This meeting of the South Hams Development Management Committee is scheduled to discuss a number of planning applications, including variations of conditions, reserved matters approvals, and certificates of lawfulness. The meeting will also review the status of any ongoing appeals and updates on major planning applications still under consideration by the council.

Little Shear, Hope Cove

The Committee is scheduled to discuss a ‘readvertised’ application for the variation of condition 2 (approved drawings) of planning consent 1079/20/FUL at Little Shear, Hope Cove. This application, reference 3093/23/VAR, has been readvertised after the submission of revised plans and documents and seeks to complete and retain two semi-detached dwellings as built, including changes to the roof form from gable ends to hip ends, reduced ground/floor levels to incorporate a lower ground floor and balconies to the front.

The original planning application, 1079/20/FUL, was for the demolition of an existing bungalow and the erection of two semi-detached 2-bed dwellings. During construction of the dwellings, it became clear that the works significantly differed from the approved plans. Planning permission was refused for the completed works (0865/21/VAR) with the refusal notice stating:

“The revised design has resulted in an altogether new appearance whereby the scale and height of all the retaining walls and the materials used in their construction, in addition with the alteration of the front boundary treatment, create a harsh overbearing and highly engineered development that is harmful to the character of the street scene within the AONB and Heritage Coast. In doing so the lack of coherence and integration with the character of the area has resulted in a poor standard of design to the detriment of the neighbouring built environment and wider AONB and Heritage Coast, contrary to JLP Policies DEV10, DEV20, DEV24, DEV25, the South Huish NP Policy HBE3 and paragraphs 130, 176 and 178 of the NPPF.”

A subsequent appeal against this decision was dismissed.

The revised plans for 3093/23/VAR propose the following:

• reducing the heights of the retaining wall as built to the front (south) and sides (east and west); • battering back the slopes at the top of the side walls; • facing the remaining parts of the retaining walls to the front and sides of the site that are visible in the street scene with local natural stone… to be ‘laid on its natural bed with no exposed cut faces’ with mortar joints raked back to give impression of a dry stone wall; and, providing a timber sleeper wall to the top terrace of the gardens adjoining Anchorage.

The case officer concludes:

“Overall officers are of the view that, subject to the conditions listed, the proposals comply with the policies of the development plan as a whole and a recommendation of approval is thus made.”

A number of objections have been received from local residents and South Huish Parish Council.

Salcombe Retreat, Malborough

The Committee has been asked to review an application for alterations to an existing ‘service building’ at Salcombe Retreat, Malborough to create a first floor, including alterations to the west facing roof and the creation of a roof terrace (application reference 2512/24/FUL). This application was called in by Councillor Long for the following reasons:

“I would like the Development Management Committee to review this application, to examine the issues raised related to the development design, need, setting, and impact on the South Devon National Landscape, Undeveloped Coast, and Heritage Coast. To have the Committee consider the concerns and questions, for any challenges that this proposed development makes to policy including the Neighbourhood Plan policies.”

The site lies within the South Devon National Landscape, Flood Zone 1, the Undeveloped Coast and Heritage Coast. The report pack notes that,

“The issue of noise and harm to levels of tranquillity has been raised, which would be a concern if the facilities at the building support hospitality uses such as catering facilities for dining or a bar, but there is no mention of that type of use in the application, with the area simply described as a sitting and viewing area. If it is possible to restrict the use of the space by condition, or to restrict or prevent events or hospitality uses, this might give further reassurance that tranquillity levels will be unaffected.”

The case officer concludes that the proposal as submitted is considered acceptable with regards to design and landscape matters subject to the conditions recommended.

6 Waltacre, Yealmpton

Councillor Thomas has asked the Committee to consider an application for a single replacement dwelling at 6 Waltacre, Yealmpton. The application, 2317/24/FUL, has been called in for the following reason:

“I would like the above application to go to Committee for consideration. For the avoidance of doubt, I share the Parish Council’s support for the principle of rebuilding the property but have concerns, flagged in the officer report, about the design, specifically in the context of it being in a sensitive area of the village, within the National Landscape.”

The site is located in the South Devon National Landscape. The proposed dwelling would replace an existing three-bedroomed dwelling with a larger three-bedroomed dwelling, and would be constructed to achieve a net carbon cost offset period of approximately 30 years.

The case officer recommends conditional approval and concludes:

“For the reasons detailed above the application is considered to accord with the relevant policies of the development plan when taken as a whole and associated local and national guidance. Other material considerations do not indicate that the direction of the plan should not be followed, and the application is therefore recommended for approval.”

Beacon Park, Dartington

This meeting will see the Committee consider an application for the approval of reserved matters following outline approval at Beacon Park, Dartington.

The application, 1042/24/ARM, is for:

“…the provision of 9 employment units, and associated works.”

This application follows the approval of outline planning permission (3631/17/OPA) in 2017 for the erection of a mix of B1¹, B2² and B8³ employment spaces.

