PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT – Householder Developments


Case Officer:  Bryony Hanlon                                               Parish:  Newton and Noss


Application No:  3504/21/VAR




Mr Justin Sluce


48 Yealm Road

Newton Ferrers

PL8 1BQ 



Mr B Sherriff

The Mooring, Newton Hill

Newton Ferrers



Site Address:  The Mooring, Newton Hill, Newton Ferrers, PL8 1BG




Development:  (Revised plans) Application for variation of conditions 1 (approved plans) and 6 (stone faced boundary wall) of planning consent 0068/20/VAR


Recommendation: Conditional approval


Reason for call in: Both Councillors have called the application in due to the strong local objection to the scheme.



1.    Standard time limit

2.    Adherence to plans

3.    CMP

4.    Privacy screening (fences)

5.    Privacy screens (opaque glazed screens)

6.    North west wall finish and coping stones

7.    Landscaping

8.    ASHP

9.    Stone facing to wall

10.  Door to be maintained in timber



Site Description:

The site is located within the built form of Newton Ferrers, within the South Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Heritage Coast. The site is adjacent to the Conservation Area boundary on its southern and eastern borders. The site hosts a detached dwelling with small patio to the south. The dwelling has been extended and altered during its lifetime, most recently under 1543/18/HHO, as varied under 0068/20/VAR.


Proposed Development:

In 2018 the applicant was given permission to replace the roof, undertake alterations to fenestration, remodel of the south elevation and create an underground store beneath the garden. In 2020, this consent was varied; the applicant wished to alter the scheme; this included the introduction of posts to the balcony, additional roof lights on the north east elevation and the rebuilding of the western boundary wall. The applicant now wishes to further vary the plans; the proposal includes changes to boundary treatments, the installation of an air source heat pump, other services and the enlargement of the undercroft store beneath the garden.




·         County Highways Authority (original plans)                     No highways implications


·         Parish Council (original plans)                                          Objection

Previous planning approvals laid down the height of the boundary walls to the south and west of The Moorings and gave the reasoning why these walls should be clad in stone. “… the Council’s heritage specialist considers this wall effects the setting of the conservation area and on the basis that there was a historical stone wall – any replacement should also be clad in stone”. Furthermore, the walls were built approximately 450mm lower than the height detailed in the planning approval. It is the view of the Parish Council that these departures from the original consent are a matter for enforcement not something that can be addressed by a variation request.

A further impact of the failure to use stone cladding is that the steel balcony support is exposed to the neighbouring garden and not concealed under stone as was originally promised.

The Parish Council further notes that heating pipes are also exposed to the neighbour’s garden. These have never been included on any plan and should not therefore have been ignored in the current variation.





Representations from Residents

Four letters of objection were received in response to the original plans submitted with the application and include the following points:

I strongly object to this variation on the grounds of:

Adverse impact on street scene and conservation area.

Increased loss of privacy,

Unsightly elements of the rebuilding of The Moorings now not obscured

Highway safety.

The application also does not address all the non-compliance issues and is an inadequate submission with many errors and omissions. Also if approved, there would be approved drawings that were conflicting with others, so it would not be clear what has been approved.

I comment on particular issues as follows:

1.    Western boundary wall adjacent to our patio.

(Drg SD05H N/W Elevation)

Because of the approved development, the privacy of our garden and particularly our patio area has been adversely affected. The proposed reduction in height of wall will significantly increase our loss of privacy, for the sake of less than 3.0m2 of wall.

The drawing does not represent what is currently in place i.e. to show part of the original stonewall that has been retained. One of the features the Yealm Cottage garden is that it is the boundary walls are of stone. This wall was originally a stone boundary wall that was demolished as part of the works. I understand it was due to SHDC’s conservation officers’ insistence, on approved 0068/20/VAR that this wall’s replacement was shown as stone faced.

2.    Southern Boundary wall

No elevation has ever been shown of this wall which was originally of stone and it is very visible from the conservation area. It is detailed on current approved drawing SD06C. This shows a stone wall about 900mm above adjacent garden level with a 900mm high fence above, providing 1.8m privacy protection. Currently this is only a 450mm high block work wall above The Mooring’s paved garden, which is a convenient height for sitting on a looking into our garden.

The applicant’s planting schedule approved 31July 2018 has not been amended and so is assumed to still be current. This shows a fence and hedge on this boundary.

