agenda for development management committee tuesday, 8th

Mark Williams, Chief Executive

Richard Cohen, Deputy Chief Executive

Agenda for Development Management Committee Tuesday, 8th January, 2019, 10.00 am Members of Development Management Committee Councillors M Allen, B Bailey, D Barratt, S Bond,

C Brown (Vice-Chairman), P Burrows, P Carter, S Gazzard, M Howe (Chairman), Ingham, G Jung, D Key, J Knight, H Parr, B d Saram and M Williamson

Venue: Council Chamber Knowle

Contact: Wendy Harris

(or group number 01395 517546) Thursday, 20 December 2018 1 Minutes of the previous meeting (Pages 4 - 8)

Minutes of the Development Management Committee meeting held on 4 December 2018.

2 Apologies

3 Declarations of interest

Guidance is available online to Councillors and co-opted members on making declarations of interest

4 Matters of urgency

Information on matters of urgency is available online

5 Confidential/exempt item(s)

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 (Pages 9 - 14)

Update from the Development Manager

Applications for determination 7 18/1721/FUL (Minor) (5)

East Devon District Council

Knowle

Sidmouth

Devon

EX10 8HL

DX 48705 Sidmouth

Tel: 01395 516551

Fax: 01395 517507

www.eastdevon.gov.uk

Public Document Pack

Agenda page 1

http://eastdevon.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/councillor-conduct/councillor-reminder-for-declaring-interests/

http://new.eastdevon.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/committees-and-meetings/matters-of-urgency/

Ottery St Mary Rural Meadowgate West Hill Road, West Hill, Ottery St Mary EX11 1UZ

8 18/2425/FUL (Minor) (Pages 16 - 21)

Ottery St Mary Rural Meadowgate West Hill Road, West Hill, Ottery St Mary EX11 1UZ

9 18/2174/MOUT & 18/2175/LBC (Major) (Pages 22 - 77)

Royal Avenue Car Park, Camperdown Terrace and The Esplanade Exmouth

10 18/0789/FUL (Minor) (Pages 78 - 105)

Broadclyst Land Adjoining Bluehayes Lane (Plot 1) Land Adjoining Bluehayes Lane (Plot 2) Bluehayes, Broadclyst

11 18/1064/FUL (Minor) (Pages 106 - 127)

Ottery St Mary Potters Country Market West Hill Road, West Hill, Ottery St Mary, EX11 1TY

12 18/2230/VAR (Minor) (Pages 128 - 138)

Woodbury and Lympstone Exton Top Yard Exmouth Road, Exton

Under the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014, any 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 exercising their right to speak during Public Question Time will be recorded.

Agenda page 2

Decision making and equalities

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

Agenda page 3

http://new.eastdevon.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/committees-and-meetings/decision-making-and-equalities-duties/

EAST DEVON DISTRICT COUNCIL

Minutes of a Meeting of the Development Management Committee held at Knowle, Sidmouth on 4 December 2018

Attendance list at end of document The meeting started at 10am and ended at 12.15pm *26 Minutes

The minutes of the Development Management Committee meeting held on 30 October 2018 were confirmed and signed as a true record.

*27 Declarations of interest

Committee Members

Cllr Geoff Jung; 17/2430/MFUL and 18/0920/FUL; Personal interest; Member of Woodbury Salterton Residents Association

Cllr Geoff Jung; 17/2430/MFUL and 18/0920/FUL; Personal interest; Cllr Jung outlined that he had received a letter from the applicant alleging trespass but Cllr Jung refuted it.

Cllr David Barratt; 18/1779/MFUL. 17/2904/OUT and 18/2023/FUL; Personal interest; Sidmouth Town Councillor

Cllr Steve Gazzard; 18/2200/FUL; Personal interest; Exmouth Town Councillor

Cllr Bruce de Saram; 18/2200/FUL; Personal interest; Exmouth Town Councillor

Cllr Brian Bailey; 18/1906/FUL; Personal interest; acquaintance of the applicant

Cllr Brian Bailey; 18/2200/FUL; Personal interest; Exmouth Town Councillor

Cllr Paul Carter; 17/2430/MFUL and 18/0920/FUL; Personal interest; acquaintance of the applicant

Cllr Mark Williamson; 18/2200/FUL; Personal interest; Exmouth Town Councillor

In accordance with the code of good practice for Councillors and Officers dealing with planning matters as set out in the Constitution Cllr Howe (on behalf of the Committee) advised of lobbying in respect of application 18/1779/MFUL.

In accordance with the code of good practice for Councillors and Officers dealing with planning matters as set out in the Constitution Cllr Mike Howe advised that he had been lobbied in respect of applications 18/2023/FUL and 18/1721/FUL.

In accordance with the code of good practice for Councillors and Officers dealing with planning matters as set out in the Constitution Cllr Paul Carter withdrew from the debate and the vote with respect to applications 17/2430/MFUL and 18/0920/FUL.

*28 Appeal statistics

The Committee received and noted the report written by the Development Manager setting out appeals recently lodged and outlining the eight decisions notified of which - four had been dismissed, three had been allowed and one had been a split decision.

The Development Manager drew Members’ attention to the appeal of application 17/1329/MFUL that had been allowed and advised that the Inspector determined that due to the evidence for the need of the proposed development, the location of the site off the A3052 and the lack of landscape harm those benefits outweighed concerns regarding the location of the development within the countryside.

Agenda page 4

Agenda Item 1

Development Management Committee, 4 December 2018

*29 Applications for Planning Permission and matters for determination RESOLVED: that the applications before the Committee be determined as set out in Schedule 7 2018/2019. Attendance list Present: Committee Members present for all or part of the meeting Councillors: Mike Howe

(Chairman)

Colin Brown (Vice-

chairman)

Brian Bailey

David Barratt

Susie Bond

Peter Burrows

Paul Carter (Left the Chamber during consideration of applications

17/2430/MFUL and 18/0920/FUL)

Bruce de Saram

Steve Gazzard

Geoff Jung

David Key (did not partake in the discussion or vote on applications

18/1721/FUL, 18/1806/FUL and 18/2200/FUL)

Jim Knight

Helen Parr

Mark Williamson

Officers present for all or part of the meeting Henry Gordon-Lennox, Strategic Lead – Governance and Licensing Chris Rose, Development Manager Wendy Harris, PA to Strategic Lead for Governance & Licensing Tabitha Whitcombe, Democratic Services Officer Also present for all or part of the meeting Councillors: Alan Dent Steve Hall Marianne Rixson Tom Wright Apologies: Committee Members Councillors: Mike Allen Ben Ingham

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

Agenda page 5

EAST DEVON DISTRICT COUNCIL

Development Management Committee Tuesday 4 December 2018; Schedule number 7 – 2018/2019

Applications determined by the Committee

Committee reports, including recommendations, can be viewed at: http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/2706229/041218combinedDMCagenda.pdf Cllr Paul Carter left the Chamber during consideration of this application. Raleigh (WOODBURY SALTERTON)

17/2430/MFUL & 18/0920/FUL

Applicant: Mr T Smith

Location: 17/2430/MFUL: Land East of Hogsbrook Farm, Woodbury Salterton, EX5 1PY 18/0920/FUL: Hogsbrook Farm, Woodbury Salterton, EX5 1PY

Proposal: 17/2430/MFUL: Proposed agricultural building, construction of attenuation basin and retention of raised levels. 18/0920/FUL: Proposed agricultural building.

RESOLVED: 17/2430/MFUL: APROVED with conditions as per officer

recommendation

18/0920/FUL: APROVED with conditions as per officer

recommendation

Sidmouth Sidford (SIDFORD)

18/1779/MFUL

Applicant: Churchill Retirement Living

Location: Green Close, Drakes Avenue, Sidford, Sidmouth, EX10 9JU Proposal: Demolition of former care home and construction of 40

retirement apartments for older persons including communal facilities, access, car parking and landscaping.

RESOLVED: APPROVED with conditions and subject to a S.106 legal

agreement as per officer recommendation.

Agenda page 6

http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/2706229/041218combinedDMCagenda.pdf

Development Management Committee – 4 December 2018

Budleigh Salterton (BUDLEIGH SALTERTON)

18/1906/FUL

Applicant: Mr and Mrs Terry and Annette Davey

Location: 11 Coastguard Road, Budleigh Salterton, EX9 6NU

Proposal: Erection of detached house and garage.

RESOLVED:

APPROVED with conditions as per officer recommendation with the Habitat Regulations Appropriate Assessment outlined within the Committee Report being adopted.

Sidmouth Rural (SIDBURY)

17/2904/OUT

Applicant: Mrs Margaret Evis

Location: Garages at Burnt Oak, Sidbury Proposal: Demolition of existing garages, re-development with 7 no.

dwellings, 7 no. garages, parking spaces and creation of new access road and footpath (outline application seeking approval of access and layout).

RESOLVED:

APPROVED as per officer recommendation with:

The Habitat Regulations Appropriate Assessment outlined within the Committee Report being adopted; and

A S.106 legal agreement to secure the provision of three affordable dwellings on site.

Sidmouth Sidford (SIDFORD)

18/2023/FUL

Applicant: Peter Aldam

Location: 87 Sidford High Street, Sidford, Sidmouth, EX10 9SA

Proposal: Demolition of dwelling and construction of detached house and access to highway (revisions to upper house approved reference 16/1659/FUL, including alterationsto dormer and window configuration, enlarged rear bays and terrace, enlarged front porch and garage and alterations to the driveway).

RESOLVED:

APPROVED with conditions as per officer recommendation with the Habitat Regulations Assessment outlined within the Committee Report being adopted.

Agenda page 7

Development Management Committee – 4 December 2018

Ottery St Mary Rural (OTTERY ST MARY)

18/1721/FUL

Applicant: Dr Robert Amos

Location: Meadowgate, West Hill Road, West Hill, Ottery St Mary, EX11 1UZ

Proposal: Re-built single garage and alterations to access/driveway (partly retrospective).

RESOLVED:

INSPECT Reason: to assess whether the design and layout has an acceptable impact on the streetscene.

Newton Poppleford and Harpford (NEWTON POPPLEFORD)

18/1806/FUL

Applicant: Miss Judith Cullip and Mr Peter Grace

Location: Rushmer Lodge, High Street, Newton Poppleford, Sidmouth, EX10 0EF

Proposal: Demolition of attached garages and construction of 2 no. new dwellings.

RESOLVED:

APPROVED with conditions as per officer recommendation with the Habitat Regulations Appropriate Assessment outlined within the Committee Report being adopted.

Exmouth Withycombe Raleigh (EXMOUTH)

18/2200/FUL

Applicant: Mr Ian Wright

Location: 19 Blackmore Court, Exmouth, EX8 4SG

Proposal: Construction of garden shed. RESOLVED:

APPROVED as per officer recommendation.

Agenda page 8

of 3

East Devon District Council List of Planning Appeals Lodged

Ref: 17/2493/FUL Date Received 12.11.2018 Appellant: Mr Harry Tucker Appeal Site: Manor Hotel Garages Beacon Place Exmouth Proposal: Demolition of existing garages and redevelopment of

forecourt to form 2 new apartments over modified existing parking.

Planning Inspectorate Ref:

APP/U1105/W/18/3216069

Ref: 18/0450/FUL Date Received 19.11.2018 Appellant: Mr Stuart Phillips Appeal Site: 8 Mill Street Ottery St Mary EX11 1AD Proposal: Alterations and extensions to create 5 No flats Planning Inspectorate Ref:

APP/U1105/W/18/3216506

Ref: 18/1849/FUL Date Received 19.11.2018 Appellant: Mrs Helen Marks Appeal Site: 19 King Alfred Way Newton Poppleford Sidmouth EX10

0DG Proposal: Construction of two storey front and single storey side

extensions (revised scheme to 18/0865/FUL) Planning Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 18/1548/FUL Date Received 19.11.2018 Appellant: Mr Steve Hollis Appeal Site: Land East Of Redlane Cross Rocombe Proposal: Erection of an equestrian manege, American style barn and

formation of a new vehicular access Planning Inspectorate Ref:

APP/U1105/W/18/3216504

Agenda page 9

Agenda Item 6

of 3

Ref: 18/1474/FUL Date Received 20.11.2018 Appellant: John Lomax Appeal Site: Land Adj Heathfield Longmeadow Road Lympstone

Exmouth EX8 5LF Proposal: Change of use from workshop and garage to single dwelling

(re-submission of application 17/1168/FUL) Planning Inspectorate Ref:

APP/U1105/W/18/3216628

Ref: 18/1440/FUL Date Received 09.12.2018 Appellant: Mr & Mrs Sinclair Appeal Site: Higher Bolshayne Barn Whitwell Lane Colyford Colyton

EX24 6HS Proposal: Construction of single storey extension. Planning Inspectorate Ref:

APP/U1105/D/18/3218128

Ref: 18/1804/LBC Date Received 09.12.2018 Appellant: Mr & Mrs Sinclair Appeal Site: Higher Bolshayne Barn Whitwell Lane Colyford Colyton

EX24 6HS Proposal: Construction of single storey extension and porch Planning Inspectorate Ref:

APP/U1105/Y/18/3218130

Ref: 18/0869/FUL Date Received 11.12.2018 Appellant: Mr Dyer Appeal Site: Strawberry Fields Livery Yard Meeting Lane Lympstone

Exmouth EX8 5HS Proposal: Conversion of two barns/stables to form one dwelling with a

link extension, and use of remaining buildings for ancillary domestic purposes


APP/U1105/W/18/3218286

Ref: 18/1462/PDQ Date Received 12.12.2018 Appellant: Mr & Mrs S Connell Appeal Site: Barn At Easting 330931, Northing 101522 Land Adjacent

Poppins Goldsmith Lane All Saints Proposal: Change of use together with building operations reasonably

necessary to convert the building into a single dwelling. Planning Inspectorate Ref:

APP/U1105/W/18/3218381

Agenda page 10

of 3

Ref: 18/0308/FUL Date Received 17.12.2018 Appellant: Green Acres Homes Appeal Site: W I Hall And Adjacent Land At West Hill Road West Hill Proposal: Demolition of WI hall and construction of 3 no. dwellings Planning Inspectorate Ref:

APP/U1105/W/18/3218802

Ref: 18/1372/FUL Date Received 17.12.2018 Appellant: Ms K Powell Appeal Site: Waxway Camp Fire Beacon Lane Tipton St John Ottery St

Mary EX11 1QD Proposal: Change of use from agricultural land to camping site.

Retention of water tank, wooden housing for filtration system, water tap and associated pipe work. To also retain the compost toilet facilities, hardstanding and replace wooden shed.


APP/U1105/W/18/3218734

Ref: 17/F0246 Date Received 17.12.2018 Appellant: Ms K Powell Appeal Site: Waxway Camp Fire Beacon Lane Tipton St John Ottery St

Mary EX11 1QD Proposal: Change of use from agricultural land to camping site.

Appeal against the serving of an enforcement notice. Planning Inspectorate Ref:

APP/U1105/C/18/3218735

Agenda page 11

of 3

East Devon District Council List of Planning Appeals Decided

Ref: 16/1841/CPE Appeal

Ref: 17/00068/LDC

Appellant: Mr Martin Baylis Appeal Site: 19 Grange Avenue Exmouth EX8 3HU Proposal: Lawful development certificate for change of use of garage to

dwelling house Decision: Appeal Withdrawn Date: 15.11.2018 Procedure: Written representations Remarks: BVPI 204: No Planning Inspectorate Ref:

APP/U1105/X/17/3189189

Ref: 17/2677/VAR Appeal

Ref: 18/00031/REF

Appellant: Mr Giles Baily Appeal Site: Bucknole Farm Northleigh Colyton EX24 6BP Proposal: Application to remove condition 3 (holiday let only) from

planning permission 16/2402/FUL (change of use and conversion of shippon to holiday let unit and associated works)

Decision: Appeal Dismissed Date: 27.11.2018 Procedure: Written representations Remarks: Delegated refusal, countryside protection and sustainability

reasons upheld (EDLP Strategy 7 and Policies TC2 & D8). BVPI 204: Yes Planning Inspectorate Ref:

APP/U1105/W/18/3202489

Agenda page 12

of 3

Ref: 17/3012/PDQ Appeal Ref:

18/00030/REF

Appellant: Mr Lawrence Appeal Site: Land South Of Four Elms Farm Alfington Road Ottery St

Mary Devon EX11 1NY Proposal: Prior approval for proposed change of use of agricultural

building to form 2no dwellings (use class C3) and associated operational development.

Decision: Appeal Dismissed Date: 27.11.2018 Procedure: Written representations Remarks: Delegated refusal.

The Inspector agreed with the Council that due to the amount of structural work required to convert the building, the proposal could not be classed as permitted development under part Q of the General Permitted Development Order 2015.

BVPI 204: No Planning Inspectorate Ref:

APP/U1105/W/18/3202273

Ref: 17/2624/FUL Appeal

Ref: 18/00043/REF

Appellant: Mr David Perry Appeal Site: The Steep Dunkeswell Honiton EX14 4RG Proposal: Removal of redundant industrial building (B8) (previously

developed land) and erection of a single two storey detached dwelling (C3)

Decision: Appeal Dismissed Date: 28.11.2018 Procedure: Written representations Remarks: Delegated refusal, countryside protection and sustainability

reasons upheld (EDLP Strategies 5B & 7 and Policy TC2). BVPI 204: Yes Planning Inspectorate Ref:

APP/U1105/W/18/3207808

Ref: 18/1185/FUL Appeal

Ref: 18/00050/HH

Appellant: Mr & Mrs W Hunt Appeal Site: Seafield Lodge Seafield Road Sidmouth EX10 8HF Proposal: Construction of additional storey to existing bungalow. Decision: Appeal Dismissed Date: 30.11.2018 Procedure: Written representations Remarks: Delegated refusal, conservation reasons upheld (EDLP

Policies D1, EN9 & EN10), BVPI 204: Yes Planning Inspectorate Ref:

APP/U1105/D/18/3211642

Agenda page 13

of 3

Ref: 18/0910/ADV Appeal

Ref: 18/00042/ADVREF

Appellant: Lidl UK GmbH Appeal Site: Lidl Distribution Centre Chillpark Brake Clyst Honiton Exeter

Devon Proposal: Display of free-standing billboard sign (retention of) Decision: Appeal Dismissed Date: 13.12.2018 Procedure: Written representations Remarks: Delegated refusal, amenity reasons upheld (EDLP Policy D4). BVPI 204: No Planning Inspectorate Ref:

APP/U1105/Z/18/3207717

Ref: 18/1030/VAR Appeal

Ref: 18/00041/REF

Appellant: Mr & Mrs RH & IHR Pinney Appeal Site: Westways Axminster Road Musbury Axminster EX13 8AZ Proposal: Removal of condition 4 (requirement for obscure glazing and

restricted opening to windows serving first floor of western elevation of planning permission 18/0051/FUL).

Decision: Appeal Allowed (with conditions)

Date: 14.12.2018

Procedure: Written representations Remarks: Delegated refusal, amenity reasons overruled (EDLP Policy

D1). The Inspector considered that the distance between the windows and the neighbouring garden is sufficient to prevent a significant loss of privacy. He concluded that the installation of clear glass and the absence of restricted opening mechanisms would not result in a harmful loss of privacy to neighbouring residents and the proposal would comply with Policy D1 of the East Devon Local Plan.

BVPI 204: Yes Planning Inspectorate Ref:

APP/U1105/W/18/3207653

Agenda page 14

Ward Ottery St Mary Rural

Reference 18/1721/FUL

Applicant Dr Robert Amos

Location Meadowgate West Hill Road West Hill Ottery St Mary EX11 1UZ

Proposal Re-built single garage and alterations to access/driveway (partly retrospective)

RECOMMENDATION: Approval - standard time limit

Crown Copyright and database rights 2018 Ordnance Survey 100023746

Agenda page 15

Agenda Item 7



Applicant Dr Rob Amos

Location Meadowgate West Hill Road West Hill Ottery St Mary EX11 1UZ

Proposal Retention of removal of front garden and construction of garage to front



Agenda page 16

Agenda Item 8

18/2425/FUL

Committee Date: 8th January 2018

Ottery St Mary Rural (WEST HILL)

18/2425/FUL

Target Date: 17.12.2018

Applicant: Dr Robert Amos

Location: Meadowgate West Hill Road

Proposal: Retention of removal of front garden and construction of garage to front


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This application is before Members as it adjoins another application on the Agenda (18/1721/FUL) where the Committee are carrying out a Site Inspection to assess whether the design and layout of a garage and drive have an acceptable impact upon the street scene. As this application also proposes a garage to the front of Meadowgate, and as the officer recommendation differs from the view of a Ward Member, this application has also been placed on the Agenda for consideration alongside the other application for Meadowgate. The site is located on the northern side of West Hill and the surrounding area is entirely residential in character. This application seeks to retain grounds works that have resulted in the lowering of part of the front garden and proposes the construction of a garage to the front of the dwelling. Whilst the garage is situated forward of the bungalow it serves, and will be visible from the public highway above the boundary fencing, its scale, bulk, use of sympathetic materials and modest form results in a development that has a neutral impact upon the street scene. The lowering of the front garden is acceptable as it is widely screened by boundary fencing. Access to the garage is proposed directly off West Hill Road and is therefore acceptable. The application is considered acceptable and therefore recommended for approval.

Agenda page 17

18/2425/FUL

CONSULTATIONS Local Consultations Ottery St Mary Rural - Cllr P Carter I would like to comment on this application, that the proposed garage and associated works would completely change the street scene and bring forward the building line. I feel due consideration should be given to these changes on how they impact the local community and how they match our Village plan recommendations. I look forward to further discussion on a possible way forward for this application, at the same time keeping an open mind until I have all the relevant information to make a decision. Ottery St Mary Rural - Cllr G Pratt These proposals are very damaging to the street scene. The planning officer must consider carefully The Ottery St. Mary and West Hill Neighbourhood Plan Policy NP26 West Hill Design (Page 75) since it would appear that this application is in breach of many of the provisions as set out in the Policy. I am very much against these proposals and accordingly I consider that this application is refused. Parish/Town Council This application was considered at the Parish Council meeting on 6th November 2018. Councillors recommended refusal of this application and reinstatement of the additional dug-out area. The application was incomplete as it did not show the existing permitted site plan, nor a contour map which is needed to understand the impact of the proposals. The excavations which have been done far exceed that permitted in the earlier permission, and what is shown on the present application. They are very damaging to the street scene and the proposed garage will not improve this. There would be unacceptable damage to the street scene. The proposed garage would also cause loss of amenity to the host bungalow. Technical Consultations None. Other Representations At the time of writing the report no third party representations have been received. PLANNING HISTORY Reference Description Decision Date 14/2416/FUL Construction of detached

bungalow and new access to highway.

Approval with conditions

22.12.2014

Agenda page 18

18/2425/FUL

POLICIES East Devon Local Plan Strategy 6 - (Development within Built-up Area Boundary) Policy D1 - (Design and Local Distinctiveness) Policy TC2 - (Accessibility of New Development) National Planning Policy Framework Ottery St. Mary and West Hill Neighbourhood Plan Policy NP2: Sensitive, High Quality Design All proposals for development should demonstrate a high quality of design, which has regard to the local context, is appropriately scaled and sited and makes an overall positive contribution to the Neighbourhood Plan Area. Applications for development should demonstrate in the planning submission how they meet the following general principles of high quality design: 1. Development should be of a density and layout that reflects the existing development pattern of the settlement; 2. Supports the use of locally distinctive materials; 3. Incorporates a ‘sense of place’ into the designs /reinforces local distinctiveness by ensuring the proposals have been informed by the character of the area in which they are located. This should include matters such as building line, building height, plot widths, windows and features and boundary treatments; 4. Conserves or enhances heritage assets and their settings where appropriate; 5. Respects and enhances the natural environment through retention of existing natural features maintaining and providing green linkages within and around development sites and delivering an overall improvement to biodiversity value; 6. Protects the amenity of neighbouring properties; 7. Provides adequate, well designed off-road parking spaces. Site Location The site is located on the northern side of West Hill adjoining an area that has received planning permission for the construction of a bungalow under application 14/2416/FUL which is nearing completion. The surrounding area is entirely residential in character. Proposal This application seeks the retention of works to remove/lower the front garden (by approximately 1.8m), and alongside this a new garage is proposed to the front of the dwelling on the lowered land. The garage is proposed to be finished in rendered blockwork, UPVC cladding and brown roof tiles to match the host dwelling.

Agenda page 19

18/2425/FUL

ANALYSIS The key issue in relation to this application relate to the impact upon the surrounding character and visual appearance of the area. Visual impact Although the garage is proposed forward of the host dwelling, it is proposed at a level lower than the main dwelling and located within the garden screened by existing fencing. The introduction of garages in front gardens is not unusual although it does need to respect the character and layout of the area. Whilst concerns have been raised to the visual impact from the garage being in front of the dwelling, there is no strong uniform character of development in the immediate area and it is not considered that the proposal would result in a harmful street scene or development that would be contrary to the Neighbourhood Plan, particularly as the materials proposed would respect the host dwelling and the garage is of an appropriate scale. Whilst the lowering of the ground level changes the character of the front garden, this is again screened by fencing and will enable the garage to be constructed at a lower level to the dwelling which will help to protect the outlook from the bungalow. Highway Safety The proposal seeks to utilise an existing access and with adequate parking and turning facilities provided within the site, there are no highway safety concerns with the application. CONCLUSION The proposed garage and lowering of ground levels are considered to be acceptable. Whilst the objections received to the application area noted, and there are Local Plan and Neighbourhood Plan Policies to ensure good design that does not harm the character of the area, and it is appreciated that some of the works have been carried out without permission, the changes to the garden level and garage are not considered to be harmful to an extent that could justify a refusal of permission. It is not unusual for a garage to be proposed within a front garden and given the boundary screening and lack of strong uniform character to the area, it is not considered that the works would cause harm to the visual amenity of character of the area. The application is therefore considered acceptable and recommended for approval.

