PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT
Case Officer: Kate Cantwell Parish: Inwardleigh Ward: Okehampton North
Application No: 3441/17/OPA
Agent/Applicant: Applicant: Edward Persse Kim Hawkins-Sampson 49 Bannawell Street Rambles Tavistock North Tawton PL19 0DP EX20 2BZ
Site Address: Proposed development site at SX573976, Folly Gate, Okehampton
Development: Outline application with some matters reserved for the construction of 23 dwellings, associated car parking, access and estate road, private amenity space and public open space.
Reason item is being put before Committee: At the request of Cllr Leech and Cllr Davies in response to the level of local objection.
Recommendation: Delegate to CoP lead Development Management, in conjunction with Chairman to conditionally grant planning permission, subject to a Section 106 legal agreement.
However, in the event that the Section 106 legal Agreement remains unsigned six months after this resolution, that the application is reviewed by the CoP Lead Development Management, in consultation with the Chairman of the Committee, and if no progress is being made delegated authority is given to the CoP to refuse to application in the absence of an agreed S106 Agreement.
The Section 106 would secure the following: • 30% affordable housing • £80,000 toward education - to be allocated to Devon County Council to be apportioned between the funding requests made which were: o £92,109 towards the new Okehampton Primary School o £16,100 to repay DCC costs to secure primary school land o £75,627 towards secondary infrastructure o £22,024 for primary school transport o £10,488 for secondary school transport o £ 5,750 towards early years provision o £ 500 toward legal costs £211,610 Total • £15,000 toward the village hall community facility for projects to be identified where £46,000 was requested. Clause to include a sliding scale such that if funds are not spent within an agreed timeframe they can be allocated instead to Devon County Council to go toward the outstanding education funding requests. • Clause to secure agreement that the Council shall be entitled to use up to 5% of the total payments and contributions payable to the Council pursuant to the provisions of this Deed hereto towards the costs to be reasonably and properly incurred by the Council in monitoring compliance with this Deed and in assessing the details to be submitted to the Council for approval pursuant to this Deed.
Conditions: 1. Reserved Matters submission timeframes 2. Reserved Matters to include 3. Prior to submission of reserved matters, the applicant shall agree with the LPA an appropriate housing mix 4. Accord with plans 5. Heritage Impact Assessment 6. Full hard and soft landscape details and a 5 year maintenance schedule 7. Tree and hedgerow protection 8. CMP 9. Unexpected contamination 10. Scheme for electric car vehicle charging points 11. CEMP 12. No development before implementation of scheme of archaeological works 13. No development before results of ground water impact assessment and implementation of necessary remediation works 14. No development before full details of surface water drainage management scheme are agreed with LPA 15. No development before full results of 12 month groundwater monitoring programme are submitted. 16. No development before full details of surface water drainage management for construction period is agreed with LPA. 17. No development before full details of the adoption and maintenance arrangements for the proposed permanent surface water drainage management are agreed with LPA. 18. Foul drainage connection 19. Completion of footpaths and visibility splays 20. Estate roads and other details required 21. Access road and other details required 22. No occupation before submission of further details to Highways Authority 23. The existing access to be closed off 24. Submission of a LEMP at Reserved Matters stage detailing ongoing management and maintenance of retained and created public open space/boundary features. 25. Submission of an Ecological Mitigation and Enhancement Strategy at Reserved Matters (to include impact avoidance, mitigation and enhancement proposals for construction and operational phases. The EMES should be fully integrated with the Landscape Details/Scheme and should demonstrate net gain in biodiversity). 26. Control of vegetation clearance.
Key issues for consideration: The principle of development in the context of West Devon Borough Council (WDBC) not being able to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply.
Viability and impact on planning obligations which can be secured by the development.
Environmental Impacts: contamination, drainage (surface water, flooding, foul drainage and private water supplies), biodiversity, heritage, highways and landscape impacts.
Financial Implications (Potential New Homes Bonus for major applications): It is estimated that this development has the potential to attract New Homes Bonus of £30,572 per annum, payable for a period of 4 years. Members are advised that this is provided on an information basis only and is not a material planning consideration in the determination of this application.
Site Description: The application site is located at the village of Folly Gate, which is located approximately 1 ¾ miles to the north west of Okehampton, 4 ½ miles south east of Hatherleigh and approximately 2 ½ miles south west of Jacobstowe.
The site occupies a relatively central location in terms of the built extent of the village, and between the two parts of the village which are centred around New Road and Chapel Lane (the historic core of the village) respectively. The southern part of the eastern boundary of the site adjoins the A386, and the northern part of the eastern boundary borders existing residential properties. To the north are agricultural fields which beyond which are more residential properties in the northern core of the village. To the west of the site are agricultural fields, and to the south is further residential development and the village hall. The site is outside the settlement boundary and is therefore classed as a countryside location.