3.    Revised drawing SD01D

This drawing shows on plan a length of fence with dense green planting. The length of fencing shown is shorter than that shown on the elevation. The drawing does not:

Show the 500mm wide planter for the planting specified in approved planting schedule,

Make reference to, and is in conflict with, the approved planting schedule and associated drawing. This drawing also needs to be revised and resubmitted.

Show the omission of the marginal greening along the road edge as shown on the planting schedule. This now cannot be reinstated as the new construction now covers most of the strip between the tarmac and the line of the original wall.

Show the changed shape and extension towards the highway of the rebuilt buttress wall to the north of The Moorings.

Show revised positions of roof drainage down pipes and the new connection drainage of the patio area connecting to the foul drain, increasing incidence of foul sewer storm overflows.

Show heat exchanger unit that has not been installed in accordance with requirements for planning exemption and can now be clearly seen from our garden and from the adjacent conservation area.

4.    Revised drawing SD05H

This drawing shows 4 elevations and I comment on each as follows:

South west elevation.

This shows the rise in level of paved patio by about 450mm so the privacy measures to our garden immediately to the south should be raised accordingly.

No information is given of detail of south elevation boundary wall, which is shown on the original approved drawing as the original stone wall being retained and which has now been demolished.

The detail on the highway side does not show the planter, hedge or fence.

Note also comments item 1 above.

South east elevation.

The detail shows 1800mm high timber trellis with plants. The approved planting schedule refers to a hedge with growth higher than the fence.

The approved planting schedule details a 500mm wide planter. To sustain a hedge, this would need to be about 500mm deep and either be on the inside of the fence, or with a possibly reduced height fence above. As this aspect is very visible from the adjacent conservation area, the details need to be developed and shown.

The door to the undercroft is now shown as a full width garage type door. The elevation does not show the change from a pedestrian door or make reference to the application now being for possible vehicular access onto the highway. It is only by comparing previous approved drawings, that the implications of the change become obvious. This may explain why the highway authority did not comment.

A completely blind vehicular access at this point, on the single width steep hill without pavements, is particularly dangerous and should not be approved.

North east elevation.

The profile of the rebuilt buttress wall is not shown, as referred to in item 3 above.

Revised roof drainage down pipe and elevated gully pot have not been shown.

North West elevation

The proposed reduction in wall height and resultant increase in loss of our privacy and omission of stone facing was commented on in item 1 above.

The elevation does not show the very prominent black external heating pipes and associated wiring. These twin pipes with their insulation are each about 75mm dia. They are very obtrusive, as seen from our patio area. They need to be boxed in a colour to match the wall.

The balcony support column is now fully exposed and conspicuous. The addition of these columns was the subject of the variation application 0068/20/VAR. To justify the variation, the architect stresses that the columns would mainly be obscured. The column adjacent to our patio is now fully exposed.


If the application for the garage, columns and spiral staircase, with the ensuing loss of privacy, had been properly shown on the original application, instead of by gradual change, there could have been much stronger opposition to the original application.

The application should be either refused or withdrawn and resubmitted with current privacy measures reinstated and other issues as above addressed. There are aspects where I would not object to changes from the current approval and I would be pleased to discuss these as part of an overall agreement.

Planning permission for re-modelling of The Moorings has been granted however it would appear there have been a catalogue of deviations from the originally approved plans. This is wholly unacceptable as the stringent planning permission/conditions were put in place as the property is very close to the conservation area and in an AONB. It also appears from walking past the property that the underground store is intended to be used as a garage. Due to the trajectory of a vehicle leaving the garage it will only be able to drive down the road and cause traffic issues in an already bottle neck area. Planning permission is difficult to come by because of the beautiful location and if the owner wanted to deviate from the original plans this should have been actioned through the appropriate planning permissions prior to carrying out the works. Building work should have adhered to the original planning permission which afforded the adjoining cottage an element of privacy. Conditions imposed by SHDC were imposed for a reason and therefore I feel these deviations, particularly the reduced height of the adjoining wall of Yealm Cottage and also the possible use of the undercroft store as a garage would not have been approved originally and therefore not appropriate to attempt to grant planning permission by stealth. The works to re-instate the privacy breaches should be carried out in a timely fashion.