Agenda page 20

18/2425/FUL

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.) NOTE FOR APPLICANT Informative: In accordance with the aims of Article 35 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 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: 5 Location Plan 22.10.18 6 Proposed Site Plan 22.10.18 7 Proposed Combined Plans22.10.18 List of Background Papers Application file, consultations and policy documents referred to in the report.

Agenda page 21

Ward Exmouth Town

Reference 18/2174/MOUT & 18/2175/LBC

Applicant Mr Rob Butler (Environment Agency)

Location Royal Avenue Car Park, Camperdown Terrace And The Esplanade Exmouth

Proposal 18/2174/MOUT Hybrid application for Exmouth Tidal Defence Scheme to include fullpermission for a tidal defence scheme comprising flood walls, embankments and gates and outline permission for proposed road alignments and flood defence gate(s)/ wall(s) at Alexandra Terrace Junction with the Esplanadeand in front of Moreton Cresent, with application accompanied by an Environmental Statement (all matters reserved) 18/2175/LBC Proposed strengthening works, insertion of drainage holes, installation of square plates and works associated with installation of flood gates and posts to Exmouth Sea Wall

RECOMMENDATION:18/2174/MOUT

1. That the Habitat Regulations Appropriate Assessment attached to this Committee Report beadopted;

2. That the application be APPROVED subject to conditions.18/2175/LBC Approval with conditions


Agenda page 22

Agenda Item 9

18/2174/MOUT


Exmouth Town (EXMOUTH)

18/2174/MOUT


Applicant: Mr Rob Butler (Environment Agency)

Location: Royal Avenue Car Park, Camperdown Terrace And The Esplanade Exmouth

Proposal: Hybrid application for Exmouth Tidal Defence Scheme to include full permission for a tidal defence scheme comprising flood walls, embankments and gates and outline permission for proposed road alignments and flood defence gate(s)/ wall(s) at Alexandra Terrace Junction with the Esplanade and in front of Moreton Crescent, with application accompanied by an Environmental Statement (all matters reserved)

RECOMMENDATION: 1. That the Habitat Regulations Appropriate Assessment attached to this Committee Report be adopted; 2. That the application be APPROVED subject to conditions.


Exmouth Town (EXMOUTH)

18/2175/LBC


Applicant: Mr Rob Butler (Environment Agency)

Location: Smeaton Wall, Morton Crescent, Imperial Hotel And Esplanade Exmouth

Proposal: Proposed strengthening works, insertion of drainage holes, installation of square plates and works associated with installation of flood gates and posts to Exmouth Sea Wall

RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions

Agenda page 23

18/2174/MOUT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

These applications are before Members as some of the land subject of the applications are owned by East Devon District Council and objections from members of the public have been received. The site lies within the built up area boundary of Exmouth and concerns the majority of the coastal fringe from just north of the boatyard at the northern end of Imperial Road Car Park around to the Premier Inn on the Esplanade. The proposed development seeks full planning permission for the provision of sea walls in Areas A and B together with flood gates and creation of a ‘holding tank’ in Area C, re-instatement of 2 groynes and works to create drainage holes in the listed sea wall. Outline permission is sought for the works to the Alexandra Terrace junction with the Esplanade and the works to or a new wall fronting Morton Crescent. Listed Building consent is sought for insertion of strengthening rods into the sea wall together with drilling of drainage holes. The proposed tidal defence scheme is within the Exe Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site. These sites are designated for their overwintering wildfowl and waders. In addition the works are within close proximity to the Dawlish Warren Special Area of Conservation (SAC), designated for its coastal geomorphology and dune systems. An Appropriate Assessment has been undertaken and concludes that, subject to mitigation measures, the proposal would not have detrimental impacts on protected areas or species. The site can be split into 3 distinct part, Areas A, B and C. Each area would have different designs of walls and flood gates. A large number of trees would need to be removed in Area A to facilitate the flood, these are proposed to be replaced on a one for one basis. Area C, the ‘holding tank’ has the potential to impact on heritage assets. However, it has been found that the proposal would not detrimentally upon its surroundings subject to appropriate safeguarding conditions. The impact on highway safety and residential amenity has been found to be acceptable. Whilst the benefits of the proposal must be balanced against the impacts that arise from the development, it is considered that subject to appropriate safeguarding conditions and further reserve matters details, the proposal would not detrimentally impact upon the character and appearance of the locality or the historic integrity of heritage assets, and overall would have an acceptable impact, particularly when balanced against the wider benefits of the proposals in preventing flooding and protecting lives and property. As such the applications are recommended for approval subject to conditions.

Agenda page 24

18/2174/MOUT

CONSULTATIONS Local Consultations Parish/Town Council Meeting 15.10.18 No Objection subject to any approval was conditioned for the replacement of the estuary side trees. Replacement trees should be of suitable species for the environment and of a similar size and age. Also an agreed period of maintenance including their replacement should any fail. Further comments 26.11.18 No objection to the amendment to reserve the design of wall 8 for subsequent approval. Members were supportive of Morton Crescent residents wishes for a replacement wall with suitable foundations. Members called for a meeting between all interested parties to discuss possible designs. Technical Consultations County Highway Authority This Hybrid application is made up of 3 areas. Area A runs alongside the estuary, upon the innerside of the railway line. Area B wraps around the innerside of Camperdown Terrace and the Rugby Club and Area C runs along the Esplanade. Area A avoids Devon County Council's highway maintained at public expense. The only element I do note in this location is that the coastal path is to be diverted onto the Exe-Estuary trail, as part of any traffic management appropriate signing and crossings will need to be provided to ensure a safe and aware transition for both pedestrians being diverted and users already on the Exe-Estuary trail. Area B also avoids Devon County Council's (HMPE). Area C impacts the Devon County Councils network particularly at Alexander Junction although this area of the works are only outline with a full application expected next year. The proposal is undergoing discussions with relevant highway officers. The actual roundabout is not HMPE, although the creation of a junction here would be seen an improvement to the network as it clarifies the right of way and direction of travel much more clearly. No order of closing up a road permanently would be required here as each direction of travel is still maintained. A Construction and Environment Management Plan (CEMP) will be required for the project as a whole to manage the project in terms employee travel, waste production and construction routes. Recommendation:

Agenda page 25

18/2174/MOUT

THE HEAD OF PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENT, ON BEHALF OF DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL, AS LOCAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY, HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 1. 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;

Agenda page 26

18/2174/MOUT

Contaminated Land Officer The Contaminated Land Officer has been consulted at various points during the pre-application phases as much of the excavation work along the length of the new sea wall will take place on made ground or previously filled land. We are familiar with the types of material likely to be encountered which will be largely inert matter such as bricks, tiles, concrete and soils. It is highly unlikely that any material will be encountered which requires any form of special disposal, and much of this could be re-used as backfill, taken off site for land raising projects or at worst disposed of in an inert landfill site. The area of the Imperial Recreation Ground will be subject to the minimum possible disturbance since all the work compounds will be located on existing hard surfaced car parking areas. I recommend that wherever grassed areas are disturbed on this formal landfill site backfilling is completed with a minimum of 600mm clean topsoil to achieve a better standard of final cover material than exists in some areas at present. I recommend that the following condition is included in any planning approval to ensure that should any unexpected material types by encountered they are appropriately dealt with: Should any contamination of concern in 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. DCC Flood Risk SuDS Consultation Although we have no in-principle objection to the above planning application at this stage, the applicant must submit additional information, as outlined below, in order to demonstrate that all aspects of the proposed surface water drainage management system have been considered. Observations: The applicant does not appear to have discussed a tidal surge event coinciding with a rainfall event. The applicant should clarify what would happen along the Esplanade if these events did coincide. It is not understood whether temporary flood defences across highways could cause an obstruction to surface water flows on the highway. Surface water could 'pond' behind the flood defences which could cause an obstacle when dismounting the defences. It is understood that surface water flows have been identified by the applicant on the Environment Agency's 'Flood Risk from Surface Water' map. It is noted within the Flood Risk Assessment (Ref. IMSW002047-TVO-XX-MM-RP-C-1823; Rev. 01/Final; dated 17th September 2018) that surface water drainage features will be needed here, and that details of this drainage will be provided at the next stage of planning.

Agenda page 27

18/2174/MOUT

Natural England 18/2174/MOUT. Hybrid application for Exmouth Tidal Defence Scheme to include full permission for a tidal defence scheme etc. Royal Avenue Car Park, Camperdown Terrace And The Esplanade Exmouth Thank you for your consultation dated 26 September 2018. The following constitutes Natural England's formal statutory response. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and The Conservation of Offshore Marine Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 As identified by the applicant the proposed tidal defence scheme in within the Exe Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site. These sites are designated for their overwintering wildfowl and waders. In addition the works are within close proximity to the Dawlish Warren Special Area of Conservation (SAC), designated for its coastal geomorphology and dune systems. In principle Natural England have no objection to the proposal as set out in the application, however have comments on some aspects of the application and the Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA) undertaken by the applicant. Reinstatement of groynes - Site C The reinstatement and extension of the rock armour groynes in Site C will lead to loss of SPA supporting habitat along the Exmouth frontage. The Exmouth Flood Defence Scheme forms part of the wider Exe Estuary Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy. A HRA was undertaken for this Strategy which resulted in compensatory habitat being agreed, through IROPI. It is expected therefore that any losses of SPA supporting habitat associated with this scheme will be compensated as part of the wider strategy. It is still however important that the losses associated with this scheme are quantified so that a record can be kept, and losses on the estuary do not exceed what was agreed as part of the strategy. We would therefore expect the planning authority to clarify an up to date figure for the proposed loss as part of this scheme from each of the sites. While this has been provided within the application for the rock armour groynes, it is not clear whether there are any further losses within Camperdown Creek or as part of the revetment work in Site A. While the Environmental Statement suggests that the geomorphological changes that will result from the reinstatement of the two groynes along the Exmouth frontage will be minor it is not clear whether impacts geomorphological impacts to Dawlish Warren have been thoroughly assessed. We would therefore advise the planning authority is confident that these groynes will not lead to changes in coastal processes associated with Dawlish Warren and therefore impact the Dawlish Warren SAC or SSSI. Damage/Disturbance to intertidal seagrass and saltmarsh within Site A. As identified in the HRA undertaken by the applicant there will be a level of damage/ disturbance to the intertidal seagrass as a result of plant access on the foreshore for the revetment works. This intertidal seagrass and saltmarsh are considered SPA supported habitats therefore any potential impacts must be assessed as part of the HRA.

Agenda page 28

18/2174/MOUT

Within the applicants HRA and Environmental Statement there is an expectation that these habitats will recover within 2-5 years, there however is no indication of monitoring to ensure this recovery takes place. We would therefore expect that a baseline is taken and subsequent annual monitoring takes place for a minimum of 2 years post construction to ensure these areas recover as predicted. In addition to this post-construction monitoring the planning authority should also ensure via conditions on the planning authorisation, that should recovery not take place as expected further mitigation is agreed and implemented. Should this be necessary Natural England would request further consultation. The applicant has indicated that the matting used over these areas will be removed regularly to allow these areas to 'breathe'. It is the rhizome structure of the seagrass beds located within the sediment which is most sensitive to damage/disturbance. If the continual removal and reinstatement of the matting is likely to cause continued ground disturbance then this may not benefit the seagrass bed in the long term due to rhizome structure damage. We therefore advise the planning authority that the mitigation agreed is the most appropriate to minimise long term impact to these habitats. --------------------------------- Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 The works, as set out in the information supplied by the applicant, are not sited within or near to a Marine Conservation Zone. Natural England have not identified a pathway by which impacts from the development would affect the interest features of such a site. We are therefore confident that the works will not hinder the conservation objectives of such a site. --------------------------- Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) We can confirm that the proposed works are located within the Exe Estuary Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). The comments provided above in relation to the Exe Estuary SPA/Ramsar are similarly applicable to the SSSI. Providing potential impacts to the SPA/Ramsar are mitigated we would have no further comments relating to the SSSI. Other Relevant Matters As previously highlighted the works the revetment works in Site A will result in damage loss of intertidal seagrass beds and saltmarsh. These are both considered Priority Habitat, as listed on Section 41 of the Natural Environmental and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006. The National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 118) states that 'when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity. If significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused.' This further highlights the need for a suitable monitoring plan to be agreed to ensure mitigation is effective or whether further compensation is required. For any queries relating to the content of this letter please contact me using the details provided below.

Agenda page 29

18/2174/MOUT

Environment Agency Exmouth Tidal Defence Scheme - Planning consultation response Thank you for your consultation of 26 September 2018 in respect of the above planning application. Environment Agency position We consider that the proposal will be acceptable if the subsequent permission includes conditions regarding drainage, design of flood gates and operation procedures to address shortcomings in the submitted flood risk assessment (FRA). The matters we wish to see covered in the conditions are set our below together with our comments on the FRA itself. Condition - Drainage design No construction works shall commence in Area C until a full drainage design has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. This needs to consider all the available drainage opportunities (i.e. scuppers, highway, access gaps, flapped outfalls in gates etc.) for a broad range of tidal events up to the 1-in-200 year AEP event. The resulting scenarios should be compared with the existing situation to allow a consideration of whether flood risks are made better or worse. There is an expectation that flood risks for lower order events will be reduced, but for higher order events that will be an increase which can be accepted on the basis of a massively reduced risk to other parts of Exmouth. Condition - Operation procedure No construction works shall commence in Area C until a high-level operation procedure has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. This will need to address the procedure for implementing the defences and evacuating the area of people and property. It would be appropriate for the submission to include details of the operational agreement, the mechanisms of warning, the order of gate closures, evacuation routes and threshold of gates. Condition - Design and operation of flood gates No construction works shall commence in Area C until full design, construction and operational details of all flood gate structures in this area have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Advice - Flood risk assessment We have reviewed the Exmouth Tidal Defence Scheme Flood Risk Assessment (Revision 01/Final dated 19 September 2018) prepared by Team Van Oord. The FRA has been improved through pre-application discussions. Nonetheless, there are two important matters for Area C which the FRA has not considered in sufficient detail and will require further clarification before development can proceed. These are: 1. The drainage design for the area between the sea wall and the setback flood defences (embayment area); and 2. The operational procedure and gate thresholds for activating the defences.

Agenda page 30

18/2174/MOUT

Whilst the assessment has not considered these matters in sufficient detail we consider that they can be satisfactorily addressed by way of planning conditions along the lines of the three set out above. Further comments: Environment Agency position We have no objections. Reason The amended details have been acknowledged by the Environment Agency and concur with current Senior User understanding of the project. Environmental Health I have considered the application and it is clear that these works have the potential to be disruptive to many local residents during the works, albeit that the "working areas" will be changing throughout. In order that disruption can be kept to a minimum I recommend that a comprehensive Construction and Environment Management Plan is provided in draft form for agreement with ourselves and other interested parties, including DCC Highways. This plan must include details of specified transport routes in order that disruption to residents is kept to a minimum. The Environmental Health standard requirements for CEMPs are set out in our Code of Practice for Construction Sites which is available on the EDDC website. Special consideration must be given to any proposals for piling operation which will require a separate consent from our team. A suitable 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, traffic routing and management 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. These are our standard construction hours that the applicant would have seen whilst doing their research, they are also the standard hours in the Considerate Contractors scheme. So no, we will not amend the hours - especially as almost none of the work (none that I can actually see) involves working on the sea bed. However as with anything like this, if there is a genuine need to occasionally request extended hours for a specific, time limited process to be carried out we can agree a deviation from the standard hours - but we definitely cannot allow the extended hours throughout this long project on the off-chance that a deviation from the normal working hours might be needed. A lot of this work will be going on near the homes of residents, and there will be quite a bit of noisy work too, so it is best for everyone concerned if clear hours

Agenda page 31

18/2174/MOUT

are specified from the outset. We know from years of experience that this works best for residents and best for contractors; everyone knows where they are then. Finally, the response was not late - we tend to wait to do these kinds of comments so that we can take into account issues raised by residents or other consultees if appropriate, thereby smoothing the process for the applicant Historic England Thank you for your letters of 26 September 2018 regarding the above applications for listed building consent and planning permission. On the basis of the information available to date, we offer the following advice to assist your authority in determining the applications. Historic England Advice Significance Exmouth's growth has been closely related to its recreational use of the sea since the early 18th century by residents in Exeter. It became a destination for the fashionable to visit during the Napoleonic war when travel to the continent was not possible. The arrival of the railway increased the accessibility to a range of people and the town become an established destination. The seafront was a key aspect of its appeal and retains much of the formal character of a Victorian seaside, especially along the wide Esplanade. The road is characterised by the sea wall on the southern side that was constructed in two phases. The first in 1841 by John Smeaton and James Green and it was later extended in 1870 (the entire length is listed at grade II). The seafront is largely on reclaimed land, although there is potential for archaeological activity below that will need further consideration. The works relates to the creation of a flood defence along the entire Exmouth Seafront. Our focus during the pre-application discussion had been along the Esplanade and the creation of a second line of defence. This work will falls within the Exmouth Conservation Area. We also discussed the strengthening to the grade II listed seawalls and the creation of drainage holes to allow the water to escape. In addition, we also wish to make comments on the scheme more widely especially in respect of the potential for impact on below ground archaeological features. Below ground archaeological potential The Desk Based Assessment (Appendix 7) has indicated that there are no archaeological assets of higher than than moderate importance, because the area was largely reclaimed in the 19th century from the entirety of the scheme. The conclusion of the heritage statement has not considered the presence of any archaeological deposits earlier than the 18th century, which are likely to include deep peat and estuarine silt sediment sequences that could be a rich palaeoenvironmental resource, and high potential for deeply buried evidence of early Holocene archaeological activity. Any surviving archaeological features are likely to be waterlogged and well-preserved and therefore of high significance.

Agenda page 32

18/2174/MOUT

Archaeological and palaeoenvironmental evidence may be found not just at the surface along the area of the proposed sea wall, but also for several metres below the present ground level; alluvial/estuarine deposits have been mapped up to -13.54m OD within the vicinity of the development area, and it should be anticipated that archaeological evidence will be found at all depths. Other deposits along the study area, including aeolian dune deposits, may also be masking archaeological deposits. The dunes themselves are also evidence of major landscape change and should be considered as part of the archaeological record. While existing boreholes along the site do not indicate the presence of peat, there are peat deposits known along the Devon coastline; this deposit-type is in itself an indicator of landscape change, and may contain well-preserved palaeoenvironmental and archaeological sequences. If it is found within the development area, it should be considered of high significance and evaluated appropriately. As a result of climatic and landscape changes evidenced by existing sediment types within the proposed development area, many of the heritage assets within the development area are unknown and, as a result, undesignated. This does not mean, however, that they are not significant. Considering the below ground impacts, the unknown archaeological assets to be directly (by trenching or piling) and indirectly (through ground compression, changes in water movement or ground chemistry) affected should be evaluated and assessed. The council need to ensure that they have sufficient information by which to understand the potential impact on the belowground archaeology and consequently how the scheme could potentially impact on any important archaeological deposits, as required under para 189, NPPF. Historic England's Science Advisor will be able to offer further advice regarding the methodology or any queries regarding the advice set out below. In the first instance, we would encourage the production of an initial geoarchaeological Desk based assessment. A DBA would review the geological, sedimentological, and climatic history of the area, as well as review of any lidar assessment and boreholes review. If there is a strong potential for significant deposits of peat or palaeoenvironmental sequences, the report may make recommendations for further investigation of below ground assets, including, but not limited to a borehole programme, deposit modelling, and potentially test pits or open area excavations. Once this work has been completed, a further discussion can be had over where the greatest impacts will be on the below ground assets and whether how best to minimise that impact through informed evaluation or appropriate scheme design changes. Secondary Flood Defence This is the creation of secondary line of defence that will run along the seafront in line with the current line of the domestic curtilages. We are pleased that steps have been taken to integrate this aspect of the proposals into the existing boundaries, especially along Morton Crescent, as well as minimise the impact of gates into the street.

Agenda page 33

18/2174/MOUT

The junction of Esplanade, Morton Road, Alexandra Terrace and Morton Crescent has not been detailed within the application. TVO-XX-CC-DR-C-1032 identifies this as being in abeyance and once revisions have been received, we would welcome the opportunity to comment on this aspect of the scheme further. Use of appropriate materials is fundamental in the successful integration of these works into the existing character and appearance of the conservation area. Sea Wall The seawall has two distinct characters. The later section, to the east, has a simple cross section with a simple capping. The western section has a concaved section, and is earlier in construction. The proposals is to include drainage holes at the base of the wall on the road side to allow water to allow any water that has got over the wall to be able to flow back to the sea. Along the eastern section, we have no significant concerns and consider that this can be accommodated without any major impact on the existing fabric. The addition of the drainage holes will have a much more significant impact on the concaved section the west as it will result in a disruption to the distinct curve on the seaward side and the introduction of a number of circular holes in a prominent location. The cross sections have not provided any details as to the run or line of the drainage holes, as it has shown on the eastern section of wall. However, we would ask whether there is any scope by which to minimise the impact on the seaward side of the wall (Para 190, NPPF). This could be done by reducing the number of openings or by angling them so that they arrive at a lower point on the seaward side and appear less prominent in the views along it. The council should be satisfied that the harm caused has been clear and convincingly justified and that alternative solutions could not have been utilised (Para 194, NPPF). In terms of the proposed strengthening, the works to the eastern end raise limited concerns. However, we would encourage the capping to be removed and then reinstated to minimise the visual impact on the wall through the required coring. It is not possible to do this with the concave section as the stone work is integrated. No details have been provided as to how this strengthening work will be undertaken and we would require further information before commenting further. Recommendation There are a number of areas where further information is required. In particular importance is a more detailed understanding of the below ground archaeological potential, which at present is lacking. This will ensure that the council is able to undertake their duty set out in Chapter 16 of the NPPF. Furthermore, there are a number of areas, where further details need to be provided. This is with specific reference to the proposals for the junction of the Esplanade and Alexandra Terrace and the works to the concaved section of seawall (west end).

