitted in this location and it was only originally permitted to allow the expansion of the existing business. While it is clearly desireable to support this local business the arguments for varying the condition are not on the whole planning matters and therefore on balance the condition should remain as currently worded and the application therefore refused. CONSULTATIONS Local Consultations None received. Technical Consultations County Highway Authority Does not wish to comment PLANNING HISTORY Reference Description Decision Date

10/0184/FUL Erection of winery and storage/warehouse building

Approval with conditions

31.03.2010

112

11/1879/FUL Change of use of land, construction of industrial building for winery and storage/warehousing, associated works including car parking and alterations to access.

Approval with conditions

30.11.2011

11/2813/COU Change of use of land,

construction of industrial building for winery and storage/warehousing, associated works including car parking and alterations to access (revisions to 11/1879/FUL to alter siting of building)

Approval with conditions

15.02.2012

13/0286/FUL Construction of extension to

store and production unit Approval with conditions

24.04.2013

14/0342/MFUL Change of use of land and

construction of extension to winery and storage warehouse

Approval with conditions

07.05.2014

14/1358/VAR Variation of condition 4 on

application 14/0342/MFUL to vary restriction limiting use of building

Approval with conditions

27.08.2014

POLICIES New East Devon Local Plan Policies Strategy 31 (Future Job and Employment Land Provision) Strategy 7 (Development in the Countryside) Strategy 46 (Landscape Conservation and Enhancement and AONBs) D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) EN22 (Surface Run-Off Implications of New Development) E5 (Small Scale Economic Development in Rural Areas) E7 (Extensions to Existing Employment Sites) TC2 (Accessibility of New Development) TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) TC4 (Footpaths, Bridleways and Cycleways) TC9 (Parking Provision in New Development)

113

Adopted East Devon Local Plan Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) EN1 (Developments Affecting Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) TA1 (Accessibility of New Development) S5 (Countryside Protection) TA7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) TA9 (Parking Provision in New Development) EN15 (Environmental Impacts, Nuisance and Detriment to Health) E4 (Bad Neighbour Uses) E6 (Small Scale Employment Development in Rural Areas) Government Planning Documents NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework 2012) NPPG (National Planning Policy Guidance) SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The application site is situated to the south-east of the existing complex of buildings that form Lyme Bay Winery and which itself lies to the southeast of existing industrial development. The proposal site lies within a recently constructed additional yard area where there is an existing storage building to the immediate northwest of the site fronting onto a large gravelled parking/turning area and accessed via a wide vehicular access off the highway to the northeast. The site is separated from the highway by a native hedgerow and a further hedgebank has been created to the immediate rear (southeast) of the application site. The Exeter to London Waterloo railway line runs in a cutting to the southwest of the site. The land to the northwest of the site has been levelled but the natural topography of the land slopes gently down from southwest to northeast. The site is in the open countryside within the East Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). BACKGROUND Lyme Bay Winery is the trading name of Lyme Bay Cider Company, an established local company manufacturing cider, fruit wines and liqueurs all produced, sold and distributed from their Seaton Junction premises. The applicant states that the winery is now producing its own grapes from vines grown in East Devon, the applicants having planted some 25,000 over 8 hectares (20 acres). When in full production, the applicant states that the vines should have the potential to produce an estimated 65,000 bottles of wine per year. The business currently employs 36 people, most of whom are full time workers at the site. The business now exports to amongst other places, Canada, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Germany and India. It is understood that the extra floor space is needed to fulfill a new contract with a large national retail outlet with the potential to secure 8 new full time jobs. As previously reported, there have been a series of recent planning approvals relating to this extension to the original Lyme Bay Winery premises to the northwest of the site. The earliest of these, 11/1879/FUL, was for the Change of use of land and construction of an industrial building for winery and storage/warehousing,

114

associated works including car parking and alterations to the access. Subsequently, application 11/2813/COU sought revisions to the aforementioned application in terms of the approved buildings position. In 2013 a further application was made for a revised version of the building approved under the aforementioned planning applications. Effectively, the latest application granted an extension to the previously approved buildings to cover the whole of the area incorporated between them into one building. The current application relates specifically to permissions granted earlier this year (14/0342/MFUL and 14/1358/VAR) for a further large warehouse/storage building. The permitted building was an extension to that recently constructed to the northwest of the site (referenced above) and is designed to physically abut the southeast elevation of that building running perpendicular to it and extending out toward the road to form a courtyard area with the existing warehouse and storage buildings. One of the conditions imposed on the grant of planning permission relating to this building sought to restrict its use only to that associated with the existing business namely, Lyme Bay Winery/Lyme Bay Cider Company. Following approval for the latest warehouse building an application was submitted to vary condition 4 of that approval to effectively remove the restriction on the use of the building to that associated with the existing business (Lyme Bay Winery) and to allow its potential use for any B2 or B8 purpose. That application was considered by Development Management Committee in August of this year where a variation to the wording of the original condition was agreed to remove reference to a named company and instead require the operation of the building in conjunction with the use of the wider site of which it forms part. The specific wording of the current condition reads: "The building hereby permitted shall be used for B2 or B8 purposes only as set out in the Use Classes (Amendment) Order 2005 and for no other purpose and shall only be used and operated in conjunction with the use of the wider site of which it forms part and as defined by the red line on the approved Location Plan. (Reason - In order to define the permission and as a separate unrelated use would be unacceptable in this location due to its isolated location distant from services and inaccessible by public transport in accordance with policy TA1 (Accessibility of New Development) of the East Devon Local Plan.)" PROPOPOSED DEVELOPMENT Following the latest application considered by Development Management Committee in August of this year, the proposal seeks to further vary condition 4 of the original permission to effectively remove the restriction on the use of the building to that associated with the existing business and to allow its potential use for any B2 or B8 purpose. ANALYSIS This application is focussed on the wording of a planning condition seeking to control the use of that building and the reasons for its imposition; as such it is necessary to

115

consider it against the advice on conditions set out in the NPPF and the accompanying Planning Practice Guidance to it. Para. 206 of NPPF states: "Planning conditions should only be imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects." These criteria to consider when imposing planning conditions are otherwise known as the 6 tests. Planning Practice Guidance offers further advice on each of the tests. In this case the applicant has questioned whether the condition is both reasonable and necessary. It does not appear to be contested that the condition is not precise, relevant to planning or the development proposed, and enforceable and therefore discussion will centre on the need for and reasonableness of the condition. In terms of need the original condition imposed on application 14/0342/MFUL was considered necessary as the site is located in an area where planning permission would not normally be granted for such development, being in an unsustainable location and within a designated Area of Outstanding Natural beauty. Indeed, the original report to committee on the proposal gave an on balance recommendation of support where the social and economic benefits of supporting the growth and expansion of the existing business were considered to outweigh any environmental impact. Officers remain firmly of the view that despite the location of this business within the AONB that it should be supported and enabled to expand where possible. The recommendation was however subject to conditions one of which is that subject of the current application. The applicant's case is that the environmental/landscape impact of the building has already been considered and found to be acceptable and that this aspect would not change whether the condition in question was altered or not. This argument is accepted albeit it has to be acknowledged that this view was on the basis of the building being viewed in the context of the other buildings at the site approved in recent years. All of these buildings were granted contrary to AONB policy on the basis of supporting this important local business. The other reason given for the imposition of the condition though relates to the unsustainable location of the development and as such reliance on private transport. The applicant's agent argues that the trip generation for the site is based on a database system (TRICS) which assesses floor space in relation to any given use class to assess the likely trip generation related to the building, this they suggest would be the same for whoever operated the building. On a purely statistical level this may well be the case but this would not take into account shared or linked trips which are likely to occur were the building to be used in association with the existing business, examples of which might be; car sharing by employees, and shared deliveries or collections. Equally it does not take into account that the building was permitted only in this location to address the needs of Lyme Bay Winery since the business is already located in this location. A wider employment use would not have been permitted and therefore would not have generated any vehicle movements to the site. It might also be the case that the purpose of the building as a B2/B8 storage building may not, if used in conjunction with the adjoining building, result in the creation of as many new posts as would be the case with an unrelated use. It is also suggested that as other buildings on the wider site are not the subject of such conditions there would be

