Bigbury Neighbourhood Plan Five Year Review
“Bigbury Parish Council invites members of the public to comment and add their views to the Parish’s Neighbourhood Plan as part of the five year review process. The Neighbourhood Planning Committee has proposed amendments that are highlighted and take into account the updated National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), The Plymouth and South Devon Joint Local Plan (JLP) and JLP Supplementary Document. Bigbury Parish Council needs all your views and comments etc. Please let the Council have your views/comments via ‘Comments’ on this website or send them to the Parish Clerk at clerk.bigburypc@gmail.com or to the Chairman on cllrhwainwright.bigburypc@
Once the community has given their comments on the Five Year Review, the Parish Council will review and agree the final version that will then be submitted to SHDC to review the Plan and also provide comments.”
In 2021 South Hams District Council declared a housing crisis. Many of the local employers state that a major barrier to recruitment is lack of housing. Many young families who want to stay in the area just can not find or afford the housing that is available. Though the development at Holywell Meadow was a great success and to be applauded, should the NHP look towards further provision of housing? Under the current governments plans to build 1.5 million new homes, if a pro rata approach were adopted this would mean 15 – 20 new homes in Bigbury. All new builds are restricted to permanent residents. Of course all new developments have an impact and these need to be carefully considered.
The churchyard is full with limited space for those who wish to be buried in the churchyard. Parking is limited for those attending the church or for events. There is a need for a toilet in that area. There might be scope to make a new cemetery, a car park and public toilet for walkers and church goers in that area of the village. This might be a desire at present rather than having a realistic solution, yet may be this might be something that the NHP could encapsulate in a broader longer term plan?
South Hams District Council declared a climate change and biodiversity emergency. In March 2023 Bigbury Parish Council declared a climate emergency. As a consequence the susutainability components of the NHP have been strengthen. Yet our carbon footprint is high and we burn more oil as a heating source than many parishes in the South Hams. The recent proposal for a wind turbine owned by a coporate giant brought into focus the range of issues, not least our location of being in the South Devon National Landscape (SDNL)(formally South Devon AONB).
Community energy projects offer a route for communities to develop sustainable solutions to the climate crisis whilst offering significant benefit to the community. Local community energy projects like Yealm Community Energy (https://www.yealmenergy.co.uk/) and South Brent Community Energy Society (http://www.sbces.org.uk/) have provided thousands of pounds of support to local community through sustainable energy generation. May be the NHP needs to incoporate and aspect of community energy as a component?
Interestingly community energy and SDNL are not incompatible. Renewable Energy in the South Devon AONB: a position statement is published on the SDNL website and they advocate:
• the development of small sensitively sited renewable energy installations where the impacts are local in scale, provide a demonstrable net environmental gain and where the energy is used close to the site of the generating installations. These will operate at an individual farm,
household or community scale, have minimal transport or transmission impacts and be unobtrusive in the landscape;
• the development of community-owned renewable energy schemes;
(Source: https://www.southdevon-nl.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/SDAONB-Renewable-Energy-Position-Statement-Oct-2010.pdf)
At a recent SHDC/Sustainable South Hams symposium on Renewable Energy, it was suggested that South Devon might be or should be in the national vanguard of the effort to reach ‘net zero’ because we have the “cultural scaffolding” to effect “generational change”. Be that as it may, I’m not sure that covering productive farmland with solar panels, erecting giant wind turbines in prominent land-based locations or submerging hydroelectric generators in our beautiful rivers is the version of a renewable energy project that would be acceptable to many people living in the community or visiting Bigbury, part of our wonderful South Devon National Landscape.
Policy BP29 – Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy does include the same wording as set out in the Renewable Energy in the South Devon AONB Position Statement referred to above.
The policy also introduces many other energy efficiency and renewable energy measures required for new developments. These include optimising energy efficiency by providing good insulation and air tightness; providing on site renewable energy and avoiding fossil fuels, such as gas or oil. The policy requires developments to achieve Passiv Haus standards or as close to this as possible. It requires the need to optimise natural light and solar gain, to use of energy efficient lighting and to optimise renewable energy in the form of solar panels.