Agenda page 34

18/2174/MOUT

Your authority should take these representations into account and seek amendments, safeguards or further information as set out in our advice. If there are any material changes to the proposals, or you would like further advice, please contact us. Further comments: Thank you for your letters of regarding further information on the above applications for listed building consent and planning permission. On the basis of this information, we offer the following advice to assist your authority in determining the applications. Historic England Advice We have received a response from the applicants in respect of the comments Historic England made on the below ground archaeological potential as well as the drainage holes proposed in the sea wall. Below ground archaeological potential Our science advisor has reviewed the information provided and consequently, we have the following comments to make. We are pleased to see that there is awareness that archaeology may be contained within the peat, and that there will be some training to assist in on-site identification. However, the current investigation has not satisfied what the significance of the peat deposits are in relation to the historic environment and what the potential indirect impacts of the proposed works will be on these potentially significant deposits. While the boreholes have confirmed the presence of peat, there is no indication of the significance or potential of this deposit for archaeological or geoarchaeological remains. A geoarchaeologist should be consulted to complete a DBA that includes these geotechnical boreholes and any existing historic boreholes. This DBA may not be sufficient to demonstrate the level of preservation, so they may recommend that further boreholes are taken to investigate the preservation levels and dates of the peat deposits allowing for significance and preservation level to be ascribed. This may include additional boreholes where peat has been detected, as well as dating and palaeoenvironmental assessment. From these boreholes, a geoarchaeologist could also develop a small scale deposit model to help inform the potential for other deposits across the wider site. This geoarchaeological assessment should be included in the heritage statement. The geoarchaeological investigation, as well as ascribing the potential significance, should also aim to determine the potential indirect impacts of the scheme. Although direct impacts are only to a depth of 2m, changes in ground conditions could affect potentially significant deposits by compaction, contamination, or change in ground water levels, resulting in decline in preservation. More informed recommendations could then be made, such as whether any assessment or mitigation is required. Finally, it would be helpful to know the capacity of the toolbox talk training and what types of archaeology it will address. Will it address identifying significant organic deposits, or just finds? Who will be delivering the tool box talks? The types of training delivered on-site should be listed in the heritage statement or the watching brief WSI. Sea Wall

Agenda page 35

18/2174/MOUT

Thank you for the update in respect of the sea walls and the number of drainage channels being inserted. It would be useful to have a cross section of the proposed and suggested alternative, so that an assessment of its potential impact can be undertaken. Details of the baffle need to be provided due to the sensitivity of this section of wall. Secondary Flood Defence No further details have been provided for the area identified as being in abyence as seen in TVO-XX-CC-DR-C-1032. Recommendation Your authority should take these representations into account and seek amendments, safeguards or further information as set out in our advice. If there are any material changes to the proposals, or you would like further advice, please contact us. South West Water I refer to the above and would advise that South West Water has no further comments to those already given. EDDC Trees There are three areas where trees will affected by the proposed scheme that does not seem to have been fully addressed by the submitted information: Exmouth Local Nature Reserve, the Coach and long stay Carpark, and Imperial Recreation Ground. My observations on these area as follows: 1) Exmouth Local Nature Reserve Drawing TVO-XX-MM-DR-L-7100 There are a number of trees within A1 which may be affected by the proposed earth works. The associated site clearance, movement and passing of vehicles, consolidation of new ground level could all be detrimental to the rooting environment of these trees. The most notable of these trees is the standalone individual oak tree (Figure one, top left) which is visually significant from the nature reserve, the Exe Estuary, Mudbank Lane and partly from Carter Avenue. Without the constraints of these trees being recorded it is not possible to assess the impact of the proposed scheme. 2) Coach Park and Long Stay Carpark The proposed scheme involves the removal of 15 estuary side Sycamore and a single Norway maple. My initial thoughts on the proposed scheme is that the removal of the trees is necessary to deliver a practical and viable scheme, however I have not seen any costing, or aware of the constraints around different scheme options, which could result in the trees being retained. I have undertaken a CAVAT valuation (https://www.ltoa.org.uk/resources/cavat) of the trees (Figure 3) within this area of the scheme their collective replacement value is estimated at nearly £130,000. To retain the tree would necessitate either constructing the flood wall further to the east and

Agenda page 36

https://www.ltoa.org.uk/resources/cavat

18/2174/MOUT

reducing the width of the access road to the long stay carpark and coach park, or constructing a new wall further to the west, on the estuary side of the embankment. The proposed scheme is showing replacement planting on a one to one basis, and the arboricultural report makes reference to the creation of suitable rooting volumes using underground rooting create system. This would itself be a costly planting solution but would offer the best possible chance of the new trees successfully establishing. At this stage of the process I would like to see the design of the planting pits and what soil volumes are proposed, and how this will be incorporated into the design proposals. I think it is important to demonstrate the feasibility of the proposed mitigation planting and demonstrate there are no subterranean issues / easements which would prevent its implementation 3) Imperial Recreation Grounds. Drawing TVO-XX-MM-DR-L-7103 The above drawing shows the removal of the Sycamore (T18), yet the Arboricultural report refers to its likely retention. The tree has and individual CAVAT valuation of nearly £12,000, is a Category B2 tree, and should be retained. It sits in a prominent location at the end of the small car park, and has a well-developed crown. The tree grows some way further from the foreshore than the other trees to such an extent that it should be possible to retain. In any event the lack of certainty and difference in submitted documents is not particularly reassuring when trying to make a recommendation on the submitted application. Ideally this tree should be retained with an engineering solution for the construction of the wall around the tree. The remaining Sycamore (T19 –T23) have a collective value of just of £20,000 (Figure 4), but as per those adjacent to the coach park and long stay carpark, as they grow immediately adjacent to the proposed new wall, it is hard to visualised how these trees can be realistically be retained. A number of the recently planted trees are also to be removed, however these are of such a size that this is not considered a significant matter, given replacement planting is proposed. Conclusions Arboricultural constraints have not been recorded in sufficient detail within the arboricultural report, thus it is not possible to fully consider the impact on retained trees (specifically in relation to Area 1 and Group 1). Equally it is not clear how the location of earth works can have been designed with consideration of tree constraints, or how works can be planned on site on site. In order to approve the application will need to see additional tree constraints identified above and provisional tree protection details and arboricultural method statement demonstrating the scheme is achievable. There is a considerable amount of tree removal proposed as part of the scheme and I may have missed the justification details within the application literature but, other than ‘they are necessary’ am not aware of the reasons the proposed route based on the cost and constraint implications of alternative solutions where the estuary side trees can be retained. The mitigation for the removal of the estuary tree is a material

Agenda page 37

18/2174/MOUT

consideration so would like to see the detailed design and volumes of the tree planting pit design to demonstrate this is also achievable prior to planning approval. Conservation CONSULTATION REPLY TO WEST TEAM PLANNING APPLICATION AFFECTING LISTED BUILDING AND CONSERVATION AREA ADDRESS: Royal Avenue Car Park, Camperdown Terrace & The Esplanade, Exmouth GRADE: II APPLICATION NO: 18/2174/MOUT CONSERVATION AREA: Exmouth PROPOSAL: Hybrid application for Exmouth Tidal Defence Scheme to include full permission for a tidal defence scheme comprising flood walls, embankments and gates and outline permission for proposed road alignments and flood defence gate(s)/ wall(s) at Alexandra Terrace Junction with the Esplanade, with application accompanied by an Environmental Statement (all matters reserved) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF HISTORIC CHARACTER/ ARCHITECTURAL MERIT: See listing descriptions and information on file HOW WILL PROPOSED ALTERATIONS AFFECT HISTORIC CHARACTER OF BUILDING AND ITS SETTING: There is no objection in principle to the flood defence works for Exmouth which have been developed in discussion with Historic England. The following comments should be read in conjunction with the two letters received from Historic England dated 22nd August & 31st October 2018. The works the subject of this application relate to Area A, Estuary Side, Area B, Camperdown Terrace and Area C which includes the seafront Esplanade from Mamhead slipway in the west, past Alexandra Terrace junction and the Clock Tower to Premier Inn and the Octagon in the east. These comments relate to those heritage assets directly affected by the scheme, The Sea Wall, and those for which the setting is likely to be affected, The Sea Wall, The Clock Tower, The Temple, Trinity Buoy Store and the Sail Loft. In addition, the setting of a number of non-designated heritage assets in Morton Crescent and Alexandra Terrace and the Manor Gardens & Pleasure Gardens. Sea Wall: See under 18/2175/LBC for comments; The Clock Tower: there is no objection in principle to build a wall behind the existing semi-circular wall. The proposals show a concrete wall clad in timber and it is noted from landscape plans that this will include a clipped hedge as preferred by Historic England (Option D). Again, as with the LBC, no elevations are provided;

Agenda page 38

18/2174/MOUT

The Temple/Imperial Hotel: this area including the junction, has been omitted from scheme; Trinity Buoy Store: works unlikely to impact on listed building; Sail Loft: works unlikely to impact on listed building; Morton Crescent: the variation of these walls, including the pillars, railings, planting etc contributes to the character of the Conservation Area. The proposals detail a concrete wall the length of the Crescent with numbered flood gates on plan, but only providing sections makes it difficult to assess the impact of the wall. Details in the form of elevations should be provided to ensure the character of the crescent is retained; The Grove: again the works are difficult to assess without elevations; Alexandra Terrace: this area including the junction, has been omitted from scheme; Manor Gardens & Pleasure Gardens: no specific works. Gates: no detailed information supplied of individual gates and how they are to be fixed to any heritage asset. PROVISIONAL RECOMMENDATION - PROPOSAL ACCEPTABLE in principle, but further information required DATE: 05/11/18 Devon County Archaeologist I refer to the above application and your recent consultation. Assessment of the Historic Environment Record (HER) and the details submitted by the applicant do not suggest that the scale and situation of this development will have any impact upon any known significant heritage assets. However, the sea-wall at the Esplanade is a designated heritage asset, protected as a Listed Building (ref: 1096085), and any flood defence works here will have an impact upon the historic fabric of this heritage asset and its setting. I would therefore advise that the East Devon District Council's Conservation Officer should be consulted with regard to any comments they may have on the proposed scheme. Other Representations Nineteen representations have been received as a result of this application raising the following concerns:

• Impact on the functioning of the Imperial Hotel as a venue especially in the summer months as a wedding venue

• The wall in front of Morton Crescent should be an on line replacement not a secondary buttress wall

Agenda page 39

18/2174/MOUT

• What will the material be used to raise the land on the Imperial Recreation Ground? Last time a bund was put in it was landfill and easily washed away

• Location of flood gates causing flooding elsewhere in surge events • Loss of trees not fully justified • Will mature trees be used? • Impacts of noise, vibration, dust during construction works • How long will water be held in the holding tank? • How would residents be notified of a storm surge event? • Inability to crane vessels out of water at Camperdown Creek

These issues will be discussed in the main considerations section of this report. POLICIES Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 Policies Strategy 6 (Development within Built-up Area Boundaries) Strategy 22 (Development at Exmouth) D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) D2 (Landscape Requirements) D3 (Trees and Development Sites) EN21 (River and Coastal Flooding) EN14 (Control of Pollution) EN16 (Contamination) Strategy 46 (Landscape Conservation and Enhancement and AONBs) Strategy 47 (Nature Conservation and Geology) EN6 (Nationally and Locally Important Archaeological Sites) EN7 (Proposals Affecting Sites which may potentially be of Archaeological Importance) EN8 (Significance of Heritage Assets and their setting) EN9 (Development Affecting a Designated Heritage Asset) EN10 (Conservation Areas) TA7 (Adequacy of Site Access and Road Network) Government Planning Documents NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework 2012)

Agenda page 40

18/2174/MOUT

National Planning Practice Guidance Relevant Planning History None relevant in the determination of this application Site Location and Description The site lies within the built up area boundary of Exmouth and concerns the majority of the coastal fringe from just north of the boatyard at the northern end of Imperial Road Car Park around to the Premier Inn on the Esplanade. Proposed Development These applications seek full planning permission for the erection/provision of a sea wall/defence together with works to the existing sea defences. Outline permission, with all matters reserved for subsequent approval, is also sought for the erection/provision of a sea defence across Alexandra Terrace junction with the Esplanade and in front of Moreton Crescent. Finally listed building consent is required for works to the listed sea wall. The application can be split into 3 distinct areas, area A, area B and area C. Area A - this part of the site extends from the boatyard to the north of Imperial Road Car Park, past Marks and Spencers, along the estuary side and into the entrance of the Imperial Recreation Ground. It is proposed to install some local land raising in a group of trees to the north of the boatyard and along a section of the public footpath alongside the estuary, but the predominant feature of area A would be a wall between the kerb edge and the estuary running the entire length from the boatyard around to the recreation area, the wall would vary in height along its route to take account of localised land level differences. To be able to construct the wall it would be necessary for all of the mature trees to be felled, though it is proposed to replace the trees on a one for one basis. Levels within part of the estuary side car park would also need to be raised. Area B - this part of the site extends from the Imperial Recreation Ground at its western end around to the sailing club It is proposed to carry out some local land raising at the western end of the recreational ground adjacent to the childrens play area, however, the predominant feature of area B would be a sheet pile wall clad in timber which would front onto the estuary and dissect the existing boatyard (the current operator's lease has been terminated by East Devon who are the landowner). Along Camperdown Terrace there would be a need for the instillation of some flood gates to protect individual properties, a flood gate would also be necessary at the entrance to the sailing club car park. Area C - this part of the site extends from Mamhead Slipway along the length of the Esplanade up to the Premier Inn.

Agenda page 41

18/2174/MOUT

It is proposed to strengthen the existing listed sea wall by inserting rods into it and to create a 'holding tank' for water that has over topped the sea wall in storm surge events. A secondary sea defence would be constructed in front of Moreton Crescent and across Alexandra Terrace road junction with the Esplanade (the details of this part of the scheme are reserved for subsequent approval) and a buttress wall behind the wall fronting onto the Esplanade in the ownership of the Imperial Hotel. Retractable or swinging flood gates (design to be agreed by condition) would be required at each end of the Esplanade to create the 'holding tank'. Some works to the toe of the sea wall and re-instatement of groynes are also required to protect the existing sea defences. ANALYSIS The main considerations in the determination of this application concern: - The principle of the proposed development; - The impact on sites of special protection; - The impact of the proposal on its surroundings/design and materials; - The impact on heritage assets; - The impact on residential amenity; - Drainage; - The impact on trees; and - The impact on highway safety Principle The site lies in the built up area boundary of Exmouth where Strategy 6 of the East Devon Local Plan allows for development where:

1. It would be compatible with the character of the site and its surroundings and in villages with the rural character of the settlement. 2. It would not lead to unacceptable pressure on services and would not adversely affect risk of flooding or coastal erosion. 3. It would not damage, and where practical, it will support promotion of wildlife, landscape, townscape or historic interests. 4. It would not involve the loss of land of local amenity importance or of recreational value; 5. It would not impair highway safety or traffic flows. 6. It would not prejudice the development potential of an adjacent site.

In this instance the proposed development, is considered to be of a nature and scale that would be consistent with its surroundings and character of the area and is necessary development to assist in protecting the town from tidal and storm surges taking into account climate change. The other matters listed in Strategy 6 form the main considerations of the proposal and will be assessed in this report.

Agenda page 42

18/2174/MOUT

Impact on sites of special protection and appropriate assessment As identified by the applicant in their environmental statement the proposed tidal defence scheme is within the Exe Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site. These sites are designated for their overwintering wildfowl and waders. In addition the works are within close proximity to the Dawlish Warren Special Area of Conservation (SAC), designated for its coastal geomorphology and dune systems. A Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) has been submitted as part of the application which outlines how development in each area could impact on the overwintering bird species. Because of the SPA and Ramsar designations the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 must be applied in the determination of this application. Regulation 61 requires East Devon District Council, as the competent authority, to undertake an Appropriate Impact Assessment (AIA) of the implications of this proposal on the site's conservation objectives before granting permission for a proposal which is likely to have a significant effect upon a European site. East Devon District Council has therefore assessed the impact from the development upon the Exe Estuary and concludes the following (a full copy of the Appropriate Assessment is appended to this report): Revetment repairs in Area A1 are relatively small scale and localised and can be carried out by a small workforce using wheelbarows which could have an impact on the sea grass beds, however, given the limited distance repairs are required over it is considered that these grasses could be avoided and therefore there would be no impact. More significant works are required in Area A2 as the lower half of the revetment requires repair, it is likely that machinery would be required which would damage the sea grasses. The Environmental Statement concludes that any damaged grasses would grow back within 3 years, furthermore, to limit the impact the works could be undertaken early in the growing season or by placing bog mats over the grasses to limit damage by vehicles. The applicants agree that the lifting and placement of bog mats to protect seagrass could result in ground disturbance affecting the rhizomes of the seagrass if it is present within the works area. They are therefore seeking to undertake the majority of these works from the land, reducing the amount of time that the bog mats will be required (if at all) and avoiding the need for lifting and replacing. This will be detailed in the EAP and the method statements once the detailed design is finalised at this location. Given the measures that could be put in place to limit the impact and the relatively short period of time for regrowth it is considered that there would be no impact. Piling of the sheet pile wall in Area B would need to take place outside of the overwintering period to avoid noise and vibration disturbance. Construction of two rock groynes in Area C would result in disturbance to gravels from construction machinery on the shore line, this does not support habitat features for the SPA, however it is important to note that the re-instatement of the groynes may have an impact on the geomorphology and dune systems in the Dawlish Warren SAC. A

Agenda page 43

18/2174/MOUT

report was commissioned by the applicants into how the groynes may impact the Dawlish Warren SAC, it concludes the following: 'The review has highlighted the significant links between the behaviour of the wider area and that of the local study area. In particular the frontage is critically influenced by the change in the distal end of Dawlish Warren. Given the developing management strategy for Dawlish Warren, it might be expected that significant change will continue to the distal end. As sediment is added to the Warren, this may encourage the distal end to grow forward, further towards the east, and, in this case, some of the existing pressures on the study frontage might in time reduce. However, should the additional sediment merely extend the present alignment of the distal end, then flows pressure principally during the flood over the upper tide but potentially at the sub-tidal level may increase. This linkage and the behaviour of the distal end, the channel and the response of the Exmouth frontage will require monitoring'. As such it is considered that the re-instatement of the groynes are not likely to have a significant impact on the tidal processes affecting Dawlish Warren, however, with all modelling there is a risk that unforeseen circumstances could occur and it is recommended that regular monitoring of the tidal processes at Dawlish Warren are undertaken and could be conditioned as part of this application. It is considered on the basis of the information available that the proposed Exmouth TDS will have no adverse effect on the integrity of the Exe Estuary SPA, Dawlish Warren SAC and Ramsar sites alone, or in-combination with other plans or projects. Impact of the proposal on its surrounding including design/materials The design of the wall/associated infrastructure and use of materials are distinct for each area of development, therefore each area will be discussed in turn Area A (full application) The proposed sea wall in this location would be formed from concrete, the final finish and colour of which would need to be secured by condition. It would range in height along its length from the boatyard to the north to the Imperial Recreation Ground to the south, the maximum height of the wall would be 1.4 metres and the minimum height of the wall would be 0.1 metres. Being sited between the existing kerb line and the estuary the wall would require the removal of all of the trees along its route as there is not physically space to retain the trees (taking into account each of their respective established routing systems) and build the wall, however each of the trees would be replaced on a one for one basis using mature and native species. Comments regarding the impact that the loss of trees and replacement with new will be considered later in this report. The wall would be visible on both sides, the land facing side would be predominantly visible from the road leading to the boatyard and also from the public car park as well as from the arrival/departure from Exmouth Railway Station. From the sea facing side it wold be visible from passing vessles and from the Imperial Recreation Ground, however, both of these views would be at a considerable distance such that the wall would be seen with the existing backdrop.

Agenda page 44

18/2174/MOUT

The localised land raising in the area of trees to the north of the boatyard would not be visible from outside of the area of trees which are not readily accessible to the general public. The foremost impact would not be the wall itself rather the loss of the existing trees and replacement with suitable sizes and species and whilst concerns have been raised by the Town Council and members of the public to their loss, this impact would be short term and it is therefore considered that the scheme as a whole in this area would not be detrimental to the character and appearance of the surroundings. Area B (full application) The localised land raising adjacent to the children's play area would be both visible from the Imperial Recreation Ground, the estuary (predominantly where boats are moored and from the dwelling in Camperdown Terraces, however, due to its limited height and the 'green' backdrop it is considered that the raising by approximately 0.9 metres would not have any detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the surroundings. The sea wall in this area is proposed as a sheet pile wall set behind the existing gabions, the wall would be clad in timber, a sample of which would be required by conditions before its use, and extend from the Imperial Recreation Area to Camperdown Terrace an area known locally as Camperdown Creek. Similarly to Area A the wall would vary in height due to the natural topography of the land with the maximum height above ground level being 1.25 metres and would form a perfect curve, this curve is important for wave reflection purposes so as not deflect waves off towards third party properties. The wall would dissect an existing boatyard to enable the curve to be formed, the boatyard is leased out by East Devon District Council, it is understood that notice of termination of the lease has been served. Concerns have been expressed regarding the ability to continue to crane vessels out of the water from the adjacent car park, however, the applicant has confirmed that the wall will not prevent this action from continuing. Other measures in Area B include the instillation of temporary flood gates to individual properties which would be operated by residents themselves and would only need to be in place in times of the threat of flooding. A road gate would also be required at the entrance to the Sailing Club to prevent water from spilling out onto the public highway. Overall the works proposed in Area B are considered appropriate to defend the area from tidal surges and water overtopping without impacting unreasonably on the character and appearance of the area, the materials to be used, which are required to be submitted before their use as a condition of this permission, would be key to the assimilation of the development into its surroundings. Area C (outline and full application) The proposed works in this area can be split into two distinct parts, those that are seeking outline approval with all matters reserved for subsequent approval and those seeking full planning permission.

Agenda page 45

18/2174/MOUT

Outline The application has been submitted as a hybrid with some parts seeking outline permission only to enable discussions to take place with outside agencies and members of the public whilst seeking to establish the principle of development in this area. As originally submitted the area outside the Alexandria Terrace junction with the Esplanade was the only element of the scheme reserved for subsequent approval, however, following the feedback from public consultation events and consultation on the application the wealth of public concern regarding the works to the wall fronting the gardens of properties in Moreton Crescent, the applicant has chosen to reserve the details of this wall until reserved matters stage. Whilst it is not advised to accept outline applications with all matters reserved which have the potential to impact upon the character and appearance of a Conservation Area, in this instance the principle of providing a flood defence is considered acceptable to safeguard the character of the area, however any design of defence would need to take into account the impact on heritage assets. For example a flood gate that slides across the junction during times of flood and is retracted at all other times and hidden from public view would only have an impact when present and performing its function is unlikely to be detrimental on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and would preserve its setting. Furthermore, the wall bounding the gardens to Moreton Crescent was proposed to be buttressed by building a second wall behind it, residents have concerns regarding the safety and suitability of the existing wall and therefore question why the new flood defence cannot be the re-built boundary wall. The applicant is considering their options and have confirmed that it would either be a buttressed wall of an on line replacement, either of these options would be acceptable in principle subject to design. Full application The proposed works to the east of the Alexandra Terrace junction which comprise of an additional wall behind the existing wall fronting on to the footway up until its boundary with the Premier Inn, works to strengthen the existing sea wall, provision of gates across the highway and re-instatement of tow rock groynes all form part of the full application in Area C. The new wall would have little impact from the public domain, however, it would be fully visible from the Imperial Hotel, for this reason it is proposed to provide landscaping in the form of a hedge behind the new wall. The most publicly visible part of the new wall would be witnessed around the listed clock tower, at present the appearance of the detailing above and behind the wall are distinctly different on either side of the footpath entrance to the Imperial Hotel, one side has a hedge and the other timber fencing, it is proposed to unify the design approach by providing timber fencing with landscaping in front. The provision of gates across the highway adjacent to the Premier Inn to the east and The Grove Public House to the west would create a 'tank' in which storm surge water would be held and released through new drainage holes in the sea wall, the holes would contain a baffle that would restrict the flow of water and discretely (subject to final approval of design by condition) be contained in the fabric of the sea wall. The

Agenda page 46

18/2174/MOUT

re-instatement of the two rock groynes on the foreshore would be constructed using similar materials to the rock armour surrounding Mamhead Slipway. Overall, it is clear that consideration has been given to the design of the proposed works that would not detrimentally impact on their surroundings in accordance with Policy D1 of the EDDC Local Plan. Impact on heritage assets Part of the site (Area C) lies within the Exmouth Conservation Area and has the potential to impact on the setting of listed buildings, therefore in accordance with Sections 66 and 72 of the Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas special consideration must be given to protecting features of historic interest and preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of the area. The sea wall (Smeaton Wall) is listed, it is proposed to strengthen the wall by inserting metal rods and also to core out drainage holes at the base of the wall (land facing side). Any works to a listed structure require special justification to ensure that the works are necessary and would not detrimentally impact on the integrity of the structure. Historic England (HE) have raised concerns regarding the archaeology within the wall and how this would be impacted upon as a result of the proposed drainage holes, it has been identified through borehole investigation that there is peat inside the wall. HE have suggested by way of guidance that further investigations be carried out to ensure any significant remains are documented, however, Devon County Archaeologist raises no concerns and therefore the works as proposed with a watching brief by an expert are considered appropriate in this instance. The drainage holes (up to 130) would be sited equidistant along the wall from The Grove Public House up to the Premier Inn and form the means of drainage of the holding tank (the exact number and their location is reserved for approval by condition). Being located at ground level on the land facing side means that the holes would be visible mid-way up the wall on the seaward facing side, HE and the Conservation Officer raised concerns regarding the appearance of this especially in the Smeaton Wall which has a concave profile. However, it is proposed to provide baffles in each of the holes which would limit the visual impact of the holes (the design of the baffles is reserved for approval by condition). Accordingly, whilst it is not ideal that so many holes would need to be drilled into the wall there needs to be a balance between the functioning of the ‘holding tank’ and respecting the historic integrity of the wall, in this instance it is considered that an appropriate balance has been struck. The flood gates which cross the public highway at The Grove Public House and the Premier Inn are subject to approval of final design by condition, similarly so is the method of fixing o the sea wall. The details within the application indicate a metal plate that would be fixed to the outer face of the wall but the final design solution has yet to be presented. It is considered that the proposed works would impact on the integrity if the listed sea wall but this would be less than substantial harm, in this circumstance Paragraph 196 of the NPPF requires the following judgement to be made:

Agenda page 47

18/2174/MOUT

‘Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.’

The public benefits of alleviating the disruption of tidal storm surges on the residents of the sea front and wider Exmouth are considered to be of sufficient justification in this instance. The impact on the Conservation Area would be negligible in terms of the works proposed in the full application and wold preserve the character of the area. The greatest impact would be from those works reserved for subsequent approval in the outline part of the application concerning Moreton Crescent and the junction of the Esplanade with Alexandra Terrace. In principle, however, it is considered that these works could be accommodated without detrimental impacting upon its character. The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable in relation to Policies EN9 and EN10 of the EDC Local Plan and advice contained in the NPPF. Impact on residential amenity There are no neighbours to be impacted upon in Area A. The residents in Camperdown Terrace have previously been impacted upon as a result of flooding and tidal surges and whilst representations have been received regarding the flood gate on the slipway causing perceived additional flooding to properties, the information submitted with the application that has been technically designed and considered acceptable by technical consultees is considered acceptable to limit as far as is practically possible flooding of third party properties. New pedestrian flood gates are also proposed in Area B. The foremost concern raised by residents has been the impact of the proposal on residents in Area C, principally the residents of Morton Crescent. During the application these concerns were realised by the applicants and the design of the wall fronting Morton Crescent was reserved for subsequent approval so that discussions could be held with residents. The proposed development has the potential to benefit the residents and subject to design and alignment it is considered that the proposed wall would not detrimentally impact on residential amenity. Overall the proposal has been conceived to protect residential amenity and subject to designs and materials it is considered that an appropriate proposal has been conceived without detrimentally impacting on residential amenity in accordance with Policy D1 of the EDDC Local Plan. Drainage A flood risk assessment has been submitted with this application which covers how areas are to be drained, the Environment Agency did originally raise some concerns regarding the information contained in the report, however, they considered that this could be covered by conditions. Similarly Devon County Council in their capacity as Lead Local Flood Authority raised concerns regarding the pooling of water behind the

Agenda page 48

18/2174/MOUT

defences, especially at Alexandra Terrace, however, arrangements regarding how surface water would be dealt with have been confirmed as the following: Area A - no impact as the structures do not cross surface water drainage paths and all drainage outfalls are maintained Area B - no impact as the structures do not cross surface water drainage paths and all drainage outfalls are maintained, except at the Camperdown Creek slipway gate and the Exe Sailing Club gate. It is proposed to install local drainage measures or a flap valve within the gate structures to ensure that ponding does not occur behind the gate. Area C

o surface water to the west of the flood gate at The Grove Public House would flow away from the gate due to the natural fall of the ground

o surface water to the east of the flood gate at Imperial Hotel would tend to flow towards the gate due to the natural fall of the ground, scuppers are proposed to be installed in the masonry sea wall to ensure the ponding its controlled

o surface water to the north of the flood gate at Alexandria Terrace would flow away from the gate due to the natural fall of the ground

o surface water to the north of the flood gate at Alston Terrace would flow away from the gate due to the natural fall of the ground

o the volume of surface water accumulating behind wall 8 (Morton Crescent) would be substantially less than the water which would have arisen from wave overtopping in the absence of the flood wall and associated pedestrian gates. The net impact would be a substantial reduction in flooding.

o no other structures in Area C cross surface water drainage paths. All drainage outfalls would be maintained.