116

nothing to prevent them from being separately used. These buildings are, however, not the subject of this application, are existing and there is no indication that they are likely to be let or sold separately. It remains the case that the condition imposed is considered to be necessary to control future uses of the building. In terms of whether the condition can be considered to be ‘reasonable in all other respects', the applicant’s case centres on the impact the condition has on the ability of the owner to secure funding for the building. At the time of the earlier report the applicant's agent had advised that the banks would not be prepared to lend against the building with such a use restriction placed upon it. The reason being that a bank or other financial institution would not lend where there may be uncertainty over gaining permission for an alternative use of the building, should there be a need to recover the loan in the future. The variation to the condition previously agreed by committee sought to allow some flexibility to the condition by removing reference to a named company but continuing to require the use of the building in association with the wider site all of which is in the same ownership. However, the applicant has advised that the condition is still too restrictive for banks or other lending institutions to release funding. Whilst Lyme Bay Winery is clearly a successful and well respected local business they are not the owner's of the site but tenants and therefore are not the company seeking to finance the cost of the building's construction. However, a letter of support from the landowner's solicitor has been submitted. This letter advises that Lyme Bay Winery has recently secured a long term tenancy on the adjoining building (nearly 15 years left to run), that negotiations are at an advance stage in respect of a similar tenancy agreement on the application building and that similar long term tenancies exist in respect of other buildings leased to Lyme Bay Winery. Therefore, whilst Lyme Bay Winery are not the site owners they would appear to have a degree of security through their long term tenancy agreements and have been established at this site for a number of years. A letter from the owner of Lyme Bay Winery has also been submitted which advises on the achievements of the company since its founding 20 years ago and advises on the need for the new building. The letter explains that the increasing yields from the company's vineyards require further storage and that there has been considerable investment also in new machinery required to manage new contracts. It is argued that the new building is required to house these requirements but that this is untenable without securing a bank loan, which in turn is not possible with the current restriction in place. In support of their case the applicant's have provided a letter from a chartered surveyor where the author explains that his company carries out valuations for all the major lending banks for secured lending purposes. In relation to the current condition it is stated that this is still too restrictive for bank security purposes. The reason given is, should Lyme Bay Winery for some reason cease to occupy the entire site, it would not be possible to secure a new tenant for the entire site and as such it would not be possible to let the application building (its use conditioned to be associated with the operation of the wider site). In such circumstances it is suggested that there would be no rental income from the building and as such any bank would be unable to recoup their loan. The letter goes on to say that under such circumstances it would

117

not be advisable for a bank to lend. The letter further advises that banks rely heavily on valuer's advice, that all valuers are subject to the same standards and regulations and therefore the same reasoning would apply to all valuers and clearing banks. Given the aforementioned issues the applicant contends that the condition imposed is unreasonable as it prevents lending being secured for the building and is therefore contrary to the thrust of national planning policy to, "...support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprises in rural area, both through conversion of existing buildings and well designed new ones." para. 28 of the NPPF. This argument is however based on inferring that the guidance in the NPPF should be applied to matters that are outside of the control of the planning system such as the basis upon which banks will lend money when clearly this could not have been the intention. As reported in respect of the most recent application, it remains the case that the reasoning behind the condition is relevant to the grant of planning permission and that had an application been brought forward on a speculative basis for a building unassociated with the use of the rest of the site it is, due to the unsustainable location of the site, likely to have been considered unfavourably. The permission for a new building to support the existing business was considered to be acceptable on balance and only on the basis that its use would support the growth of the wider business, however, without some form of link by means of a condition or legal agreement the building could effectively be occupied by any company independently of the use of the rest of the site and where such a use would be unsustainable in this location. The reasoning that led to the imposition of the condition originally is considered to be sound. It is accepted that further consideration of the reasonableness of the condition is required in light of the further supporting evidence brought forward by the applicant. It appears from the supporting evidence that funding for the construction of the building is unlikely to be forthcoming whilst the condition remains as currently imposed. This may be related to the fact that the applicant is not the developer but it remains the case that banks appear to be unwilling to lend in relation to the building with the condition imposed. Equally without such a condition the building could be subdivided to provide a series of employment units that have no need to be located in this sensitive location. It is also important to balance these concerns with the clear economic reasons for supporting the expansion of Lyme Bay Winery. The need for the building has been highlighted in a letter from the company which states that the company continues to grow organically leading to a need for more space. They also state that they will shortly be harvesting their grapes at Cotleigh while as the vineyard matures yields will increase dramtacally. They estimate this years harvest to be at least 60 tonnes which will generate 20 temporary jobs and equates to 60,000 bottles of wine which all need to be stored. They also refer to a contract to start packing wines for a company starting in the new year involving a £300,000 investment in further machinery. This contract is worth in excess of £1 million per year and will generate at least 8 new jobs. Clearly these factors all make a compelling economic case for the new building that according to the applicants cannot be provided due to restrictions placed on the land owner by financial institutions. While these restrictions are not

118

planning considerations and hence the recommendation to refuse it would clearly be unfortunate if this development could not proceed. RECOMMENDATION REFUSE for the following reason: 1. The site is located in a rural countryside location designated as an Area of

Outstanding Natural Beauty, remote from services and access to public transport and where there is a presumption against development. Permission was originally granted despite this in order to support an important local business. An unrestricted industrial/storage use in this location, unrelated to the existing business, would represent an unsustainable form of development contrary to the principles of sustainable development set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and policy TA1 (Accessibility of New Development) of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan and policy TC2 (Accessibility of New Development) of the New East Devon Local Plan 2006-26: Proposed Submission (Publication).

Plans relating to this application: TW13/67/1 Proposed Combined Plans 13.02.14 Site Location Plan 22.09.14 List of Background Papers Application file, consultations and policy documents referred to in the report.

119

Ward Raleigh

Reference 14/2122/OUT

Applicant Mr & Mrs Cooper-Smith

Location Hayes House Behind Hayes Otterton Budleigh Salterton EX9 7JQ

Proposal Construction of dwelling and detached double garage and formation of new vehicular access (Outline application reserving details of layout, scale, appearance, access and landscaping).

RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions

Crown Copyright and database rights 2014 Ordnance Survey 100023746

120

Committee Date: 18/11/2014

Raleigh (OTTERTON)

14/2122/OUT

Target Date: 27.10.2014

Applicant: Mr & Mrs Cooper-Smith

Location: Hayes House Behind Hayes

Proposal: Construction of dwelling and detached double garage and formation of new vehicular access (Outline application reserving details of layout, scale, appearance, access and landscaping).

RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Outline planning permission is sought for a dwelling on a plot in the garden of Hayes House. The proposed site is within the Built-up Area Boundary for Otterton and would be accessed from an unmetalled road known as Lea Lane. Development in Otterton has historically taken place around the established network of roads and lanes and the proposed development would follow the same pattern. Although Lea Lane is not regularly used by vehicular traffic, any change in character or appearance resulting from vehicular use in association with the proposed dwelling would not lead to significant urbanisation of the area. The site is on sloping land which rises more steeply at its southern end. A dwelling on the lower land at the northern end of the site would have little visual impact owing to screening provided by existing buildings and the topography of the surrounding landscape. Subject to consideration of details at reserved matters stage, the proposed dwelling would not harm the character and appearance of the East Devon AONB. The site offers the potential to develop a low impact dwelling in a location with good access to local amenities and bus services. Subject to a condition to ensure that the dwelling is located on the lowest part of the site where it would have the least visual impact, the proposal is acceptable.

121

CONSULTATIONS Local Consultations Raleigh - Cllr R Bloxham Should Officers be minded to approve this outline application I am of the opinion that the matter should be referred to the Development Management Committee for consideration. The reasons are as follow:

• Part of the site falls outside the permitted development boundary and whilst there is an indicative location for the dwelling and access shown in the application, the application is in outline with all matters reserved.

• The proposed development would not echo the existing built form of this part

of the village.

• Concerns about the vehicle access off Lea Lane. There are also concerns about how much impact creating the access would have on the visual impact of the lane.

• The site is on sloping land and there are concerns about potential visual

impact of the proposed new dwelling.

• Concerns about potential amenity impact (overlooking and loss of privacy) on the host dwelling and immediate neighbours.

• Concerns about flooding from water run off. This exists now and there are

concerns that the development could make this worse.

• The potential impact on wildlife has not been assessed in the application.

• The proposal is not regarded as sustainable. It is remote from adequate services, employment, transport, senior education and would create the need for travel by private vehicle.