Retaining the beauty of the Bigbury area needs to be even more emphasized. The installation of large single wind turbines as well as wind farms should be excluded. Large solar farms – more than ten units should also be banned in our area of natural beauty. The landscape is as important part of the national heritage as listed buildings and must be simarly protected.
Renewal energy should be limited to small scale domestic schemes. If window modifications are restricted for listed buildings to then the heritage of the landscape needs to be similarly protected..
Avon Estuary
1) Duke’s Mill Creek gets a fairly cursory mention in the NP although it is one of the most popular walks in the area and is part of a CWS and Marine Conservation Zone. I have an old list of the plant life within the creek, if considered appropriate.
2) Is the Bantham/Bigbury ferry timetable still accurate? (BP17 p25.
3) The licensors of DOC moorings to the public have changed since the Bantham Estate’s change of ownership – relevant?
4) missing word p27, 4.104. tidal and fluvial EROSION
The refreshed Play Park deserves a mention.
The need for renewable energy must be balanced with the need to maintain our area of outstanding natural beauty.
Encourage sources of renewable energy on a scale that does not adversely affect the landscape. This is possible and could take us towards net zero. An active programme of identifying and encouraging such projects would be appropriate. Deterring large scale work that adversely impacts is a necessity.
Our neighbourhood plan should ensure that our community is resilient and sustainable for future generations and that we play our part in our national commitment to reduce carbon emissions and provide affordable housing.
Bigbury Parish Council has declared a climate emergency and 77.5% of those who commented on the recent application for a 1 MW single wind turbine in Bigbury – were unequivocally in support of the turbine despite its known location within an AONB. The review of the neighbourhood plan should reflect this public opinion and not undermine the possibility of community-led renewable energy projects that make a significant and immediate impact on our carbon emissions and those of neighbouring parishes.
The energy dependency of Bigbury and neighbouring parishes on oil-fired heating systems is preventing residents from reducing their personal responsibility for the catastrophic climate change which is directly related to the burning of fossil fuels. BIGBURY: oil (58%) LPG (15%), mains gas (0%) electricity (27%); KINGSTON: oil (71%) LPG (9%), mains gas (0%) electricity (20%); RINGMORE oil (61%) LPG (11%), mains gas (0%) electricity (29%); AVETON GIFFORD: oil (51%) LPG (13%), mains gas (0%), coal (11%) electricity (26%;).
The Neighbourhood Plan would better reflect the majority views if it adapted its statement on renewable energy as follows
“The Neighbourhood plan advocates for:
• The adoption of high standards of energy efficiency in the design and construction of all new buildings, with the aim of securing “good” or “excellent” standard in the BREEAM environmental ratings system;
• The inclusion of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems in all new properities which separates foul water from rainfall catchment from the roof and surroundings. Retrospective installation of SuDS will be supported.
• The development of community-owned renewable energy schemes which are:
1. Not industrial in scale but of a scale which is economically viable and capable of producing enough energy to provide a sustainable alternative to the current dependency on oil.
2. The energy produced is used within Bigbury and neighbouring parishes
3. Sited as sensitively as possible within the landscape – an iconic feature symbolising the enviornmental sensitivity of the community and its concern and responsibility for future generations.
• The planting and active management of woodlands in appropriate locations, to act as a “carbon sink” and to act as a sustainable source of woodfuel.
Vision Statement
Do the unique aspects of our parish need greater emphasis?
• To conserve and enhance the outstanding natural beauty of the countryside, the streams and their valleys, the Heritage Coastline, Burgh Island, beaches and the Avon Estuary Marine Conservation Zone.
Does the declaration of the recognition of a climate emergency by BPC, which potentially threatens our parish in so many ways, warrant a mention in order to help to achieve our overall vision and how it may be mitigated?
General design principles
The updated sections of the Policy BP7 – General design principles for new
development, which has served the community well over many years is most welcome. This facet of the NP has often been quoted in challenging potentially undesirable development but has periodically been overturned by higher Authorities.
Defining the rights of outlook and view both primary and secondary is critical for preventing incremental creep of eroding neighbouring properties amenity.
Also maintenance of privacy by mitigation of overlooking has often been of concern and again defining measures put in place.