Justification for the 'holding tank' The current situation is that the waves overtop the sea wall and then pond in the Esplanade to a depth of water which then allows the water to flow down the side streets into the town. With the setback defences the waves overtop the sea wall, there will still be ponding in the Esplanade while it is discharging through drainage back into the sea between waves. The water levels in the undefended Esplanade (described as the "holding tank") is going to depend on how much drainage is put in but is also going to be limited by the height of the lowest section of sea wall. The consultants have specified a significant amount of drainage (130 drains) through the wall as well as having flood gates at the pedestrian access to the beach to let water back in to the sea. It is accepted that the current information provided by the consultant does not give sufficient detail and the comparison between the current level of ponding in the Esplanade and the proposed level of ponding, this would be required to ensure the number of drains is appropriate for sufficient drainage whilst respecting the character of the listed sea wall. The principle of this many drains is considered acceptable though if this could be reduced to limit the impact on the integrity of the heritage asset this would be welcomed. It is considered appropriate to condition the

Agenda page 49

18/2174/MOUT

final number and location of the drains once the scheme has reached that level of detail and prior to commencement of any development in Area C. The drainage details are therefore considered acceptable subject to reasonable safeguarding conditions. Impact on trees It is proposed to fell a large number of trees along the estuary side in Area A – 20 sycamore and 1 maple and replace with similar species of a similar size. These trees form an important landscape feature along the estuary side and around the Imperial Recreation Ground, a number of representations have been received regarding their loss, including from the Town Council, therefore it is important to consider the justification for their loss. The proposed scheme indicates replacement planting on a one to one basis, and the arboricultural report makes reference to the creation of suitable rooting volumes using underground rooting create systems. During the design stage the applicant’s have considered alternative alignments of the wall to seek to retain the trees along this section of the scheme. In summary the findings of the alternatives assessment are that the flood defence cannot be moved further into the car park, as this would increase disturbance from dogs and people to the internationally important area where birds that use the Exe Estuary Special Protection Area, as well as resulting in a reduction of car parking spaces. It is not possible to construct around the trees on the kerb line as the foundations required for the flood defence would cause significant damage to the roots and would cause long term damage to the trees and ultimately result in them dying. The Council’s Tree Officer acknowledges that the trees would need to be removed to create a workable solution however, he requires the design of the planting pits and what soil volumes are proposed, and how this will be incorporated into the design proposals and what species and size of trees would be replanted, it is considered that this could reasonably be achieved through the imposition of an appropriately worded condition. Works of localised land raising are also required in the woodland in the Exmouth Nature Reserve at the very north of the proposal site and in Area B adjacent to the children’s play area which have the potential to impact on trees. Section 9.5 of the Environmental Statement identifies the potential habitat loss within the woodland for the creation of an access corridor. This was based on a worst-case scenario and the identified mitigation is that the construction access corridor in Area A1 would be created under the direction of the Arboricultural Consultant to identify a route that avoids root protection zones as much as possible. Where this cannot be achieved, a root protection surface would be used. The land raising in Area B encroaches close to the root protection area of a group of trees which are proposed to be felled, however, the applicant acknowledges the following:

Agenda page 50

18/2174/MOUT

‘As can be seen from the constraints plan in the arboricultural report there is small scale overlap of the ground raising into the root protection zone. We agree that the root protection zone will need to be taken into account during the detailed design, we will look at the slope and land take requirements to determine whether we can design around this tree. If this is not possible, appropriate tree protection measures will be identified within the Tree Protection Plan and Method Statement. Please note that the Environment Agency are committed to ensuring no net loss of trees whether direct or indirect. As such we will strive to follow the actions and processes above during detailed design and construction to ensure that there will be no disturbance to and deterioration of the trees in G1’. Overall, whilst it is regrettable that a large number of trees would need to be felled to accommodate the new sea defences, it is considered through appropriate conditioning that the suitable replacement trees can be provided and or root protection zones of exiting trees or groups of trees can be avoided to create a similar appearance albeit that temporarily there will be no trees remaining during the construction period. The proposal is considered acceptable in relation to Policy D3 of the EDDC Local Plan. Impact on highway safety The proposed development has the potential to impact on highway safety especially Area C where Alexandra Terrace junction meets the Esplanade and the design works that would be required, however, this element of the proposal is reserved for future consideration in a reserved matters application. The closure of the sea front in times of flood would mean that it would not be accessible to vehicles, however as existing in times of flood it would not be accessible either and as such the impact on the free flow of traffic would not be impacted upon. The proposed works in Areas A and B do not impact on the highway that is maintained at public expense, though to create a construction compound and undertake the works some traffic and local highways may be impacted, as such it is considered necessary to condition that construction management plan (CMP) is submitted to ensure that any disturbance does not detrimentally impact on highway safety. The proposal is therefore considered acceptable in relation to Policy TA7 of the EDDC Local Plan. CONCLUSION The proposed development would provide a benefit to the residents of Exmouth in the tidal storm surge event for now and into the future. Whilst this benefit must be balanced against the impacts that arise from the development, including the impact on special areas of protection and species, the impact on heritage assets and the loss of a significant number of trees, it is considered that, subject to appropriate safeguarding conditions and further reserve matters details, the proposal would not detrimentally impact upon the character and appearance of the locality or the historic integrity of heritage assets, particularly when

Agenda page 51

18/2174/MOUT

balanced against the wider benefits of the proposals in preventing flooding and protecting lives and property. The two applications are therefore recommended for approval subject to a number of conditions including the mitigation measures highlighted in the attached Appropriate Assessment. RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Application 18/2174/MOUT – Outline application

1. That the Habitat Regulations Appropriate Assessment attached to the Committee Report be adopted. 2. That the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

1. 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.).

2. Approval of the details of the layout, scale and external appearance of the

buildings 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.)


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

4. As part of any reserved matters application the design and materials for the

proposed flood gates that cross any highway or are required at any pedestrian access point together with any flap valve to allow for drainage shall be submitted. (Reason: To ensure that the design of the proposed flood gates are acceptable in their setting and are considered during the determination of the reserved matters application in accordance with Policy EN9 (Development Affecting a Designated Heritage Asset) and EN10 (Conservation Areas) of the East Devon Local Plan and advice contained in the National Planning Policy Framework).

Informative: In accordance with the requirements of Article 35 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 in determining this

Agenda page 52

18/2174/MOUT

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 the development TVO-XX-CC-DR-C-1031 Rev P4 Area C insert 7 - 7 of 10

Other Plans 09.11.18

TVO-XX-CC-DR-C-1032 Rev P4 Area C insert 8 - 8 of 10


TVO-XX-CC-DR-C-1070 Rev P3 Area C inset 7 - 1 of 3


TVO-XX-CC-DR-C-1071 Rev P3 Area C inset 8 - 2 of 3


2. Application 18/2174/MOUT – Full application:

1. That the Habitat Regulations Appropriate Assessment attached to the Committee Report be adopted. 2. That the application be APPROVED 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).



3. The development shall not proceed other than in strict accordance with the

Exmouth Tidal Defence Scheme Flood Risk Assessment (Revision 01/Final dated 19 September 2018) prepared by Team Van Oord). (Reason -To ensure the development complies with the guidance as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework).

Agenda page 53

18/2174/MOUT

4. Notwithstanding the details provided, no development in Area C shall commence until the detailed design and location of the scuppers and associated baffles shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with such agreed details. (Reason – To ensure that the location and number of scuppers and baffles are appropriate to provide sufficient drainage of the area whilst respecting the historic integrity if the listed sea wall in accordance with Policy EN9 (Development Affecting a Designated Heritage Asset) of the East Devon Local Plan and guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework)

5. 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, traffic routing and management 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. (Reason - To ameliorate and mitigate against the impact of the development on the local community in accordance with Policy EN14 (Control of Pollution) of the East Devon Local Plan).

6. Notwithstanding the details provided no development shall commence in Area C until the design and materials for the proposed flood gates that cross any highway or are required at any pedestrian access point together with any flap valve to allow for drainage shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with such agreed details. (Reason: To ensure that the design of the proposed flood gates are acceptable in their setting and are considered at an early stage in accordance with Policy EN9 (Development Affecting a Designated Heritage Asset) and EN10 (Conservation Areas) of the East Devon Local Plan and advice contained in the National Planning Policy Framework).

7. Notwithstanding the details provided no development in the construction of the new concrete wall in Area A shall commence until a sample panel of no less than 1 metre by 1 metres of the material(s) and their finish (for both land and sea facing sides) shall be submitted to/or made available for inspection in situ on the site and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with such agreed details (Reason: To ensure that the materials to be used in the construction of the wall and its intended finish are appropriate to its estuary side setting in accordance

Agenda page 54

18/2174/MOUT

with Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the East Devon Local Plan).

8. Prior to their installation details of the size and species of replacement trees

together with the design of the planting pits and what soil volumes are proposed, and how this will be incorporated into the design proposals of the specimen replacement trees in Area A shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; The tree planting shall 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 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 - To ensure that the details are planned and considered at an early stage 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 and D2 - Landscape Requirements of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

9. Notwithstanding the details provided no development in the construction of the new sheet pile wall in Area B shall commence until a sample panel of no less than 1 metre by 1 metres of the material(s) and their finish (for both land and sea facing sides) shall be submitted to/or made available for inspection in situ on the site and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with such agreed details (Reason: To ensure that the materials to be used to clad the wall and its intended finish are appropriate to its estuary side setting in accordance with Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the East Devon Local Plan).

10. 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

Agenda page 55

18/2174/MOUT

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: To ensure that the construction of the proposed development would not detrimentally impact on highway safety in accordance with Policy TC7 (Adequacy of Site Access and Local Highway Network) of the East Devon Local Plan)

11. Prior to the commencement of any works on site (including demolition and site clearance or tree works), a Tree Protection Plan (TPP) and Arboricultural Method Statements (AMS) for the protection of all retained trees, hedges and shrubs on or adjacent to the site , shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

The layout and design of the development shall be informed by and take account of the constraints identified in the survey and report.

The AMS shall indicate exactly how and when the trees will be protected during the development process.

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 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 of the inspection 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: To ensure the continued well being of retained trees in the interests of the amenity of the locality in accordance with Policy D3 (Trees and Development Sites) of the East Devon Local Plan).

12. Should any contamination of concern in 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.

Agenda page 56

18/2174/MOUT

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

13. No construction works shall commence in Area C until a high-level operation

procedure has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. This will need to address the procedure for implementing the defences and evacuating the area of people and property. It would be appropriate for the submission to include details of the operational agreement, the mechanisms of warning, the order of gate closures, evacuation routes and threshold of gates.

(Reason: To ensure that the procedure for operating the gates in times of flood are secured in the interests of public safety in accordance with advice contained in the National Planning Policy Framework)

14. Development shall proceed in accordance with the mitigation measures

contained in Appendix C: Habitats Regulation Assessment of the Environmental Statement dated 16th September 2018 (Reason - To provide ecological enhancement and protection in the interests of ecology and biodiversity in accordance with Policy EN6 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan and the guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.)

Informative: In accordance with the requirements of Article 35 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 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: TVO-XX-MM-DR-C-1000 REV P2 : AREA A (ESTUARYSIDE) + B (CAMPERDOWN TERRACE)

Location Plan 20.09.18

TVO-XX-MM-DR-C-1001 REV P2 : AREA A(CAMPERDOWN)+C (ESPLANADE)

Location Plan 20.09.18

TVO-XX-AA-DR-C-1040 REV P2 :

Sections 20.09.18

Agenda page 57

18/2174/MOUT

AREA A SHEET 1 OF 6

TVO-XX-AA-DR-C-1041 REV P2 : AREA A SHEET 2 OF 6

Sections 20.09.18


Sections 20.09.18


Sections 20.09.18


Sections 20.09.18


Sections 20.09.18

TVO-XX-BB-DR-C-1050 REV P2 : AREA B SHEET 1 OF 1

Sections 20.09.18

TVO-XX-CC-DR-C-1055 REV P2 : AREA C SHEET 1 OF 3

Sections 20.09.18


Sections 20.09.18


Sections 20.09.18

TVO-XX-AA-DR-C-1010 REV P2 :


Agenda page 58

18/2174/MOUT

AREA A SHEET 1 OF 10 (EXISTING SITE)

TVO-XX-AA-DR-C-1011 REV P2 : AREA A SHEET 2 OF 10 (EXISTING SITE)




TVO-XX-CC-DR-C-1016 REV P2 : AREA B SHEET 7 OF 10 (EXISTING SITE)




TVO-XX-BB-DR-C-1014 REV P2 : AREA B SHEET 5 OF 10 (EXISTING SITE)


TVO-XX-BB-DR-C-1015 REV P2 : AREA B SHEET 6 OF 10 (EXISTING SITE)


TVO-XX-CC-DR-C-1017 REV P2 : AREA C SHEET


Agenda page 59

18/2174/MOUT

8 OF 10 (EXISTING SITE)

TVO-XX-CC-DR-C-1018 REV P2 : AREA C SHEET 9 OF 10 (EXISTING SITE)


TVO-XX-CC-DR-C-1019 REV P2 : AREA C SHEET 10 OF 10 (EXISTING SITE)


TVO-XX-AA-DR-C-1025 REV P3 : AREA A SHEET 1 OF 10 (PROPOSED SITE)








TVO-XX-BB-DR-C-1029 REV P3 : AREA B SHEET 5 OF 10


Agenda page 60

18/2174/MOUT

(PROPOSED SITE)

TVO-XX-MM-VF-L-7112 REV P2 : AREA B SHEET 2 OF 3 (DESIGN VISUALISATION)


TVO-XX-BB-DR-C-1030 REV P3 : AREA B SHEET 6 OF 10 (PROPOSED SITE)


TVO-XX-CC-DR-C-1031 REV P3 : AREA C SHEET 7 OF 10 (PROPOSED SITE)






TVO-XX-CC-DR-C-1034 REV P3 : AREA INSET 10 SHEET 10 OF 10 (PROPOSED SITE)


TVO-XX-MM-VF-L-7111 REV P2 : AREA A SHEET 1 OF 3 (DESIGN


Agenda page 61

18/2174/MOUT

VISUALISATION)

TVO-XX-MM-VF-L-7113 REV P2 : AREA C SHEET 3 OF 3 (DESIGN VISUALISATION)


TVO-XX-AA-DR-C-1060 REV P2: AREA A SHEET 1 OF 6 (PROPOSED)

Sections 20.09.18


Sections 20.09.18


Sections 20.09.18


Sections 20.09.18


Sections 20.09.18


Sections 20.09.18

TVO-XX-BB-DR-C-1066 REV P2: AREA B SHEET

Sections 20.09.18

Agenda page 62

18/2174/MOUT

1 OF 1 (PROPOSED)

TVO-XX-CC-DR-C-1070 REV P2: AREA C SHEET 1 OF 3 (PROPOSED)

Sections 20.09.18


Sections 20.09.18


Sections 20.09.18

TVO-XX-MM-DR-L-7100 REV P2: SHEET 1 OF 9

Landscaping 20.09.18











Agenda page 63

18/2174/MOUT







3. Application 18/2173/LBC for the full application APPROVE 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.)



3. Notwithstanding the details provided, no development in Area C shall

commence until the detailed design and location of the scuppers and associated baffles shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with such agreed details. (Reason – To ensure that the location and number of scuppers and baffles are appropriate to provide sufficient drainage of the area whilst respecting the historic integrity if the listed sea wall in accordance with Policy EN9 (Development Affecting a Designated Heritage Asset) of the East Devon Local Plan and guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework)

Agenda page 64

18/2174/MOUT

Informative: In accordance with the requirements of Article 35 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 in determining this application, East Devon District Council has worked positively with the applicant to ensure that all relevant listed building concerns have been appropriately resolved. NOTE FOR APPLICANT Informative: In accordance with the requirements of Article 35 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 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. List of Background Papers Application file, consultations and policy documents referred to in the report.

Agenda page 65

Agenda page 66

Agenda page 67

Agenda page 68

Agenda page 69

Agenda page 70

Agenda page 71

Agenda page 72

Agenda page 73

Agenda page 74

Agenda page 75

Agenda page 76

Agenda page 77

Ward Broadclyst


Applicant Mrs Lefebvre

Location Land Adjoining Bluehayes Lane (plot 1) Land Adjoining Bluehayes House (plot 2) Bluehayes Broadclyst

Proposal Construction of two single storey detached dwellings and provision of a footpath link

RECOMMENDATION: 1. That the Habitat Regulations Appropriate Assessment within the Committee Report be adopted; and

2. That the application be APPROVED subject to a S.106 Agreement to secure a footpath link and subject to conditions


Agenda page 78

Agenda Item 10

18/0789/FUL


Broadclyst (CRANBROOK)

18/0789/FUL


Applicant: Mrs Lefebvre

Location: Land Adjoining Bluehayes Lane (plot 1) Land Adjoining Bluehayes House (plot 2)

Proposal: Construction of two single storey detached dwellings and provision of a footpath link

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That the Habitat Regulations Appropriate Assessment within the Committee Report be adopted; and

2. That the application be APPROVED subject to a S.106 Agreement to secure a footpath link and subject to conditions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This application is before Members as it represents a departure from adopted Local Plan policy and the officer recommendation is contrary to the view of a Ward Member. The proposed development is located outside of the consented outline planning application area for 2,900 new homes at Cranbrook, and outside of the allocated expansion areas for the town which are identified within Strategy 12 of the adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031. Whilst the site is therefore regarded as being in the open countryside, it is nevertheless bounded by Cranbrook (as either built development or allocated land) on the east, west and northern boundaries. It is therefore considered to be in a sustainable location. The proposal involves a total of 2 number dwellings on two separate sites along Bluehayes Lane. One located on a small parcel of land adjacent to two existing bungalows and the second on the paddock site towards the north of the lane. The layout and design of the dwellings are acceptable and concerns regard surface and foul drainage have been addressed. The site is also located within land identified in Strategy 10 for the Clyst Valley Regional Park but the ecological impacts from the development have been addressed and a footpath connection has been proposed across Bluehayes Lane, located to the west of plot 1 which would achieve a connection between phase 1

Agenda page 79

18/0789/FUL

of Cranbrook and the proposed Bluehayes park located within the Cranbrook Western Expansion area. This link is considered an appropriate and meaningful benefit of the scheme that mitigates any conflict which arises from the development within the Clyst Valley Regional Park. Given the sustainable location of the site with a suitable design and layout and given that the impact upon the Clyst Valley Regional park is mitigated through the benefit of the footpath link across the site (that can be secured via a legal agreement), it is considered that the benefits of the proposal and material considerations outweigh the conflict with Local Plan policy.

CONSULTATIONS Local Consultations Cranbrook Town Council – comments dated 08/08/2018 The Committee considered that the application 18/0789/FUL is effectively two applications in one and that issues regarding one property do not necessarily relate to the other. Therefore, if there are material reasons to object to one of the properties, the Committee should object to the whole application irrespective of the issues surrounding the other property. Split decisions are not made on applications of this type. The application indicates that the applicant is the landowner of Bluehayes Lane, the private lane that the proposed pedestrian links seek to cross from the preserved parkland to the attenuation land. However, the Committee noted that, from the comments received, the other residents of the lane have an interest as they are equally responsible for its upkeep. The other residents do not appear to consent to the pedestrian links and as a result there may be deliverability issues with this part of the application. The proposed development is in the 'countryside' as defined in the Local Plan and is therefore contrary to Strategy 7 of the Local Plan. Previously, applications for one or more homes within the parish of Cranbrook have been looked upon favourably as the locations were surrounded (or would eventually be surrounded) by urban development of the town. It had been considered inappropriate to refuse on the grounds of Strategy 7 as the proposed site would be completely bounded by other development. This view has been supported at appeal. However, the current proposal is different as in both cases the application land is not due to be immediately bordered by urban development. In the case of the proposal adjacent to Littleshaw (plot 1), the land to the west is preserved parkland and the land to the east is attenuation. Neither are proposed development areas for the town of Cranbrook. With regard to the other site (plot 2), the location is part of the existing rural settlement of Bluehayes but again is not part of the allocated development area of Cranbrook and is proposed to be bounded to the west by parkland. (Ref. the Cranbrook Development Plan Document ' Bluehayes Plan on page 29 of the latest draft Cranbrook DPD).

Agenda page 80

18/0789/FUL

The application seeks to use Strategy 10 of the Local Plan (Green Infrastructure in the west end / Clyst Valley Regional Park) in support of the proposed pedestrian links. Strategy 10 is also about ensuring that natural ecosystems function in the west end. The link between the preserved parkland, the attenuation field and the remainder of the Cranbrook Country Park is crucial for local wildlife. It is potentially the only wildlife corridor that will remain once the western expansion of the town comes forward as there will be a need for the area to the north of Bluehayes to include new road infrastructure and links to the train station and other parts of the town. There are other opportunities for cycling and footway links and the attenuation field is not suitable for either of these as it floods in extreme wet weather. The development is within the Clyst Valley Regional Park. Residential housing is not one of the objectives supported by the Strategy. Furthermore, an express objective of the Regional Park is to 'provide new wildlife corridors that enhance the biodiversity of the West End' and 'conserve and enhance heritage assets and their setting to reflect their intrinsic importance, maximise beneficial outcomes for park users and to encourage use of the park and to enrich the cultural identity of the area'. The development site forms part of an existing wildlife corridor that should be enhanced, not eroded by built development. The Committee therefore considered that the application is contrary to Strategy 10 of the Local Plan. The Committee also noted that the site adjacent to Littleshaw is in a Tree Preservation area and the long-term survival of the trees would potentially be threatened by the development. The application is considered to be contrary to Policy D3. Cllr Kim Bloxham proposed that, for the reasons set out above, the Town Council objects to this application. This was seconded by Cllr Kevin Blakey and was resolved. Further comments dated 23/10/2018 Cranbrook Town Council has now had the opportunity to consider the revised planning application 18/0789/FUL at a full Council meeting last night and please see below the resolution from that meeting: 18/250 PLANNING APPLICATION 18/0789/FUL The Council considered planning application 18/0789/FUL proposing the construction of two single storey detached dwellings and provision of a footpath link at the land adjoining Bluehayes Lane (plot 1) and land adjoining Bluehayes House (plot 2) at Bluehayes, Broadclyst. The Council's Planning Committee had considered this application on 6 August 2018 and had objected to the application at that time for a number of reasons (ref. Planning Committee minute P18/32). The Chairman of the Planning Committee explained that, in the main, three elements of the original application had been amended; the foul drainage assessment, indicative drainage and the design and access statement and

Agenda page 81

18/0789/FUL

that little or no changes had been made to address the objections which the Planning Committee had articulated and that those were still pertinent. It was proposed by Cllr Les Bayliss, seconded by Cllr Kim Bloxham and resolved to object to planning application 18/0789/FUL on the basis that the Planning Committee's original objections to this application remained unaddressed (ref. Planning Committee minute P18/32). Broadclyst - Cllr Eleanor Rylance As district councillor for Broadclyst ward, I wish to oppose this planning application on a number of different grounds. Whilst the plans includes footpaths, which are generally a very positive feature, I'm afraid that the location of these particular paths is in my view very ill-conceived. I will break the application down into main constituent parts for the sake of clarity, but there might be some overlap. I am copying in the Tree team and the Countryside team for their comments on various aspects of this application. I will also be forwarding this response to the residents of Bluehayes Lane. Overview of Bluehayes Bluehayes is a tiny, historic self contained community off the B3130 (?) near the developing community of Cranbrook. It is within the curtilage of a Manor House and a number of other dwellings totalling 7, a very ancient history and a number of ancient trees including oaks, most of which are protected by Tree Preservation Orders. The residents, some of whom have lived there for decades, some of whom are more recently arrived in the community, all know each other and represent a very cohesive community. Their children are able to have a comparatively large amount of freedom within the confines of their community. The settlement features a number of historical assets and venerable ancient trees, among which its wrought iron estate boundary fence which shows very clearly where the original boundary of the inner grounds of Bluehayes Manor lie. Estate fences like these are fairly rare these days due to many having been melted down for cannon during the Second World War. Bluehayes Lane The lane is in private ownership. Whilst the land itself belongs to a non-resident owner, the lane was recently resurfaced and the expense shared equally between the owner and the seven households of the lane. This means that the residents now have a financial interest in the lane surface. The lane was designed for cart traffic. It is extremely narrow, and contains several 90 degree angle bends which even the waste vehicles cannot negotiate (I understand that the lorries have to stop before the narrowest part, and waste is removed on foot by operators).