Parish/Town Council This application is for outline planning for the construction of a new substantial house in a prominent position astride the village building line and the boundary of the Heritage Coast restricted area. Although the site is perhaps marginally inside the Building Line, it clearly contravenes the spirit of the District Plan, which had drawn a line along the backs of the houses in Behind Hayes. The proposed building lies above the existing houses and would extend the current built-up area as well as overlooking the immediate neighbours and their gardens, which contrary to the application plan, extend far up the hillside. The building would have a significant impact on the amenity value of the existing environment. The site lies up a very narrow rural lane and the proposed access would be through an existing thick hedge and Devon Bank. Although classified as an unmetalled road, it is only currently used by walkers and trail bikers, and is unsuitable for motor vehicles. The present owners have removed much of the cultivation inside their

122

garden, but nonetheless there is wildlife along the verges of the lane, which has not yet been assessed. Any widening of the lane to improve vehicular access would have an impact on this amenity. In the winter the lane acts as a conduit for water draining off the hillside and at times the downpour can be torrential. Last winter houses at the top end of Lea Road and below Behind Hayes were threatened with flooding and any changes to the lower end of the lane surface would be likely to aggravate the run-off. Any development would need to resolve this problem. The development is located in a village with limited services, and almost no local employment. The village primary school is already full. Public transport is limited and under threat of further reduction. The development is in an area of very narrow roads, where increased traffic levels are likely to be a problem. For these reasons the Parish Council recommends that the application should be refused. Other Representations Six representations have been received raising the following concerns:

• Highway safety • Loss of character • Impact on AONB • Loss of privacy • Surface water flooding

Technical Consultations County Highway Authority The Local Planning Authority has contacted the County Highway Authority (CHA) in respect of this application because of their concerns regarding the nature of the existing highway, Lea Lane, that is the proposed access to the development. Normally the LPA alone would deal with this level of development under Standing Advice. Whilst Lea Lane is an adopted highway, it is the lowest form of adopted highway, Category 12. This means that the highway has an un-metalled surface that is porous and easily eroded nor does it have any positive drainage. Such highways are intended for agricultural access to fields and farmsteads, they are not intend as through-routes for general traffic, they are intended for limited motorised vehicular use, equestrian and recreational use only. The usual motorised use is mainly for agricultural traffic. Because of the nature of the construction of such highways they are susceptible to over use and their poor drainage make them weak in winter; however this is not a problem for tractors and four-wheeled-drive vehicles that are common on most farms and for access to fields. As with the maintenance of all the highways undertaken by the CHA, a balance has to be struck between the various categories of highway and the amount of the county's maintenance budget available to to be spent on them. This is especially true in times of recession, and at present Category 12 highways are only being

123

maintained to Bridle Way standards. This involves very some minor repairs to ensure that the surface is suitable for walking, horse riding, horse-leading and some off-road cycling. The maintenance and cutting of hedgerows is undertaken by the be the adjoining landowners. Because this Category 12 highway is the proposed access to the new property, even for a small length. The applicant should be aware of the current low maintenance regime that is afforded to Lea Lane and that the CHA does not have any intention to up-grade this highway or improve the level of maintenance and this will remain the case should this application be grated and the proposal implemented. The category of Lea Lane (Adopted Highway-Category 12) prevents the CHA from stopping further access by vehicles, but it does have concerns that the proposed development may cause excessive damage to the fabric of the highway especially in the construction phases; however it would be impracticable to restrict vehicular movements to the proposed development site. Therefore the CHA proposes that should this application be granted, prior to any construction, Lea Lane up to the development site entrance, is examined and photographic evidence is obtained of its condition. Also at the end of the construction phases further examinations of the lane is undertaking to ascertain whether any damage has been caused by the development construction traffic. Should damage occur beyond that which is expected under normal wear and tear for the type of traffic expected on this highway, the applicant will made responsible for its repair. Also the applicant should be made aware that access to the proposed property after completion the development by domestic vehicles would not be subject to the usual expectations of the road users' in that their vehicle may be subject to damage from pot holes, flooding and freezing and of values skid resistance that would far below those acceptable on higher categories of highway. The CHA will not be held responsible for any damage to any vehicle as a result of this application. Recommendation: THE HEAD OF PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENT, ON BEHALF OF DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL, AS LOCAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY,RECOMMENDS THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE INCORPORATED IN ANY GRANT OF PERMISSION 1. Prior to commencement of development on any part of the site, the Local Planning Authority shall shall have received and approved a pre start condition report including photographs of Lea Lane from its junction with the connecting unclassified county road to the site entrance. REASON: To provide accurate records of the state of highway from its junction with the unclassified road and the site access entrance as far as the site construction traffic is concerned and to control any undue wear and tear to this highway brought about by construction traffic in accordance with Policy TA7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) of the East Devon Local Plan. 2. Within 3 months of complettion of the development, all defects/damage to Lea Lane from the junction with the unclassified road and the site entrance resulting from the development hereby approved construction shall be made good at the

124

developer's expence and the Local Planning Authority shall have received post construction suvey report including photographic evidence of that length of highway. REASON: To provide accurate records of the state of highway from its junction with the unclassified road and the site access entrance as far as the site construction traffic is concerned and to control any undue wear and tear to this highway brought about by construction traffic in accordance with Policy TA7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) of the East Devon Local Plan. DC Footpath Officer Thank you for the details for the above planning application. I note the access to the proposed property will be along Lea Lane which is an unsurfaced county road. Although it has motor vehicle rights, the primary use is by agricultural traffic, and this Authorities maintenance only ensures that the route is available for pedestrian, horse and mountain bike users. The section leading up to the proposed site would not be improved by Devon County Council for standard cars, furthermore, this Authority would not take on the maintenance liability of any improvements made to Lea Lane by the developer. POLICIES New East Devon Local Plan Policies Strategy 6 (Development within Built-up Area Boundaries) D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) Strategy 46 (Landscape Conservation and Enhancement and AONBs) Strategy 43 (Open Space Standards) TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) EN22 (Surface Run-Off Implications of New Development) Adopted East Devon Local Plan Policies S4 (Development Within Built-up Area Boundaries) D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) EN1 (Developments Affecting Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) RE3 (Open Space Provision in New Housing Developments) TA7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) Government Planning Documents NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework 2012) National Planning Policy Guidance Site Location and Description Hayes House is a detached two storey dwelling in a substantial plot on the southern edge of Otterton. The dwelling is the last in a row of detached dwellings on the southern side of Behind Hayes. Adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site there is an unmetalled road known as Lea Lane. An access into the rear garden of Hayes House from Lea Lane has been closed up. The site is in the East Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and is partly within the Built-up Area Boundary.

125

ANALYSIS Outline planning permission is sought for a detached dwelling and double garage. All matters are reserved but indicative layouts and cross-sections have been submitted. These show that the access to the site would be from the unmetalled road, Lea Lane, rather than form Behind Hayes. Hayes House has a rear garden which, like its neighbours' gardens, is about 100 metres long. The proposed site would begin about 18 metres from the rear elevation of the house and extend to the end of the garden. The built-up area boundary crosses the site about 22 metres into the site, i.e. about 40 metres from the rear of Hayes house. There is sufficient space within the site and the built-up area to accommodate a dwelling and therefore one of the main considerations in this case is whether a dwelling in this location would be sustainable and whether it would be compatible with the character of the area. In terms of sustainability the village has some limited facilities including a primary school, village hall, churches and a pub, however there is no post office or general store and no doctors surgery. There is however a bus route with an hourly or better service. These factors make the village reasonably sustainable while the fact that it has a built up area boundary in the adopted local plan and is identified as keeping this boundary in the draft new local plan and indeed accommadting 15 additional homes under strategy 27 it would be difficult to now argue that it is not a sustainable location for the provision of additional dwellings within the boundaries of the village. The historic parts of Otterton are mainly around Fore Street, Bell Street and Ottery Street. Later development has taken place on either side of Maunder's Hill, Roper's Lane and Lea Road, which all extend southwards from Fore Street. Behind Hayes links these three roads and has also been developed in parts. Development on either side of the historic streets and lanes is therefore the dominant characteristic of the village rather than 'suburban estate' type development. Although no dwellings are currently accessed from Lea Lane such development would not be out of character with the pattern of development in the village. The village lies within the East Devon AONB and therefore conservation of the landscape is of utmost importance. Although the development is considered to be compatible with the character of the area, the impact on the landscape also needs to be acceptable. The site of the proposed dwelling would be on gently rising land behind Hayes House which then rises more steeply towards the end of the garden. The indicative plans show that the dwelling would be located on the lowest part of the site. Provided the dwelling was located as indicated on the submitted plans, views towards the building would be fairly limited. From distant view points on the public footpath on the north side of the village the dwelling would be partially screened and only visible amongst the surrounding buildings. It would therefore have little impact in those views. The other main viewpoint would be from Lea Lane, which is a public right of way running adjacent to the site. Although the dwelling would be clearly