The application has been called in by Councillor Hodgson for the following reasons:

“The proposed scale of the employment area of the buildings at 4544m2, would bring the total employment space on this site to 5835m2 which represents a 39% increase on the employment area of 4211m2 agreed under the OPA.

I am concerned that the increased scale of development on this eastern section of the site, that has led to an increased area being developed has pushed up against the northern boundary and created the need to remove most of the trees that provided visual screening, environmental (air quality) benefits and wildlife habitat. Similarly, throughout this section of the site, the OPA indicated tree and vegetation cover running between the buildings, this is entirely absent from the plans for this ARM and will reduce the opportunity for wildlife continuity throughout the site; which since it is within the GHB sustenance zone and GHB are known to use the site will be to the detriment of this important protected species. Two of the smaller original ponds to the east of this section of the site seem to have disappeared. These are important for wildlife. Has this been permitted? I attach the Transport site layout plan for this ARM application and the site layout for the OPA for comparison.

The OPA provided for 11 buildings. The nine herein proposed would bring the total number to 12 buildings; one in excess of the original approval. These are not small buildings.

In line with the increased number of buildings and employment floor space, the parking requirement has increased from the total 133 in the OPA to a new total of 161/71, a proposed increase of 21-29%.

As suggested by an objector to the scheme, “this is materially in excess of the Outline Consent and could invalidate the Environmental Impact Statement”. I also agree with the further points Ms Balch makes, “As such, it will have a greater impact on wildlife, the village residents and on the local road network, particularly the back lanes which are used as essential walking routes. Elsewhere in the Parish where additional space has been sought over and above the original permission, the applicant has been required to submit a new planning application. This would allow a new S106 Agreement to be negotiated and to ensure that measures are taken to protect the community from the consequences of the additional traffic, noise and pollution.” All of this could constitute over development of the site.

I also believe that some key concerns raised by the Parish Council have not been addressed, much of which relates to the increase in scale of this proposed ARM applications:

“The traffic implications are important: the site generates significant amounts of traffic and huge lorries enter the site from the A385 in both directions and there is limited turning space which impact the highway. There is concern that Wrenford Lane will be a rat run which impacts its ability to function as a part of the green travel plan. Measures to prevent this should include traffic calming measures such as speed humps. The Transport Plan is not conditioned and the Green Travel Plan only relates to employees which renders both ineffective. There is an incremental increase on development of the site from the original OPA and the traffic implications will impact the AQMA⁴ on the A385 which runs through the village Landscape and environmental concerns: The overdevelopment affects the landscape and environment. The increased hard standing means there is potential for polluted water run off into watercourses. The S106 agreement on landscaping should at least align with the OPA and the need is for landscaping to be increased not reduced. Buildings are too close to the boundary on the northern edge and the site’s impact on development in the area should be properly considered. The Parish Council also recommends that there should be ameliorating actions such as parking charges introduced, a contribution to public transport included, increased landscaping, safeguards to protect Wrenford Lane from increased and unsuitable traffic, safeguarding for water courses.”

In this basis, I request that this application is either refused on the basis that a new Full Planning application is required, complete with a revised 106 for the reasons set out above, or it is referred to DM Planning committee due to the scale of proposal in comparison to the original approved OPA.

It is regrettable that so much of this site has been cleared and significant land works carried out prior to planning permission being determined”

The officer report for the application concludes:

“When assessed against the development plan as a whole, Officers consider the proposed development accord with its provisions, and therefore the application carries a recommendation of conditional approval.”

16 Beckets Road, Kingsbridge

The report pack contains an application for a certificate of lawfulness for the proposed erection of an extension at 16 Beckets Road, Kingsbridge. This application (1614/24/CLE) relates to an extension approved under a previous householder application (3090/19/HHO).

The application has been referred to the committee because the applicant, Mr Peter Davis, is a member of the planning team.

The case officer concludes:

“…a certificate of lawfulness to confirm that the proposed erection of the extension can proceed should be issued.”

Appeals Update

The Committee is scheduled to be provided with an update on the status of planning appeals between 26 October and 10 December 2024. The document lists the following appeals:

• An appeal by Mr Burden relating to tree works at Stokecliffe, Swannaton Road, Dartmouth (2231/24/TPO) awaiting a decision.
• An appeal by Mrs Georgina Burns relating to tree works at Wits End, The Promenade, Kingsbridge (1198/23/TPO) which has been refused.
• An appeal by St Austell Brewery against a refusal for the retrospective construction of a shepherds hut at The Crabshell Inn, Kingsbridge (3360/23/FUL) which has been refused.
• An appeal by Mr James Brent of the James Brent Pension Fund against the refusal of a planning application (3953/21/FUL) for:

“READVERTISEMENT (amended plans & supporting documents) Demolition of 2 two-storey detached buildings & associated garage. Erection of 2no.four bed family homes and extension of an existing quay to the east ofthe site to provide a new landing ramp for dwelling 2”

at 101 Yealm Road, Newton Ferrers. This appeal has been dismissed.

