ITEM
ITEM
Development Control Committee- 31st July 2002
UNAUTHORISED ALTERATIONS TO CALVES HOUSE BARN, WINDMILL
DOWN FARM, HARPERS HILL, TOTNES. ENF/0023/02.
REPORT OF THE CHIEF ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
Statutory Powers: Town & Country Planning Act
Financial Implications:
None
Purpose:
To seek authorisation for Enforcement Action.
Recommendations:
That the Committee RESOLVES that formal ENFORCEMENT ACTION for the
removal of the unauthorised works to the first floor of the building and the reinstatement
of the roof to the ground floor calf house. The suggested compliance period is six months.
Background/The Issues:
1.
The above parcel of land is situated approximately 200 meters right of Tristford
Cross, towards the top of Harpers Hill. Vehicular access to the site is via harpers
hill, an unmade track and a public right of way which passes alongside the group
of farm buildings, and from which a few public vantage points of the farm
complex can be seen.
2.
The building known as Calves House Barn is located on a site adjoining the main
farmhouse and within a range of agricultural buildings of various sizes and states
of repair. A large, modern agricultural barn belonging to this complex is also sited
approximately 70 metres to the south west of the site.
3.
Development in the locality is very sparse with only farmsteads and the
occasional isolated dwellings within the landscape. The overall character is
predominantly rural. Field boundaries are in the main defined by hedgebanks,
where in some isolated areas they contain mature trees. The land is designated as
open countryside and recognised for its special landscape character through it’s
designation as an area of Great Landscape Value within the Local Plan.
4.
In April 2002 Officer concern was expressed because both written and verbal
negotiations and approaches by planning officers to the land owner had failed to
illicit a positive response. The unauthorised development of this structure
although slow, is continuing. There have been two applications for planning
permission. The first a retrospective application, the second a similar attempt to
allow alterations to Calves House to form a storage area. Both these applications
were refused and accordingly these works are unauthorised and comprise a breach
of planning control.
5.
Following a site visit on the 20th January 1999, it was discovered that a former
single storey building in use as a calves house was in the process of being
enlarged by the erection of a first floor extension with a pitched roof. The first
floor extension included several domestic type window openings on the east and
west elevations with a door being fitted at the first floor level to facilitate entry
from the garden of the farmhouse. Timber roof trusses were being fitted and the
building has the appearance of being a split level dwelling house.
6.
A retrospective planning application for the alterations was submitted to the Local
Planning authority on the 28th January 1999 (ref: 56/0162/99/F), stating that the
additional storey was necessary for storage. On the 23rd March 1999, planning
permission was refused. A subsequent appeal was also dismissed by the Planning
Inspectorate on the 23rd September 1999.
7.
The Inspector considered that there was insufficient evidence of a clear
agricultural need for the ongoing alterations to the building, bearing in mind the
ample storage space which already exists in neighbouring barns and the fact that
there has been spare capacity for agricultural storage within the building for
several months.
8.
In addition, the Inspector agreed with the Council’s opinion that the proposed
alterations to the building would mean it could subsequently be adapted for
residential purposes without major re-construction. Finally it was felt that the
increase in height of the building and adding domestic windows would be
inappropriate in the rural setting and would be materially harmful to the character
and appearance of the area.
9.
A second retrospective planning application for alterations to the calves house to
form a “storage area” over and incorporating the additional storey but reducing
the number of first floor windows was received by this Authority on the 7th June
1999 (ref: 56/0926/99/F). This application was refused on the 1st September 1999
based on similar grounds as the previous application.
10.
The owner of the land and person responsible for the development has refused to
accept recorded delivery written correspondence requiring that the structure be
returned to its original condition.
11.
The site lies within open countryside where new development is strictly controlled
and an emphasis is given to the preservation and enhancement of the landscape.
This breach in Development Control harms the appearance and character of this
part of Totnes to a material degree. The main policies which relate to this area
are; SHDC 3 “Development in the Countryside” and Devon County Structure
Plan Policy C6 “Areas of Great Landscape value”, also in accordance with the
new emerging Local Plan Policies DS4 “Development in the Countryside” and
ENV3 “Areas of Great Landscape value”. The above policy text is mentioned in
part only.