126

visible, owing to its relationship with the established development and its setting at the bottom of the rising ground, it would not appear unduly prominent or intrusive in the landscape. If the dwelling were to be located on the higher ground towards the southern end of the site, the landscape impact would be much greater and the development would be less well related to existing buildings. Because the development would only be acceptable if it took place on the lower part of the site, it is reasonable to define a boundary beyond which development should not take place. The line of the Built-up Area Boundary marks the transition between the gently sloping lower part of the site and the steeply sloping upper part and therefore represents an appropriate and convenient line which can be used to define the developable area. This can be secured by condition. At this stage details of the layout, scale and appearance of the proposed dwelling have been reserved for future consideration but in principle it is considered that the site is capable of accommodating a dwelling without adverse impacts on the character and appearance of the area. Subject to an appropriate design and consideration of ground levels, building heights and materials, the character and appearance of the AONB would be conserved. Access to the site would be via Lea Lane. This is an unsurfaced county road which is only maintained for pedestrian, horse and mountain bike users. Although it is not maintained to a level which would make it suitable for regular and frequent use by cars, the only barriers to doing so are the condition of the road surface and the vegetation on each side of the lane. The proposed development would lead to regular use by cars which over time would inevitably lead to some improvement to the road surface and perhaps more regular trimming of the hedges. This would result in a change to the character and appearance of the section of the lane leading up to the site entrance but it would not be uncharacteristic of other tracks in the area. The highway authority have not objected to this application but have suggested conditions to ensure that the lane is not excessively damaged during the works. There is concern that these conditions do not fulfill a planning function and are adequately addressed by other legislation and therefore it is not proposed to impose these conditions. A number of residents have highlighted concerns about surface water running off the fields, down Lea Lane and into Behind Hayes and Lea Road. It is understood from their comments that flooding is already an issue for some residents owing to inadequate drainage systems in the area. Provided suitable drainage is in place, the proposed dwelling would not lead to additional surface water flows from the site. Furthermore, although regular use of Lea Lane may lead to changes in the flow of water, responsibility for dealing with existing problems arising from the quantity of surface water flowing down Lea Lane is not something which can be reasonably attributed to the proposed development. With regard to amenity, the site offers sufficient space and outlook to allow a dwelling to be designed without any adverse impacts on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, including the host dwelling. The site also offers

127

sufficient space for parking and turning and the access is considered suitable in terms of highway safety. A unilateral undertaking has been submitted which secures financial contributions towards open space provision and mitigation measures for recreational use of the Pebblebed Heaths and Exe Estuary. These contributions would address the additional demands/use arising from the occupiers of the new dwelling. RECOMMENDATION APPROVE subject to the following conditions: 1. The approval of the details of the layout, scale, landscaping and appearance of

the buildings and the means of access thereto (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced.

(Reason - The application is in outline with one or more matters reserved.) 2. Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local

Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved.

(Reason - To comply with section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.)

3. No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the

construction of the external surfaces of the buildings hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

(Reason - To ensure that the materials are sympathetic to the character and appearance of the area in accordance with policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and EN1 (Developments Affecting Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

4. No development shall take place until details of final finished floor levels and

finished ground levels in relation to a fixed datum have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include ground floor, eaves and ridge heights for Hayes House to allow comparison between the existing and proposed dwellings. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

(Reason - To ensure that adequate details of levels are available in the interest of the character and appearance of the locality in accordance with policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and EN1 (Developments Affecting Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

5. No building hereby permitted shall be constructed south of the line defined by

the Built-up Area Boundary in the East Devon Local Plan 1995 to 2011.

128

(Reason - In the interests of the character and appearance of the area in accordance with policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and EN1 (Developments Affecting Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

6. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General

Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No.2) (England) Order 2008 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no windows, doors, rooflights or other openings other than those approved in any subsequent reserved matters application shall be formed in the north and west elevations of the buildings hereby permitted.

(Reason - To protect the privacy of adjoining occupiers in accordance with policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

7. No development shall take place until details of a sustainable drainage scheme

for the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

(Reason - To ensure that surface water is managed in a sustainable way in accordance with guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework and policy EN22 (Surface Run-off Implications of New Development) of the submitted New East Devon Local Plan.)

NOTE FOR APPLICANT Informative: In accordance with the aims of Article 31 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 East Devon District Council works proactively with applicants to resolve all relevant planning concerns, however in this case the application was deemed acceptable as submitted. Informative: This permission shall be read in conjunction with the unilateral undertaking dated 18 August 2014. Plans relating to this application: 1-0001 Location Plan 01.09.14 List of Background Papers Application file, consultations and policy documents referred to in the report.

129

Ward Sidmouth Rural

Reference 14/1786/FUL

Applicant Ms J Pleasants

Location Land Opposite 3 Millford Avenue Sidmouth

Proposal Construction of detached dwelling

RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions

Crown Copyright and database rights 2014 Ordnance Survey 100023746

130

Committee Date: 18.11.2014

Sidmouth Rural (SIDMOUTH)

14/1786/FUL

Target Date: 07.11.2014

Applicant: Ms J Pleasants

Location: Land Opposite 3 Millford Avenue

Proposal: Construction of detached dwelling

RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Planning permission is sought for a detached two storey dwelling in place of the existing single storey garage on the site. Approval for a large replacement garage was first granted in 2011 and this was followed later in the same year by an approval for a dwelling. The current proposal is simply a resubmission of that scheme. Through previous applications it has been established that the layout, scale and appearance of the building would be acceptable. Moreover, there have been no material change in circumstances since 2011 which would alter that view. The residential use of the site would be compatible with the use of the surrounding properties. Although the access is narrow, the level of use would not materially change compared to the current use of the site. Moreover, any disruption during the construction phase would be temporary. Concerns have been raised about a loss of light to neighbouring properties but there would be no adverse effects on the neighbours' main habitable rooms. Although concerns have also been raised about surface water flooding, the site is already hard surfaced so the construction of a dwelling is not likely to lead to any increase in run-off. Subject to submission and approval of materials the proposed development would create a new dwelling in a sustainable location which would conserve the character and appearance of the conservation area.

131

CONSULTATIONS Local Consultations Sidmouth Rural - Cllr C Wale In light of a previous application being submitted I cannot support this application. I feel the proposed development is still out of keeping detracting from the neighbouring properties and does not reflect the design and harmony of other surrounding area therefore not in keeping with the residential area. There is objections to loss of light through the side windows from numbers 7 - 8 Millford Avenue and number 8 through the front bay window. Numbers 1,2, 4 and 5 also raise concerns over loss of light which again is a concern to me. Parking is very limited within Millford Avenue and narrow leading up to the application site and again I have concerns over matters of flooding and run off to neighbouring properties. Sidmouth Town Council have also refused the application maintaining their previous reasons of Overdevelopment Out of keeping with neighbouring properties, again strengthened with the conservation officers view that the proposal did not blend in or enhance the area required in a conservation area. Parish/Town Council Members maintained that they were unable to support the application for the reasons previously given:

• Overdevelopment of the site • Out of keeping with neighbouring properties

Members noted that the Conservation Officer did not wish to comment on the application but were of the view that the proposal did not blend in or enhance the area as required in a conservation area. Other Representations One letter of objection has been received from the local residents' association raising the following concerns:

• Noise and disruption to the access during the construction phase • Loss of light • Surface water flooding • Loss of view • Unsympathetic design • Might be used for holiday letting • Inadequate access and parking

132

Technical Consultations County Highway Authority Standing advice PLANNING HISTORY Reference Description Decision Date 10/2524/FUL Construction of detached

garage Approval with conditions

15.02.2011

11/1530/FUL Construction of detached dwelling

Approval with conditions

28.09.2011

POLICIES New East Devon Local Plan Policies Strategy 6 (Development within Built-up Area Boundaries) D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) EN10 (Preservation and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) Strategy 43 (Open Space Standards) TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) EN22 (Surface Run-Off Implications of New Development) Adopted East Devon Local Plan Policies S4 (Development Within Built-up Area Boundaries) D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) EN11 (Preservation and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) RE3 (Open Space Provision in New Housing Developments) TA7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) Government Planning Documents NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework 2012) National Planning Policy Guidance Site Location and Description The site is located within the built up area and within a conservation area. It is accessed via a private road between 10 and 11 Millford Road which narrows in front of the terrace which forms one side of Millford Avenue. Opposite the terrace there is a pair of semi-detached properties, a garage occupying the site itself and a further detached dwelling. There is access to the rear of the site from a rear service lane. ANALYSIS Planning permission is sought for a detached two storey dwelling in place of the existing single storey garage on the site. Approval for a large replacement garage

