Here we go again.  A new application has been lodged with all the descriptions which were true but unhelpful to the old application withdrawn.  The old was withdrawn when the Committee called it in and expressed deep unease at what was happening not only on the specific site but to this development that has been allowed to creep and spread over a beautiful area of Mid Devon.  And we all thought Town and COUNTRY Planning was created to prevent this happening.    Otherwise, compared to the previous proposal, the only real difference  is a lowering of the height of the proposed new building.  The photo here shows what an eyesore this is in the open countryside.  The website is grateful to our new incoming Chairman for the photo taken from the air where the true glory of the Business Park is shown.  The proposal, approximately in the middle of the site, will increase the building volumes - put up one time apparently for agricultural purposes - by demolition and new build.

7th November  2008

Dear Mrs Fish
Planning Application Ref: 08/01855/FULL
Demolition of 3 existing sheds and construction of 2 new industrial building, at Hartnoll Farm

The Tiverton Civic Society wrote and objected to a nearly identical application last June.  The difference appears to be in providing some more detail and lowering the height of the proposed structures.  Also some statements damaging to the chances of gaining an approval have been removed.  Our previous objection went to the root of the proposal that it was a last application in a series of applications which all breached fundamental planning policies affecting development in the open countryside.

The Society therefore maintains its objection to this proposal on the grounds of ‘cumulative development’ that has now amounted to a departure from the provisions of the Statutory Development Plan.   The Society has noted government advice that applications, through their cumulative impact with existing and/or proposed development, may have a significant impact on the implementation of the policies and proposals in the development plan and therefore should be treated as departure applications.  

The complicated history of the site with its gradual movement from primary use for agriculture to, in the applicant’s agent’s own (somewhat meaningless) words “this evolution has taken in diversification at the farmstead to provide economic support to that core” and the evidence of a recent aerial photograph, show how the change of uses and new buildings over time have given rise to a cumulative impact on the provisions of the Development Plan.   The business park is clearly the dominant use within the farm holding and the agent’s description is economical in words concerning the reality of the site area.  Hitherto the previous grants of planning permission have been dealt with under delegated powers to the Head of Planning and they have not been identified as departures from the Development Plan.  However the point has been reached where any additional planning approval will show a cumulative impact.  The application therefore constitutes a “departure application” which means an application for planning permission for development that does not accord with one or more provisions of the development plan in force in the area in which the application site is situated. (See Circular 07/99: The Town and Country Planning (Development Plans and Consultation) (Departures) Directions 1999.)    The policies, which are relevant and with which the proposal, as part of a cumulative series of applications now does not accord, are cited later in this objection letter.

This application is for the “Demolition of three existing buildings and construction of  one new building divided into two units for employment.”  The application gives a total floor area of 769 square metres for light industrial footprint will remove two small structures one of which (about 160 sq m) was granted a change of use from agricultural building to workshops under planning permission granted permission 8th February 2005 (04/02199/Full).    It is also proposed to remove a further small building, which would otherwise impede the creation of hard standing about the new building. 
The proposed new development will therefore comprise new build of about 769 square metres for light industrial use (Class B1 (c)) and which replaces a structure granted a change of use from agriculture to workshops.   The added new build for light industrial purposes is therefore about 600 sq m  (7,500 sq ft).  There is an amplification of purpose in the original Design and Access Statement accompanying the application, ‘”The buildings will be constructed for speculative use and at this stage the precise end user cannot be established, but it is expected that they will following (sic) the light industrial, storage, distribution and manufacturing uses already present on the site.”   This phrase clearly correct but damaging to this revised proposal has been deleted.
The planning permission in 2005, mentioned above, constituted a change of use although the conditions required that development for the permitted development must be in conformity with identified detailed plans which show that more than a change of use was permitted.   The aerial photo attached, taken in Spring 2008, shows the extent of the buildings on site and the degree to which office (Class B1 (a)) and light industrial (Class B1 (c )) and vehicles, containers, two mobile homes and other large unit storage (Class B8)  has occurred. The Society would repeat that it is unclear how much of this development described previously of “light industrial, storage, distribution and manufacturing uses already present on the site” has had the benefit of express planning permission.  In 2004 under application number 04/00775/FULL 1650 sq m was granted light industrial use and similarly in 2005 under application number 04/02199/FUL 1485 sq m was granted change of use which amounted to demolition of old agricultural units and new buildings being erected.   Neither of these applications was regarded as a ‘major’ application and therefore was not in itself separately meriting the departure procedure that indicates a conflict with provisions of the development plan.    Regarding the assertion of an existing ‘manufacturing’ use, in a land use context there may be no difference in use between ‘light industrial’ and ‘manufacturing’.   There is no record of a storage and distribution use (Class B8) permission for this general area although it is interesting that a large part of the storage area is fenced off at the southeast area of the landscaped banked or partially banked site.   It is also apparent that the permitted proposal and which was made a requirement in the 2005 permission for earth banking with landscaping and tree hedge and shrub planting about the site has not been implemented within the nine months required under condition 7 of the 2005 grant of permission. 