Gateway Wall abutting N elevation of The Moorings

On 28th January 1955 a planning application made by the former owners of Yealm Cottage for the construction of garages planning ref WB/484/698/54. This was approved. The planning application plan is attached as below which shows two curved gateway walls onto the highway. These walls formed the splayed access point to the former village water tank. On 18th October 1960 another application was made by the former owners of Yealm Cottage: “ to remove end walls of disused water tank and facing wall”. It appears that a drawing was not attached to this application. In the event, at that stage, the N splay entrance wall was removed but not the S wall. My question now is whether this remaining south section of then entrance wall wall could be removed or reduced in thickness, without the need for another planning application? No details of any changes to this wall were proposed in the initial or subsequent variation applications for the recent rebuilding of The Moorings. As part of our agreement with Mr [REDACTED] to allow him to enter our land to carry out his rebuilding works, this wall was to be removed and rebuilt not more than 300m thicker, order to improve our highway access. Mr [REDACTED] removed this remaining section but rebuilt the wall, about 700mm thick and some 400mm further to the N of the line we that we had agreed and also further towards the highway than the original wall. As a result, our exit on to the highway from our drive is now considerably more dangerous and difficult than it was before. This is because we now have reduced visibility when exiting onto the narrow steep hill.

If variation application was submitted we would strongly resist any application that deviates from the line we agreed with Mr [REDACTED] and any plans showing wall closer to the highway than it was before. We want to restore our visibility on to the narrow steep hill.

External heating pipes.

Two pipes, as part on the heat exchanger system, have been installed on the west wall of The Moorings. The pipes have be insulated so the finished external diameter is about 700mm. They are very intrusive and have never been shown in any planning application. A variation application is required, we would not resist this application if the proposal would show that pipes would be boxed in. This boxing should be the same colour as the wall. This would also improve the energy efficiency of the heating system.

Southern Boundary wall.

The original application showed 900 mm stone wall above the patio/garden level with 900m fence on top off the wall, (drawing 17009/SD06C). A hedge behind the fence with a wide 500mm planter was detailed on the approved landscaping proposals. This gave us some privacy protection. It appears that this drawing is still current but it could be interpreted to conflict with details shown on Variation application 0068/20/VAR. In the even, the stone wall has been mostly demolished and replaced with a block work wall, height only about 450mm above the patio /garden level. We feel it is important that our privacy is protected and also that the wall is stone faced to replace the old stone wall and so that it is in keeping with the rest of our garden. This will also restore the view from conservation area and complying with the details as shown on the approved drawing.

Surface water discharge

My other concern is that none of the surface drainage details comply with the approved drawings. There was also a lack of detail on the disposal of surface water. All the surface water, including the whole of the patio/garden area, has been connected to the foul sewer. Previously this area drained into the ground. This increases the foul sewer storm overflow discharges into the Creek, causing increased pollution. There is a surface water sewer in the road and unless a connection to this has been refused, at least the surface water from the patio/garden area should be disconnected from the foul sewer.


One letter of objection was received in response to the revised plans as readvertised and includes the following points:

Main concern is the southern boundary. Approved SD06C, not being resubmitted or superseded, shows a stone wall, 900mm above garden level, and 900mm fence above. This gives me:

Adequate privacy,

Is in keeping with all the other boundary walls in our garden,

Reduces the impact and dominance of a white modern building as seen not only from out garden but also from the adjacent conservation area and from windows in three adjacent properties in the conservation area.

I strongly object to the implication of details shown on new Drawing SD09 which conflict with the approved drawing.

1. Application form.

Section 4

Increase height of fencing to W. boundary. No fence exists or has ever been shown.

Section 6

Condition 1 - resubmitted drawings do not match as-built.

Condition 6 relates to W boundary wall, Drg. No. SD05 H still shows stone facing to garden wall

Condition 7 relates to wall adjacent to highway where stone wall has already been constructed.

2. Planting Schedule.

Item 1&2 planter specified as 300mm wide, is this external or internal dimension? Depth of planter not specified. Height of hedge specified as 1.1m, is this height from top of planter or ground level? For hedge to survive there needs be a significant volume of soil. Item 2 If wall and fence were constructed to combined height as shown on current approved plan and not being varied Drg. No SD06C (1800mm above garden level). There does not seem to any need for planter behind this section of the boundary.

3. Drg. SD09

Spiral staircase is not shown. Height of fencing is not shown.

No details given to proposed finish/rebuilding/re-profiling of crumbling wall that is bulging into Yealm Cottage curtilage.

4. Drg. SD02E

As built west ASHP pipes wall are not straight.

Fencing adjacent to Newton Hill is shown as 1800mm above level of terrace, conflicts with drawing SD05H. Height should be given as 1800mm min above level of terrace, as terrace is not level.