133

was first granted in 2011 and this was followed later in the same year by an approval for a dwelling which took a similar form to the approved garage. Neither of these permissions have been implemented and both have now expired. The current proposal is simply a resubmission of the scheme for a dwelling which was approved in 2011. Through previous applications it has been established that the layout, scale and appearance of the building would be acceptable. Moreover, there have been no material change in circumstances since 2011 which would alter that view. Concerns have been raised about a loss of light to neighbouring properties but there would be no adverse effects on the neighbours' main habitable rooms. Their main windows face north and south rather than east and west and would not be affected by the proposed building. Moreover, any changes to the outlook from, or light available to, the windows in the neighbours' side elevations would not be harmful to living conditions. The design is considered acceptable subject to submission of details of appropriate materials in the interests of the character and appearance of the conservation area. The residential use of the site would be compatible with the use of the surrounding properties. Although the access is narrow, the level of use would not materially change as a result of this proposal and therefore there is no objection to using the site for a dwelling rather than a garage. Any disruption during the construction phase would be temporary. With regard to concerns about surface water flooding, it is noted that the site is currently hard surfaced and therefore the proposal would not be likely to lead to any increase in surface water run-off and may lead to improvements. A unilateral undertaking has been submitted which secures contributions towards open space provision and mitigation measures for recreational use of the Pebblebed Heaths. These contributions would address the additional demands/use arising from the occupiers of the new dwelling. RECOMMENDATION APPROVE subject to the following conditions: 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three

years from the date of this permission and shall be carried out as approved. (Reason - To comply with section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act

1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the

approved plans listed at the end of this decision notice. (Reason - For the avoidance of doubt.)

134

3. No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the building hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

(Reason - To ensure that the materials are sympathetic to the character and appearance of the conservation area in accordance with policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and EN11 (Preservation and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

NOTE FOR APPLICANT Informative: In accordance with the aims of Article 31 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 East Devon District Council works proactively with applicants to resolve all relevant planning concerns, however in this case the application was deemed acceptable as submitted. Informative: This permission shall be read in conjunction with the unilateral undertaking dated 28 August 2014. Plans relating to this application: 14031_11 Existing Combined

Plans 22.07.14

1403_12 Proposed Combined

Plans 22.07.14

1403_13 Existing Site Plan 22.07.14 1403_LP Location Plan 22.07.14 List of Background Papers Application file, consultations and policy documents referred to in the report.

135

Ward Sidmouth Sidford

Reference 14/2457/CPL

Applicant Mr Martin Kerridge

Location Peninnis Windsor Mead Sidford Sidmouth EX10 9SJ

Proposal Certificate of Lawful Development for construction of single storey rear extension.

RECOMMENDATION: CPL Approve Part 1

Crown Copyright and database rights 2014 Ordnance Survey 100023746

136

Committee Date: 18.11.2014

Sidmouth Sidford (SIDMOUTH)

14/2457/CPL

Target Date: 08.12.2014

Applicant: Mr M Kerridge

Location: Peninnis, Windsor Mead, Sidford, Sidmouth. EX10 9SJ

Proposal: Certificate of Lawful Development For The Construction Of Single Storey Rear Extension.

RECOMMENDATION: Approve

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This application is before the committee as the applicant is the husband of Councillor Sheila Kerridge. The applicant seeks the grant of a lawful development certificate for the construction of a single storey rear extension at Penninis. Such a certificate demonstrates that a proposed development complies with the relevant limitations set out within the General Permitted Development Order and, as such, constitutes permitted development and therefore not requiring the need to submit or assess a formal planning application. In this instance and having considered the proposed development against the criteria in the General Permitted Development Order it is considered that the proposal would be lawful, and would not require a grant of express planning permission from the Authority. CONSULTATIONS No consultations required with this particular type of application. PLANNING HISTORY There is no planning history registered on this site which is relevant to this particular application.

137

SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION Peninnis is a detached dwellinghouse of red brick construction, situated within a cul de sac location in Sidford. It is a two storey house with a shallow hipped roof and detached garage to the east. ANALYSIS Having examined the submitted details, it is concluded that the proposed single storey rear extension would be lawful insofar as it complies with the following criteria that are set out within the relevant provisions of the General Permitted Development Order shown in italics. An officers response follows each criteria to explain why the proposal complies- Development is not permitted by Class A if— (a) as a result of the works, the total area of ground covered by buildings within

the curtilage of the dwellinghouse (other than the original dwellinghouse) would exceed 50% of the total area of the curtilage (excluding the ground area of the original dwellinghouse) The total area of ground covered by the proposed single storey rear extension would not exceed 50% of the total area of the curtilage (excluding the ground area of the original dwellinghouse).

(b) the height of the part of the dwellinghouse enlarged, improved or altered would exceed the height of the highest part of the roof of the existing dwellinghouse The drawings provided by the agent indicate that the height of the proposed single storey rear extension would not exceed the height of the highest part of the existing roof.

(c) the height of the eaves of the part of the dwellinghouse enlarged, improved or altered would exceed the height of the eaves of the existing dwellinghouse The drawings provided by the agent indicate that the eaves height of the proposed single storey rear extension would not exceed the height of the eaves of the existing dwellinghouse.

(d) the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would extend beyond a wall which— (i) fronts a highway, and (ii) forms either the principal elevation or a side elevation of the original Dwellinghouse The proposed single storey extension would extend beyond the rear wall of the dwellinghouse, and would not front a highway.

(e) subject to paragraph (ea), the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would have a single storey and— (i) extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse by more than 4 metres in the case of a detached dwellinghouse, or 3 metres in the case of any other dwellinghouse, or (ii) exceed 4 metres in height The proposed extension would be of single storey construction, extending beyond the original rear wall by 3.6 metres and not exceeding 4 metres in height.

(f) the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would have more than one storey and—

138

(i) extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse by more than 3 metres, or (ii) be within 7 metres of any boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse opposite the rear wall of the dwellinghouse The proposed rear extension would not have more than one storey.

(g) the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would be within 2 metres of the boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse, and the height of the eaves of the enlarged part would exceed 3 metres The eaves of the proposed single storey rear extension would not exceed 3 metres in height.

(h) the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse, and would— (i) exceed 4 metres in height, (ii) have more than one storey, or (iii) have a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse The proposed single storey rear extension would not extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the dwellinghouse.

(i) it would consist of or include— (i) the construction or provision of a veranda, balcony or raised platform, (ii) the installation, alteration or replacement of a microwave antenna, (iii) the installation, alteration or replacement of a chimney, flue or soil and vent pipe, or (iv) an alteration to any part of the roof of the dwellinghouse The proposal does not include the provision of a veranda, balcony, raised platform, the installation, alteration or replacement of a microwave antenna, or the installation, alteration or replacement of a chimney, flue, soil or vent pipe.

A.2 In the case of a dwellinghouse on article 1(5) land, development is not permitted by Class A if— (a) it would consist of or include the cladding of any part of the exterior of the dwellinghouse with stone, artificial stone, pebble dash, render, timber, plastic or tiles; (b) the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse; or (c) the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would have more than one storey and extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse The dwellinghouse is not within a Conservation Area or an Area Of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and is not therefore on article 1(5) land, where additional restrictions apply.

Conditions: Development is permitted by Class A subject to the following conditions— (a) the materials used in any exterior work (other than materials used in the construction of a conservatory) shall be of a similar appearance to those used in the construction of the exterior of the existing dwellinghouse; Correspondence from the agent indicates that the materials used in the construction of the single storey extension would be of a similar appearance to those used in the construction of the exterior of the existing dwellinghouse.

139

(b) any upper-floor window located in a wall or roof slope forming a side elevation of the dwellinghouse shall be— (i) obscure-glazed, and (ii) non-opening unless the parts of the window which can be opened are more than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which the window is installed; and There are no 'upper floor' windows proposed within the side elevations of the dwellinghouse. (c) where the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse has more than one storey, the roof pitch of the enlarged part shall, so far as practicable, be the same as the roof pitch of the original dwellinghouse. The proposed enlargement would not have more than one storey. RECOMMENDATION APPROVE Plans relating to this application: Location Plan 11.10.14 1601/02 Combined Plans 11.10.14 1601/01 Combined Plans 11.10.14 1601/03 Combined Plans 11.10.14 1601/04 Proposed Site Plan 11.10.14 List of Background Papers Application file, consultations and policy documents referred to in the report.