The site is roughly square in shape and is part of a field measuring approximately 125m from the western most point to the eastern most point and 130m from north to south. This gives an approximate site area of 1.14ha. The site is bordered by an existing mature Devon hedgebank on the west north, south and west and there are a number of trees which are located on the boundary hedges. There is currently no means of enclosure to demarcate the western boundary of the application site.
The Proposal:
The indicative layout shows 23 dwellings, where 30% of the units will be affordable. This site will also deliver some public open space, estate roads and suitable access.
Consultations:
• WDBC Environmental Health Section: No objection. Suggested conditions relating to unsuspected contamination, submission of a Construction Environment Management Plan and a scheme for provision of electric vehicle charging points.
Further to our conversation the nearest private water supply we have recorded is at Farleigh Farm and is a well, due to the distance from the site to this well and the type of abstraction it is highly unlikely in my opinion that a development in this location would cause a significant impact on the water supply.
Later correspondence (8/2/19) stated “The impact on ground water by the development is a little outside of my expertise, there will be a risk, in reality probably a low risk of an impact as an average borehole draws water from 30m deep. A ground water impact assessment is a sensible way forward.”
• WDBC Biodiversity Specialist: Recommendation: No objection subject to conditions - Submission of a LEMP at Reserved Matters stage detailing ongoing management and maintenance of retained and created public open space/boundary features. - Submission of an Ecological Mitigation and Enhancement Strategy at Reserved Matters (to include impact avoidance, mitigation and enhancement proposals for construction and operational phases. The EMES should be fully integrated with the Landscape Details/Scheme and should demonstrate net gain in biodiversity).
• WDBC Open Space Sports and Recreation Specialist: 12/2/19: Assessment against CIL tests for s106 contributions
(a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms
WDBC Core Strategy Policy SP4 sets out the rationale for ensuring new development is supported by appropriate on and/or off-site infrastructure. With regard to Open Space, Sport and Recreation, levels of reasonable contributions are detailed within retained policy H26 of the Local Plan, and within the West Devon Open Space, Sport and Recreation Study (2007).
The development does not include any provision of play, sports or recreation facilities. However, the additional 54 residents (based on 23 dwellings with occupancy of 2.36 per dwelling) are considered likely to increase pressure on local offsite facilities. The Parish Council has indicated that the main sport and recreation project in the village is the replacement of the village hall, which provides an important community facility including opportunities for indoor sports such as yoga, skittles and darts.
The current village hall is in a poor state of repair and the Parish Council has identified the need for its replacement so that it can continue to sustain the existing activities, as well as accommodate new activities.
The additional 54 residents will increase pressure on the village hall, which has already been identified as in need of replacement and thus a financial contribution is considered justified to mitigate this impact, and help to make the development acceptable in planning terms.
(b) directly related to the development
The village hall is in very close proximity to the proposed development (c. 100m walking distance), and thus it is reasonable to assume that new residents would make use of this community facility. As stated above, the additional 54 residents will add pressure to the facility which has already been identified as being in need of replacement. The contribution is therefore considered to be directly related to the development.
(c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
Although the project is not for standard play and sport provision, the contribution has been calculated based on levels of reasonable contributions set out within the West Devon Open Space, Sport and Recreation Study (2007) and is thus considered to be reasonable in relation to the scale and kind of development proposed.
22/3/18: Green Space The outline proposal is for 23 dwellings. Whilst only indicative at this stage, the illustrative layout shows the provision of public open space (village green) along the eastern edge of the site. This is in line with comments received by the forward planning team that this would help to create a space that can be enjoyed by the whole village rather than an area experienced once within the development itself. It is considered that the public open space will provide some opportunities for informal play and recreation and the size of the space meets the policy requirements set out in the table above.
Sports and Play: Clearly the site does not include provision of playing pitches in line with policy, and is unlikely to include a space sufficient for meaningful ‘kick-about.’
The size of the development warrants a Local Area for Play (LAP) and this could be incorporated into the area of Public Open Space. In accordance with Fields in Trust guidance a LAP would normally require an activity area of 100m2 and a minimum distance from the boundary of the nearest dwelling of 5m.
However, it should be noted that the Council does not normally promote the provision of small, isolated LAPs. In addition, liaison with the Parish Council has indicated that the key priority for Folly Gate is refurbishment/replacement of the existing Village Hall. The Village Hall provides opportunities for both play and sports and refurbishment/replacement would enhance these opportunities. Given the additional pressures that the new residents will bring on the existing village hall, a financial contribution towards its refurbishment/replacement is thus required to help mitigate this pressure and make the development acceptable in planning terms.
It is therefore recommended that the sum of £49,815 is secured through a s106 agreement towards the refurbishment/replacement of Folly Gate Village Hall. The s106 should also secure public access and on-going management and maintenance of the on-site public open space in perpetuity. Full details of the on-site public open space will be required at the reserved matters stage.
NB – later enquiries made to the Parish Council to try and identify specific projects and associated costings did not elicit a response.
• WDBC Affordable Housing Specialist: No objection subject to delivery of the states 30% affordable housing provision.