Wall adjacent to drive entrance to Yealm Cottage has been rebuilt further into the highway reducing the visibility and safety of exiting from Yealm Cottage.

5. DRG. SD05H

Inconsistency in notes on treatment of steel columns: (rear SW elevation)

Elevation of rebuilt wall adjacent to Mew Cottage not shown as constructed.

North west elevation still shows stone facing to garden wall Presumably a mistake.

No reference made to change of undercroft to garage. Revision only says notes added.

6. Application formalities.

Part of the route length of the ASHP pipework is in the curtilage of Yealm Cottage. We have not received a notice

Relevant Planning History

Planning Application Reference


Site Address


37/1417/83/3: FUL


The Mooring Newton Hill Newton Ferrers.

Conditional approval:

06 Dec 83

37/1750/02/CU: COU

Change of use of shop and dwelling to dwelling

1/3 Newton Hill Newton Ferrers Plymouth Devon PL8 1BG

Conditional approval:

22 Oct 02


Householder application for replacement roof, alterations to fenestration and re-modelling of south elevation. Creation of underground store beneath garden.

The Mooring Newton Hill Newton Ferrers.

Conditional approval:

31 Jul 18


Application for approval of details reserved by conditions 3 and 5 of planning consent 1543/18/HHO

The Mooring Newton Hill Newton Ferrers.

Discharge of condition approved:

15 Mar 19


Variation of conditions 2 (approved plans) of householder consent 1543/18/HHO

The Mooring Newton Hill Newton Ferrers.

Conditional approval:

01 Jun 20




1.0 Principle of Development/Sustainability

1.1 The site is located within the built form of Newton Ferrers and hosts a single residential dwelling with an extant consent for extension and alterations. The principle of further alterations within this context is therefore established, subject to compliance with the other protective designations in this highly sensitive location.


1.2 During the consultation period for the plans as first submitted with the application, Officers noted that some components of the proposal as built were not included on the plans and that further revisions were required in order to make the development acceptable. As such, a set of revised plans were readvertised and subject to public consultation.


1.3 It is noted that concerns were raised during the first consultation period regarding the installation of heating pipes on the western boundary of the dwelling. They were included in the revised plans and Officers are satisfied that they have been subject to the proper public consultation. Officers have been made aware of a land ownership dispute relating to the siting of the heating pipes but the applicant has advised that they own the land within the red line site application boundary and on this basis, Officers consider that the application has been duly made and can proceed to determination.



2.0 Design and Heritage

2.1 The changes proposed centre around the finishes to the scheme, privacy screening and the landscaping scheme. The substantive issues have been considered as part of the previous consents and under the application to discharge conditions, however, Officers consider that the requirement to face the boundary wall to the north west in stone can be lifted, while the requirement for the stone on the public facing wall on the south east elevation remains. While the painted render finish may not be to everyone’s taste, the light colour helps to alleviate the sense of enclosure for neighbouring occupants such that it does not appear overbearing or oppressive. Officers have also noted concerns regarding the current state of the boundary wall on the western elevation, as it is possible to walk along the top of it to the detriment of the privacy and amenity of the neighbours. After discussions with the applicant, stone coping set at a 45 degree angle will be installed along the boundary wall to prevent access.


2.2 Officers have also reviewed the minor amendments proposed by the applicant to the landscaping scheme. Officers note the objections to the changes (a 20cm reduction in the width of planters and a change in some plant species) but in the context of a domestic garden, Officers are satisfied that the proposed changes will not impact the efficacy of the landscaping in terms of its contribution to visual amenity. On balance, the proposal is considered to accord with the provisions of DEV1, DEV20, DEV21, DEV23, DEV25, in the JLP N3P-1, N3P-3, N3P-4 and N3P-8 in the Newton and Noss Neighbourhood Plan.


3.0 Neighbour Amenity

3.1 Objections were received on the basis that the proposal gave rise to opportunities for overlooking of the neighbouring property to the west. Officers conducted a site visit and agreed that additional privacy screening was required on the top of the existing boundary wall; this was agreed by the applicant and revised plans were provided. It is considered that this screening will alleviate some of the concerns that the steel supports associated with the balcony were not faced with stone as originally anticipated, as much of this structure will be concealed from public view. In a similar vein, fencing and landscaping required by condition under the previous consents has not yet been provided. As such, Officers have imposed conditions requiring that this be provided by specific dates, rather than upon completion of development. Officers are satisfied that on this basis, the proposal will be accompanied by adequate screening to safeguard the residential privacy and amenity of adjoining occupiers and the proposal accords with the provisions of DEV1.