Human Rights Act
12.
Due regard has been given to the use of the land and to the property owners rights
under Article 1 of the first Protocol, namely the peaceful enjoyment of their
property and/or possessions. Article 8, namely Right to respect for private and
family life, has also been considered. However, these rights have been balanced
against the wider community interests as expressed through planning policies and
in the interest of preserving the character and appearance of the Totnes area.
Conclusion: Officers consider that enforcement action is expedient.
Jamie Staples
Enforcement Officer
Alan Robinson
Chief Environment and Development Officer
DEV CTRL
31-07-02
ITEM
ITEM
Development Control Committee- 31st July 2002
UNAUTHORISED SITING OF CARAVANS & VEHICLES FOR RESIDENTIAL
USE, LAND AT WINDMILL DOWN FARM, HARPERS HILL, TOTNES.
ENCASE/0034/02.
REPORT OF THE CHIEF ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
Statutory Powers: Town & Country Planning Act
Financial Implications:
None
Purpose:
To seek authorisation for Enforcement Action.
Recommendations:
That the Committee RESOLVES that formal ENFORCEMENT ACTION for the
removal of all caravans, buses/coaches and vans from the land. The suggested
compliance period is three months.
Background/The Issues:
1.
The above parcel of land is situated approximately one mile to the south west of
the centre of Totnes. The farm is located approximately 200 metres right of
Tristford Cross, towards the top of Harpers Hill and over looks Totnes. The land
is designated as open countryside and recognised for its special landscape
character through it’s designation as an Area of Great Landscape Value within the
Local Plan.
2.
In April 2002, local and Officer concern was expressed about the unauthorised
alterations to Calves House Barn within the farm courtyard. During a site visit on
the 22nd April 2002 the discovery was made of 11 caravans of varying sizes, 7
vans and 2 coaches, the majority of which seemed to be uninhabitable. The siting
of these caravans is unlicensed and unauthorised and comprises a breach of
planning control and in contravention of the Caravan Sites and Control of
Development Act, 1960.
3.
Over the years there has been much planning history, details of which can be seen
in the table below.
APPLICATION
No.
9/56/0064/77/4
DESCRIPTION
9/56/0367/77/4
Use of land for one REFUSED 28.04.77
residential caravan O.S 5088.
9/56/0438/77/4
To retain five
already sited.
5/56/1260/77/4
Siting of one caravan.
9/56/1321/77/4
Use of land for one REFUSED 23.11.77
residential caravan O.S 7959. Appeal
Dismissed
10.10.78
Storage of four caravans O.S REFUSED 31.03.87
3470.
56/2063/86/4
RESULT
Use of land as a site for REFUSED 25.02.77
eleven residential caravans.
Appeal
Dismissed
10.10.78
caravans REFUSED 28.04.77
Appeal
Dismissed
10.10.78
REFUSED 23.11.77
The above mentioned planning applications sought to retain caravans already
stationed on the land and used for residential purposes. Following refusal of the
applications and a successful prosecution of the site owner in March 1978 the
caravans were removed from the land.
Following the receipt of further complaints on 25th October 1989 a caravanette of
five caravans were found to be present on the land and in residential use. This
breach was resolved via correspondence and the site was cleared.
Again on February 2nd 1990 three caravans and a Bedford lorry were found and in
residential use and once again following representations to the site owner the land
was cleared.
Also on the 23rd January 1991 a Commer van, six caravans and two lorries were
found to be present and in residential use and following a communication from
Environmental health the site was cleared.
Lastly on the 19th March 1992 an inspection revealed a converted bus, six
caravans and a Commer van in occupation and a seventh present on the land but
unoccupied. Through lengthy negotiation the site was cleared by the 10th February
1998.
4.
The site lies within open countryside where new development is strictly controlled
and an emphasis is given to the preservation and enhancement of the landscape.