Agenda page 82

18/0789/FUL

Bluehayes lane is very narrow lane that was designed for carts and foot traffic, and it struggles to accommodate modern lorries including the recycling and rubbish lorries. In fact, due to several right-angle bends, the crews have to stop before the narrowest stretch and continue on foot to remove the waste. Plot 1 The proposed Plot 1 is located on a narrow strip of land adjacent to an existing bungalow, running alongside the privately-owned lane, backing onto an attenuation field owned by the Cranbrook consortium and also containing the septic tanks and/or leach fields for several of the properties in Bluehayes lane. This piece of land is fenced by rare old wrought iron estate fencing, which the design and planning of this dwelling rightly respects (this fencing is visible in the outline drawings, and also mentioned in the footpath application section of the planning application). The plot contains a number of mature trees, including one ancient and venerable oak, and all I understand are covered by TPOs. I also understand that the applicant has already removed one sycamore (TPO covered) from the site in the pre-application stage, stating to residents that it was diseased. Luckily the stump appears to have effected a miraculous recovery and is now merrily sprouting from the base. Despite the TPOs, the plans show a house with a septic tank unit dug unto the corner of the plot, very near to a mature sycamore that has a TPO. I would be surprised given the scale of the building on the drawing whether the proposed klargester septic tank unit is indeed located more than 15m away from the dwelling, and potentially also from the neighbouring dwelling, as the buildable space on this strip is extremely limited due to the presence of the protected trees. Indeed, the proposed Klargester tank appears to be within the Root Protection Area (RPA) of the sycamore tree on the corner, and appears also be within the RPA of a large venerable oak located further down the attenuation field. The house nearest to the proposed plot as I understand discharges its treated septic tank water into this corner of the attenuation field near the proposed property. I note that the applicant claims on their foul drainage form that the proposed septic tank unit is not within 15m of any building. I would have thought this at best a questionable claim. I note that the foul drainage form as filled in by the applicant claims that the proposed plant will not be within 50m of a drainage field or soak away, either the applicant's own a neighbour's. Well, there are at least 2 within 50m- both neighbouring bungalows have septic tanks. One discharges into the attenuation field very near to the proposed new house. The other has dug a soakway pit for their house's rainwater in just the way proposed in this plan, on the other side of the lane. This soakaway, located as it is in clay soil, does not work very well at all at draining away rainwater and often overflows in damp weather. There is no reason to suggest that the proposed soakaway for the proposed new dwelling would act any differently- outflow would probably flow downhill (water usually does) and the proposed new bungalow or its outbuildings would be in its path.

Agenda page 83

18/0789/FUL

The house itself is of unremarkable design. I have no comment on this. Footpath The proposed footpath crossing the plot is extremely contentious. These are my reasons for opposing this (despite my very favourable views towards footpaths generally): 1 The footpath proposes crossing an attenuation field that is boggy year round, due to rainwater runoff and to being a septic tank drainage field. Although the water running out of septic tanks is allegedly drinkable, in my experience of septic tanks I would not want to drink it- it still have a whiff of effluent to it. Nor would I want my dog drinking it, nor my child or dog wading in it. Yet the applicant proposes a footpath that would cross this field in some as yet unspecified way. The alternative, to run along the edge of the field past Bluehayes, would also mean crossing several householders' septic tanks and leach fields including both dwellings at the historic Bluehayes manor. This would clearly also be unacceptable as it would place barriers to inspection of chambers, and impede the natural outflows of water from these dwellings. 2 The proposed footpath is proposed to be made of "bound gravel" and both arms of it cross the RPA of several protected trees including a venerable oak. I have asked the tree team for their comment on the notion of any footpath for pedestrians and bicycles running beneath a protected venerable oak. 3 The residents tell me the attenuation field, unmanaged as it is a wildlife haven, and contains amphibians and bats. Retaining it as it is would be very much in keeping with strategy 10. On my visit to Bluehayes I observed fresh badger scat next to the ancient protected oak. Plot 2 Proposed Plot 2 is located in a paddock bordered by the same historic old estate fencing as seen and retained in Plot 1. Unfortunately in this case, the plan appears to replace this historic fencing with a very much higher new brick wall, which would as an aside overshadow the front garden and access of Greenhayes cottage. This escalate fencing is now relatively rate for the reasons ourtlined above- it is regrettable that the applicant opts for retaining in the case of Plot 1, and removing for Plot 2. My view is that as it represents the original boundary of the inner grounds of Bluehayes Manor, and acts as a visual representation for the edge of the community, this fence should, no matter what the outcome of the planning application, be retained at all costs as a historic asset. In my view this fencing should be retained throughout the site and become a material consideration of the history of the estate. I applaud the distance the proposed dwelling will be located from the protected grove of trees in the paddock, but bemoan again the location of the septic tank unit, directly beneath another protected tree. I note that no access route has been established. The only likely access route for construction traffic, should any be able to make it past Bluehayes Manor and its right

Agenda page 84

18/0789/FUL

angle bends, has a 270 degree bend at the top to access the paddock and has no usable road surface. Construction traffic would be driving over the RPAs for several protected trees. Further problems with the location of this proposed dwellling includes that Bluehayes Lane is extremly narrow and has tight right angle bends, making access for long vehicles very difficult, meaning that it is doubtful that construction traffic will be able to access the site at all. CONCLUSION The residents of Bluehayes, when consulted several years about whether they wished to become part of Cranbrook, responded with a resounding no. They nevertheless ended up moving to the curtilage of Cranbrook against their will when they would rather have remained in Broadclyst, and are paying Cranbrook council tax. This scheme would, by linking Bluehayes with Cranbrook via a footpath, irretrievably link a self-contained historic community with a modern town which they have no wish to belong to. This would change their way of life for ever and is an unfair burden to place on a suffering little community, for no gain to them. The lane is in private ownership. Whilst the land itself belongs to a non-resident owner, the lane was recently resurfaced and the expense shared equally between the owner and the seven households of the lane. This means that the residents now have a financial interest in the lane surface. The lane was designed for cart traffic. It is extremely narrow, and contains several 90 degree angle bends which even the waste vehicles cannot negotiate (I understand that the lorries have to stop before the narrowest part, and waste is removed on foot by operators). The lane is currently a quiet and safe place for the householders children to play in. Allowing construction traffic down an extremely narrow lane would create very major disruption to the lives of householders, as they could no longer allow their children out unsupervised. This, coupled with a potential by-way straight into Cranbrook, would cause an unacceptable amount of change to residents' lives. At present they know nearly every single person who comes onto the lane, and know and trust each other. Introducing a footpath across their private lane would alter their way of life beyond all recognition, and is something none of them want. There is no clarity regarding potential liability in the event of any accident to any member of the public whilst on private land. Nor is it clear in this age of budget cuts how exactly the behaviour of people using any permissive path would be policed/monitored and what would stop them indeed from straying outside the path. The proposed dwelling at plot 1 is on a very narrow strip of land that backs onto a Cranbrook attenuation field also used by residents of Bluehayes as a (discharge field for their septic tanks). Although treated, the water discharged by these tanks could hardly be described as safe. The proposal is to put a footpath through what is a bog made up partly of rainwater, and partly septic tank run-off. Hardly a safe environment for members of the public.

Agenda page 85

18/0789/FUL

The attenuation field itself, due to its wild and unmanaged nature, is home to a large amount of wildlife, including it is believed, protected amphibian species. On the day of my visit I also observed fresh badger scat on plot 1 next to an ancient protected oak. I am copying in the countryside team for their comments on this part of the planning proposal. The proposal for plot 1 has a klargester septic tank system sited underneath a tree with a TPO. Even if the proposal does not involve the removal of this tree, the proposed works -both for the proposed new house and its waste treatment plant- are far too close to the tree for its safety. The proposed plot would encompass several trees with TPOs, including an ancient oak with a clear TPO badge on it. I understand that the landowner has already made one attempt on the life of this venerable oak, and has indeed had neighbouring trees chopped down in advance of this planning application being submitted, and stated to residents that they wished to remove the trees ahead of submitting the planning application. It is clear from this that the landowner has little regard for TPOs, and the safety of the venerable trees within the plot could not be guaranteed once it is surrounded by a fence and part of the garden of the proposed new dwelling. There are ancient and protected trees on both plots- in fact an oak listed in the Domesday Book is located near plot 2. I am copying in the tree officer for his comments on the safety of all the ancient trees involved. I absolutely reject the need for this application, and oppose it in its entirety. These houses are superfluous in a time when 4000 houses are being built just over the hedge. The footpath by itself would represent an existential threat to the tiny historic community of Bluehayes, and the construction traffic caused by the potential building of two new dwellings would cause undue stress and suffering to the already beleaguered residents of this formerly rural idyll. Technical Consultations Environmental Health I have considered this application and do not foresee any Environmental Health Pollution issues with this proposal, therefore other than condition the Construction Cop I have no further comments to make. EDDC Trees – comments dated 29/08/2018 The Paddock Site. (1227-A-01-RevB) During pre-app discussion the conversation revolved around the offsetting of this proposed development against the creation of POS in the area to the south of the buildings, currently identified as Landscape area (Paddock) and Garden. 1. If, as is indicated, this area of land is to be included within the curtilage of the proposed dwelling, we require greater detail on the proposed use and layout, to include boundary treatments, (restoration of old/existing and creation of new). The site is likely to abut an area of POs on the next phase of Cranbrook.

Agenda page 86

18/0789/FUL

2. The southern section including the boundary of the paddock/garden area is not show on the plans 3. Several of the trees currently growing in the wider paddock/garden area are not plotted, nor recorded on the tree survey. These include the significant mature trees adjacent to the southern boundary. 4. Given the amount of this area that is taken up by the RPA's of retained and protected trees PD rights should be removed in order to ensure accidental damage to the tree roots does not occur. 5. There is no indication of where or how the buildings are to be connected to services or where drainage outfalls might be located. 6. The RPA of the retained Sweet Chestnut T1 is shown as a circle. The presence of an old trackway to the South and East of the tree may well have caused an asymmetric root distribution. If that is the case the location of the proposed access turning head and garage may need to be reviewed. We require further evidence to show that the roots of the tree are not going to be compromised. Alternatively by removing T6 and T7 the access and garage could be moved to the north. I consider that development is possible whilst retaining the important trees, however the layout of the current application and the lack of relevant detail causes concern to the point where I have to object to the application. The Lane Site (1127-A-01-RevB) 1. The location of the new buildings are acceptable in arboricultural terms although it should be noted that trees T1-T3 will within 5- 15 years become too large for the location and require either removal or reduction. Set against this is the retention of the Veteran Oak (T-4) in an area of open space which can be allowed to develop into and be managed as an ecotone centred on the Oak. 2. The drawings show two new pedestrian paths. The path crossing the POS in a line perpendicular to the lane is appropriately located outside of the RPA of any important trees. The path crossing diagonally the POS passes directly through the RPA of the Oak T4 ,this is unacceptable and should be removed from the application. 3. Is this area of land containing the Oak and the new path going to be transferred or is it remaining in private ownership? If the latter is the case we will need to secure the long term management of the site through an appropriate S.106 and an associated management plan. 4. There is no indication of where or how the buildings are to be connected to services or where any drainage outfalls might be located. 5. Further details of boundary treatments are required. So long as the above points are addressed the proposed layout and design are such that I do not wish to raise and objection to the application. On both sites if planning is approved we will require further Tree Protection details and associated Arboricultural Method Statements. I suggest the following conditions: TR03 Prior to the commencement of any works on site (including demolition and site clearance or tree works),a Tree Protection Plan (TPP) and an Arboricultural Method Statement(AMS) for the protection of all retained trees, hedges and shrubs, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 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.

Agenda page 87

18/0789/FUL

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 of the inspection 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 - To ensure retention and protection of trees on the site during and after construction 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 and D3 - Trees and Development Sites of the Adopted New East Devon Local Plan 2016.) TR07 No trees, shrubs or hedges within the site which are shown as being planted or retained on the approved plans shall be felled, uprooted, willfully damaged or destroyed, cut back in any way or removed without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees, shrubs or hedges removed without such consent, or which die or become severely damaged or seriously diseased within five years from the occupation of any building, or the development hereby permitted being brought into use shall be replaced with trees, shrubs or hedge plants of similar size and species unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. (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 and D3 - Trees and Development Sites of the Adopted New East Devon Local Plan 2016.) Further comments dated 29/08/2018 The tree report although still missing both a tree constraints plan and a tree protection plan is now sufficient when taken alongside the amended layouts and service provision and drainage details to enable me not to raise any further tree related objections to the application. As requested previously: “The absence of a Tree Protection Plan (TPP) will make necessary a condition to secure this along with the associated Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS). Any TPP will need to take into account the Protection of the trees on the southern boundaries of both plots which to date have not been shown on any of the drawings or recorded in the tree reports. “ Other Representations A total number of 8 representations were received from neighbouring residents, who raised concerns over the following:

Agenda page 88

18/0789/FUL

a) Design and appearance of the dwellings; b) Impact on the trees and ecology; c) Impact the dwellings would have on neighbouring amenity; d) The impact the creation that a new footpath would have on the private nature of the lane; e) Drainage. POLICIES Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 Policies Strategy 5 (Environment) Strategy 7 (Development in the Countryside) Strategy 10 (Green Infrastructure in East Devon's West End) Strategy 12 (Development at Cranbrook) Strategy 47 (Nature Conservation and Geology) D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) D3 (Trees and Development Sites) EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) EN14 (Control of Pollution) EN22 (Surface Run-Off Implications of New Development) TC2 (Accessibility of New Development) TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) TC9 (Parking Provision in New Development) Government Planning Documents NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework 2018) Site Location and Description The application is for 2 separate sites which are located on land off Bluehayes Lane to the west of phase 1 of Cranbrook. Bluehayes Lane is a private road that leads north from the B3174. A number of existing properties are accessed from Bluehayes Lane, which themselves demonstrate a variety of types and architectural styles. For the purposes of this report the two sites shall be described as plot 1 and plot 2. Plot 1 - is located on a small parcel of land that sits between an existing bungalow known as Littleshaw and Bluehayes House. The site has a number of existing trees which have a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) on them. Plot 2 - is located at the furthest point of Bluehayes Lane, to the north-west of Bluehayes House. The site is bounded by a row of mature trees on its southern and eastern sides and is bounded by an existing property known as Greenacres to its north. The paddock has a slight north facing slope with views from the south west corner across to Cranbrook Station, and out to the west across the land allocated for Cranbrook's expansion.

Agenda page 89

18/0789/FUL

Proposed Development The application seeks planning permission for the construction of two dwellings, one on each of the plots described. Plot 1 - (land between Littleshaw and Bluehayes House) the proposal involves a single storey dwelling house, with an attached garage, new access and garden space. Plot 2 - (the paddock site) the proposal seeks permission for a contemporary styled bungalow with an attached garage, set in the northern corner of the site. In addition to the two dwellings proposed, a new footpath to the northwest of plot 1 which would cross Bluehayes Lane and provide a link between the boundary of the adjacent field (proposed Bluehayes Park, which is within the allocated land for the Cranbrook expansion) and the existing field in Cranbrook Phase 1 containing an attenuation basin, is proposed. ANALYSIS The main considerations in assessing the proposal focus on the location of the sites in relation to policy, as well as other considerations comprising accessibility and sustainability, the impact on the road network, and the potential impact on the landscape, character and amenity for each of the sites. Each will be assessed in the report below and specifically referenced where relevant to both plots 1 and 2. Background Plot 1 has been subject to a previous planning application (planning reference 16/3026/OUT), which was submitted in April 2017 and sought permission for the erection of 2 number dwellings. The application was considered unacceptable due to the adverse impact the proposed development would have on the existing trees, which resulted in the withdrawal of the planning application. Subsequent discussions have been had following the withdrawal of the application, exploring the option of one number dwelling on the land which could be set away from the root protection areas of the trees to avoid any adverse harm. A pre-application enquiry for plot 2 was submitted by the applicant which explored the notion of one dwelling on the paddock site. Both sites are accessed off Bluehayes Lane which is a private lane leading north from the B3174. The lane is narrow and serves 10 number properties. The entirety of the lane is privately owned; the majority of the lane by the applicant but the owner of a small part of the lane (the southern part of the lane leading from the B3174) is unknown. In response to this unknown ownership, ownership certificate D was signed on the application form within the life of the planning application and a notice within the local newspaper was published allowing interested parties to come forward within 21 days

Agenda page 90

18/0789/FUL

of the notice. The notice required any owner of the land or tenant who wished to make a representation about the application to write to EDDC. On this basis the Local Planning Authority are satisfied that in these circumstances, everything has been done to demonstrate by the applicant that all reasonable steps have been taken to establish likely ownership of the land and allow any interested parties in the land to make necessary representations on the application. As a relevant note it is necessary to record that a neighbour was contacted following their comments objecting to the planning application, which stated that they knew the land owner of the lower part of the lane. Despite following this lead it remains unclear as to who owns the lane. In such instances it is not for the Local Planning Authority to determine ownership but merely be satisfied that no third party has been prejudiced in the determination of the application. It is considered that this has been achieved and as such it is therefore up to the applicant to ensure that they have all necessary controls in place when they come to implement any potential resultant permission. The Local Planning Authority can continue to determine the application on the basis of the information that has been submitted. Policy and principle of development In planning terms, both sites are within the "open countryside" as identified by the adopted East Devon Local Plan and Strategy 7 (Development in the Countryside), which defines the countryside as 'all parts of the plan area that are outside the built up area boundary and outside of site specific allocations shown on the proposals map' and as a result the application has been advertised as a departure from the development plan. Bluehayes Lane itself, including both application plots is also located within the Cranbrook Plan Area of search for further development as defined by Strategy 12 (Development at Cranbrook) and the associated proposals map, however are not included as part of the allocation. The Local Planning Authority are currently in the process of finalising the submission version of the Cranbrook Plan Development Plan Document which will aid the development of Cranbrook and deliver the required expansion as set out within the adopted East Devon Local Plan as well as further allocate additional land which is necessary to deliver the required expansion. There is an expectation to go out to consultation in spring 2019 with submission for public examination later in the year. As previously discussed, land to the west of Bluehayes Lane is allocated for the expansion of Cranbrook and whilst existing development off Bluehayes Lane itself remains outside of that allocation, the lane will become surrounded by built development associated with Cranbrook. In such a scenario the plots would therefore represent a logical infill to Cranbrook. In advance of the publication of the submission version of the plan only limited weight can be placed on the preferred approach document. In addition to the above, the site is also situated on land identified for the Clyst Valley Regional Park as defined in the adopted Local Plan. Strategy 10 states that 'development will not be allowed in the designated area unless it will clearly achieve

Agenda page 91

18/0789/FUL

valley park specific objectives for people and wildlife.' but in the supporting text to the policy at paragraph 7.11 it states that 'The Clyst Valley Regional Park proposed does not establish a 'policy boundary' that prevents or 'says no' to development. It sets out where particular emphasis will be attached to establishing high quality landscapes and settings for development, people and wildlife.' The objectives set are as follows: a) Provide high quality natural green space that is complementary to development and will be a stimulus to encourage commercial and business development of the highest standard. b) Ensure natural ecosystems function in the West End of our district and ensure residents, workers, school children and visitors of all abilities have an easy access to high quality open spaces, with linked benefits to health, education and food production. c) Take recreation pressure away from more environmentally sensitive locations thereby overcoming concerns arising from application of the Habitat Regulations that would otherwise prevent development coming forward. Provision of the park could help address need and requirements arising from development in other parts of East Devon, Exeter and potentially Teignbridge. We will encourage a park that 'reaches into' the open spaces of our neighbouring authority partners. d) Provide new wildlife corridors that enhance the biodiversity of the West End. e) Provide green corridors, open space and biodiversity enhancement areas. Enhance cycling and walking opportunities to link habitats and sustainable movement networks that promote the overall recreational experience for the West End. f) Conserve and enhance heritage assets and their setting to reflect their intrinsic importance, maximise beneficial outcomes for park users and to encourage the use of the park to enrich the cultural identity of the area. The policy position is clear in that development will not be allowed in the Clyst Valley Regional Park designated area unless it will achieve valley park specific objectives for people and wildlife, as stated in Strategy 10 (Green Infrastructure in East Devon's West End). The proposal does not in itself deliver publically accessible natural green space but it will in the longer term open up pedestrian accessibility between the existing phase 1 of Cranbrook and the expansion to the west by linking the attenuation basin land to the north with the proposed Bluehayes Park; this would meet criteria b) and e) of Strategy 10. However, it must be acknowledged that it would be likely that this link were provided in advance of the adjacent park and attenuation basin being publically accessible. Nevertheless, the delivery of the park (which has mature trees and the appearance of a formal parkland) is a shared vision in both The Cranbrook Plan preferred approach document and the current planning application for the development of the allocated land. The provision of parkland in this location is not in itself a contentious issue. On balance the proposal is not in conflict with Strategy 10 but the proposal needs to be subject of a balancing exercise can then be undertaken that will allow a conclusion to be drawn on the acceptability of the development as proposed. The delivery and management of the new footpath is essential and should be secured via a Section 106 agreement should the application be approved. It is also considered that the management of the open space that is around the footpath and outside of the curtilage of the dwelling on plot 1 should also be included within any management plan

Agenda page 92

18/0789/FUL

to ensure that this area is brought forward in line with the objectives of Strategy 10 (Green Infrastructure in East Devon's West End). Accessibility In terms of vehicle access, the Local Highway Authority have been consulted on the application and have considered that the junction off the B3174 is adequate for the proposal having recently been improved with the creation of the cycle/footway on the north side of the B3174 and the adjacent Cranbrook development. As this report explains, Bluehayes Lane itself is sat within the open countryside as identified on the proposals map that sits alongside the East Devon Local Plan. However, the site does benefit from being within close proximity to phase 1 of Cranbrook the infrastructure and facilities for which consists of a primary school, community centre, GP and pharmacy, two shops, a cafe and two hot food takeaways. In addition there are bus stops located adjacent to the parade of shops identified (and which form the neighbourhood centre) as well as those on the B3174 to the west of the Bluehayes access. With the above in mind, the site does benefit from being within close proximity to local services and facilities. However, the walking route to the neighbourhood centre is currently 900-1000m and this limits connectivity into phase 1 of Cranbrook. Offset against this is the easy access to bus stops that lead directly to employment both locally and in Exeter. Future development of the existing allocations that surround the sites are only likely to improve access to a wider range of jobs and facilities. The provision of the footpath identified in the application would also reduce the walking distance to Cranbrook rail station once a route around the attenuation basin to the north is provided. Policy TC2 (Accessibility of New Development) encourages new developments to be designed so that they limit the need to travel by car and rather, be accessible by pedestrians, cyclist and public transport. In applying this policy it is recognised that at the current point in time, the access to the services and facilities that are at the neighbourhood centre at Cranbrook is not ideal but only slightly outside the optimum 800m walkable neighbourhood distance while the presence of nearby bus stops is a significant benefit. Overall and in terms of access, it is considered a reasonable site for development recognising the services and facilities that are already available and, notwithstanding the limited weight that can be given to this component, that are likely to be achievable in the future. The proposals for both plots 1 and 2 involve a single garage with a driveway which can park up to two vehicles which is in accordance with policy TC9 (parking provision in new development) which requires at least 2 parking spaces per each home with two or more bedrooms. Design, Layout and Appearance The area in which the application sits has its own distinct character based around a small cluster of houses at the end of a private lane.

Agenda page 93

18/0789/FUL

Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) seeks to ensure that proposals respect the key characteristics of an area, especially the scale, massing, density, height, fenestration and materials. The policy aims to respect key character and special qualities of the area in which the development is proposed. This report goes on to assess the proposal for both sites with regard to design, layout and appearance and for completeness has broken the assessment down into two sections below (Plot 1 and Plot 2). Plot 1 The dwelling proposed for plot one is for a single storey bungalow, which is of a similar scale to those immediately adjacent, and takes on a setback position, with a front garden area dividing the property and the lane. It fronts onto Bluehayes Lane and in so doing reflects the development pattern of the adjacent bungalows of Littleshaw and Kingswood. The siting of the dwelling and associated garage is on the southern end of the plot, within the widest part of the site and away from the root protection areas of any existing trees. The proposed materials comprise of a mix of brick facing, slate for the roof, render, timber cladding, which is a similar deign and appearance as to those immediately adjacent. Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) seeks proposals to respect key characteristics and qualities of the area in which the development is proposed and that the scale massing density, height, fenestration and materials of the building relate to its context. A number of neighbour objections have been received, which raised concerns over the appearance of the proposed dwelling and stated that the design was not in-keeping with the character of the lane. Despite this number of local objections it is considered that the proposed dwelling represents an appropriately designed dwelling which is of an appropriate scale and mass and respects local vernacular styles in accordance with Local Planning Policy. Plot 2 Plot two is located at the northern part of Bluehayes Lane in a small parcel of land referred to as the paddock. The site has a belt of trees subject of tree preservation orders along its southern edge and a lime washed brick wall along its northern edge that is understood to have been the boundary to the kitchen garden of Bluehayes House. A number of large and attractive trees are within the site including several pseudo-acacia and an old sweet chestnut, as well as original estate railings which run along the boundary to the west and east.