140

Ward Trinity

Reference 14/1795/FUL

Applicant Mr Chris Cullen

Location Axe Vale Canoe Club Harbour Road Seaton EX12 4AA

Proposal Replacement canoe store

RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions

Crown Copyright and database rights 2014 Ordnance Survey 100023746

141

Committee Date: 18.11.2014

Trinity (AXMOUTH)

14/1795/FUL

Target Date: 24.10.2014

Applicant: Mr Chris Cullen

Location: Axe Vale Canoe Club Harbour Road

Proposal: Replacement canoe store

RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This application is before the Development Management Committee because the land on which the works are proposed is owned by the Council. The proposed works relate to the Axe Canoe Club buildings which are situated in the area used for the storage of yachts related to Axe Yacht Club. The site is adjacent to the River Axe and is, consequently, within a flood zone 3. Additionally, the site is in the open countryside as well as an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV). Much of the area surrounding the site is used for the storage of yachts, and there are also other buildings within a fairly close proximity to the application site. There are no residential properties close to the application site. The applicant seeks permission to construct a replacement canoe store on the site - which is a variation to the design of the building approved on this site in 2012 (12/1385/FUL). The revised design increases the height of the building from around 3.03 metres to around 4.7 metres and includes an external drying area for clothes. It is considered that these works would be sufficiently modest that they would be suitably screened by the existing buildings near-by. Consequently, the changes would not be harmful to the open countryside, or the AGLV. The proposed works would be taking place away from any residential properties and it is therefore, considered that they would not be harmful to the amenity of the occupiers of any dwelling. Despite the site being situated in a flood zone 3, the Environment Agency has not raised an objection to the proposal indeed such a use is considered to be water compatible. Given the above comments, it is considered that the proposed works are acceptable and, therefore, approval is recommended.

142

CONSULTATIONS Local Consultations Parish Council Support Technical Consultations County Highway Authority Does not wish to comment Environment Agency We have no objections to this development Other Representations No letters of representation received. PLANNING HISTORY Reference Description Decision Date 12/1385/FUL Extension and refurbishment Approved 30.07.12

of existing canoe club clubhouse and construction of replacement canoe store.

POLICIES Government Planning Documents NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework 2012) National Planning Policy Guidance New East Devon Local Plan Policies Strategy 7 (Development in the Countryside) D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) EN14 (Control of Pollution) Adopted East Devon Local Plan Policies EN2 (Areas of Great Landscape Value) D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) S5 (Countryside Protection) EN15 (Control of Pollution)

143

Site Location and Description Axe Vale Canoe Club is located on the western bank of the River Axe and is just outside the built-up area of Seaton. The site is within the Coastal Preservation Area (CPA), and is also within the flood zone of the River Axe. The site currently consists of a single storey building, and a detached canoe store situated just to the south. These buildings are within a shingle area used to store boats belonging to members of the near-by Axe Yacht Club. The Yacht Club also has a building on the site and, in addition to these buildings there are also some buildings to the north of the application site. There are residential properties adjoining the western boundary of the site, from where the site is visible. The site is also visible from the highway running to the north of the site as well as from the opposite side of the River Axe. Some screening is provided from all directions by boats on the river as well as boats being stored on land. Other buildings around the site also provide screening from some directions. Proposed Development Planning permission was granted on the 29th August 2012 (12/1385/FUL) for the refurbishment and extension to the existing clubhouse and the construction of a replacement canoe store. The works to the clubhouse were completed in 2013 but the canoe store was not started. This application refers to the canoe store only and is for an amended design on the same footprint but higher eaves and ridge and with the addition of a lean-to extension with open mesh in filled sides to form a covered drying area. The previously approved canoe store had dimensions of a height of 3.03m and width of 6.1m and depth of around 7.4m. The proposed building would have a height of around 4.6 metres, and height to the eaves of 2.8m. Its width would be 6.1m by 7.4m in depth. The proposed materials are Merlin grey coated box profile sheets, whilst the wall would be Goosewing Grey box profile sheets. ANALYSIS This application is before the Development Management Committee because East Devon District Council owns the land on which the application site is located. The key considerations in the determination of this application are as follows: The impact of the proposal on the Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) and the open countryside. The application site is situated on a site which is used for the storage of boats and has other buildings near-by. Additionally, there is a line of dwellings situated on the western edge of the boat yard. Although the height of the proposal would be higher than the adjacent buildings, and the approved building, it is considered that this would not be to a significant extent. It is considered that it would be read in conjunction with the other buildings on site, as well as those to the west of the site

144

and also the boats stored nearby. The sheeting and roofing materials would match the kayak store and club house. Consequently, it is considered that the proposed works would not be detrimental to the AGLV, or the open countryside. The impact of the proposal on the flood zone. The Environment Agency has stated that it has no objections to the proposed development. On these grounds, and on the basis of the modest nature of the proposed works, and the fact that it is necessary to site a building of the nature concerned close to a water course, it is considered that the proposed works are acceptable with regard to their impact on flooding. The impact of the proposal on the amenity of the occupiers of other properties. The proposal site is situated away from any residential properties, and the proposed work is of a modest size. Given that, and the fact that the site is partially screened from the nearest dwellings by stored boats, it is considered that the proposal would not be detrimental to the amenity of the occupiers of any other dwelling. RECOMMENDATION APPROVE subject to the following conditions: 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three

years from the date of this permission and shall be carried out as approved. (Reason - To comply with section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act

1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the

approved plans listed at the end of this decision notice. (Reason - For the avoidance of doubt.) 3. The works hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the Flood

Risk Assessment submitted with the application and received by the Council on 29th August 2014.

(Reason - To ensure that the proposed development does not result in an increased risk of flooding, to prevent pollution and to accord with Policy EN15 (Control of Pollution) of the East Devon Local Plan and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.

NOTE FOR APPLICANT Informative: In accordance with the aims of Article 31 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 East Devon District Council works proactively with applicants to resolve all relevant planning concerns, however in this case the application was deemed acceptable as submitted.

145

Plans relating to this application: 2014/AVCC/2A Proposed Combined

Plans 29.08.14

2014/AVCC/3A Proposed Combined

Plans 29.08.14

Location Plan 23.07.14 Design and Access

Statement 23.07.14

Flood Risk Assessment 29.08.14 List of Background Papers Application file, consultations and policy documents referred to in the report.

146

Ward Woodbury And Lympstone

Reference 14/1567/OUT

Applicant Mr & Mrs Wilson

Location Land Adjacent To 21 Strawberry Hill Lympstone

Proposal Outline application with all matters reserved for the construction of a detached dwelling

RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions

Crown Copyright and database rights 2014 Ordnance Survey 100023746

147

Committee Date: 18.11.2014

Woodbury And Lympstone (LYMPSTONE)

14/1567/OUT

Target Date: 09.09.2014

Applicant: Mr & Mrs Wilson

Location: Land Adjacent To 21 Strawberry Hill

Proposal: Outline application with all matters reserved for the construction of a detached dwelling

RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application site relates to an area of land on the northern edge of Lympstone that is currently used as an amenity plot/garden area. It is located on the east side of Strawberry Hill, and accessed via a private driveway that serves two further properties. Outline planning permission with all matters reserved is sought for the erection of a detached dwelling on the land which lies outside of, but adjacent to the defined built up area boundary of Lympstone (as defined in the Adopted East Devon Local Plan). No highway objection has been raised and the site is not located within any designated landscape area, or area identified as being a flood zone. The application is submitted with a completed Unilateral Undertaking relating to the provision of open space and mitigation measures in respect of the Exe Estuary and the Pebblebed Heaths. It is considered that the proposal would bring forward one new dwelling at a time when the Council cannot prove a 5 year land supply at present and bearing in mind the location of the site on the edge of the existing built up area of Lympstone which has a range of services and facilities, and the economic benefits of providing work during the construction of a dwelling the proposal is on balance considered to be sustainable, however this has to be weighed against the Lympstone Neighbourhood Plan, a possible loss of amenity and the potential for additional traffic to be attracted to the site.

