Marine showroom extension at Wills Marine, The Quay, Kingsbridge

What was proposed

An extension to a marine retail unit for a new showroom on the boat storage yard, with officers finding appropriate scale, design and no technical objections.

“Development: Extension to existing marine retail unit to provide a new showroom on existing boat storage yard & demolition of part of building…”

“The Case Officer raised the key issues namely: • Appropriate scale and design. • Supports a local business. • Expansion of marine sector. • No technical objections. • Acceptable impacts on residents and the local landscape. • Conditions to prevent additional highways impact.”

Minutes

Objection over heritage and light

An objector said the proposal would harm the setting of a nearby Grade II listed building and overshadow neighbouring living rooms.

“Public Speakers Barbara Ruddock speaking in objection. This location very prominent in Kingsbridge and within a conservation area and directly in front of an important listed building. The applicant produced a heritage impact assessment but refers to the wrong development and concludes that the impact of the setting of Pindar Lodge, a Grade II listed building was neutral. This was clearly incorrect and the council would normally strongly object to such an impact.”

“This proposal would affect sunlight into the neighbouring properties and unduly overshadow their best and only living rooms. The proposal has been scientifically proven by the applicant to be three times worse than the limit set for the neighbourhood daylight amenity. The proposed building was directly in front of a listed building, the setting of which would clearly be destroyed and hope you all agree that this type of development should not be supported here.”

Minutes

Support for the applicant

The applicant said the long-established family business would create further employment and the design was sympathetic to the local marine character.

Town Council's objection

The Town Council said the applicant's own assessments showed harmful loss of light to neighbouring homes and raised concerns about an unenforceable parking condition.

“Statement from Kingsbridge Town Council. The change in light levels resulting from this proposal would have a significant and harmful impact on residential amenity, particularly for properties already experiencing reduced daylight. The applicant’s own submitted assessments confirm that light levels to neighbouring homes would fall significantly below what was considered normal or acceptable. This was not a disputed claim, it was evidenced in their documentation.”

“We must also highlight the unrealistic reliance on an enforcement only parking condition. To suggest that a “no parking” requirement can simply be policed by enforcement is, frankly, unworkable. It places an unreasonable burden on the Council, was almost impossible to monitor in practice, and does nothing to prevent the very impacts the condition was supposed to mitigate. A condition that cannot be enforced was not a sound condition.”

Minutes

Ward councillor's concerns

The ward councillor supported local business but shared concerns about loss of light to neighbouring flats and the Heritage Officer's reservations.

“Local Ward Member Councillor Denise O’Callaghan supported local businesses but shared the concerns raised by residents and the town council. The potential loss of light to flats two and three when they already struggle to get adequate light on many days during the winter months. The flat roof would be a meter above the existing stone wall and suggest this would be overbearing and overshadowing which can affect mental health.”

Minutes

Right to light clarified

The Monitoring Officer said the right to light was a private property matter, not a material planning consideration, unlike the 25-degree rule.

“The Monitoring Officer raised that Cllr O’Callaghan and Town Council referred to the right to light. The right to light was not a material planning consideration. It was a private property right and planning law not concerned with private rights. The 25-degree rule was a recognised standard for assessing the impact of buildings on light and residential amenity.”

Minutes

Members' debate

Members debated the 25-degree rule on light loss, the visual impact on the listed building, and whether the site's history supported development.

“During the debate: • The national planning guidelines using the 25-degree rule to assess the loss of light had been correctly applied. • The building as its proposed height would create a feeling of being boxed in and would reduce the amount of light depending on the time of year. • The boatyard compared to a permanent building was different but could see the potential in the reduction of noise and disturbance.”

Minutes

Officers' recommendation

Members proposed and seconded support for the officer's recommendation of conditional approval.

“It was then PROPOSED and SECONDED to support the officer’s recommendation.”

Minutes

What was decided

The committee granted conditional approval, including conditions on boat storage size, external lighting, drainage and ecology recommendations.

“Conditions: Standard time limit Accord with plans Construction Management Plan- PTC Maximum size of boat permitted to be stored shall be 9 metres long Yard to be kept available for loading/unloading Details of external lighting Installation of solar panels and retention Accord with submitted drainage scheme Accord with recommendations of ecology report…”

Minutes