Agenda page 94

18/0789/FUL

The view into the site from the end of the lane opposite the property known as Bluehayes is very open and attractive, reaching across to the veteran oak in the field beyond which forms part of the allocated western expansion area of Cranbrook and is covered by an existing but undetermined application for outline planning permission. The proposed dwelling on this site represents a single storey bungalow with an attached garage. The new dwelling takes on a modern appearance, set out in three blocks which helps to reduce the visual mass of the building. The materials proposed consist of a limited palette of materials which are brick, clay roof tiles and timber posts. The dwelling is shown to be positioned at the top (northern) end of the paddock site, avoiding any of the root protection areas of the existing trees. The dwelling follows the existing building line of the bungalow directly adjacent (Greenacres) which helps to maintain an openness and a visual green corridor when viewed from the lane or from the fields in the western expansion area. A line of sight can also be achieved through the garden that would visually connect the paddock with the veteran oak tree in the neighbouring field to the west. It is understood that a number of the neighbouring residents have an on-foot right of way across the paddock and adjoining field. The applicant has responded to this by limiting the area of the domestic garden space for plot 2 so that such a right is not fettered by the development. As a private right, this issue only exists between the land owner and those who hold the right and therefore while helpful in addressing the concerns raised, the change is not necessary for the purposes of determining the application. . The primary outlook of the building is towards the south, creating a green attractive outlook for potential occupiers, but also benefiting from a prime position for sunlight and a south facing garden area. Original plans showed steps coming down from the west elevation leading down to the garden area. Concerns were raised about the opportunity of overlooking from the steps/garden to the side which would directly face into Greenacres, and which would impact negatively on their amenity. This resulted in amendments being made to the scheme, whereby the steps were moved to the south elevation to allow the occupiers to step out and enjoy the garden space to the front and benefit from the south facing garden. In addition the scheme shows a privacy screen which could be erected on the western elevation of the terrace and the retention of this could be secured by condition in the event of approval. The design of the dwelling also responds to the orientation of the building with regard to the potential of over-heating by including in the design an extended roof canopy which would help to limit excessive solar gain. A number of neighbour objections were received, some of whom raised concerns over the appearance and contemporary design of the proposed dwelling on plot 2 and were concerned that the proposed new dwelling was not in-keeping with the existing properties along Bluehayes Lane. Another neighbour objection raised concerns over the impact plot 2 would have on the access pathway to Greenacres, making it a dark narrow corridor. In assessing the design it is noted that the proposed dwelling takes on a modern design, which is low key and uses a number of natural materials which responds well

Agenda page 95

18/0789/FUL

with the local context. There is a variety of dwelling styles and sizes seen on the lane, and it is clear that there is no distinctive character for Bluehayes. In assessing the proposal, it is considered that the new dwelling responds well to its environment and positively compliments the surrounding historic fabric of Bluehayes lane in accordance with Policy D1 (design and local distinctiveness) of the East Devon Local Plan. The objections raised on design and appearance of the proposed dwelling are noted, however, it is not considered that the proposed dwelling would impact adversely on the character and appearance in which a refusal on those grounds could be supported. In considering the specific relationship with the walled garden and entrance to Greenacres, it is recognised that the proposals involve a new rustic brick wall to run along the northern boundary of the site following the line of the estate railings and mirroring the historic brick walled garden directly to the north. The wall is 2.3 metres in height that is connected by a sloped tiled roof linking to the main building which is approx. 3.8 metres in height. The main building is set back from the access path that serves Greenacres and is approx. 7.5 metres from the existing wall of the walled garden. The bulk is therefore set back from the access pathway to Greenacres and the gradual transition of heights helps to reduce the overall mass on the pathway and to limit the potential harm. The neighbour objections are noted, however it is considered that the acceptable distance between the existing wall and the new proposed brick boundary wall for plot 2 in addition to the low level tiled and flat roof design of the dwelling would not cause adverse harm where a refusal could be supported. The annotation on the proposed plans state that the new boundary wall will be "rustic". In order to secure appropriate materials to be used which respond and reflect the existing walled garden, a condition could be imposed if the application were to be approved. Neighbouring Amenity This section of the report assesses the proposed development in respect of its potential impact on neighbouring amenity and again addresses each plot separately. Plot 1 A number of objections were received from neighbouring properties which raised concerns over the provision of a new footpath across Bluehayes Lane to connect the western expansion of Cranbrook with phase 1. The main concerns raised by neighbouring residents were on the creation of the footpath over site 1, providing an east to west link. The comments received evidence the nervousness felt by the residents over the impact the footpath would have on the rural character of the lane. It is acknowledged that Bluehayes Lane has a distinct character, particularly when considered in light of its proximity to Cranbrook. However, the proximity of the lane to Cranbrook and the allocated area for expansion immediately to the west means that

Agenda page 96

18/0789/FUL

the future identified strategic development will have something of an inevitable encompassing effect. Without the footpath, any future occupiers of the proposed properties (and those existing properties on the lane) would have to walk to the bottom of the lane, along the B3174 (via an existing footway) and then back into Cranbrook to access the local services and facilities within the neighbourhood centre. Whilst the route is just below 1000m (which is considered to be a 10 minute walk), it may not be attractive to the pedestrian or cyclist and could increase the desire/need to use the car to access local services and facilities. An existing green lane runs parallel to Bluehayes Lane and leads from Phase 1 (parcel 1 TW) into Phase 1 Country Park, adjoining the new footpaths that have been created throughout the park, finally linking to Cranbrook train station. The approved plans for phase 1 of Cranbrook do not indicate any physical links from this green lane into Bluehayes Lane. At the time of writing this report, the green lane has not been brought into use although this is still expected. Whilst the delivery of this green lane would be a valuable asset to the community of Cranbrook as it allows for a more direct south to north link, it is considered that additional links for the town still need to be pursued in order to make Cranbrook a well-connected, walkable town. It is also acknowledged that there are limited links currently connecting east to west for Cranbrook, and its future expansion. As a result opportunities to strengthen the movement of people around and through the town (other by the car) are welcomed. Importantly Cranbrook is recognised nationally as a 'Healthy New Town' under a current NHS pilot and is also part of a Sport England local delivery pilot aiming to tackle inactivity. It is therefore important that in all new applications for development in and around Cranbrook, priority is given to promote healthy lifestyle choices. A number of objections have been received which raised concerns over the creation of the new path. Comments stated how opening the private lane up to the public would increase antisocial behaviour in the area and change the whole dynamic of the lane itself. Due to the close relationship Bluehayes Lane has with the new town of Cranbrook, it is inevitable that there will be some impact on the lane. However, it is important that through appropriate planning, there are a number of benefits for the residents of Bluehayes Lane instead of negative impacts. It is considered that the creation of the footpath would be one of them. It is acknowledged that the Bluehayes Lane is within private ownership and therefore if any pedestrian/cyclist were to veer off the new pathway onto the private lane then it would be classed as trespassing. The likelihood of this occurring could be reduced through appropriate path and junction design and if necessary the introduction of signage.

Agenda page 97

18/0789/FUL

Plot 2 During the course of the planning application, negotiations have taken place with applicant which has resulted in a number of amendments to plot 2. Originally the west elevation of the proposed property showed a number of glazed windows serving the living room, and a full height window serving the kitchen. Concerns over impact on privacy and over-looking were raised with the applicant and the full height window serving the kitchen area was removed and replaced with a high level window only. 3 number glazed windows serving the living room were also removed, and a privacy screen was added to the external terrace area. Is it understood that the applicant wanted to allow for evening sunlight into the living room area so one clear glazed panel remains but this is not considered to cause any adverse harm due to the extension of the screen in front of the window. This approach continues to ensure privacy and could be retained in perpetuity with the addition of a condition in the event of an approval. Whilst it is considered that there will be some impact on neighbouring amenity from the development of the two dwellings, both dwellings have been designed to a high standard that reflect the surrounding character and appearance of the lane and the neighbouring properties. Both plots fit comfortably on their site to make best use of the land available. In order to ensure that adequate consideration is taken during the construction phase of both dwellings a condition requiring the submission of a Construction, Environment and Management Plan (CEMP) would be imposed if the application were to be approved. Ecology and Trees The application sites are situated within the area that is identified as forming part of the Clyst Valley Regional Park, as recognised under Strategy 10 of the adopted East Devon Local Plan. It is understood from EDDC's Green Infrastructure Officer, that the sites have been included in the allocation due to their ecological merit and the local importance that this green corridor has. All trees along the northern section of Bluehayes Lane have a tree preservation order (TPO) on them. A tree survey was submitted as part of the planning application which looks at both plot 1 and plot 2. In line with the report, the proposals for the location of the dwellings are outside of any root protection area of the trees. Plot 1 The proposal seeks to retain the existing trees on site, by making sure that the footprint of the proposed property is located outside of the root protection zone.

Agenda page 98

18/0789/FUL

As explained within the planning history and background section of the report, the previous application (16/3026/OUT) submitted for plot 1 sought permission for 2 number dwellings. The application was withdrawn by the applicant due in part to the concerns that were expressed about harm to retained trees. The reduction of the proposal to one dwelling in this location instead of two, has allowed the building to be better designed with regard to the existing TPOs so that the dwelling now fits more comfortably on the site. The current application originally showed the footpath with two arms, one of which went through a RPA. The proposal was amended to include only the one arm of the footpath which is outside of the RPA and does not cause the existing trees any harm. The veteran oak (labelled as T4) which is adjacent to the new footpath is seen as an important element in helping to create an area of open space which can be allowed to develop into and be managed as an ecotone centred on the Oak. The retention and longer term management of this Oak and "open space area" as discussed will need to be secured via a section 106 agreement. The proposed layout plan does not provide a clear, distinguishable boundary between what would be the domestic curtilage of the dwelling, and therefore further details should be provided that clearly show the curtilage of the dwelling house and also the material for the boundary treatments. These details could secured by condition if the application is supported. Plot 2 The southern part of the plot has various important mature trees which continue to provide the wildlife and biodiversity corridor that is recognised by Strategy 10. Plot 2 is located at the northern corner of the site, out of the root protection areas of the existing trees. The position of the dwelling has allowed a "view" corridor to be established when looking through the site into the neighbouring field, where an existing veteran oak tree stands. This not only helps to protect and enhance the landscape features but also creates a green corridor for wildlife to continue to establish. A number of objections have been received from neighbours who are concerned over the long term survival of the trees and the impact the proposed new dwelling would have on such trees and wildlife found within the area. In addition to the submission of a tree report for this site, an ecological survey was also submitted which was prepared by Green Ecology which proposes a number of mitigation measures such as bat and bird boxes to be placed on the dwelling which would limit the development's harm on the surrounding wildlife. Negotiations have taken place with the applicant, following the tree officers concerns and has resulted in a number of amendments to the proposed scheme for plot 2, one of which being the re-positioning of the proposed garage which once clashed with a

Agenda page 99

18/0789/FUL

RPA of one of the trees to the south. The re-positioning of the garage has led to the removal of two number trees (T6 and T7) which were considered to be of a low quality and is considered acceptable. In order to ensure that no further development associated with this house could occur to the south, and to protect that the RPA's of the retained trees in the future, a condition removing Permitted Development rights for extensions and outbuildings would need to be imposed if the application were to be approved. As the report has explained within the "access" section, it has been brought to Officer's attention that the residents of Greenacres have a right to pass by foot across the paddock site. Whilst this is a private matter and not a planning consideration, the matter was discussed with the applicant who amended the scheme to show a separated domestic garden area for the future occupier and left over "open space" which could still allow for the right of access. No further details have been provided to show the exact location of the garden boundary or the materials which would be used to form such a boundary. It has been suggested that railings which match the existing parkland railings around the entirety of the paddock site could be used but such details could be finalised by condition if the application were to be approved. Habitats Regulation Assessment and Appropriate Assessment The nature of this application and its location close to both the Pebblebed Heaths and Exe Estuary and their European Habitat designations is such that the proposal requires a Habitat Regulations Assessment. This section of the report forms the Appropriate Assessment required as a result of the Habitat Regulations Assessment and Likely Significant Effects from the proposal. In partnership with Natural England, the council and its neighbouring authorities of Exeter City Council and Teignbridge District Council have determined that housing and tourist accommodation developments in their areas will in-combination have a detrimental impact on both the Exe Estuary and Pebblebed Heaths through impacts from recreational use. The impacts are highest from developments within 10 kilometres of these designations. It is therefore essential that mitigation is secured to make such developments permissible. This mitigation, which has been identified through the South East Devon European Mitigation Strategy prepared by Footprint Ecology and their related work, is secured via a combination of funding from the Community Infrastructure Levy and contributions collected from residential developments within 10km of the designations. This development will be CIL liable and the financial contribution has been secured. On this basis, and as the joint authorities are working in partnership to deliver the required mitigation in accordance with the South-East Devon European Site Mitigation Strategy, this proposal will not give rise to likely significant effects. Drainage The drainage proposals for plot one and two are the same whereby they propose a soakaway to deal with the surface water drainage and a cesspool to deal with the foul.

Agenda page 100

18/0789/FUL

The proposed scheme to deal with the surface water consists of a crate soakaway with herringbone 110mm land drains encased in 300mm depth of 10mm pea gravel. Infiltration rates have been tested and have demonstrated that the proposed drainage strategy for surface water run off can be achieved for both plots 1 and 2. With respect to foul drainage, it is understood that this area is not connected to the existing mains foul drainage system and therefore the proposal involves a non-mains drainage solution for foul drainage. A package treatment plant was initially proposed to deal with the foul sewage, in accordance with the guidance as set out in the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG). The NPPG encourages a hierarchy of foul drainage options to be considered in the following order: 1. Connection to public sewer; 2. Package treatment plant; 3. Septic tank; 4. If none are feasible a cesspool. In relation to plot 2, an objection from a neighbour highlighted the close proximity (within 50m) of an existing well in the garden of the neighbouring property called "Greenacres". Concerns were also raised about the proximity of the foul drainage fields for plot 1 to existing properties. As a result of the neighbouring objections, the foul drainage proposals were subsequently changed to a cesspool. These are proposed away from TPO trees. It is acknowledged that whilst a cesspool is the least favoured/sustainable option, due to the known potable water supply that is within 50m, it is not possible to provide a treatment plant or septic tank. Therefore the only option available to deal with the foul drainage for both sites are a cesspool. Government guidance requires that all ceespools have a minimum capacity of 18,000 litres per 2 users (plus another 6,800 litres per each extra user). No further details of each of the cesspools proposed have been provided to support the application, and therefore no assessment can be made against the national guidance as set out above. Neighbour comments have raised an issue regarding the emptying of the cesspool and the impact a tanker would have on the lane. It is considered that the size of the tanker is likely to be appropriate to the access conditions and would therefore not create any adverse harm to the amenity, particularly when having regard to the relatively infrequent emptying regime (approximately monthly). This is ultimately a matter between the developer and the future owner to resolve. Whilst the site is not connected to mains drainage at the current point in time, it is acknowledged that at a later point in the future the point of connection for the mains drainage may be closer (once the western expansion of Cranbrook is built out). In such an eventuality the applicant/ home owner is advised to look into removing the cesspool and connecting to the mains drainage.

Agenda page 101

18/0789/FUL

CONCLUSION Whilst the site in planning policy terms is situated within the open countryside, it is acknowledged that it is bounded by the new town of Cranbrook to the north, east and west and therefore acts as a small pocket of potential in-fill development. Noting the reasonable access that can already be obtained for a range of services and facilities (including bus stops) and the lack of any other substantive issues against which the development would fair negatively it is considered that the proposal would accord with the overarching principle of delivering sustainable development as set out in Strategy 3 of the Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework. The creation of the footpath link from east to west is considered to meet with the objectives of Strategy 10 (Green Infrastructure in East Devon's West End), by enhancing the cycling and walking opportunities to link habitats and sustainable movement networks. Impacts upon the privacy and amenity of neighbouring properties and the character of Bluehayes Lane, including the impact on protected trees have been addressed. On balance, given the lack of harm from the proposal and benefits from the footpath link, the application is recommended for approval. RECOMMENDATIONS

1. That the Habitat Regulations Appropriate Assessment within the Committee Report be adopted; and

2. That the application be APPROVED subject to a S.106 agreement to secure the a footpath link and its future management and subject to the following conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three




approved plans listed at the end of this decision notice. (Reason - For the avoidance of doubt.) 3. TPP/ AMS Prior to the commencement of any works on site (including demolition and site

clearance or tree works),a Tree Protection Plan (TPP) and an Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) for the protection of all retained trees, hedges and shrubs, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 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

Agenda page 102

18/0789/FUL

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 of the inspection and any necessary actions; all variations or departures from the approved details and any resultant remedial action or mitigation measures. Within three calendar months of the completion of the development, the completed site monitoring log shall be signed off by the supervising arboriculturalist and submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval and final discharge of the condition.

(Reason - To ensure retention and protection of trees on the site during and after construction 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 and D3 - Trees and Development Sites of the Adopted New East Devon Local Plan 2016.)

4. Construction Specification / Method Statement Prior to the commencement of any works in relation to plot 2 (the paddock) a

detailed Construction Specification and Method Statement for construction of the driveway shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These shall accord with the principles of BS 5837:2012 and provide for the long term retention of the trees; will detail the means by which damage to the roots of any retained trees is to be avoided and if unavoidable, any necessary root severance and soil disturbance is minimised by providing a specification for root pruning in accordance with BS 3998: 2010. No development or other operations for the construction of the driveway of plot 2 shall take place except in complete accordance with the approved Construction Specification and Method Statement.

(Reason: Details are required at the earliest opportunity to ensure the continued

wellbeing of retained trees in the interests of the amenity of the locality in accordance with Policy D3 (Trees and Development Sites) of the adopted East Devon Local Plan).

5. Materials No development shall begin on site until a schedule of materials and finishes

including samples if requested by the Local Planning Authority, for all buildings, hard landscaping and boundary materials, including all materials and finishes to be used for the external walls and roofs of the proposed dwelling houses, hard landscaping, and surface finishes, in addition to boundary treatments, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The 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 adopted East Devon Local Plan).

Agenda page 103

18/0789/FUL

6. No development shall begin until details of the cesspools necessary for the development have been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Each dwelling hereby permitted shall not be first occupied until the cess pool appropriate for that property has been fully installed in accordance with the agreed details.

(Reason - to ensure that foul sewage is acceptably dealt with in accordance

with Policy EN19 (Adequacy of Foul Sewers and Adequacy of Sewerage Treatment) and EN14 (Control of Pollution) of the adopted east Devon Local Plan

7. No development above foundation level shall take place until a landscaping

scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; such a scheme to include the planting of trees, hedges, shrubs, herbaceous plants and areas to be grassed. The scheme shall also give details of any proposed walls, fences and other boundary treatment. The landscaping scheme shall be carried out in the first planting season after commencement of the development unless any alternative phasing of the landscaping is agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the landscaping 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 - To ensure that the details are planned and considered at an early

stage 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 and D2 - Landscape Requirements of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

8. Prior to the first occupation of Plot 2, boundary fencing for the garden of this

plot shall have been installed in accordance with details which shall previously have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. In submitting details for approval, evidence shall have been provided to demonstrate that the fencing can be installed without adversely affecting the roots of protected trees which lie within the vicinity of the proposed boundary.

(Reason - In the interests of the protection of the existing trees in accordance

with Policy D2 (landscape requirements) and D3 (Trees and Development Sites) of the adopted East Devon Local Plan.

9. Prior to the first occupation of the dwelling hereby approved and identified as

plot 2 (located in the paddock site), the privacy screen as detailed on plan 1227 02 C received by EDDC on the 21.11.2018, shall be erected. Thereafter the screen shall be maintained and retained in perpetuity.

(Reason - In the interests of amenity in accordance with Policy D1 (Design and

Local Distinctiveness) of the adopted East Devon Local Plan.)

Agenda page 104

18/0789/FUL

10. Permitted Development Removal In respect of plot 2 only and Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and

Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modifications) no enlargement, improvement or other alteration (including the insertion of windows, doors and dormer windows); construction of hard surfaces; or installation of gates, fences and walls which would otherwise be permitted by Schedule 2: Part 1 Class A (The enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse) Class F (Hard surfaces incidental to the enjoyment of a dwellinghouse), Class E – (buildings etc incidental to the enjoyment of a dwellinghouse) and Part 2 (Minor operations) Class A (gates, fences, walls etc) shall take place without the Local Planning Authority first granting planning permission.

(Reason -To retain sufficient privacy and amenity for the neighbouring property

Greenacres to the west and to ensure sufficient protection of the existing trees to the south of the plot, in accordance with policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and Policy D3 (Trees and Development Sites) of the East Devon Local Plan.

NOTE FOR APPLICANT Informative: In accordance with the requirements of Article 35 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 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: 1227 03 Rev C (plot 1) drainage plan


1227 04 Rev C (plot 2) drainage plan


1227 02 C Proposed Combined

Plans 21.11.18

00 C Location Plan 18.07.18

1227 01 C Proposed Combined

Plans 11.10.18

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

Agenda page 105



Applicant Mr Simon Ashdown

Location Potters Country Market West Hill Road West Hill Ottery St Mary EX11 1TY

Proposal Demolition of the existing single storey buildings at the rear, erection of rear and roof level extensions to facilitate the introduction of 8 x 2 bedroom apartments, retention of ground floor shop, estate agents and cafe anddedicated vehicle parking and servicing

RECOMMENDATION: 1. That the Habitat Regulations Appropriate Assessment within the report be adopted; 2. That the application be APPROVED subject to a S106 agreement to secure an affordable housing contribution of £12,210 and overage capped at £178,768.


Agenda page 106

Agenda Item 11

18/1064/FUL


Ottery St Mary Rural (WEST HILL)

18/1064/FUL


Applicant: Mr Simon Ashdown

Location: Potters Country Market West Hill Road

Proposal: Demolition of the existing single storey buildings at the rear, erection of rear and roof level extensions to facilitate the introduction of 8 x 2 bedroom apartments, retention of ground floor shop, estate agents and cafe and dedicated vehicle parking and servicing

RECOMMENDATION: 1. That the Habitat Regulations Appropriate Assessment within the report be adopted; 2. That the application be APPROVED subject to a S106 agreement to secure an affordable housing contribution of £12,210 and overage capped at £178,768.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application is before Members as the officer recommendation differs to the view of a Ward Member. This is an application to redevelop the existing village shops at West Hill, retaining the shops and post office, but proposing 8 apartments on two floors above. The proposal updates the current frontage and adds height, including a pitched roof. Some accommodation is to be removed and a marketing exercise has been carried out which demonstrates that not all of the current commercial space is viable. The new building will be higher than at present, however it is considered that this will become a focal building for this part of West Hill and would not impact on neighbouring amenity due to the building’s location on the road and distances from residential dwellings. Sufficient parking will be provided for the residents of the flats, and for visitors to the shops. Due to the number of apartments proposed, affordable housing is required. It is accepted that this should take the form of a financial contribution, rather than provision on site. The applicant has provided viability analysis which states that the full amount cannot be provided if the development is to be successful and as

Agenda page 107

18/1064/FUL

such a contribution of £12,210 has been offered. This offer is also subject to an overage clause requiring the developer to submit a development account on completion, with part of any uplift in profit going to the Council. Subject to signing of a legal agreement for the above amount, and subject to conditions requiring the laying out of parking, provision of a new path and landscaping conditions the proposal is considered to be acceptable.

CONSULTATIONS Local Consultations Ottery St Mary Rural - Cllr P Carter In principle I would like to see this site developed, unfortunately I feel along with the Parish Council, West Hill Primary and preschools, West Hill Village Hall and a majority of the local community I have been discussing this application with have concerns over the lack of proposed car parking would lead to considerable Health and Safety implications for all users including deliveries to the site and pedestrians. I would like to see further reviews on the considerable impact of the proposed parking and also the street scene design of the new proposed building, I feel this design leaves a lot to be desired for our lovely woodland village, something far more in keeping would be more favourable. I look forward to further discussions and reviews of this application. Clerk To West Hill Parish Council 08/06/18 - West Hill Parish Council strongly supports the principle of redevelopment of the site, but is unable to support the application in its present form The site is located in a prominent position in the centre of West Hill, housing a shop, Post Office, estate agent, unused office facilities and a space with planning permission for a café. It is of vital importance to West Hill, which has few other amenities, and is registered as an Asset of Community Value (retail). The parish council welcomes the redevelopment initiative and accepts that a partial change of use to residential is probably necessary and therefore acceptable, in order to fund the redevelopment of the other parts. However in its present form, the council has concluded that it is unable to support the application. West Hill is a tranquil, rural village of almost 900 homes. It is unusual in being heavily wooded and accommodation is mainly detached houses, the majority with large secluded gardens. The site occupies a prominent position on a slope in the centre of the village. The proposed development involves draping an unattractive, flat roofed 1970 era building with a new shell and adding an additional storey to accommodate 8 apartments. The associated poor quality outbuilding (former cowshed) will be demolished.