The locality is very sparsely populated with only farmsteads and the occasional
isolated dwelling within the landscape. The character is predominantly rural. This
breach in Development Control harms the appearance and character of this part of
Totnes to a material degree. The main policies which relate to this area are; Devon
Structure Plan First Review Policy 6, “That in Areas of Great Landscape Value
development should not detract from the particular landscape qualities and
characters that have led to the designation of that area”. Development Plan
Policies SHDC 3 “Development in the Countryside” & SHDC 7 “Touring
caravan/camping Sites” and also in accordance with the new emerging Local Plan
Policies DS4 “Development in the Countryside” and ENV3 “Areas of Great
Landscape Value”. The above policy text is mentioned only in part.
Human Rights Act
5.
Due regard has been given to the use of the land and to the property owners rights
under Article 1 of the first Protocol, namely the peaceful enjoyment of their
property and/or possessions. Article 8, namely Right to respect for private and
family life, has also been considered. However, these rights have been balanced
against the wider community interests as expressed through planning policies and
in the interest of preserving the character and appearance of the Totnes area.
Below is a samples of photographs taken.
Conclusion: Officers consider that enforcement action is expedient.
Jamie Staples
Enforcement Officer
Alan Robinson
Chief Environment and Development Officer
DEV CTRL
31-07-02
ITEM
ITEM
Development Control Committee- 31st July 2002
RETAIL ACTIVITY AT SPRINGFIELD NURSERY, FILHAM, UGBOROUGH
REPORT OF THE CHIEF ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
Statutory Powers: Town & Country Planning Act
Financial Implications:
None
Purpose:
To seek resolution to take no further action
Recommendations:
That the Committee resolves that it is not expedient to take enforcement action to reduce
the current extent of retailing activity and to commit no further resources to monitoring
this business unless there is a significant change in circumstances
Background/The Issues:
Introduction
1.
Springfield Nursery lies on the eastern edge of Ivybridge at North Filham on the
B3213. The owners, Mr and Mrs Bates, live in a semi-detached cottage: the
adjoining property is Binwell Cottage. The nursery extends to approximately 1
acre. The site comprises polytunnels, growing areas, a customer car park, storage
buildings, a mobile home and a grassed area.
2.
A report was presented to the Committee on 5th September 2001 as a response to
complaints from residents. These alleged that a caravan was being occupied for
residential purposes within the nursery and the site had become a garden centre so
there had been a change of one from the lawful agricultural/horticultural use to
retail.
3.
You were advised that successful enforcement action had already been taken
regarding the caravan which had sought to stop its residential use. The
Enforcement Notice had not required the removal of the caravan and the Inspector
had noted that if it was put to an agricultural use there would be no change of use
of land involved so no planning application would be needed. However, you
considered that the logical conclusion of their losing the appeal should have been
the removal of the caravan and so resolved to issue a second Enforcement Notice.
An informal hearing took place in June and the Inspector’s decision has now been
received.
4.
The Inspector was satisfied that the extent of agricultural use of the caravan
brought it within the lawful use of the nursery and so quashed the Notice. An
application for costs was made by the appellants but the Inspector felt that the
justification for serving the Notice had been “finely balanced” and the action had
been warranted in view of the ongoing complaints. It is expected that the caravan
will now remain on the site.
5.
At the meeting the Committee had also been advised that as a result of case law it
is not only can Mr and Mrs Bates sell what they grow from the site, but up to 10%
of turnover can accrue from goods and materials bought in for resale. Officers
had been provided with details of accounts which showed that 19% of turnover
came from bought in goods. You resolved to take no action over the extent of
retailing but required that the site be monitored.
6.
Officers have continued to visit the site and respond to complaints about vehicular
deliveries. A second agricultural appraisal was also commissioned. A copy of the
ADAS report and letter of instruction are attached.
7.
The report confirmed that the results for the annual accounts up to 31st January
2002 showed that the proportion of turnover resulting from bought in goods had
reduced to 14.6% and so the core business of the nursery remained as legitimate
horticulture in nature.
8.
Your Officers have devoted a lot of time and resources to monitoring this business
and have concluded that whilst there is marginally more retailing being carried
out than fits within the rule of thumb 10% guideline, the outward impacts are not
so severe as to justify enforcement action.
9.
The immediate residents have now sold the adjoining cottage.