• WDBC Landscape Specialist: Conclusions: The development proposals are considered to comply with development plan policies on landscape character (Strategic Policy 17), conserving the key characteristics of the area and respecting the existing settlement pattern. To secure an enhancement to landscape character in accordance with Policy 17 criteria (c), the boundary hedgerows should be retained outside of private rear gardens to secure their retention, and the western boundary appropriately designed and instated as a Devon Hedge boundary. If you were minded to recommend approval of the application, please condition the submission and implementation of full hard and soft landscape details and a 5 year maintenance schedule to accompany a Reserved Matters application. In addition, conditions should be attached to secure the submission and implementation of a Tree and Hedgerow survey, Tree and Hedgerow Protection Plan, and Arboricultural Method Statement for any works in close proximity to the retained trees and hedgerows.
Subject to the above conditions being imposed, I would raise no objection on landscape or arboricultural grounds to this outline application.
• WDBC Conservation Specialist: Having looked at the locality I would say that there are three potential non-designated heritage assets (NDHA) here. As well as Myrtle Cottage there is Cottles Cottage and the small stone building in the apex of the garden of Myrtle Cottage. These do not appear to have been considered as part of the site assessment provided by the applicants.
My brief assessment of these is that Cottles Cottage appears the oldest building based on its form, roof pitch and the large gable stack at the northern end. Although modernised it retains significant character by virtue of its form and materials.
Myrtle Cottage may have early origins but reads as a 19th century dwelling. It has been substantially altered with PVCu windows and the roof is dominated by PV panels. These alterations are reversible but do diminish the weight that can be accorded to this building as a NDHA.
The stone building is of interest. Given its location and orientation to the road it could be that this was a toll booth? It may also have been a donkey shed or other such? Whatever its purpose I would accord it some value as a NDHA and if it were a toll booth I would accord it greater weight as a feature associated with the 18th or 19th century improvements in road infrastructure. The highway arrangement shown does appear to impinge rather tightly upon the shed so the details of that need thought. The bench here suggests a level of community adoption which should inform design decisions.
I agree with your assessment that potential effect on the setting of these NDHA’s would not preclude development but must be a consideration when it comes to detailed design of the reserved matters. If the layout presented is taken as indicative rather than definitive then I would see no heritage reason to object to the development in principle.
• Inwardleigh Parish Council: In summary: o Concern that foul water system will not cope with added load as currently excess is removed by tanker. o Site has never been identified for development by WDBC o Outisde settlement boundary o Layout shown separates dwellings from rest of Follygate – concern it will be a ‘gated community’ o There are brownfield sites in the village which are more sustainable and available for development o Development of this site will result in loss of Grade 3 agricultural land and may therefore jeopardise development on the brownfield sites. o Development will remove good topsoil to clay below causing drainage problems in particular local private wells. o Previous tests may have shown the site drains adequately but it is known that run off from the clay creates springs which can change position with adverse impacts for properties in the village.
• South West Water: 4 th December 2017 In making our response South West Water assess the impact of the proposed development on our assets and assess the capacity within South West Water’s waste water network to accommodate and treat the anticipated flows arising from the development. We do not offer comment on aspects of planning applications that are outside of our area of control.
Foul Sewerage Services The modelling work we have undertaken has identified that the existing public combined sewerage network in the vicinity of this site are currently able to accommodate this proposal.
The proposed point of connection for this development is manhole 3702 which is located on the 150mm diameter combined public sewer located
Please find enclosed a plan to show the location of the sewers in the vicinity of the site. The information indicated on the plan is only as a guide and no assurance as to the accuracy is given or implied. The Company accepts no liability whatsoever for any error or omission in the information.
This response is not an approval of your sewer connection. Prior to making the connection you must submit a completed application form along with the necessary supporting documents for the connection to be approved. Further details regarding making a new sewer connections along with the relevant application forms can be found on our website: http://www.southwestwater.co.uk/sewerconnections.
Surface Water Services Having reviewed your current information as to proposed surface water disposal for this development, please note that method proposed to discharge into the ground (infiltration) is acceptable and meets with the Run-off Destination Hierarchy. However, should this method be amended, SWWL will require clear evidence to demonstrate why the preferred methods listed within the Run-off Destination Hierarchy have been discounted by the applicant.
Your LPA will be mindful of Local Plan policy to limit the adverse (including cumulative) effect of proposed development such that sustainability is paramount and flooding risk is not increased elsewhere, together with Paragraphs 162 of the NPPF, and Paragraphs 109 and 120 of PPG (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment).
Asset Protection Please find enclosed a plan showing the approximate location of a public sewer in the vicinity. Please note that no development will be permitted within 3 metres of the sewer, and ground cover should not be substantially altered.
Should the development encroach on the 3 metre easement, the sewer will need to be diverted at the expense of the applicant. The applicant/agent is advised to contact the Developer Services Planning Team to discuss the matter further.