Agenda page 108

18/1064/FUL

The scale and appearance of the new shell is completely out of keeping with a rural, woodland village being more suited to an urban environment. The wall to the northeast towers above the car park as the site slopes in that direction, presenting a 26m x 14m urban backdrop to the centre of the village. The majority of users of the current facilities travel by car. Whilst there are no parking standards for non-residential development, the proposed reduction of available parking spaces from 45 to 19 is of concern from a road safety viewpoint. The café (which the proposed operator indicated could have 40-50 covers) and the shop, which is apparently to be upgraded, are likely to increase demand for parking in the village centre which is already one of the largest safety concerns of residents. The council would expect the provision of disabled and perhaps parent and child spaces and this will only exacerbate the problem. The council would expect a café of this size to require 12-15 spaces including staff, 1-2 for the estate agent, and a further 12-15 for shop staff and customers suggesting a realistic allocation of around 28-30 spaces. Whilst the designation of vehicle and pedestrian routes within the car park is laudable, the potential for problems in a much restricted car park are serious. There is also potential for clashes between residents and the public if short cuts are taken through residents parking areas. On road parking is not an option as it is either prohibited (West Hill Road) or unsafe elsewhere, as highlighted in the council's Public Realm Survey. The applicant did take note of a community suggestion for access between Beech Park (where there is an established exit to the car park) and West Hill Rd and has incorporated a permissive path along the southwest boundary. However, given that the principal users are likely to be people with small children going to and from the school with buggies, scooters etc, and the incorporation of steps in what appears to be an already narrow walkway is unacceptable. The question of housing need is important. West Hill has expanded by 10% in recent years. There are sufficient extant planning consents to meet projected housing needs until 2031. No evidence is given for the need for 2 bedroom apartments. Anecdotal evidence from A P Marney, stated by the applicant to be associated with Hall & Scott, a local estate agent, has been treated with caution in view of a conflict of interest as they occupy a ground floor office in the development. The applicant claims that there is demand from young people, young families and older people wishing to downsize although no evidence is given. The applicant has not included any affordable element from which it can be inferred that the likely prices will be unaffordable to first time buyers. The council believes that young families are likely to be discouraged by the small size, lack of storage space, lack of a lift and nowhere to dry washing or for children to play. West Hill residents wishing to downsize have said they would be reluctant to buy an apartment above a shop with no lift and no outside space. Planning policy for West Hill is only required to support local needs.

Agenda page 109

18/1064/FUL

The permanent loss of the additional retail/commercial space on the first floor is regrettable in view of the CAV status of the building. It is unsurprising that there was little interest from potential tenants given its neglected state. Little attempt has been made to integrate the external parts of the scheme with the wishes of the community for a more coherent village hub. The West Hill Public Realm study was made available to the applicant, albeit at short notice, but much more could be done to improve the landscaping and to work with the parish council and the community to create that village centre the community needs. It has already been noted that there is no provision of affordable housing. The applicant has stated that the required payment in lieu, of £178,000, would render the scheme uneconomic. The council has seen no evidence for this. However, in view of the importance of the site to the community, being an Asset of Community Value, and the lack of any real benefit to the community from the scheme which in fact impairs that value, the council does not feel that any reduction in this levy should be accepted and that the proposal should be amended in such a way that the required levy can be satisfied. The council is concerned about disruption during the construction phase which could render the cark park almost unusable and create traffic hazards in adjacent roads. A well considered construction management plan is essential. In summary, the site is unique in West Hill and the proposals do little to enhance the site or reflect its critical influence on the character of the centre of the village. Although we accept that a retail building may be larger than a residential building, a three storey development will be too dominant especially as seen from the east or north. The building will dominate and overlook the neighbour to the south and we feel that the obscure glazing to the bedroom, which emphasises this point, is undesirable and likely to be unacceptable to a prospective buyer. There is also a concern over the balconies to the southeast elevation, which overlook the principal route through the village. The second storey balconies have now been reduced to Juliet style and the council would like the remainder to follow suit. West Hill has expanded by 10% in the last few years fulfilling its Local Plan requirements and there is no substantive evidence given of the need for flats in the village. The remaining non residential parking arrangements are inadequate and are likely to be detrimental to road safety. We consider that the design places the café in the least desirable position and in consequence will be less likely to provide the central hub that so many residents would like to see. The scheme is purely speculative development, radically changing the use of a registered Asset of Community Value. It provides little benefit to the environment or the community. The council would welcome the opportunity to engage properly with

Agenda page 110

18/1064/FUL

the developers to produce a scheme which will create a real sense of place with an attractive atmosphere of which the developers and the village can be proud. Such a solution would inevitably be more advantageous for the developer. It will need to address traffic issues, the scale of the building, a sense of place in the centre of the village. The present proposals have been confined by the existing layout of the shop and the requirement to keep it open throughout the build. Construction will virtually close the existing car park and although access might be retained the work will severely limit trade. We emphasise that there is no evidence of need and conclude that the present proposals should not be approved because of their effects on the rural, village environment due to massing, inappropriate appearance, overlooking, inadequate parking arrangements and the loss of first floor retail/commercial properties. Further comments - 09/08/18 This application was considered by West Hill Parish Council at the meeting on 7th August 2018. Councillors commented that the proposed amendments are very minor and do not substantially alter the overall development. However, they welcomed the addition of the ramp on the access path and agreed that it was an improvement over the previous design, which had steps, as it would facilitate use by parents with pushchairs. Councillors voted to not support the application in its present form and referred back to their comments on the original plans. They welcome the addition of the ramp but have nothing to add to their previous comments. Further comments - 12/11/18 I refer to the email sent to Andrew Digby from Murray Ross at Avalon Planning on 18th September. Attached to the email was a briefing note prepared on behalf of the applicants to brief Councillors on the Development Control Committee. Paragraph 4 of the briefing note states "Since submission, the applicants have continued to work closely with the Council Planning Officers, together with the Parish Council. Accordingly a number of alterations have been made to the scheme to address those key concerns, including the addition of an accessible side access route for pedestrians, the inclusion of further landscaping and amendments to the design of the rear elevation." And further within the document: "The applicants feel that they have carried out sufficient engagement with the local community and Parish Council, indeed the public consultation event... demonstrated that there is a lot of support for the scheme from local residents." West Hill Parish Councillors discussed this briefing note at their meeting on Tuesday 6th November and resolved to instruct me to write to you to set the record straight. Councillors are concerned that the briefing note has put an unnecessarily positive spin on the consultation outcome. Indeed, the Parish Council wrote to Murray Ross on 11th June 2018, informing him of the consultee comments about to be submitted. The letter clearly states that the Parish Council is not supporting the application "as it stands" and also offers an opportunity for a further meeting to discuss "suggestions for improvement in more detail." Sadly the Council's offer was not taken up. That is why

Agenda page 111

18/1064/FUL

Councillors were surprised by the implication of continued close working and "sufficient engagement". Councillors have always maintained that the applicants could have done more to engage with the Parish Council's/residents' concerns. Apart from the addition of the side access route, Councillors are struggling to see what alterations were made to the scheme to address key concerns. As the application is still awaiting a decision, I trust you will take these remarks into consideration and correct the impression given by the applicants that they have continued to work closely with the Parish Council and done as much as they could to address key concerns - they have not. And the Parish Council is still opposed to the proposal in its current form. Technical Consultations Housing Strategy Officer Melissa Wall Consultee response: Government guidance states that provision and contributions in the form of a commuted sum for affordable housing should not be sought from developments of 10 units or less. In designated rural areas, of which West Hill applies (SI 1981/397), there is a threshold of 5 units or less where no affordable housing or tariff-style contributions should be sought. For developments of between 6 and 10 units in rural areas, and which have a maximum combined gross floor space of no more than 1,000 sq m, a tariff style contributions should be sought in the form of cash payments which are commuted until after the completion of the units. The proposal for this scheme is for 8 units and therefore a contribution towards affordable housing will be required. We will be seeking a contribution of £178,768 towards affordable housing. However we understand that the applicant is claiming that vacant building credit should be applied. Guidance states that where there is an overall increase in floor space in the proposed development, the local planning authority should calculate the amount of affordable housing contributions required from the development as set out in their Local Plan. A 'credit' should then be applied which is the equivalent of the gross floor space of any relevant vacant buildings being brought back into use or demolished as part of the scheme and deducted from the overall affordable housing contribution calculation. This will apply in calculating either the number of affordable housing units to be provided within the development or where an equivalent financial contribution is being provided. Potters Country Market was marketed by Altitude Investments as a retail investment with development potential seeking offers in excess of £925,000. The Affordable Housing Financial Viability Analysis produced by S106 Management states that the property was subsequently bought by their client. Strategic Planning Committee (20 February 2017) resolved that Vacant Building Credit (VBC) will be considered on a case by case basis and that, other than in exceptional circumstances, the following criteria shall be applied: o VBC will only be granted where it would help to secure the redevelopment of vacant brown-field land or buildings

Agenda page 112

18/1064/FUL

o VBC will not be granted where land has been purchased for redevelopment and a 'vacant' period of time is a normal part of the development process o VBC will not be applied when the 'vacant' period is a policy requirement for demonstrating the land is no longer required for its current use It could be suggested that the owners bought the property with the intention of redeveloping the upper floors. The planning officer will make a decision on whether VBC should be applied in this case. If it is agreed that it should be applied then this will reduce the contribution amount. The applicants have submitted a viability report claiming that the commuted sum payment would render the scheme unviable. The viability evidence will be independently reviewed and a recommendation made. An overage clause will be sought in respect of future profits and affordable housing provision, where levels of affordable housing fall below policy targets. Environmental Health I have considered this application and recommend that the following conditions are attached to any permission granted. Before the development commences a scheme for the provision of internal sound insulation, to include party walls, floors and ceilings, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the agreed scheme shall be completed prior to the commencement of the use hereby permitted. Reason : To protect adjoining occupiers from excessive noise. 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, and no deliveries to and from the site outside the above hours of working. Reason: To protect the amenities of existing and future residents in the vicinity of the site from noise, air, water and light pollution. No deliveries to the shop or cafe shall be accepted or despatched to or from the site except between the hours of 07.30 and 18.00 Monday to Friday, or 07.30 and 18.00 on Saturdays, and not at all on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Reason: To protect the amenities of local residents from noise. Any plant (including ventilation, refrigeration and air conditioning units) or ducting system to be used in pursuance of this permission shall be so installed prior to the first use of the premises and be so retained and operated that the noise generated at the boundary of the nearest neighbouring property shall not exceed Noise Rating Curve 25, as defined in BS8233:2014 Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction for Buildings Code of Practice and the Chartered Institute of Building Service Engineers

Agenda page 113

18/1064/FUL

Environmental Design Guide. Details of the scheme shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the first use of the premises. Reason: To protect the amenity of local residents from noise. County Highway Authority Observations: The site is based on the C809, West Hill Road, at the centre of the village. The proposed apartments will be serviced by a dedicated parking space each and the shared use of 10 other spaces which I believe will be satisfactory for the accommodation requirements as a whole. Though I appreciate that this will take up space within the stores car park, which has been utilised for the school and other village use, no formal agreement as been put in place and this understanding has only been through the kindness of the store. Therefore the proposal may see an increase in on-street car parking, however, Beech Road has unrestricted parking, not including junctions and therefore is open to parking from any vehicle. The access is to remain the same and the apartments have cycle parking to encourage sustainable travel. Overall, the County Highway Authority (CHA) would not like to raise an objection to this planning application. Recommendation: THE HEAD OF PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENT, ON BEHALF OF DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL, AS LOCAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY, HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Other Representations 7 objections and one representation have been received. They raise the following concerns:

• Overspill parking would be hazardous to highway safety • It would cause increased noise and traffic in Beech Park • It would be a danger to school children • The car park would have insufficient space for delivery vehicles • The building would be too tall and out of character • It would be overbearing and overlook surrounding properties • The scheme would not provide the required level of affordable housing

contribution POLICIES Ottery St Mary and West Hill Neighbourhood (Made) Policy NP2 (Sensitive, High Quality Design) Policy NP3 (Infill, Backland and Residential Garden Development) Policy NP8: Protection of Local Wildlife Sites and Features of Ecological Value Policy NP12: Appropriate Housing Mix

Agenda page 114

18/1064/FUL

Policy NP14: Demonstrating Infrastructure Capacity Policy NP17: Community Facilities of Value Policy NP26: West Hill Design Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 Policies Strategy 5B (Sustainable Transport) Strategy 6 (Development within Built-up Area Boundaries) Strategy 27 (Development at the Small Towns and Larger Villages) Strategy 32 (Resisting Loss of Employment, Retail and Community Sites and Buildings) Strategy 34 (District Wide Affordable Housing Provision Targets) Strategy 43 (Open Space Standards) Strategy 47 (Nature Conservation and Geology) Strategy 48 (Local Distinctiveness in the Built Environment) Strategy 50 (Infrastructure Delivery) D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) D2 (Landscape Requirements) D3 (Trees and Development Sites) EN19 (Adequacy of Foul Sewers and Adequacy of Sewage Treatment System) EN22 (Surface Run-Off Implications of New Development) H3 (Conversion of Existing Dwellings and Other Buildings to Flats) TC2 (Accessibility of New Development) TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) TC9 (Parking Provision in New Development) Government Planning Documents NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework 2018) National Planning Practice Guidance Site Location and Description The site is in the centre of West Hill and is occupied by a two storey commercial building and car park. The lower floors are occupied by the village shop and an estate

Agenda page 115

18/1064/FUL

agent, while one unit remains empty. The upper floor has been vacant for a considerable time. On two side of the building there is a large car park and there is vegetation on the boundaries. The site is surrounded by residential properties although most are separated by roads or the car park. Proposal Planning permission is sought for the creation of eight flats over two floors on top of the ground floor commercial premises. The middle level of the building would use and extend the existing first floor to provide four flats and an additional storey would be added to provide a further four. Externally the elevations would be updated and a pitched roof would be added. At the rear of the building a single storey store room would be demolished and the main building would be extended to accommodate stairs to all levels as well as bin and bicycle stores on the ground floor. The commercial premises would remain. A range of materials are proposed including fibre cement roof tiles and standing seam membrane for the roof, through colour rough render, timber-effect weatherboarding and grey weather goods. ANALYSIS Principle of development The development plan for West Hill is the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 (EDLP) and the Neighbourhood Plan for the Parishes of Ottery St Mary and West Hill 2017-2031 (NP). West Hill is identified in Strategy 27 of the EDLP as a village which offers a range of accessible services and facilities to meet many of the everyday needs of local residents, including access to public transport. The Villages Plan defines a Built-up Area Boundary for the village within which development is acceptable in principle in accordance with Strategy 6. The site lies within the boundary and therefore the provision of flats in this location is acceptable in principle and further supported by Neighbourhood Plan Policy NP12 (Appropriate Housing Mix) which encourages the provision of smaller 1 and 2 bed homes. Notwithstanding the support for new homes in this location, the provision of flats through the conversion and extension of the upper floor of the building will result in the loss of a number of small business units. However, the premises have been marketed for commercial uses for a significant amount of time without success and therefore it is accepted that the requirements of Strategy 32 that allows such losses following an unsuccessful period of marketing, are met. Although the building is an Asset of Community Value, this does not prevent the owner from seeing and securing planning permission for its re-development. It simply provides a period of time for the community to bid to purchase the building.

Agenda page 116

18/1064/FUL

Character and Appearance The next main issue to consider is whether the development would be compatible with the character of the site and its surroundings. The improvements to the external appearance of the building are welcomed, particularly as the building is so prominent and now somewhat dated. It is noted, however, that increasing the height of the building by way of an additional storey and a pitched roof would result in a scale of development which would be at odds with the one and two-storey pattern of development which is typical in the village. Furthermore, design principle B1 in the Neighbourhood Plan states "The design of new or extended buildings must not be significantly different from those of nearby dwellings in respect of both eaves and ridge height." The Parish Council has commented: "The scale and appearance of the new shell is completely out of keeping with a rural, woodland village being more suited to an urban environment. The wall to the northeast towers above the car park as the site slopes in that direction, presenting a 26m x 14m urban backdrop to the centre of the village." While it is accepted that the building would be more dominant as a result of the additions and alterations, the northwest wall would only be about 75cm taller than the existing wall. The main additional bulk of the building would be in the pitched roof as well as the rear extensions. These elements would be recessed when viewed from West Hill Road and this is illustrated in the computer generated image on page 8 of the Design and Access Statement. The design principles are clearly relevant to private residential development which makes up the bulk of development within the village. Application of these principles ensures that new development is in harmony with its surroundings. The same outcome should also be achieved on this site but the public nature of the building and its status as a focal point for the village means that the scheme should not be dismissed simply because it is taller than most other buildings in the village. In this particular location the topography of the surrounding land, the position of the nearest dwellings and the status of the building as a focal point justify departing from the design principles. It is accepted that the building would appear imposing but this is considered a positive feature for a public building. Furthermore, although it would be taller than any dwellings in the immediate locality, it would not be so tall as to appear out of scale with its surroundings. The weakest element of the design is considered to be the north-east elevation which faces onto the car park. The design has been amended during the life of this application but it is still a rather bland in comparison to the front and rear elevations, partly due to the lack of roof pitches. Furthermore, unlike many public buildings, this side would be public facing. In spite of those concerns, however, the use of materials and the design of the individual elements of this part of the building are sympathetic to the design of the building as a whole and it would be difficult to justify a reason for refusal on these grounds alone. On balance, therefore, the scale and appearance is considered acceptable.

Agenda page 117

18/1064/FUL

Amenity The impact of the development on the amenity of the occupiers of surrounding properties would be somewhat different to the impact of the existing building owing not just to its scale but also owing to the introduction of residential uses and the associated windows and balconies. The proposal would introduce new windows facing surrounding properties and all of the windows would have elevated views. Balconies are also proposed on the front and rear of the building. At the front, there would be views towards the houses on the opposite side of the road but the window-to-window distance would be at least 26m which is sufficient for privacy. Views into the front gardens would be at closer range but both are exposed to public views to some degree and are relatively small areas compared to the private back gardens. There would be a similar distance to the two properties beyond the car park at the rear so no adverse impacts would arise in that direction. The nearest dwelling to the site is Higher Field which adjoins the south west boundary. This property has an address on West Hill Road but its vehicular access is from Beech Park. The proposed enlargement would add considerably to the bulk of the building adjacent to the boundary with this property. However, the additional height and bulk is mitigated by the difference in levels. The ridge height of Higher Field is 110.7 and this compares to a ridge level of 113.2 for the highest ridge of the enlarged building. Although the 2.5m difference is not insignificant, the highest parts of the new development would be set in from the boundary. The combination of the design of the new development, the separation between the buildings and the layout of Higher Field are such that the development would not appear dominant or overbearing to the neighbour. With regard to windows in the side elevation, these have been designed to avoid views over the neighbour and it is reasonable to obscure the side windows while still allowing views to the front and rear. The only element that is unacceptable as drawn is the second floor balcony to flat 8 which would have unrestricted and elevated views over the driveway/garden of Higher Field. However, a screen on the edge of this balcony could be secured by condition. Trees There are no trees on the site that are likely to be affected although it would be necessary to secure protection for retained hedgerows, trees and shrubs on the boundaries because these make a significant contribution to the character and appearance of the area. Where the building would extend towards Higher Field it is likely that the boundary trees within the garden of that property will need to be trimmed where they overhang the site. A method statement for this work could be secured by condition. Parking and pedestrian access There are currently about 42 spaces in the car park serving the shop and 8 of these would be allocated to the flats. A further 9 spaces would be unallocated but reserved

Agenda page 118

18/1064/FUL

for use by the occupants of the flats and these 17 spaces would be in a defined area of the car park behind the building. These are adequate to serve the 8 flats. The remaining area of the car park would be reconfigured to provide 19 spaces although there might need to be a small reduction in that number to allow for larger disabled parking bays. While concern has been raised locally about the reduction in the amount of parking, there is considered to be ample provision for the users of the shop and the other businesses. Furthermore, although the car park is well used by parents taking their children to the nearby school, it is a privately owned facility and such use could be prevented at any time by the owner. Should there be no spaces available in the car park, there is space available on the road in Beech Park and the highway authority have not raised any concerns about the use of those roads. Other matters At the rear of the shop there is a much older building which appears to date from the 19th century and may be the last remnant of the smithy which occupied the site. Buildings of this age are rare in West Hill but an examination of the structure has determined that little of the original fabric remains. Furthermore, there are no surviving fittings and therefore the building is not considered to be of any great significance such that it should be retained. In this instance the benefits of enhancing the appearance of the retained buildings and making efficient use of the site are considered to outweigh the loss of the building. Secure bicycle parking facilities would be provided for the flats as well as dedicated bin storage facilities which are accessible to refuse collection vehicles. Emergence surveys have been undertaken for bats but no evidence was found. The ecology report recommends the installation of two combined bat and swift boxes and this could be secured by condition, along with the landscaping scheme. It is hoped that the ground floor units would remain open during the works although some disruption would be expected. Ultimately the Council cannot place any requirement on the businesses to stay open but the risk of closure is considered to be low. Furthermore, any change of use would need to comply with Strategy 32. Financial contributions There are two non-negotiable payments required. First, the development would be liable for CIL, which is currently charged at approximately £145 per square metre. Second, a habitat mitigation contribution of £146.85 per flat, or £1,174.80 in total, is required and this payment has been secured with a Section 111 agreement. Affordable Housing Strategy 34 of the Local Plan requires a contribution towards affordable housing from all residential development, subject to certain thresholds. For the purposes of calculating the contribution in this case a net figure of 8 dwellings has been used because two flats that could be provided under permitted development rights 'approved' under reference 13/1841/CPL have not been provided.

Agenda page 119

18/1064/FUL

West Hill is in a designated rural area for the purposes described in paragraph 031 (Reference ID: 23b-031-20161116) of the Planning Practice Guidance and therefore developments of 6-9 units must make an affordable housing contribution in the form of a cash payment. The level of contribution is set according to which market area the site falls within. West Hill is in the Rural market area where a 50% contribution is required. This equates to an affordable housing contribution of £22,346 per flat (at the time of submission) or £178,768 in total. Because the building is not vacant (the ground floor is occupied), vacant building credit does not apply in this case and therefore the full contribution is required, subject to viability considerations. Where it can be demonstrated that a scheme would not be viable if the full contribution were made, overage will be sought in accordance with Strategy 34. The use of overage clauses offers a way to seek some redress where overly pessimistic assumptions about values and/ or an overestimation of costs, have been used to justify a lower level of affordable housing contribution when the scheme could actually have provided more. A viability appraisal was submitted with the application and this has been independently reviewed on behalf of the Council. The Planning Practice Guidance advises that review is an iterative and collaborative process and in this case there discussions over viability have taken place over a period of several months. The stages in the process are set out below. First offer: No contribution and no overage. The original viability appraisal prepared by S106 Management (S106M) on behalf of the applicant claimed that the development would only make a profit of 1.51%, which is well below the accepted figure of 20% as a suitable return to the developer. Analysis of this appraisal found that S106M had undervalued the proposed flats, applied VAT where it would not apply and allowed for profit on the commercial elements which are not changing under this proposal. Furthermore it based the benchmark land value on the purchase price of the site and this is contrary to guidance in the PPG which states: "The price paid for land is not a relevant justification for failing to accord with relevant policies in the plan." (Paragraph: 002 Reference ID: 10-002-20180724). Making adjustments for values, etc. the review concluded that the scheme would make a profit in excess of 20% of Gross Development Value (GDV) sufficient to make the full affordable housing contribution. Second offer: No contribution and no overage. In the second report by S106M it is claimed that the development would make a loss but no explanation is given as to why permission is being sought if that is the case. The report also included a valuation of the development by Bradleys Surveyors which concluded that the GDV would be £100,000 lower than in the first report. In addition, it stated that 'prospective customers looking in the West Hill area will not be looking for flats, certainly if they are above ground floor level and do not have a lift. This

Agenda page 120

18/1064/FUL

considerably reduces the demand for these flats'. Again, it is not clear why a developer would risk building flats in this location if demand is uncertain. In the review of the second report there remains disagreement over GDV and certain other matters but it is concluded that a contribution of £90,000 would not cause the scheme to be unviable. Third offer: (i) £24,622 on commencement but no overage; or (ii) no contribution initially and overage only payable if development commences more than 2 years after permission is granted, with the proviso that the Benchmark Land Value used for calculating the overage is set at £411,000. The report leading to the third offer introduced an Alternative Use Value, which is a legitimate way of establishing the BLV. However, the PPG explains that 'If applying alternative uses when establishing benchmark land value these should be limited to those uses which have an existing implementable permission for that use.' The scheme indicated was for the conversion of the existing first floor to two flats and the construction of two dwellings in the car park, the latter element not benefiting from planning permission. In the absence of planning permission for the alternative use, the BLV of £411,000 is not credible. Furthermore, it does not allow for CIL and habitat mitigation contributions (no affordable housing contribution would be payable on the alternative scheme because it is below the threshold of six dwellings). Nor is any explanation provided for making no initial contribution. With regard to the timing condition, there is no reason to incentivise bringing the development forward quickly (within two years) and therefore this clause is not justified. For these reasons offer (ii) is unacceptable. In respect of offer (i), the lack of overage makes this unacceptable in policy terms and, furthermore, the lack of transparency about how the level of contribution was reached means that it is not credible. Fourth offer: (i) £24,622 on occupation but no overage; or (ii) no contribution initially and overage based on a BLV of £411,000. Offer (i) remains unacceptable for the reasons given above and provides no clarity about when the contribution would be paid (on occupation of which dwelling?). Offer (ii) is as above except that the timing condition has been omitted. This remains an unacceptable offer for the reasons already given. Fifth offer: c£24,000 on occupation of the 4th unit AND there is a financial review following occupation of the 6th unit and a further payment of 50% of anything over the GDV calculated at £3,150 per sq m of habitable GIA, is made to the Council as an overage agreement, less the £24k paid up front, and capped at the Policy sum (£178k). As before, there is still no supporting evidence to justify the contribution offered and in this case there is no precision over the amount. The remainder of the offer is wholly unacceptable:

Agenda page 121

18/1064/FUL

• Under no circumstances would a review prior to the completion of the development be appropriate without there also being a final review.