3.2 The applicant has included the provision of an air source heat pump within the proposal, in order to deliver on-site low carbon energy systems, in order to comply with the provisions of DEV32. This element is acceptable, with full details of the ASHP secured by condition in order to safeguard the interests of residential amenity and the natural environment. On this basis, the proposal is considered to accord with the provisions of DEV1, DEV2, DEV26, DEV28 and DEV32 in the JLP.


4.0 Highways/Access

4.1 The scheme does not include any alterations to the existing access or parking arrangements and the Devon County Council Highways Engineer has confirmed that there are no highways implications associated with the proposal. It is noted that there are concerns regarding the lack of visibility should the undercroft be used for the parking of vehicles, unfortunately, Officers are unable to substantiate a refusal without the matter being raised by the Highways Team. Officers have considered a condition restricting the use of the undercroft to prevent it being used for the parking or storage of vehicles, however, the condition would be impractical to monitor and enforce. Furthermore, Officers are mindful of the low speeds of passing traffic and that the road in this area is straight, giving drivers a clear view ahead. Officers have also had regard to the other access arrangements in the surrounding area and on balance, it is not considered that the proposal will result in an increased risk to highway safety and the proposal accord with the provisions of DEV29.


5.0 South Devon AONB

5.1 Policy DEV25 requires that proposals “conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the protected landscape with particular reference to their special qualities and distinctive characteristics or valued attributes”. The proposal meets the first policy test, in that the design and palette of materials have a neutral impact on the AONB itself, as the proposal is located well within the built form of Newton Ferrers and changes to character and appearance of the residential area will be localised only, thereby conserving the natural beauty of the AONB. While it does not offer enhancement, given the small scale of the proposal and having regard to the current condition of the site, including the presence of an existing residential dwelling, the proposal is considered acceptable with regard to the provisions of DEV25 in the JLP and N3P-9 in the Neighbourhood Plan.


6.0 Other Matters

6.1 Objectors have raised concerns about the condition of an existing wall on the southern boundary; the maintenance and repair of this wall is considered beyond the scope of this application.


6.2 Concerns have also been raised that the surface water drainage has been connected to the foul sewer; this is a matter for South West Water as they are responsible for the foul sewer in the area. As such, this matter is considered beyond the scope of this application.


7.0 Conclusion

7.1 Officers are mindful of the strength of local opposition to the development and recognise that whilst it is not yet completed, some of the changes represent a compromise in comparison to the original consent. However, on balance, the proposal is considered to be in accordance with the Development Plan and there are no material considerations which outweigh the policies. It is therefore recommended that the application be granted conditional approval.


This application has been considered in accordance with Section 38 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.


Planning Policy


Relevant policy framework

Section 70 of the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act requires that regard be had to the development plan, any local finance and any other material considerations. Section 38(6) of the 2004 Planning and Compensation Act requires that applications are to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.  For the purposes of decision making, as of 26 March 2019, the Plymouth & South West Devon Joint Local Plan 2014 - 2034 is now part of the development plan for Plymouth City Council, South Hams District Council and West Devon Borough Council (other than parts of South Hams and West Devon within Dartmoor National Park).


The relevant development plan policies are set out below:


The Plymouth & South West Devon Joint Local Plan was adopted by South Hams District Council on 21 March 2019 and West Devon Borough Council on 26 March 2019.


SPT1 Delivering sustainable development

SPT2 Sustainable linked neighbourhoods and sustainable rural communities

SPT9 Strategic principles for transport planning and strategy

SPT10 Balanced transport strategy for growth and healthy and sustainable communities

SPT11 Strategic approach to the Historic environment

SPT12 Strategic approach to the natural environment

TTV1 Prioritising growth through a hierarchy of sustainable settlements

TTV2 Delivering sustainable development in the Thriving Towns and Villages Policy Area

DEV1 Protecting health and amenity

DEV2 Air, water, soil, noise, land and light

DEV20 Place shaping and the quality of the built environment

DEV21 Development affecting the historic environment

DEV23 Landscape character

DEV24 Undeveloped coast and Heritage Coast

DEV25 Nationally protected landscapes

DEV26 Protecting and enhancing biodiversity and geological conservation

DEV28 Trees, woodlands and hedgerows

DEV29 Specific provisions relating to transport

DEV31 Waste management

DEV32 Delivering low carbon development

DEV35 Managing flood risk and Water Quality Impacts


Neighbourhood Plan

Following a successful referendum, the Newton & Noss Neighbourhood Plan was made at Executive Committee on 19 July 2018. It now forms part of the Development Plan for South Hams District and is used when determining planning applications within the Newton & Noss Neighbourhood Area.