If planning permission for this site has not been granted, the permission to connect to clean water and/or foul sewerage services is valid for a period no longer than twelve months. To extend this timescale, please contact the Development Planning Team.
• Lead Local Flood Authority At this stage, we have no in-principle objections to the above planning application, from a surface water drainage perspective, assuming that the following pre-commencement planning conditions are imposed on any approved permission:
1. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the detailed design of the proposed permanent surface water drainage management system has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with Devon County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority. The design of this permanent surface water drainage management system will be in accordance with the principles of sustainable drainage systems, and those set out in the Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy (Report Ref. 17014, Rev A, dated September 2017). Reason: To ensure that surface water runoff from the development is managed in accordance with the Principles of sustainable drainage systems. Advice: Refer to Devon County Council’s Sustainable Drainage Guidance.
2. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the full results of a groundwater monitoring programme, undertaken over a period of 12 months, has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with Devon County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority. This monitoring should be conducted to provide adequate coverage of the site, with particular focus placed on the locations and depths of the proposed infiltration devices. Reason: To ensure that the use of infiltration devices on the site is an appropriate means of surface water drainage management.
3. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the detailed design of the proposed surface water drainage management system which will serve the development site for the full period of its construction has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with Devon County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority. This temporary surface water drainage management system must satisfactorily address both the rates and volumes, and quality, of the surface water runoff from the construction site. Reason: To ensure that surface water runoff from the construction site is appropriately managed so as to not increase the flood risk, or pose water quality issues, to the surrounding area. Advice: Refer to Devon County Council’s Sustainable Drainage Guidance.
4. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the full details of the adoption and maintenance arrangements for the proposed permanent surface water drainage management system have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with Devon County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority. Reason: To ensure that the development’s permanent surface water drainage management systems will remain fully operational throughout the lifetime of the development.
Observations The applicant has outlined two acceptable methods of surface water management and discharge; infiltration via crate soakaway and underground attenuation with discharge to combined sewer or nearby watercourses. In accordance with the principles of sustainable drainage systems, our preferred method would be for infiltration, provided the groundwater monitoring shows no groundwater within 1m of the base of the proposed soakaway.
• DCC Education 23 dwellings results in financial contribution request of: £92,109 towards the new Okehampton Primary School £16,100 to repay DCC costs to secure primary school land £75,627 towards secondary infrastructure £22,024 for primary school transport £10,488 for secondary school transport £ 5,750 towards early years provision £ 500 toward legal costs Total: £211,610
• Devon County Council Chief Planner The application site is within the Okehampton catchment for both primary and secondary education where there is an identified shortfall of school places. Where there is a shortfall, Devon County Council, as education authority, requests contributions towards the provision of education infrastructure.
Folly Gate is some distance from Okehampton and is not within safe walking distance of the nearest primary or secondary school and as such has a direct impact on home to school transport. In such cases Devon County Council requests a contribution to school transport. The development proposal at Folly Gate consists of 23 dwellings, for which a total contribution of £222,098 is requested. This figure is based on Devon county Council’s agreed education Section 106 policy and the breakdown is as follows:
Primary School Infrastructure (new build) £92,109.00 Primary School Land £16,100.00 Secondary School Infrastructure £75,627.00 Secondary School Transport £10,488.00 Primary School Transport £22,024.00 Early Years Provision £5,750.00
£222,098.00
In January 2019, Devon County Council were informed the applicant had provided a viability report which had been reviewed and accepted. The conclusion of the viability report is that the full policy compliant Section 106 is not achievable, and the modelled maximum viable package is the provision of 30% affordable housing and £95,000 contribution to infrastructure. It is suggested in the viability report that this is apportioned to £49,000 for Community/Play Space and £46,000 toward education.
West Devon Borough Council has an SPD on viability, which states at para 5.2: There may be occasions where the viability of a development is so marginal that a contribution may be enough to stop a development from going ahead. In these circumstances and following submission of audited or certified figures to substantiate this, the planning authority will, in consultation with any relevant service providers, consider whether the benefits arising from the development are sufficient to justify a review of the contributions sought.
Devon County Council has not been consulted on the viability issues although has offered to review the application to reach a fair and equitable position in line with the WDBC policy above. It is of great concern that Devon County Council forward funded the new primary school in Okehampton in the expectation that it would be reimbursed as and when future residential development in the school’s catchment area secured planning consent. This is reflected in West Devon Borough Council’s adopted East of Okehampton Masterplan which states at para 4.37:
To ensure that new primary school provision can be brought forward in a timely manner, the Education Authority has agreed the means to forward fund a site large enough to accommodate the existing and planned development. The Education Authority is able to forward fund the cost of the larger site on the basis that it will be reimbursed as and when future residential development secures planning consent. The Borough Council supports this approach and will endeavour to secure fair and proportionate contributions from future development commensurate with the development impact in order to reimburse the County Council’s upfront investment.
The shortfall between the suggested contribution for education infrastructure (£46,000) and the amount needed (£222,098) is £176,098.