148

CONSULTATIONS Local Consultations Cllr Ben Ingham I believe your report makes no reference to the LPC recommendation (which I attended), or to how this application fits in with the Lympstone Neighbourhood Plan. I request this application goes to DMC for a decision. I do not support your recommendation as not all the facts have been presented. I suggest some of your assumptions are inaccurate. Parish/Town Council Outline application with all matters reserved for the construction of a detached dwelling on land adjacent to 21 Strawberry Hill - OBJECT. 1. The proposed development is outside our building boundary. 2. The access is shared with other dwellings who at present have great difficulty having their septic tanks emptied because large vehicles cannot pass through the narrow lane approx. 2.7 metres, the tanker has to park on adjoining property and run its pipeline across neighbours land. 3. Due to the fact there is no turning head at the end of the lane any smaller vehicles that get down then have to reverse back, onto Strawberry Hill, this point being on the brow of the hill. Technical Consultations County Highway Authority Highways Standing Advice Other Representations Four representations have been received, three raising objections Objections

• Highway safety when exiting from blind entrance • No turning provision within access • Narrow access inappropriate for construction vehicles • Noise and disturbance • Increased pollution • Residential amenity

Representation

• Potential land ownership issues

149

PLANNING HISTORY Reference Description Decision Date 95/P0190 Erection of dwelling and

garage Refused 06.02.1995

POLICIES New East Devon Local Plan Policies Strategy 2 (Scale and Distribution of Residential Development) Strategy 7 (Development in the Countryside) Strategy 27 (Development at the Small Towns and Larger Villages) Strategy 50 (Infrastructure Delivery) D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) D3 (Trees and Development Sites) EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) TC2 (Accessibility of New Development) TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) Adopted East Devon Local Plan Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) D4 (Landscape Requirements) S3 (Built-up Area Boundaries for Villages) S5 (Countryside Protection) S7 (Infrastructure Related to New Development) EN6 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) TA7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) TA1 (Accessibility of New Development) D5 (Trees on Development Sites) Government Planning Documents NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework 2012) National Planning Policy Guidance Lympstone Neighbourhood Plan A neighbourhood plan has been prepared and adopted by Lympstone Parish Council on 9 September, which is currently undergoing examination. It has been the subject of consultation and whilst some amendments or alterations may be forthcoming, it sets out the Parish Council’s views and due to its advanced stage, should be accorded weight in the consideration of planning proposals. Site Location and Description The application site is located on the northern edge of Lympstone and comprises a piece of land that is presently used as an allotment/garden area. The site measures approximately 0.15ha and is accessed from a private driveway that currently serves

150

two other existing residential properties. The site lies outside of, but contiguous with the built up area boundary for the village. There are no landscape designations relating to the site. The land in this location slopes quite steeply from north-west to south-east, with a fall over the land of around 7m. Proposed Development Outline planning permission, with all matters reserved, is sought for the erection of a single dwelling with an access proposed from Strawberry Hill along the existing driveway that currently serves two properties and the application site. Whilst all matters are reserved, the application is accompanied by an indicative layout plan, and the supporting information suggests that a two storey four bedroom dwelling with a footprint of around 80 square metres is proposed. Consideration and Assessment The matters to consider are the principle and policy context, including consideration of the Lympstone Neighbourhood Plan; sustainability credentials; impact on the open countryside; neighbouring amenity; highways and access; open space and habitats mitigation and any other issues. Principle and policy context One of the main determining issues in respect of this application is the extent to which the site is sustainably located, having regard to local and national planning policies. The site lies outside of the Built-Up Area Boundary (BUAB) of Lympstone in an area that is covered by Policy S5 (Countryside Protection) of the East Devon Local Plan. In the Local Plan, the location of new development is focused on existing built-up areas, and by drawing boundaries around settlements the objectives of S5 are met, ensuring that development outside of those boundaries is strictly controlled. Policy S5 is consistent with the advice within the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to avoid isolated homes in the countryside. This settlement approach to development within the District, through the identification of built-up area boundaries ensures that new housing is located where it is most sustainable. In simple terms, unless there are very special reasons why planning permission should be granted, any application site that lies outside of a settlement boundary should be considered to be unsustainable. However, the Local Plan is currently under review and the Council cannot at present identify a 5 year housing land supply, as has been demonstrated by Inspectors decisions and the Councils own review of housing allocations. Furthermore, following the Local Plan Inquiry the Planning Inspector has raised concerns regarding Strategy 27 in the emerging Local Plan and the allocation of development within or adjacent to villages. Given this uncertainty and until an agreed position is

151

reached, it is not considered that the strategy, and the housing location and numbers proposed under it, can be accorded any significant weight at the present time. While regard should be had to the Inspectors concerns regarding the distribution of housing around the smaller towns and villages his request for a review is not, at this stage considered to be sufficient for the Council to change its approach and is not considered to outweigh the weight to be given to the adopted Local Plan and the BUAB’s contained within that. On this basis it is considered that at the present time development within the BUAB’s, including additional infill development will be supported in principle. Having said this, the NPPF also advises that housing applications should also be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. To a certain extent this means approving development without delay if relevant policies are out of date (see comments in the above paragraphs relating to five year land supply), unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits or conflict with the NPPF. The proposed development is considered to be deliverable, and whilst small scale any permission granted would assist in the Council’s supply of housing within the District. The application proposal is located outside of, but contiguous with the edge of the settlement boundary of Lympstone. As such, and bearing the above in mind, it would appear to be illogical and inconsistent to take a view that small scale developments of no more than a few houses cannot be supported in principle where they have the same or similar levels of access to the available services and facilities as those within the BUAB subject to all other considerations. The additional dwelling proposed is no further from existing facilities than much of the existing development that is located within the defined development boundary. It would thus be somewhat unreasonable to suggest that the proposed development would be less sustainably located than other existing properties which are within the BUAB but further away from services and facilities. Until the policy position is resolved, therefore, it is considered that new development proposals will need to be assessed in respect of their overall sustainability and the impact which they would have on the character and appearance of the area and the balance of the community. The presumption in favour of sustainable development, identified in the NPPF requires consideration of social and economic benefits arising from new development in addition to any impact on the environment. In this case the proposal would provide a social contribution through the provision of a dwelling within an area of identified shortfall, and would have some economic benefit through the creation or sustainability of employment during the construction of the properties. Whilst the benefits may not be of a significant scale they would nevertheless make a positive contribution in this respect. Lympstone Neighbourhood Plan (LNP) As stated above the LNP has reached an advanced stage, and is currently under examination. Whilst there may be some changes to the final document, it sets out

152

the vision for the future of the community and identifies areas and policies in respect of the future planning of the village. The LNP policies must accord with the provisions of the NPPF and the strategic policies of the East Devon Local Plan. Whilst the current situation regarding the local plan remains uncertain as detailed above, regard should be had to the proposed policies detailed in the LNP in considering new development proposals. The application site is not located within an area identified in the LNP for development which has identified four sites with the ability to accommodate at least 5 dwellings and provide a total of 40 dwellings over the plan period. There is the provision however for further ‘windfall’ sites to be considered within the Built up Area Boundary. In this respect although the site is not within the identified BUAB in the LNP, as in the East Devon Local Plan it abuts the edge of it and has the gardens associated with existing dwellings on two sides. It is also closer to the facilities and the centre of the village than one of the identified sites in the plan and whilst the concerns raised in relation to the proposed BUAB by the Parish Council and the Ward Member are appreciated, the reasonably sustainable location of the site in relation to village facilities, and the need to provide additional housing is considered to weigh in favour of the proposal. To be balanced against the above is a recent decision by the Secretary of State issued on the 27 October 2014 in relation to an appeal against the refusal of permission by Wiltshire Council for 350 dwellings, a shop and associated works. This decision is relevant to the current application as the Secretary of State concluded that the need to rectify a shortfall in the 5 year supply of housing did not outweigh the desirability of entrusting decisions to community-led planning and encouraging neighbourhood plans. The Secretary of State decision advises that: “In coming to this conclusion, the Secretary of State has given significant weight to the opportunity which the neighbourhood plan process gives local people to ensure that they get the right types of development for their community. Furthermore, while accepting the need to plan positively to support strategic development needs, he considers that, in view of the stage of preparation reached by the DANP, it would not be appropriate to conclude that its provisions are outweighed by the opportunity which this appeal scheme presents to contribute to meeting the overall housing land requirement.” Whilst this appeal decision provides some support for refusal of the current planning application on the basis that it is contrary to the Lympstone Neighbourhood Plan, the two applications and Neighbourhood Plans differ in a number of ways that has resulted in support for the current proposal. The Devizes Area Neighbourhood Plan (DANP) had identified 20 ‘preferred sites’ to accommodate up to 474. The DANP strategy was to promote a number of smaller sites spread around the area. The appeal site was proposing 350 dwellings on 1 site and as such that application was wholly at odds with the Neighbourhood Plan. Whilst the current application site is not identified for housing in the Lympstone Neighbourhood Plan, the provision of a single dwelling will not undermine the approach to housing and as such it is considered that more weight can be given to the lack of supply of housing in this case. In addition, the Secretary of State’s decision in Devizes states that the decision is ‘finely balanced’ and that it is the