The criteria outlined in BP29 concerning energy efficiency should also be referenced here as should SUDs (Sustainable drainage systems) policies in development in line with the Plymouth and SW Devon JLP Dev35 section 4-9.
Many properties particularly in Bigbury-on-Sea have been demolished and rebuilt even under the guise of refurbishment, including some former locally listed heritage assets. The cost in terms of wear and tear on the local community as well as the carbon footprint is significant. Should prior compensation be sought to mitigate against these negative effects?
How Green is the NP?
There are many excellent policies in the NHP that can be referenced to this area but should they be more clearly signposted?
The recent discussions over the Wind turbine application continues to raise debate as highlighted in the recent South Hams Society newsletter October 2025.
Should the Neighbourhood plan offer communities the opportunity to develop a positive vision of their future in this area. Small developments should be welcomed and at no stage has any party suggested farms of wind or solar arrays. But what constitutes this type of development and should it be considered at a greater scale than domestic?
Is there an appetite for community input and benefit on proposals significantly larger than domestic scale. Should potential sites be identified and clear criteria discussed upon which to judge these proposals?
The latest predictions are that climate change will result in more extreme weather events in the UK, and recently we have witnessed heavier rainfall events leading to an increased risk of flooding, more and longer-lasting heat waves and drought periods. Does the NP have resilience strategies to combat these events?
Coastline, beaches and the Avon estuary
Should there be more emphasis on these unique parts of our parish? Should there be reference to the fact that issues caused by upstream catchments and downstream coastal waters may have to be addressed to improve the health of the beaches and estuary and their ecosystems rather than just referencing their outstanding natural beauty?
Should we emphasis that local communities need to take responsibility for their impact on water quality, beach and estuarine environmental health?
How should tourist and related developments and employment opportunities be regarded Coastline, beaches and the Avon estuary MCZ, not only the obvious such as Burgh Island Hotel but also smaller enterprises?
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the review of the Bigbury Neighbourhood Plan.
We regard the Bigbury Neighbourhood Plan (BNP) as a well-researched, carefully considered, and professionally developed framework that benefits everyone in the community. The Plan guided us when renovating our home in Bigbury on Sea, one of the first houses built in the village in 1910. As permanent residents, we sought to create our dream home while preserving its authentic craftsman character and avoiding any negative impact on our neighbours. By engaging with the authors of the Neighbourhood Plan, we achieved an outcome that balanced personal aspirations with community interests.
The Neighbourhood Plan exists to enable sustainable progress, not to obstruct it. The majority of planning applications have been supported by the BNP, and in the few cases where concerns were raised, the feedback provided was measured, constructive, and fair. Those who dismiss the Plan as an obstacle undervalue its purpose and risk prioritising self-interest over the preservation of natural beauty, the design principles of the original developers, and the wellbeing of the wider community.
We have observed some issues that would benefit from deeper examination to make the implementation of the Plan more robust.
1 We believe the awareness of planning applications in the general community is low. Unless specifically affected by an application few people tend to get involved. Arguably this is a normal human trait but it does slowly erode the strength and objectives of the plan to benefit all the community.
2 The Plan is also only as strong as its enforcement. Even when proposals are clearly in breach of the BNP and rejected by the Parish Council it seems that with money, and the desire to keep appealing they can be overturned. There seems to be no respect for the plan.
This is exacerbated by certain architects who seem to delight in ‘getting around’ the plan.
The tendency therefore is to throw up ones hands and say what’s the point.
A few ideas……
Relaunch the BNP in a blaze of glory, bring it alive to residents, second home owners, estate agents, architects and solicitors.
Find a way using modern communications to ‘push’ awareness of planning applications to people not expect everyone to constantly navigate the councils planning website. A notice on a lamp post feels rather quaint in this digital age.
Let’s try to raise the voice of enforcement. We’re not sure how. Maybe our collective voices need to shout more, perhaps be less polite, maybe shame people. We should take stronger action on ‘easy wins’ and begin to generate a view that the BNP cannot be ignored.