In determining planning applications great weight should be attached to the Joint Local Plan which has been through the examination process. Policy SPT2 relates to sustainable rural communities and policy TTV30 relates to small scale local development needs in sustainable villages, Folly Gate being identified as one such village.
Devon County Council does not object to the principle of development at Folly Gate and we accept that there is a balanced judgement to be made about infrastructure funding and affordable housing numbers and this needs to be based on viability.
Notwithstanding this we have significant concerns that without adequate contributions to education infrastructure the development is not sustainable and potentially leads to a situation where the educational needs of children are compromised. As I mention above, I am willing to consider the issue of viability and education funding further but given the large shortfall of education funding Devon County Council, as Education Authority, object to this planning application.
• DCC Historic Environment Service: The proposal is sited in an area with some potential for medieval archaeology too be encountered. For this reason and in accordance with paragraph 141 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) I would advise that any consent your Authority may be minded to issue should carry the condition as worded below, based on model Condition 55 as set out in Appendix A of Circular 11/95, whereby:
‘No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Planning Authority.’ The development shall be carried out at all times in strict accordance with the approved scheme, or such other details as may be subsequently agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure, in accordance with paragraph 141 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), that an appropriate record is made of archaeological evidence that may be affected by the development.
I would envisage a staged programme of archaeological work with desk-based study and geophysical survey informing any further mitigation that may be needed. The results of the fieldwork and any post-excavation analysis undertaken would need to be presented in an appropriately detailed and illustrated report.
• DCC Highways Authority: 17 th January: Observations The application is submitted in outline with 'means of access' to be considered in detail at the outline stage. An internal layout has been shown on the application drawings but this is for illustrative purposes only. It is noted that the internal does not show adequate provision for turning a refuse vehicle / pantechnicon within the site, but this oversight can be easily rectified at the detailed stage.
The proposed estate street access complies with contemporary design guidance with respect to geometry and visibility. There are some signs, a street light and a bench that may be affected by the construction of the estate street access, but these are also matters that can easily be addressed at the detailed stage.
Suitable conditions are recommended to be imposed on any planning permission granted, including a recommendation to close the existing field access following the construction of the new estate street.
• Police Designing Out Crime: Acknowledged that at outline stage there is no detailed design to asses and made the following recommendations reflecting the Secured by Design (SBD) crime prevention initiative owned by the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) on behalf of the UK police services. SBD aims to reduce crime, the fear of crime and opportunities for antisocial and unacceptable behaviour and conflict within new development by applying the following attributes of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPtED):-
• Access and movement: Places with well-defined and well used routes, with spaces and entrances that provide for convenient movement without compromising security • Structure: Places that are structured so that different uses do not cause conflict • Surveillance: Places where all publicly accessible spaces are overlooked; have a purpose and are well managed to prevent creating areas which could attract criminal activity, the antisocial to gather or for unacceptable behaviour such as dumping and dog fouling etc. to go unnoticed • Ownership: Places that promote a sense of ownership, respect, territorial responsibility and community • Physical protection: Places that include necessary, well-designed security features as laid out in SBD • Activity - Places where the level of human activity is appropriate to the location and creates a reduced risk of crime, fear of crime and a sense of safety at all times. • Management and maintenance - Places that are designed with management and maintenance in mind to discourage crime, fear of crime and ASB.
Representations: Representations from Residents 10 letters of objection have been received which cover the following matters: • As the owners of fields, Parcel ID’s 2876 and 2276, on the northern boundary of the proposed development, we wish to summarise our objections as follows. • Access - The planning application details 60 potential parking places for vehicles which will require access and egress onto the A386 at a particularly dangerous location. The existing entrance at this point is not used by the farmer but currently access and egress is by the second entrance more safely sited at the opposite end of the field. • Drainage - The drawings on which the drainage system is based have been superseded by a revised site layout. Given that the attenuation tank cannot be sighted closer than 5m from any dwelling it is not clear where it is intended to be constructed. Are the drainage calculations also based on an out of date layout? Item 1.8 of the EJFP report shows an aerial view of the village but the red coloured area is only half of the proposed development! Concern from local experience that soakaway will not work in a clay ground area where land is often saturated and flooding already occurs on neighbouring land. Outfall connections are problematic - connecting to SWW combined sewer system has been discounted. The second, Option 2, to run a pipe in a northerly direction will require permissions from several land owners, man holes at changes in direction and a road crossing, all involving considerable expense and uncertainty. The third, Option 3, not mentioned in the report from EJFP but is shown on Drawing No. 201/A prepared by Infra Design, is to discharge the surface water in a westerly direction. The route shown leads eventually to unmade green lane known as Bearlands lane which provides access to other fields in our ownership. Surface water currently crosses under the lane through a 150mm diameter pipe and continues underground for another 100m. The head wall to this pipe is regularly blocked by twigs and gravel which causes water to flood down the lane causing damage and disruption, regular maintenance required. In discussion with Infra Design they explained that the attenuation tank would reduce the rate of run off from approx. 