The Officers Report (extracts)

Selworthy Aplication at Pages 43 -58     DMC Minutes

SHDC Development Management Committee 4/7/ 2018  Follaton House

Recommendation: Refusal

Reasons for refusal

The proposed development, having regard to its siting and scale fails to conserve the landscape and scenic beauty of this part of the South Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty contrary to paragraph 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies CS9 and DP2 of the South Hams Local Development Framework and Policies SPTI I , DEV24 and DEV27 of the emerging Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan.

  1. Having regard to the adverse landscape impact arising from this proposed development, the development is not sustainable and as such is contrary to paragraphs 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy SPTI of the emerging Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan.
  2. The quantum of development proposed for the site is unlikely to provide an appropriate mix of house types, tenures and sizes, contrary to Policy DPI 1 of the South Hams Local

Development Framework and DEV8 of the emerging Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan and will not make the best use of land.

  1. The proposal would generate a requirement for a signed Section 106 Obligation to deliver identified necessary planning mitigation. The absence of such a signed agreement is contrary to policies CS6, CS8 and CSIO of the adopted Core Strategy 2006, policies DEV9, DEV28, DEV29, DEV32 of the emerging Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan and paragraph 203 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Key issues for consideration:

The site is within the South Devon AONB and Undeveloped Coast. The site is not allocated for development.

Given the location of this unallocated site outside the development boundary it is considered that, taking into account paragraph 49 of the NPPF, the initial issue to be considered is whether South Hams District Council can demonstrate a five year housing land supply. If a five year housing land supply cannot be demonstrated, relevant planning policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date.

In such a situation it is necessary to consider if any adverse impacts of granting permission for this development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or if specific policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted.

As such the key issues to be addressed will be landscape/AONB impact, biodiversity, neighbour impact, highway impact, and economic and social benefits

SHDC Landscape: Objection: failure of Development Plan policy tests and objectives CS9 (I ,

DP2 (la, b, d and e), and conflict with the AONB Management Plan. The emerging Joint Local Plan policies DEV 24 and DEV 27 carry similar requirements, with greater clarity added to the conservation of the undeveloped and unspoilt character and appearance of the Undeveloped Coast by emerging policy DEV 25 to reflect the position of the NPPF. The emerging policies carry varied weight at this stage, but would similarly not support the proposed development of this site.

AONB Unit — Interim comments provided indicating they consider this to be major development in AONB. Further views are requested to inform the LVIA to include views from Salcombe-Kingsbridge Estuary: It is stated that the planning balance for determining this application is not an ordinary or standard balancing exercise which would involve merely balancing the exceptional circumstances and public interest against the harm to the AONB. Instead the balancing exercise must be a weighted one in which there is a strong statutory presumption against development and that the conservation of the AONBs landscape and scenic beauty are given great weight

 

Comments

Share This