• An appeal by Mr & Mrs McCready against a refusal for the construction of ten holiday lodges at Briar Hill Farm, Newton Ferrers (3993/22/FUL) which has been dismissed.
• An appeal by Mr Simon Gotch against the refusal of a certificate of lawfulness (4253/23/CLE) for the existing use of land as a commercial horticultural nursery and garden centre at Alston Gate, Malborough. This appeal is awaiting an officer statement.
• An appeal by Taylor Woolhouse Holdings Ltd against a refusal for the variation of conditions 2 and 3 relating to a principal residence at 1 Round Berry Drive, Salcombe (1545/24/VAR). This appeal is awaiting a decision.
• An appeal by Mr Andrew Notton against the refusal for the variation of condition 2 at 4 Alma Terrace, Higher Town, Malborough (1415/24/VAR). A start letter has been received for this appeal.
• An appeal by Valentine London Ltd for the removal of condition 1 from a previous planning application (0434/20/FUL) relating to the restriction of occupancy to a principal home at Brewery Quay, Island Street, Salcombe (2970/24/FUL). A start letter has been received for this appeal.
• An appeal by Mr Hallett against the refusal of an application for the construction of an agricultural building at SX 760 529, Back Road, Moreleigh (3789/23/FUL). The appeal has been refused.
• An appeal by Ercle Designs Ltd against the refusal of a planning application for a new dwelling at Sungates, Chittleburn Hill, Brixton (1936/24/FUL) which is awaiting a decision.
• An appeal by Mr Peter Sutton against the refusal of a planning application for part demolition and replacement of a dwelling at Whitestone Farmhouse, Cornworthy (0470/23/FUL) which has been dismissed.

Update on Undetermined Major Applications

The Committee is also scheduled to review an update on undetermined major planning applications. The document lists the following applications:

• A full planning application for 104 residential dwellings at land off Godwell Lane, Ivybridge (3623/19/FUL).
• Two outline applications at Woolwell, one for up to 360 dwellings (4181/19/OPA), and one for up to 1,640 new dwellings (4185/19/OPA).
• A full planning application for the erection of 20 residential units at land opposite Butts Park, Parsonage Road, Newton Ferrers (2982/21/FUL).
• An application for approval of reserved matters at Noss Marina, Kingswear (3053/21/ARM).
• An outline application for up to 17 dwellings at land adjacent to Venn Farm, Daisy Park, Brixton (4317/21/OPA).
• Two full planning applications, one for 6 residential dwellings (1522/22/FUL) and one for 39 residential dwellings (1523/22/FUL) at Dartington Lane, Dartington.
• An application for the approval of reserved matters following outline approval for 14 new dwellings at Dennings, Wallingford Road, Kingsbridge (1629/22/ARM).
• An outline application for residential development at land south of Dartmouth Road, East Allington (2412/22/OPA).
• A full planning application for the installation of photovoltaic solar arrays at Littlehempston Water Treatment Works (2929/23/FUL).
• A full planning application for the construction of buildings for use as an animal rescue centre at Ash Tree Farm, Ash (3358/23/FUL).
• A full planning application for a mixed-use development at Baltic Wharf Boatyard, Totnes (3995/23/FUL).
• A full planning application for a hydrogen pipeline running from the Langage Green Hydrogen Project to the Sibelco and Imerys sites (0103/24/FUL).
• A full planning application for the construction of a business park at SX 490 624, Broadley Park Road, Roborough (0889/24/FUL).
• An application to modify a Section 106 Agreement for land at SX 6481 5631, Ivybridge (1724/24/VPO).
• A full planning application for the provision of two commercial units at SX 745 479, Torr Quarry Industrial Estate, East Allington (1821/24/FUL).
• A full planning application for a site-wide redevelopment at Hillhead Caravan Club (1946/24/FUL).
• A full planning application for the development of flexible seed bed/starter units at land at SX 569 564, Holland Road, Plympton (2316/24/FUL).
• A full planning application for a new retail foodstore at SX 647 562, Ivybridge (2363/24/FUL).
• A full planning application for a multi-user trail at SX 534 496, Wembury (2666/24/FUL).
• An application to modify a Section 106 Agreement for 4 & 5 Tor Hill Terrace, Marldon (3019/24/VPO).
• A full planning application for E (G) ii, E (G) iii, B2 and B8 uses at land at SX 571 564, Holland Road, Plympton (3009/24/FUL).
• An application to remove condition d relating to caravans from a previous planning application (30/1991/88/4) at Galmpton Touring Park, Brixham (3022/24/VAR).
• A full planning application for the demolition of a garage and the construction of nine business units, including an extension to an existing property to create four apartments at 1 Alston Gate, Malborough (3026/24/FUL).
• An application for approval of reserved matters for engineering works at Sherford, Brixton (3091/24/ARM).
• A full planning application for a care home at the Avon Centre, Wallingford Road, Kingsbridge (3192/24/FUL).
• An application to vary condition 1 of a previously approved planning application at a field to the rear of 15 Green Park Way, Chillington (3431/24/VAR).