10l/s to 4.3l/s however the current run off flows across open fields and through Devon hedges on its way to the tributaries of the Medland Brook in contrast to a positive drainage system direct to Bearlands Lane which would inundate the 150mm pipe. Amongst the drainage objectives of the FRA is to “ensure flooding to 3rd parties is not increased by the proposed development” this scheme fails to address this objective. • Sustainability - Other than the Crossways Inn there are no facilities in the village, necessitating the use of public or private transport to Okehampton or Hatherleigh, although the bus service exists it is unlikely to be sufficiently regular for most residents which is presumably why so many parking places are to be provided. Our land boarders part of the northern extent of the proposed development the applicant provides no explanation of the long ‐term ownership and maintenance of the 5m ecology strip corridor adjacent to the hedge or indeed the hedge. • Parish Survey - The last housing survey showed a stable population of 10 years or more, on the assumption that this is still the case there would be overwhelming support for use of one of brown field sites in the village for a new development in preference to taking up agricultural land. • Future Development - Without a hammer head at the end of the estate road the layout suggests that there is an intention to extend the development into our field due north of the development we would make clear that we certainly have no intentions to allow building on our land. • Unused brownfield sites are available in the village. • Does not accord with development plan. • Local housing needs are being met by other developments and are more sustainable. • Development would encroach on setting and privacy of Myrtle Cottage (400 years old). • Concern over flooding • The existing gate access on the plans is shown in the wrong place and is rarely used. • Lack of local services and employment opportunities for occupants of new housing resulting in need to travel and Okehampton already has traffic problems. • Bus service is poorly timed and not adequate for commuting to Okehampton. • The revised plans appear to indicate minor alteration from the original with an uplift in value of the mix of housing. In particular the high value 'gated' housing. This type of housing is inappropriate in an open village such as ours and we believe will be detrimental to community cohesion. • Revised layout and the relocated village green close to the A386 road is inappropriate – particularly for children - by a busy main road with pollution, noise and traffic hazards. Also seems an unsuitable place for a community open space and unlikely to be attractive to either the existing village community or new estate dwellers. • Document ref 3580670 received in response to location of existing local water supplies (wells). This alleges there are none nearer than Farleigh Farm. This is incorrect as we are aware of wells in existence and use far nearer the site. We have an operational well on our property which is less than 2 metres away. • Cottles Cottage advised they have a well which they use but it is not their only supply of potable water to the premises. It is positioned approximately 20 metres from the boundary of the outline application. • Other wells and bore holes in the area are at: Myrtle Cottage, Cottles Cottage, Shobrook, Newcombe, The Old Post Office, Roseanne, Grays Padson, West View and Padson. Also a a well in Chapel Lane. All these properties are within 100 metres of the boundary of the field of the application. • Concern over potential for groundwater contamination especially for properties with a groundwater supply – Myrtle Cottage in particular. • Design is not in keeping with the rest of the properties in this small rural village. It is of a scale way above the needs of the community. The local plan focuses major new housing in Okehampton. • The last needs survey by the Parish council identified the need for only six homes in the next ten years for local people. The majority of properties are not in line with either the local needs or affordability of this village which has no local facilities except a village pub. • The proposed site is on a bend on a 40 mile per hour road which has frequent speeding which is recognised by the highways authority and has experienced numerous accidents over the years. Visibility is not in accordance with highway guidelines and any proposed widening of the existing small agricultural entrance that has not been used for many years due to poor visibility as the field has a southern entrance that has been used for the past ten years. • Loss of an historic Devon hedge and encroach on existing properties. • Traffic generation will be excessive • Loss of some of the best agricultural land in the parish which is a regular hunting ground for the local barn owls and bats. Also an over wintering and migration ground for several bird species. • The total hedge frontage is 33 meters, so allowing for 22 meters for the new entrance and the blocking of 2.4 meter existing entrance only a total of 7.5 meters of existing hedge remains. As is stated in paragraph 6.10 page 21 no hedge banks are to be removed this does not follow. The entrance has to cross existing pedestrian footpath and this is incorrectly drawn on plan. From the new entrance heading north towards Hatherleigh the pedestrian footpath is shown wider by the new entrance and narrows slowly over the 25 meters running alongside Myrtle Cottage garden. This makes it appear much safer when exiting the new entrance. In fact the existing pedestrian footpath is exactly the same width all along on 1.6 meters. • Concern that policy H31 is incorrectly being considered as out of date. • Myrtle Cottage - To the north, our hedge alongside the road is actually equidistant and parallel at 1.6m and not wider at the south end as shown on the plan. This will materially affect the angle of visibility. • Not right for the area as it may create a couple of jobs for a year or two for a couple of people who don't even live here but then what’s everybody who lives there going to do for work because Okehampton unfortunately isn't brimming with opportunity currently. • This is too many homes being built in a small village where people chose to live to get peace and quiet and be away from estates and living on top each other.