In closing we believe that modern building techniques together with clever sensitive design can both enhance the future development of Bigbury and comply with the integrity of the BNP. It only requires the will to do so.
Many thanks.
With kind regards
John & Joni Hawkes
The NP should reflect the majority support for sustainable energy sources for the local community. A single wind turbine, providing electricity for Bigbury and surrounding villages/hamlets should be incorporated. The plan can limit this provision to ensure people’s concerns about a proliferation of wind turbines, and large scale solar farms are taken into account. Will one turbine, sensitively placed within the landscape impact the enjoyment of the area?
Further, any new housing should incorporate greater use of solar panels, not just air-source heat pumps. If the resultant houses cost a little more, the energy savings will benefit the occupants long-term.
We are so lucky as residents- or as visitors- to live in such a beautiful and diverse landscape. The current neighbourhood plan’s Vision and Objectives states that;
‘The community’s vision for the future of the parish is;
To conserve and enhance the unique and special character of our rural and coastal community retaining its heritage significance and its outstanding natural beauty, whilst considering sensitive enhancements for the benefit of residents and visitors ‘
…. and this still holds true today.
We all want energy efficiency with renewable energy and to live in a greener world. So while the need for local renewable energy is more vital than ever, living in this South Devon National Landscape- SDNL (formerly AONB -Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) we need to be mindful of the environmental impact larger scale installations would have on this wonderful area.
The following statement from the SDNL website is appropriate;
‘The development of small sensitively cited renewable energy installations where the impacts are local in scale provide demonstrable net environmental gain and where the energy is used close to the site of the generating installations. These will operate at an individual farm, household or community scale, have minimal transport or transmission impacts and be unobtrusive in the landscape.’
It would have been interesting to note what the numbers in support of the large wind turbine in Rolliers field would have been, had the public meeting on September 3rd not been cancelled -as the given figure of 77.5% (of those who commented) were in support -but at a time before the scheme had had the chance to be fully debated and before the chance for Octopus Energy’s plans to be fully scrutinized or before the environmental impact of the building and installation of the wind turbine were fully known.
Affordable housing for local families is a continued requirement to encourage young people and families to want to stay and work in the area. Any new houses that need to be built should continue to be sympathetically designed, such as the new housing at Holywell Meadows at St Ann’s Chapel. New housing needs to be well placed for schools and health care provision in the area. Improved public transport, such as a more frequent bus service would help families getting children to school and also for older people who don’t drive.
Special mention could be made of the people who run the local community based services such as Holywell Stores and Post Office, Unwind and the Pickwick Inn. They all boost the local community, provide jobs and opportunities for local people to interact. This also applies to the friends and volunteers at St Lawrence’s church and at the Memorial Hall who put in so much of their own time, energy and money into organising various enjoyable events which then foster a greater sense of community.
Based on an initial reading and now the updated plan I’ve found the NP an informative, nuanced, professional and excellently presented framework for the Parish.
I would think that the recent major upgrade to the Play Area in St Anne’s deserves a special mention and maybe a picture?
The idea of a public toilet in Bigbury village in the area of the church, particularly given recent fundraising efforts, would be welcome – too premature to mention?
The importance of this five year review process is also highlighted in view of the recent Rolliers Field application. If the PC had been seen to be out of date in terms of this review – as it appears was readily and incorrectly suggested by the national energy provider who made the application – then it would seem it would have been an encouragement to an overtly commercial venture which flies in the face of so much of the hugely important ethos, guidance and descriptors which pervade both the Neighbourhood Plan and the South Devon National Landscape documentation.
It is heartening therefore to see BP29 updated in these proposals to appropriately and sympathetically emphasise the urgent need to encourage energy efficiency and renewable energy, but not on the kind of terms demanded by, for example, the 90m high turbine proposal. It is good to read the NP proposal and note its alignment alongside the relevant higher level policies.
It is also interesting to see the questionnaire that went out in the original formulation of the NP. I wonder if there’s anyway that the neighbourhood plan can be more actively promoted and awareness raised as it presumably was at the point of its preparation and first publication. Can display copies be kept in key locations such as Holywell Stores, the Church, pubs! etc with a copy of the web link on the front for people to hopefully scan and view more readily?