However the matter may be addressed, the situation now at this farm – being dominated by an emergent business park - is that a significant and material change of uses has taken place under the guise of diversifying out of agriculture into a primary role as a business park with a multiplicity of uses involved.   It should now be apparent that the cumulative impact is a major one and that this new application seeks not to show a farm diversification project but  ‘of small scale’ development ‘grouped together with existing buildings on the site’.
 
The applicant may state that the significant number of heavy vehicles, containers and other bulk storage, parked in and around the site, is ancillary to the existing B1 uses.   If this is so it has to be accepted that the traffic generation from the permitted uses are far greater than any reasonable local highway authority could have anticipated.   So even a ‘small scale’ addition is clearly material and damaging.

The site is one, which is not allocated for employment land, and is outside the settlement limits of Tiverton. It is therefore an open countryside location and conflicts with the Development Plan.

The Development Plan policies, which are in conflict with this proposal, are cited below. 
.
Policies TRAN 1 and Policy SS 19 of RPG 10 which states that outside market towns, development should be small scale and take place primarily within or adjacent to existing settlements, avoiding scattered forms of development. The site is not located near to Tiverton and does not conform to this policy.  
Structure Plan Policies TR2 and TR5..  The proposal is located where it is likely to create the need for additional travel by private vehicles due to its location and the lack of suitable access to alternative means of travel.
Structure Plan Policy TR10.  The proposal would make further impact along a road which, by virtue of its function in the highway network, is unsuitable to accommodate the increase in traffic likely to be generated.
Structure Plan policies ST5, ST15 and ST16. The proposed development site is outside the employment and commercial land allocations and outside the settlement boundary of Tiverton (Area Centre). It is in open countryside and “it is essential that development in smaller villages, rural settlements and in the open countryside is properly focused and controlled. It is particularly important to ensure that dispersed settlement patterns, which are less consistent with the concept of sustainable development, are not reinforced.”  The proposed development is not considered to be in an appropriate location. It is therefore contrary to these policies.
Structure Plan policy ST 1 of the Devon Structure Plan which states that sustainable development objectives can be met by meeting the needs of the community, including housing, employment, social and cultural needs, in locations that are most accessible to those who need to use them.
Local Plan Policy S5. The proposal has a cumulative impact whereby, when considered with previous development and by virtue of its location in an open agricultural area, would have an adverse visual impact on the character and appearance of the rural area.  The operation of this site, including any additional road traffic arising from this proposal, will be “detrimental to the amenity, health or safety of nearby occupants, or the wider environment, through noise, smell, dust, glare, light pollution, heat, vibration, fumes or other forms of pollution or nuisance.” The buildings within this ‘business centre’ are fully visible from the Grand Western Canal
Local Plan policy TIV17 states ‘Main routes approaching the town should be carefully designed to protect or enhance these first impressions of Tiverton’. The impact of this proposal within past accumulating development is contrary to this policy. 
Core Strategy policy COR18. Development outside the settlements will be strictly controlled, enhancing the character, appearance and biodiversity of the countryside while promoting sustainable diversification of the rural economy.     It is understood from members of the Society and from others that the present developments at Hartnoll Farm already cause considerable nuisance to local residents, and any further development is bound to exacerbate this.

The Council should also be mindful that the Local Development Framework, which is under consideration after publication, does not yet include this site in its employment land allocation for the period up to 2016 but makes adequate provision within areas identified for Tiverton’s future growth.  In these increasingly fraught times for our economy it is doubtful that there will be significant demand for new employment land outside that already available in Tiverton such as at the Cider Company site.  Indeed on the issue of need, the applicant did not seek in the previous application to suggest that there is business waiting to come in but identifies the proposal as for “speculative use” although his agent now says “the proposed building makes efficient use of land providing valuable employment facilities”.  There is now no suggestion of need. The need for these “facilities” is no longer demonstrable to outweigh fundamental open countryside policies and traffic restraints.   If granted an ad hoc planning permission on the basis of ‘want’ or ‘ownership desirability’ then this unused site (because the current recession turning into a slump will ensure this will remain either unbuilt or unoccupied), will hamper the proper planned release and development of employment sites much more convenient and better planned to Tiverton needs within the published draft LDF.

Yours sincerely

etc etc

For The October meeting review please click onto

oct-07-meeting.doc 

A member has asked what would happen if the District Council in promoting the development of the riverside site had to serve a compulsory purchase notice on an owner who was unwilling to sell.  The legal answer is lengthy but click on to the following for those who are really interested: 

legal-report-sept-19-2008.pdf

Frank Gent gave the September meeting talk  click on to 

september-2008-talk.pdf

for details.