ANALYSIS
Principle of Development/Sustainability: Since the supporting Planning Statement was written, the policy context has changed somewhat. In July 2018 the revised National Planning Policy Framework was published. While many of the core principles remain the same, it is helpful to set out the updated national policy which is now relevant for this application.
The NPPF retains (at paragraph 2) the principle that “Planning law requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.” And restates the three overarching obejctives which support delivery of sustainable development (at paragraph 8): the economic, social and environmental objectives. Importantly, “at the heart of the Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development.” (paragraph 10) which is detailed in paragraph 11 which instructs that “Plans and decisions should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development … For decision-taking this means: c) approving development proposals that accord with an up-to-date development plan without delay; or d) where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting permission unless: i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; or ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.”
In December 2018, WDBC published a Housing Position Statement which confirmed that it cannot currently demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply in the Borough. As such the strategic housing policies which are ‘most important for determining the application’ must be considered out of date, and so the ‘tilted balance’ is applied to the decision making process which requires therefore that permission is granted unless “any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.” Accordingly, this planning application must be assessed against the Framework and local plan policies, including the emerging Joint Local Plan (JLP) with a focus on assessment against the three objectives of sustainable development and identifying clearly any and impacts and the benefits of the development so that it can be determined whether any adverse impacts ‘significantly and demonstrably’ outweigh the benefits of the scheme.
Design/Landscape: This is an outline application with all matters reserved except for access. While an indicative layout has been provided, there is no detailed design or layout to agree at this stage. The indicative layout is useful in that is demonstrates that 23 dwellings can be achieved on this site with adequate garden space, open space and access to serve them and that the site can therefore achieve a suitable form and layout that is suitable in the locality. More detailed aspects of the highway design and impact of the build on boundary hedges is contained in the sections below.
The Council’s Landscape Specialist assessed the site context as follows:
“Landscape Character and Visual Impact Within Landscape Character Type 1A: Open Inland Planned Plateau, the site forms part of a relatively large scale landscape formed principally of regular medium-large sized pastoral fields. The proposed development area is a consistent element of this landscape, and is relatively flat and visually well- contained by existing development and boundary vegetation. It lies between two areas of Folly Gate with residential development to the north and south, and an open boundary to the west.
As an outline application with all matters except access reserved, the principle of residential development at this site would not conflict with the existing pattern of development in this location, and would not result in visual intrusion in the wider landscape. The flat plateau landform also limits wider impacts the National Park some 3.5km to the south. The existing pattern of development and visual containment of the area (with additional planting proposed to the western boundary) would appropriately mitigate the landscape and visual effects of the proposals.
Arboricultural Impact In respect of arboricultural matters, there are no principle objections to the proposals, and the submitted Tree Constraints Plan provides a fair indication of the categorisation of the trees within the southern boundary. However, I note the potential for future conflict with dwellings immediately to the north of the southern boundary if the gardens are small. The trees on this boundary would create shade to the gardens, and increase the threat of their removal in the longer term. If approved, the site layout should take full account of these trees, allowing sufficient room between them and the adjacent dwellings, and retaining them outside of private curtilage to reduce the risk of their removal. The existing vegetation to the east and north has not been included in the constraints plan, however does not pose an in principle constraint to development.”
The Landscape specialist concludes that “The development proposals are considered to comply with development plan policies on landscape character (Strategic Policy 17), conserving the key characteristics of the area and respecting the existing settlement pattern ” and suggests that a planning condition is used to secure full hard and soft landscape details and a 5 year maintenance schedule to accompany a Reserved Matters application, as well as conditions to secure the submission and implementation of a Tree and Hedgerow survey, Tree and Hedgerow Protection Plan, and Arboricultural Method Statement for any works in close proximity to the retained trees and hedgerows.
No harm to landscape character has been identified and the inclusion of the suggested conditions in the recommendation of this report satisfactorily secures the necessary details to protect the important landscape features of the site and ensure a suitable site layout and site management to retain them thereafter. Overall then the landscape impact of the development is acceptable.
Agricultural land classification: The Council’s mapping data indicates that the site is divided roughly in half along a north/south axis with the western portion of the site as Grade 4 agricultural land and the eastern section being Grade 3 agricultural land. Some of the letters of representation state they believe that the land is entirely Grade 3 agricultural land, and the map itself identifies that site specific analysis is needed to establish if a site is Grade 3 or 4. As such and upon request by WDBC, the applicant provided a supplementary report on this matter. It concludes that “the land falls perfectly within the Grade 4 definition” that is, the land is of poor quality and is inflexible with limited arable cropping results. Notwithstanding the above, the site itself is not large and so the loss of even the whole site, if it were Grade 3 land would not be significant in terms of the amount of such land available across the Borough. Taking into account the conclusions of the Kivells Land Classification Survey, there is no impact of the development on the availability of Grade 3 land in West Devon and only a small loss of Grade 4 / poor quality arable land.