153

circumstances of that case that mean the benefits of the proposal do not outweigh the adverse impacts. In light of this, it is considered that the provision of one dwelling in Lympstone will not result in the same adverse impacts upon the area or Neighbourhood Plan to justify refusal of planning permission. Sustainability credentials There are various facilities within the village including a church, shops, schools and public houses, together with a rail link to Exeter and Exmouth and the A376 within reasonable distance, and these factors need to be taken into consideration in considering the proposal. In the local plan for the next period Lympstone is being put forward as a village that could accommodate further new development and given that the site currently adjoins an existing built-up area boundary a refusal of permission would be difficult to justify on sustainability grounds. Impact on the open countryside The application site, although being within the open countryside does not fall within any area having a landscape designation, or other countryside protection. The land slopes away from its western boundary down to the south and east, however there is a reasonable hedge boundary to all sides, and is not prominent in existing views, either from Strawberry Hill, or to the south east from the A376. Any residential development of the site would inevitably change the character and appearance of the land, however given that there are some existing, albeit modest, structures it is considered that with careful design and attention to ground and floor levels a dwelling could be accommodated without having a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the countryside. Neighbour amenity The main issues in this respect are considered to be the impact of a new dwelling in terms of an increase activity, pollution, noise and disturbance; and any loss of privacy and overlooking. The application site has a long established use as an amenity plot, with a right of access along the driveway between No 23 Strawberry Hill, and a property known as Rest Harrow. It is therefore important to bear in mind that there cannot be an in-principle objection to the use of the access to the site. It is further important to note that notwithstanding the current (or even historic) volume of traffic that has been using the access, there are no known restrictions on the number or type of vehicles that could use the access. Whilst the concerns relating to the additional traffic associated with a dwelling, and the consequent increase in activity, fumes and noise arising from this are fully appreciated, it is not considered these would be reasonable grounds for withholding planning permission given the existing permitted use of the land. The internal floor levels and window aspect of the property adjacent to the southern boundary of the

154

access drive are noted and whilst an increase in intensity of the use of the site may occur through the development of a property on the site, it could also occur should the owner of the land choose to use the land more intensively under its present use. These matters may potentially constitute an environmental health concern, however they cannot reasonably form part of a planning refusal when the situation and the right of access to the land already exists. The application is submitted in outline form, with all matters reserved, however the site is considered to be of sufficient size to be able to accommodate a dwelling without causing any unreasonable harm to the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings through a loss of privacy, outlook or overlooking. Highways and access County Highways advised that standing advice should be applied for this application. Notwithstanding this and following concerns relating to highway safety aspects arising from a potential increase in traffic using a driveway with sub-standard visibility, the site has been revisited, and the views of the Highway Authority sought. Although no formal written response has been received, Officers have been advised that there is no highway objection to the proposal given the existing and potential intensification in the use of the site, that could occur whether the application is approved or not. As such no objection is raised on highway safety grounds. Given the size of the application site it is considered that appropriate turning and parking facilities could be provided within the site. These aspects could be brought forward via conditions in the event of an approval. Open space and habitats mitigation The application has been submitted with a signed and completed Unilateral Undertaking relating to the costs of provision and enhancement of appropriate open space within the vicinity, and a contribution towards measures to mitigate the impacts of the development on the Exe Estuary Special Protection Area. These contributions are underpinned by the work undertaken in the recently completed Open Space Study Review 2014 and the earlier Exe Estuary Studies. CONCLUSION The proposal would bring forward one new dwelling at a time when the Council cannot prove a 5 year land supply at present and bearing in mind the location of the site on the edge of the existing built up area of Lympstone which has a range of services and facilities, and the economic benefits of providing work during the construction of a dwelling the proposal is on balance considered to be sustainable, however this has to be weighed against non-compliance with the Lympstone Neighbourhood Plan, a possible loss of amenity and the potential for additional traffic to be attracted to the site. Overall it is considered that bearing in mind the above and in the absence of any substantive objection on environmental sustainability, the proposal is acceptable and the application recommended for approval.

155

RECOMMENDATION APPROVE subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of the details of the layout, scale and appearance of the building (s),

the means of access thereto and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced.

(Reason - The application is in outline with one or more matters reserved.) 2. Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local

Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

(Reason - In accordance with the requirements of Section 92 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990.)

3. Prior to commencement of any works on site (including demolition), tree

protection details, to include the protection of hedges and shrubs, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. These shall adhere to the principles embodied in BS 5837:2012 and shall indicate exactly how and when the trees will be protected during the site works. Provision shall also be made for supervision of tree protection by a suitably qualified and experienced arboricultural consultant and details shall be included within the tree protection statement. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the agreed details.

In any event, the following restrictions shall be strictly observed: (a) No burning shall take place in a position where flames could extend to within

5m of any part of any tree to be retained. (b) No trenches for services or foul/surface water drainage shall be dug within

the crown spreads of any retained trees (or within half the height of the trees, whichever is the greater) unless agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All such installations shall be in accordance with the advice given in Volume 4: National Joint Utilities Group (NJUG) Guidelines For The Planning, Installation And Maintenance Of Utility Apparatus In Proximity To Trees (Issue 2) 2007.

(c) No changes in ground levels or excavations shall take place within the crown spreads of retained trees (or within half the height of the trees, whichever is the greater) unless agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

(Reason - To ensure retention and protection of trees on the site in the interests

of amenity and to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the area in accordance with policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness), D4 (Landscape Requirements) and D5 (Trees on Development Sites) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

4. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the

approved plans listed at the end of this decision notice.

156

(Reason - For the avoidance of doubt.) 5. Before any development commences details of final finished floor levels and

finished ground levels in relation to a fixed datum shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

(Reason - To ensure that adequate details of levels are available in the interest of the character and appearance of the locality.)

6. No development shall take place until details of any earthworks have been

submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall include any proposed grading and mounding of land areas including the levels and contours to be formed, showing the relationship of proposed mounding to existing vegetation and surrounding landform. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of the development.

(Reason - In the interests of preserving and enhancing the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and D4 (Landscape Requirements) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

7. The layout of the site, submitted in accordance with conditions 1 and 2 above,

shall indicate the positions, designs, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed in accordance with the approved details before the dwelling hereby granted outline permission is occupied, and shall be retained thereafter without alteration or addition.

(Reason - In the interests of preserving and enhancing the character and appearance of the area and/or protecting the privacy of local residents in accordance with Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and D4 (Landscape Requirements) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

8. Before development is commenced, a schedule of materials and finishes, and,

where so required by the Local Planning Authority, samples of such materials and finishes, to be used for the external walls and roofs of the proposed development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

(Reason - To ensure that the materials are sympathetic to the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

9. No works for the construction of the building hereby permitted shall be

undertaken on Sundays or Public Holidays. On other days no construction work shall be undertaken outside of the following hours: 08:00; hours and 18:00; hours Mondays to Fridays inclusive and 09:00; hours and 13:00; hours on Saturdays.

(Reason - To protect adjoining occupiers from excessive noise in accordance with Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and EN15 (Control of Pollution) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

157

10. No development shall take place until details of the parking and turning areas within the curtilage have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The dwelling hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the parking and turning areas have been completed in accordance with the approved plans. Thereafter at all times the parking and turning areas shall be kept free of obstruction and available for use for these purposes.

(Reason - To ensure that adequate and safe provision is made for the occupiers and in the interests of highway safety.)

NOTE FOR APPLICANT Informative: In accordance with the aims of Article 31 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 East Devon District Council works proactively with applicants to resolve all relevant planning concerns, however in this case the application was deemed acceptable as submitted. Plans relating to this application: 1 Location Plan 02.07.14 List of Background Papers Application file, consultations and policy documents referred to in the report.

158