It is considered that the proposal accords with the policies below;


N3P - 1: The Village Settlement Boundaries

N3P - 2: Protecting the Waterfront

N3P - 3: Development Policy Areas

N3P - 4: Development and Construction

N3P - 5: Movement and Parking

N3P - 6: Drainage and Flooding

N3P - 8: Heritage and Conservation

N3P - 9: Protecting the Landscape


Other material considerations include the policies of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and guidance within the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). Additionally, the following planning documents are also material considerations in the determination of the application: South Devon AONB Management Plan (2019-2024), Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan Supplementary Planning Document 2020.


Considerations under Human Rights Act 1998 and Equalities Act 2010

The provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 and Equalities Act 2010 have been taken into account in reaching the recommendation contained in this report.



1.  The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than (insert date), which is the date of expiration of planning permission (insert original permission ref), which this application varies.


Reason: To comply with Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 as amended.


2.  The development hereby approved shall in all respects accord strictly with drawing numbers;

Site Location Plan 17009/EX01A

Proposed Site Plan 17009/SD01D

Received by the Local Planning Authority on 30 September 2021

First Floor Plan 17009/SD03C

Received by the Local Planning Authority on 04 October 2021

Proposed Elevations 17009/SD05H

South West Elevation 17009/SD09

Proposed Ground Floor Plan 17009/SD02E

Received by the Local Planning Authority on 16 November 2022


Reason: To ensure that the proposed development is carried out in accordance with the drawings forming part of the application to which this approval relates.


3.  Notwithstanding the information submitted, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the Construction Management Plan and additional information agreed by the Local Planning Authority under application reference 0647/19/ARC.


Reason: To ensure minimal impact on the users of the highway and the neighbouring properties.


4.  Within three months of the date of this decision, privacy screening as shown on 17009/SD05H on the north west elevation of the boundary wall and on the south east elevation of the boundary wall shall be provided and retained and maintained in perpetuity. In addition, boundary fencing on the south west elevation, as shown on drawing 17009/SD09 shall be provided and retained and maintained in perpetuity.


Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring residential properties.


5.  Prior to any use of the balcony, the obscure glass side privacy screens will be erected as approved in plans 17009/SD05G and 17009/SD03B and 17009/SD06C and shall be retained and maintained in perpetuity.


Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring residential properties.


6.  The landscaping scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the details received by the Local Planning Authority dated 26 October 2022 by 31 March 2024.

Any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the date of completion of the development dies, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.


Reason: In order to protect the visual amenities of the locality and to assimilate the development into its surroundings.


7.  Notwithstanding the information submitted, the boundary wall on the north west elevation as shown on drawing number 17009/SD05H shall be finished in painted render and subsequently retained and maintained in perpetuity. Within three months of the date of this decision, the stone coping set at 45 degrees shall be installed to prevent pedestrian access along the top of the wall. The stone coping shall be retained and maintained in perpetuity.


Reason: In the interests of residential privacy and amenity.


8.  Within three months of the date of this decision, full details of the Air Source Heat Pump hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The details shall include the operational noise limits of the pump and details of any acoustic screening. The equipment shall then be installed, maintained and retained in accordance with those details for the lifetime of the development, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the LPA. The Air Source Heat Pump must be removed as soon as reasonably practicable when no longer required.


Reason: In order to safeguard the interests of residential amenity and the natural environment.


9.  Notwithstanding the information shown on the approved drawings, the stone boundary wall on the south eastern boundary (identified as Newton Hill/front/south east elevation on drawing number 17009/SD056) shall be clad in natural stone reclaimed from the site or of a natural stone which matches the colour and texture of that occurring locally, a sample of which shall be submitted to and approved in writing prior to construction. The new stonework shall be laid on its natural bed and pointed in a lime mortar recessed from the outer face of the stone. Machine cut or sawn faces shall not be used in the wall or for quoin stones.


Reason: To ensure that the development displays good design practice in respect of the age and character of the development.


10.  The door to the underground storage area shall be constructed and fitted in timber and retained and maintained in timber in perpetuity.


Reason: To use a material which will blend well with the stone of the wall and enhance the street scene.