Members will have noticed from the letter in the Mid Devon Gazette of 12th August 2008 at the Society’s despair over the way in which the Council has dealt with the Town Hall site application.   We believe the matter has been dealt with bias and ignorance.   For example the manner in which the senior conservation officer’s recommendation has been edited in the officer’s report to committee in order to remove strong criticism by way of  deleting two out of the three paragraphs in her recommendation is scandalous.   To read her memorandum go to  http://docs.middevon.gov.uk/pap/showimage.asp?j=08/00639/MFUL&index=142830   

The Committee’s officers are so concerned that our vice chairman has sent the following letter in the hope that the matter can be dealt with scrupulously and fairly in a public forum.  Please click on the following file for the full letter:                     obj-to-town-hall-site.pdf    Unfortunately the powers that be are unable to respond - seeing this as of not “more than of local importance“.  “The issue before the Secretary of State for decision is not whether the application should be granted planning permission, but whether or not she should call it it in for own determination.”  Bias and ignorance are not her concern unless it affects matters of more than local importance in development terms  It is therefore a local disaster that we believe will remain to the despair of the local community.  So much for checks and balances in the way we are governed.   Unless we went for judicial review but that is a two edged sword for if we won the great costs would fall to the ratepayers to pick up.    So this is disappointing of course but we have the Council we elected and they employ the officers who advise them.  The local newspapers will continue to record how local opinion and knowledge will be subsumed to the developers’ wants to meet development targets.  The one crumb of comfort is that the need which the Council identified as overriding all policy restraints no longer exists and did not at the time of decision making because the real world is where we have the credit crunch and few can now enter the housing market and no developer is going to risk his business building for a largely non-existent market.  The Council and its officers will learn that granting planning permissions does not necessarily lead to development happening. 

A Society member has requested that the leaflet guide, freely available from the Information Centre, should be posted on the Society’s website.     A download version for printing off yourself can be seen by clicking on the following 

4169_merchants-trail-leaflet_lo-res.pdf

The Society is seeking, in conjunction with the Civic Trust and the Devon Conservation Forum, to make a response to this important consultative document published by Communities and Local Government.  The document itself may be seen on  www.planningportal.gov.uk/england/professionals/en/1115315772911.html   from which you can download “A Call for Solutions”

Click on  to the following for the full response made through the Civic Trust:  kpr-response-2.pdf  

The Department for Communities and Local Government has expressed considerable interest in our Vice Chairman’s views and has asked permission to publish this response on their website.  Another first for TCS.

The Newsletter 68 for May 2008 is here  microsoft-word-full-newsletter-68-may-2008.pdf  

The Society is delighted to be informed that the developers wanting to build around Howden Court have withdrawn their application.   A member has written: ”I really do get the impression that, until the Society’s savage assault on the proposals, the planners had been giving tacit agreement to the plans. “        We can only hope the downturn in the housing market will mean that these speculative housing developers will leave Tiverton alone so that the infrastructure can catch up.  The developers just build and build here and nothing is contributed to the accompanying need for schools or road space or more parking provision in the town centre or to cater for the needs of the elderly attracted to Devon - the list can go on.

Earlier this year objections were entered by the Society to two planning applications on the old Whitbreads employment site.  The representations were broadly as follows: -

There are now 2 proposals by way of planning applications carving up the whole Cider Company site.  The industrial one seeks to replace the southern third of the site, which was granted planning permission for a business park in April 2007 last year (new build 2047 sq metres, employing 120 employees) .  This April 07 site  is cleared, fenced and vacant.  Half the whole Cider Company site (the northern half and mainly the very large Bottling plant building) is the area for which housing permission is being sought.  The other half  is for a bigger business park than permitted last April and to supercede last April’s decision.
These two proposals comprise The Cider Company land and raise issues about the availability of employment land in Tiverton. From the site inspection we were told that about 40 people were employed.  In Whitbread’s days , we were further told, there were about 400 people employed.  These current 40 odd employees will move to Cullompton, say, in a couple of years, where The Cider Company intend to relocate.   More convenient for breaking bulk and distribution by the motorway.
 
The Civic Society will be happy with the employment half but will strongly object to 76 houses displacing employment land for which there is presumed demand.   The TCS will note that the whole site (being made into a business park) would have largely satisfied the demand that was suggested for Hartnoll 2 and which sought to provide 7,900 sq m new build.   This latter point is in the event the TCS has to make its case for continuing its objection to Hartnoll 2 at an appeal inquiry.   The point we would make is that there is now  no immediate shortfall of employment land in Tiverton with The Cider Company site being vacated and being capable of being turned into more intensive employment uses,
There is also a flood issue of ‘medium probability’ with the site being in the Exe flood plain.   In the light of last year’s extensive floods throughout the Midlands we should become chary of even medium probability where housing is concerned - climate change and all that.  The gate attendant said he’d been there about 30 years and recalls some flooding.  Incidentally he remarked that few people working on site came from Tiverton.   If this is true why are we fussing so much about a shortage of employment land?  And why, in the New Hall,  were we told at the public meeting by the Chief Planning Officer that there was no employment land in Tiverton which was the reason for overriding numerous policies and bringing heavy traffic through Halberton with horrendous consequences?   Something was wrong here.  The Society was delighted that the Council rejected the officers’ advice.

Mary Turner took up this issue and made sure it would not be decided by officers as the original public notices stated.  To day, April 23rd,  we are notified both applications have been ‘withdrawn’, which is often ‘planning speak’ for ‘you are going to be refused and you will not stand much hope at appeal so go back to the drawing board’.