• The overage payment should be based on the difference between actual GDV and actual costs (plus 20% profit), not the difference between actual GDV and predicted GDV. (In the offer, 'GDV calculated at £3,150 per sq m of habitable GIA' is their predicted GDV; 'anything over the GDV' means the difference between the predicted GDV and the actual GDV.)

• The figure of £3,150 per sq m has not been justified, although it is accepted that it is closer to the figure of £3,300 used in the independent review than the base figure of £2,600 used in the Bradleys Surveyors valuation.

• The £24,000 should not be deducted from the overage amount. (Any contribution already made (£24k in this offer) should be deducted from the cap (£178,768), not from the overage. In this way the overage plus the original contribution would be capped at the policy amount.)

• The cap should be £178,768. Sixth offer: £12,210 on occupation and overage capped at £178,768, with a Benchmark Land Value of £90,000. The inputs leading to this offer are all agreed and, although the initial contribution falls a long way short of the full contribution, the conclusions of the viability appraisal are accepted. Two points are worth noting, however. First, the CIL contribution has been recalculated in consultation with the Council's Planning Obligations Officer and is now higher than originally assumed. Because the CIL contribution is higher, the affordable housing contribution has reduced. Second, the predicted Gross Development Value is based on a figure of £3,150 per square metre, which is lower than the figure of £3,300 calculated in the independent review but higher than the developers previous assessment (based on a 'red book' valuation) of £2,600. Predicting the value of these flats is difficult owing to the lack of comparable sales in the village and therefore the offer of £3,150 is considered a reasonable compromise. If the actual sales values are more than predicted then the overage clause would ensure that 50% of the extra profit is paid as an affordable housing contribution, capped at the full contribution amount. As mentioned before, the review of viability should be an iterative and collaborative process. Furthermore the PPG advises that 'the weight to be given to a viability assessment is a matter for the decision maker, having regard to all the circumstances in the case, including... the transparency of assumptions behind evidence submitted as part of the viability assessment.' After long negotiations the developer has now provided acceptable evidence that the development would not be viable if the full affordable housing contribution were made. However, in making the offer they are very keen to stress that they do not agree with certain of the assumptions. In particular:

• They reject the benchmark land value of £90,000 and argue that it should be higher based on the existing use value or an alternative use value.

• They insist that their assessment of sales values (based on a 'red book' valuation) is more reliable.

Agenda page 122

18/1064/FUL

• They insist that vacant building credit should apply even though the building is occupied on the ground floor.

For these reasons, if this application were to proceed to appeal, the affordable housing offer would be withdrawn and they would seek to argue that no contribution should be made, using their assessment of benchmark land value, sales values, etc. as justification. Notwithstanding those views, an offer has been made which is acceptable and satisfies the requirements of Strategy 34. Habitats Regulation Assessment and Appropriate Assessment The nature of this application and its location close to the Pebblebed Heaths and their European Habitat designations is such that the proposal requires a Habitat Regulations Assessment. This section of the report forms the Appropriate Assessment required as a result of the Habitat Regulations Assessment and Likely Significant Effects from the proposal. In partnership with Natural England, the council and its neighbouring authorities of Exeter City Council and Teignbridge District Council have determined that housing and tourist accommodation developments in their areas will in-combination have a detrimental impact on the Pebblebed Heaths through impacts from recreational use. The impacts are highest from developments within 10 kilometres of these designations. It is therefore essential that mitigation is secured to make such developments permissible. This mitigation is secured via a combination of funding secured via the Community Infrastructure Levy and contributions collected from residential developments within 10km of the designations. This development will be CIL liable and the financial contribution has been secured. On this basis, and as the joint authorities are working in partnership to deliver the required mitigation in accordance with the South-East Devon European Site Mitigation Strategy, this proposal will not give rise to likely significant effects. CONCLUSION This is an application to redevelop the existing village shops at West Hill, proposing 8 flats above the retained ground floor shops. Some commercial accommodation is to be removed but a marketing exercise has been carried out which demonstrates that not all of the current commercial space is viable or required. The new floor and roof form will add height to the new building, however this is considered acceptable as it will become a focal building for this part of West Hill without impacting on neighbouring amenity. Sufficient parking will be provided for the residents of the flats, and for visitors to the shops. Due to the number of apartments proposed, affordable housing is required by way of a financial conmtribution. The applicant has provided viability analysis which states that the full amount cannot be provided if the development is to be successful and as such a contribution of £12,210 has been offered. This offer is also subject to an

Agenda page 123

18/1064/FUL

overage clause requiring the developer to submit a development account on completion, with part of any uplift in profit going to the Council. Subject to signing of a legal agreement for the above amount, and subject to conditions requiring the laying out of parking, provision of a new path and landscaping conditions the proposal is considered to be acceptable. RECOMMENDATION

1. Adopt the Habitat Regulations Appropriate Assessment within the report 2. APPROVE subject to a S106 agreement to secure an affordable housing

contribution of £12,210 and overage capped at £178,768 and the following conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three




approved plans listed at the end of this decision notice. (Reason - For the avoidance of doubt.) 3. Notwithstanding the approved drawings, prior to occupation of Flat 8 (identified

on drawing number 16123 L02.03 Rev. C) a privacy screen at least 1.7 metres tall on the south west side of the balcony shall be provided in accordance with details which shall first be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The privacy screen shall thereafter be retained in perpetuity.

(Reason - To ensure the privacy of the occupiers of the adjacent property in accordance with Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

4. No flat shall be occupied until the windows serving that flat marked with an

asterisk on approved drawing 16126 L04.01 Rev. B have been glazed with obscure glass. The obscure glazing of those windows shall thereafter be retained in perpetuity.

(Reason - To protect the privacy of adjoining occupiers in accordance with Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

5. Notwithstanding the approved drawings, no development shall take place until

samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development 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 considered at an early stage and 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 2013-2031.)

Agenda page 124

18/1064/FUL

6. Before the development commences a scheme for the provision of internal

sound insulation, to include party walls, floors and ceilings, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the agreed scheme shall be completed prior to the commencement of the use hereby permitted.

(Reason: To protect adjoining occupiers from excessive noise in accordance with Policy EN14 (Control of Pollution) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.

7. 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, and no deliveries to and from the site outside the above hours of working.

(Reason: To protect the amenities of existing and future residents in the vicinity of the site from noise, air, water and light pollution in accordance with Policy EN14 (Control of Pollution) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031)

8. No deliveries to the shop or cafe shall be accepted or despatched to or from the

site except between the hours of 07.30 and 18.00 Monday to Friday, or 07.30 and 18.00 on Saturdays, and not at all on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

(Reason: To protect the amenities of local residents from noise in accordance with Policy EN14 (Control of Pollution) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031)

9. Any plant (including ventilation, refrigeration and air conditioning units) or

ducting system to be used in pursuance of this permission shall be so installed prior to the first use of the premises and be so retained and operated that the noise generated at the boundary of the nearest neighbouring property shall not exceed Noise Rating Curve 25, as defined in BS8233:2014 Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction for Buildings Code of Practice and the Chartered Institute of Building Service Engineers Environmental Design Guide. Details of the scheme shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the first use of the premises

(Reason: To protect the amenity of local residents from noise in accordance with Policy EN14 (Control of Pollution) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031)

10. No development above foundation level shall take place until a landscaping

scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; such a scheme to include the planting of trees, hedges, shrubs, herbaceous plants and areas to be grassed. The scheme shall also give details of any proposed walls, fences and other boundary treatment. The landscaping scheme shall be carried out in the first planting season after commencement of the development unless any alternative phasing of the landscaping is agreed in

Agenda page 125

18/1064/FUL

writing by the Local Planning Authority and the landscaping 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 - To ensure that the details are planned and considered at an early stage 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 and D2 - Landscape Requirements of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

11. No dwelling shall be occupied until 17 residential parking spaces and 19

customer/ staff parking spaces for vehicles have been provided in accordance with the approved plans submitted, unless approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

(Reason - To ensure that adequate and safe provision is made for the occupiers and in the interests of highway safety in accordance with the requirements of Policy TC7 – Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access and TC9 – Parking Provision in New Development of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

12. The permissive path shown on the South West boundary shall be provided prior

to final occupation of the dwellings, and thereafter maintained. (Reason – To ensure access by pedestrians through the development in

accordance with Policy TC2 – Accessibility of New Development of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan)

NOTE FOR APPLICANT Informative: In accordance with the requirement of Article 35 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 in determining this application, East Devon District Council has worked proactively with the applicant to ensure that all relevant planning concerns have been appropriately resolved. Plans relating to this application: 16126 L01.00A Location Plan 08.05.18

16126 L02.00 Existing Floor Plans 08.05.18

16126 L04.00 Existing Elevation 08.05.18

16126 L01.01 Rev B

Layout 23.07.18

16126 L02.01 Rev B Ground

Proposed Floor Plans 23.07.18

Agenda page 126

18/1064/FUL

16126 L02.02 Rev C First


16126 L02.03 Rev C Second


16126 L02.04 Rev B

Proposed roof plans 23.07.18

16126 L03.01 Rev B Indicative

Sections 23.07.18

16126 L04.01 Rev B

Proposed Elevation 23.07.18

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

Agenda page 127

Ward Woodbury And Lympstone

Reference 18/2230/VAR

Applicant Mr David Alford

Location Exton Top Yard Exmouth Road Exton

Proposal Removal of condition 5 (restricted occupancy condition) of approval granted under reference 18/1081/FUL (creation of live/work unitcomprising removal of agricultural building and construction of dwelling and conversion of barn to associated "work" unit)

RECOMMENDATION: 1. That the Habitat Regulations Appropriate Assessment outlined within the Committee Report be adopted;

and 2. That the application is APPROVED with conditions


Agenda page 128

Agenda Item 12

18/2230/VAR


Woodbury And Lympstone (WOODBURY)

18/2230/VAR


Applicant: Mr David Alford

Location: Exton Top Yard Exmouth Road

Proposal: Removal of condition 5 (restricted occupancy condition) of approval granted under reference 18/1081/FUL (creation of live/work unit comprising removal of agricultural building and construction of dwelling and conversion of barn to associated "work" unit)

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That the Habitat Regulations Appropriate Assessment outlined within the Committee Report be adopted; and

2. That the application is APPROVED with conditions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This application is before Members because the officer recommendation differs to the view of a Ward Member. Members will recall that planning application 18/1081/FUL was recently approved for the creation of a live and work unit, comprising the removal of agricultural buildings. Planning permission was granted on the basis of the fall-back position for the applicant enabling the conversion of one of the buildings to a dwelling and conversion of another building to a business. However, a planning condition was attached to the permission which restricted the use of the dwelling to those using the adjacent business use. The application seeks the removal of this condition. On the basis that the applicant could use the fall-back position to provide a dwelling on the site without a link to the business, it is considered that the condition can be removed. However, this will create a business unit in close proximity to the dwelling and associated nuisance that could be caused. As such, in agreement with the applicant, it is recommended that an additional condition be added that restricts the use of the business to those occupying the dwelling.

Agenda page 129

18/2230/VAR

Subject to this condition, and given that the application remains unchanged in all other regards from the previous consent, the proposal is considered to be acceptable and is recommended for approval.

CONSULTATIONS Local Consultations Woodbury and Lympstone - Cllr Longhurst Ok with me. In the event that this application should come to Committee I will reserve my position until I am in full possession of all the relevant facts and arguments both for and against. Woodbury and Lympstone - Cllr Ingham I did not support the approval and I do not support the amendment recommendation. The number of policies considered and conditions involved tell their own story. In the event that this application should come to Committee I will reserve my position until I am in full possession of all the relevant facts and arguments both for and against. Parish Council NOT SUPPORTED. This condition was part of the recently granted permission. Technical Consultations County Highway Authority Does not wish to comment EDDC Trees No objection. Environmental Health I have considered this application and do not have any further comments to make South West Water I refer to the above and would advise that South West Water has no objection to the removal of condition 5. Other Representations No letters of representation have been received.

Agenda page 130

18/2230/VAR

PLANNING HISTORY Reference Description Decision Date 18/1081/FUL Creation of 'live/work unit',

comprising removal of agricultural building and construction of dwelling and conversion of barn to associated 'work' unit

Approval with conditions

06.09.2018

POLICIES Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 Policies Strategy 7 (Development in the Countryside) Strategy 27 (Development at the Small Towns and Larger Villages) Strategy 31 (Future Job and Employment Land Provision) Strategy 47 (Nature Conservation and Geology) D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) D2 (Landscape Requirements) D3 (Trees and Development Sites) D8 (Re-use of Rural Buildings Outside of Settlements) EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) EN14 (Control of Pollution) H4 (Dwellings for Persons Employed in Rural Businesses) TC9 (Parking Provision in New Development) E5 (Small Scale Economic Development in Rural Areas) TC2 (Accessibility of New Development) TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) EN19 (Adequacy of Foul Sewers and Adequacy of Sewage Treatment System) EN22 (Surface Run-Off Implications of New Development)

Agenda page 131

18/2230/VAR

Site Location and Description The site refers to Exton Top Yard around 0.1 ha in size and comprises of a hardstanding yard with two agricultural barns of modern construction and a small area of fenced grass land. The site lies between residential properties to the south east and the North West which front onto the A376 and agricultural land to the south west. The site has an existing vehicular access onto the A376. The site is located in the countryside (Exton does not have a built-up area boundary) and falls within an area designated as a Green Wedge. Relevant history and background information Planning permission was granted under application 18/1081/FUL to re-develop the site for a live work use which would involve the demolition of the one of larger agricultural buildings and the construction of a 4 bedroom two storey dwelling and the conversion and re-cladding of the existing smaller Dutch barn for use as a workshop for the applicant's catering business. The dwelling will be 2 stories with a traditional vernacular design approach using a palette of materials which include render and timber boarding for the walls under a natural slate roof. The dwelling will be 'L' shape in form with traditional pitched roofs and a chimney feature and would occupy part of the footprint of the existing modern agricultural building. The Dutch barn would be re-clad and converted to the 'work' element of the proposal. The supporting planning statement accompanying the previous planning application explains that the applicants business is 'Creative Catering' which provides catering for events including weddings, battle re-enactments and parties which includes hog roasts, canapes, buffets and waiter service etc. It is understood the business is currently run from a property at Exton Farm. The intention is that the applicant would run the business from the converted Dutch barn as a work unit which would contain a small office, equipment storage, a large cold room for the refrigeration of food, storage of non-perishable food and drink and a food preparation area. It is explained that for many catering events food must be prepared fresh which requires the applicant to start preparation in the early hours of the morning to ensure that it is ready to be transported to the event. As a result the work involves unsociable hours and close proximity to the work unit is said to be essential for convenience and to reduce constant commuting between home and work. Proposed Development The applicants are seeking the removal of condition 5 of the previous consent (18/1081/FUL) that limits the occupation of the dwelling to the adjacent business on the site. The application has been submitted as the applicant feels that the condition is not justified in light of their fall-back position. Condition 5 to planning application 18/1081/FUL states the following:

Agenda page 132

18/2230/VAR

‘The occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted shall be restricted to a person (and their dependents) who is solely or mainly employed in the food catering business operating from the site. (Reason - The proposed dwelling is justified because of the link to an employment use of the building by the resident which would make a contribution to the local economy, and would be of a sustainable nature (in terms of traffic generation and highway safety) as a result of the live/work use of the site. For these reasons the development would satisfy the relevant criteria of Strategy 7 (Development within the Countryside) and policies and E5 (Small Scale Economic Development in Rural Areas) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 and paragraphs 81 and 84 of the National Planning Policy Framework.’

ANALYSIS The main consideration relates to whether the removal of the condition is justified. All other matters regarding the principle of development, character and appearance, residential amenity, highway safety, ecology, impact upon trees and drainage remain unchanged and as per the consideration on the previous application and as such are not covered again in this report. Removal of condition Members will recall the legal background regarding the principle of replacing an agricultural building with a dwelling using the fall-back position of conversion under permitted development rights. Given the location of the building within open countryside, much of the justification was based upon the "fall back" position. In addition to considering local planning policies the local planning authority is required to consider other material considerations insofar as they are relevant to the planning application. In this instance it is considered that the permitted development rights provided by Schedule 2 Part 3 Class Q of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended March 2018), creates a fall-back position for the creation of a residential dwelling on the site that the applicant could utilise without requiring planning permission. Class Q enables the conversion and change of use of agricultural buildings to residential dwellings as a form of permitted development where certain criteria are satisfied. Similarly Class R (alongside Policies E5 and D8 of the Local Plan) enables the change of use of agricultural buildings to a variety of business uses. With two agricultural buildings currently present at the application site, the applicant therefore could undertake each individual element of the proposed development as a fall-back. The local planning authority could not prevent this. As such the principle of establishing a live and work unit at the site represents a realistic fall-back position that justifies the original grant of permission. This fall-back position is a relevant material consideration which the local planning authority should take into account in determining this current application.

Agenda page 133

18/2230/VAR

As with the previous application, consideration should be given to what could be achieved using permitted development rights for alternative forms of development and what, if any, conditions could be imposed. Condition 5 was placed on the consent for the following reason: ‘The proposed dwelling is justified because of the link to an employment use of the building by the resident which would make a contribution to the local economy, and would be of a sustainable nature (in terms of traffic generation and highway safety) as a result of the live/work use of the site. For these reasons the development would satisfy the relevant criteria of Strategy 7 (Development within the Countryside) and policies and E5 (Small Scale Economic Development in Rural Areas) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 and paragraphs 81 and 84 of the National Planning Policy Framework.’ However, the consent was granted on the basis of a fall-back position relating to the conversion of the barn under Class Q. Under such a conversion there would not have been a need or justification for an occupancy restriction. The National Planning Policy Guidance states that planning conditions should only be imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning, relevant to planning and to the development permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in other respects. Given that there would not have been any restriction under a Class Q permitted development application, it is considered that limiting the occupation of the proposed dwelling on an application using the" fall-back position" would be unreasonable and fails the tests that condition should meet. However, there are some concerns regarding an unrestricted dwelling being adjacent to a business unit where any potential occupier of the dwelling would not need to be related to the work element and could harmfully be impacted by noise and smell. It was considered necessary and reasonable as part of the previous consent to impose conditions controlling hours of delivery and noise levels from plant and equipment associated with the work unit. A condition restricting the use of the work unit to a food catering business (a B2 use) is therefore again recommended to ensure that the use of the building cannot be changed without planning permission and to prevent undue noise to neighbouring properties. The dwelling would be very close proximity to the catering business and given the close relationship, there is potential for the work element to impact upon the occupiers of the dwelling if unrelated to the business through the removal of condition 5. In order to address this it is considered that condition 5 is replaced by a new condition that the business use is only operated in association with the dwelling. This has been agreed with the applicant and a similar consideration would have been carried out under the ball-back application for the business unit.

Agenda page 134

18/2230/VAR

CONCLUSION The application was originally granted due to a fall-back position whereby consent would have been granted for the business use and dwelling on the site. The applicant has submitted the application to enable the occupation of the dwelling independent of the business. This is considered to be acceptable as the grant of the dwelling under the fall-back position would not have resulted in a condition restricting occupation. However, by removing the condition, and given the very close relationship between the dwelling and the business, it creates a situation whereby the running of the business could have a detrimental impact upon the occupiers of the house. In order to address this, with the applicant’s agreement, a condition is proposed to ensure that the business is only operated by the occupiers of the dwelling. In all other respects the application remains unchanged from before. Subject therefore to the new condition, the application is considered to be acceptable. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. That the Habitat Regulations Appropriate Assessment outlined within the Committee Report be adopted; 2. That the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions: 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three




approved plans listed at the end of this decision notice. (Reason - For the avoidance of doubt.) 3. No development above foundation level 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 considered at an early stage and are sympathetic to the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policy D1 - Design and Local Distinctiveness of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

Agenda page 135

18/2230/VAR

4. The work unit and all non-residential parts of the site shall be used as a food catering business and for no other purpose (including any other purpose in Class B2 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 an re-enacting that Order with or without modification).

(Reason: To protect adjoining occupiers from noise and disturbance in accordance with the requirements of policy EN14 (Control of Pollution) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031).

5. The work unit and all non-residential parts of the site (B2 use) shall not be used

or operated independently from the occupation of the dwelling hereby approved.

(Reason: There is a close relationship between the two buildings, if operated

independently from each other there is a potential for noise/smell disturbance from the work unit and its associated traffic movements to detrimentally impact upon the living conditions of the occupiers of the dwelling in accordance with Policies EN14 (Control of Pollution) and D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the East Devon Local Plan).

6. Within three months of occupation of the dwelling hereby approved, the

conversion works to the create the work unit shall have been completed in accordance with the details shown on drawing no's PL 378393/16 and SK 378393/10A and the business shall be operational.

(Reason: To ensure that the employment benefits of the scheme are realised in accordance with the provisions of policy E5 (Small Scale Economic Development in Rural Areas) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031)

7. The specific noise level of any plant installed and operated on the site must not

exceed 25dBa ( 5dB below nighttime background which can be taken as 30dBa) at the boundary of the nearest noise sensitive dwellings between the hours of 11pm to 7am, and must not exceed the background level at any other time. Background noise level to be measured as La90dBa.

(Reason: To protect the amenity of local residents from noise in accordance with policy EN14 (Control of Pollution) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031).

8. No deliveries shall be accepted or despatched to or from the site except

between the hours of 07.30 to 2100hrs Monday to Friday, or 07.30 to 1300hrs on Saturdays, and not at all on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

(Reason: To protect the amenity of local residents from noise in accordance with policy EN14 (Control of Pollution) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031).

9. Prior to the cooking of hot food on the site, full details of a scheme for the

treatment of cooking smells, including details of the manufacturers recommendations for cleaning and maintenance shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved treatment scheme and used at all times when cooking is taking place.

Agenda page 136

18/2230/VAR

(Reason: To avoid odours detrimental to the living conditions of the amenities of the occupiers of residential properties in accordance with the provisions of policy EN14 (Control of Pollution) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031).

10. Prior to the commencement of any works on site a Tree Protection Plan (TPP)

and Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) for the protection of all retained trees on the site, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The TPP and AMS shall adhere to the principles embodied in current version of British Standard 5837 and shall indicate exactly how and when the trees will be protected during the development.

The AMS shall provide for the keeping of a Site Monitoring Log (SML) to record monthly ad-hoc site inspections of the tree protection measures, the findings of the inspection and any necessary actions; all variations or departures from the approved details and any resultant remedial action or mitigation measures that may be required. On completion of the development, the completed SML shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for approval and final discharge of the tree protection condition.

(Reason: To ensure the continued wellbeing of retained trees in the interests of the amenity of the locality in accordance with the provisions of policy D3 (Trees and Development Sites) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031).

11. Notwithstanding the submitted details, prior to any landscaping works being

carried out, a landscaping scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; such a scheme to include details and a specification for hard surfaced areas, the planting of trees, hedges, shrubs, herbaceous plants and areas to be grassed. The scheme shall also give details of any proposed walls, fences and other boundary treatment. The landscaping scheme shall 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 - To ensure that the details are planned and considered at an early stage in the interests of amenity and to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the former agricultural buildings in accordance with Policies (D1 - Design and Local Distinctiveness), (D2 - Landscape Requirements) of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)


recommendations contained within the Phase 1 Habitat Survey report and preliminary bat assessment prepared by Lee Ecology dated January 2018.

(Reason: In the interests of ecology and biodiversity in accordance with the provisions of policy EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031).

13. Foul drainage from the development (and no other drainage) shall be

connected to the public foul or combined sewer. (Reason: To ensure the discharge of drainage from the Development shall not

be prejudicial to the public sewerage system and ensure there are adequate

Agenda page 137

18/2230/VAR

public foul sewerage facilities to receive foul water flows, in order to safeguard the public and environment in accordance with policy EN19 (Adequacy of Foul Sewers and Adequacy of Sewage Treatment Systems) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031).

14. With the exception of demolition, no development shall take place until a

surface water drainage scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Unless it is demonstrated that it is unfeasible to do so, the scheme shall use appropriate Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems. The drainage scheme shall be designed so that there is no increase in the rate of surface water runoff from the site resulting from the development and so that storm water flows are attenuated. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.

(Reason: To protect water quality and minimise flood risk in accordance with Policy EN22 - Surface Run-Off Implications of New Development of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 and the guidance contained with the National Planning Policy Framework.)

NOTE FOR APPLICANT Informative: In accordance with the requirements of Article 35 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 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 historical planning application is referenced under 18/1081/FUL for which the approved plans were as follows:- Phase 1 Habitat Survey Report & Preliminary Bat Assessment Protected Species Report 09.05.18 PL 378393/ 16 Proposed Elevation 10.08.18 Location Plan 09.05.18 Arboriculturist Report 01.06.18 SK 378393/10A Proposed Floor Plans 01.06.18 SK 378393/11A Proposed Elevation 01.06.18 SK 378393/12A Proposed Site Plan 01.06.18 List of Background Papers Application file, consultations and policy documents referred to in the report.

Agenda page 138