Human Rights Act
10.
The interests of the owners of Springfield Nursery have been carefully balanced
against those of their neighbours. Clearly both have a right to respect for their
property. At all times any interference with those rights has to be in pursuance of
the aim of seeking compliance with planning law and be proportionate to any
harm to the public interest. Your Officers consider that not taking further action
can be justified in terms of the Human Rights Act.
Conclusion:
11.
The concerns of the neighbours have been well understood by your Officers who
have gone to considerable lengths to verify whether the growing-on activities at
Springfield Nursery constitute a legitimate horticultural activity and what level of
turnover is devoted to imported goods. It is in the interests of neither party for
this matter to be protracted further and a decision of whether further action is
justified needs to be taken. Your Officers consider that no further action should
be taken.
Stephen Munday
Development Control and Conservation Manager
Alan Robinson
Chief Environment and Development Officer
DEV CTRL
31-07-02
ITEM
ITEM
Development Control Committee- 31st July 2002
UNTIDY SITE ON LAND ADJACENT TO 1 QUEENS TERRACE, STATION
ROAD, TOTNES. COM/0608/01
REPORT OF THE CHIEF ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
Statutory Powers: Town & Country Planning Act 1990
Financial Implications:
None
Purpose:
To seek authorisation for a Section 215 Notice, under the Town and Country Planning
Act 1990 Requiring of Proper Maintenance of the land.
Recommendations:
That the Committee RESOLVES that formal ENFORCEMENT ACTION is authorised
under section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the removal of the
present vehicle, roadworthy or otherwise, from the site and to cease to use the land for the
display of any slogan relating to any claim or dispute. The notice should also require the
return the land into a condition, which is such that it does not adversely affect the
amenities of the area. The suggested compliance period is 28 days.
Background/The Issues:
1.
The above parcel of land is situated approximately 215 metres on Station Road,
South, South East of Totnes railway station and adjacent to number 1, The
Willows, Queen’s Terrace. Station Road runs into the A385 and is the main
commuter road linking Totnes with Dartington, Kingsbridge, Plymouth, Newton
Abbot, Torquay and Paignton and has been identified as a peak pressure route.
2.
The initial report was made in December 1999 in relation to a temporary solid
board, painted black, erected next to a hearse on the plot, with a message painted
in white “Pip Paine-Pay back the £5,000 you owe me.” Sometime in early
December the hoarding disappeared with no intervention from the Council.
3.
In January 2000 a metal sheet hoarding 2.5m x 1.25 with a height of 1.9m was
erected in the same spot and with the same message displayed. Due to the
dimensions of the board and the fact that it could not be controlled by the
Advertisement Regulations, under section 224 of the Town and Country Planning
Act 1990 no action could be taken.
4.
Over the past 2 years there have been a numerous variety of vehicles parked and
then removed from the land, all with the same or similar slogan. The land is
privately owned and has the benefit of lawful use for the parking of a private
motor vehicle. This restricts the action the Council can take. However, it is felt
that the “untidy site notice” mechanism could be used as the display of slogans is
not part of the lawful use of the land for the parking of a vehicle.
5.
To date, the removal of the vehicles has been through negotiation and the choice
of the owner of the land. There is every indication that this use of the land for this
method of civil dispute will continue.
6.
The land is not sited in any policy or designated areas within the Local Plan.
However due to highly visible position of the site and the nature of the slogans
and vehicles used to display them it does harm the appearance and character of
this part of the Totnes area, to a material degree. It is felt that this continuing use
of the land for this purpose is a distraction to road users, locals and tourists alike.
Human Rights Act
7.
Due regard has been given to the use of the land and to the property owners rights
under Article 1 of the first Protocol, namely the peaceful enjoyment of their
property and/or possessions. Article 8, namely Right to respect for private and
family life, has also been considered. However, these rights have been balanced
against the wider community interests as expressed through planning policies and
in the interest of preserving the character and appearance of Totnes area.
Conclusion: Officers consider that enforcement action is expedient.
Jamie Staples
Enforcement Officer
Alan Robinson
Chief Environment and Development Officer
PLNG
31-07-02