Neighbour Amenity: The site is located adjacent to some existing residential development and adjacent to the A386 to the east and agricultural land to the west. This presents no amenity conflict in terms of compatible land uses. The indicative layout on the revised plans provided indicates that adequate separation distances can be achieved along with open space and hedgerow maintenance strips to preserve amenity at an acceptable level for existing residential properties. It is recognised that there will of course be a change in character from a greenfield countryside site to a residential development, but the layout and density of development proposed is not discordant with the existing properties. Exact separation distances cannot be established from the level of detail available for this outline application but would necessarily form part of a reserved matters application where amenity is considered in more detail.
Highways/Access: DCC Highways have considered the submitted plans and raised no objection to the proposal subject to the inclusion of a number of standard planning conditions requiring the submission of details regarding the details, implementation and adoption of the necessary highways infrastructure.
Neighbours have raised concerns about the speed of traffic on the adjoining road and the safety of the proposed junction. The Highways Authority has raised no safety concerns in relation to the access and the appropriate visibility splays can be achieved. No adverse highways safety or capacity impacts are identified and so the proposal accords with Policies T1, 2, 3, 8, & 9 of the Local Plan. Amenity impacts relating to effects on private groundwater supplies are considered in the drainage section to follow.
Drainage: The application is accompanied by information outlining two methods of surface water management and discharge which the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) says are acceptable. Those are infiltration via crate soakaway and underground attenuation with discharge to combined sewer or nearby watercourses. In accordance with the principles of sustainable drainage systems the preferred method is infiltration, provided the groundwater monitoring shows no groundwater within 1m of the base of the proposed soakaway. Accordingly the LLFA recommends a planning condition requiring 12 months of groundwater monitoring to take place and the results to be reported the LPA and used to inform the final detailed surface water drainage schemes proposed for the site. In addition a condition requires full details for the adoption and maintenance to be agreed with the LPA. This approach accords with the requirements of Section 14 of the NPPF and policy PS2 of the Local Plan.
Should the groundwater monitoring results indicate that infiltration on the site is not possible, then the alterative option for a pipe to dispose of the water in a nearby watercourse would be necessary. Although one of the owners of the land through which such a pipe would need to be laid has objected to the development and indicated they would not be willing to allow these works, South West Water (SWW) have confirmed that they can ‘requisition’ the necessary infrastructure. This involves SWW undertaking the necessary consultations and negotiations with landowners, including agreeing a reasonable fee for use of the land, and implementing the necessary infrastructure. Therefore, the applicant has provided sufficient information to demonstrate that there is a deliverable surface water drainage solution that is acceptable to the Lead Local Flood Authority and is capable of being implemented if not on site, then off site.
A number of the letters of representations have raised concern about impacts on foul and surface water drainage and described perceived capacity issues with the local foul sewerage network as well as localised surface water flooding. South West Water have raised no objection to the development in view of the information provided to deal with foul and surface water. The public reports of poorly drained soils accords with the information provided in the agricultural land assessment. However, it should be noted that while the development will introduce impermeable surfacing to the site where it is currently greenfield, an engineered sustainable urban drainage systems would be designed to achieve discharge rates that the local ground conditions can manage, accounting for climate change and without adverse offsite effects. For this reason a planning condition is recommended by the LLFA to require groundwater monitoring and full details of a suitably engineered solution to be provided before development can commence.
There was also particular local concern expressed in letters of objection regarding the impact of the development on local private groundwater supplies. Following these comments, Environmental Health Specialist was further consulted to check for records of private water supplies recorded with the Council (which undertakes monitoring) and advised that the nearest private water supply the Council has recorded is at Farleigh Farm. This property has a well, but due to the distance from the site to this well the Environmental Health Specialist advised “it is highly unlikely in my opinion that a development in this location would cause a significant impact on the water supply.”
Another letter of representation and advice from the Parish Council advised that there are a number of other properties served by wells and boreholes in the area and concern was raised regarding impacts of the development on that supply and its quality. Myrtle Cottage, Cottles Cottage and Shobrook are adjacent to the site. Occupants of Cottles Cottage have confirmed that the well on their land is not their only source of potable water. Myrtle Cottage have not responded to requests for confirmation on this point. As such, on the basis of the information available at the time of writing this report, it cannot be known for certain whether the proposed development might have an amenity impact on occupants of Myrtle Cottage or Shobrook which may rely on their wells as a sole source of potable water. Other properties Newcombe, The Old Post Office, Roseann and Chapel Lane are all approximately 100 – 150m north of the site. The Council has no detail about private water supply at those properties and so a planning condition is suggested to require, before development commences, a groundwater impact assessment to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and securing the implementation of any additional investigation, modelling or remediation works the report advises are necessary to protect amenity of these neighbouring properties. This approach is supported by National Planning Policy Guidance (Paragraph: 016 Reference ID: 34-016-20140306 Revision date: 06 03 2014).
Grays Padson, West View and Padson are a similar distance east of the site as Farleigh Farm though the Council has no further detail regarding those private water supplies and as such, the Council’s Environmental Health Specialist has advised that “there will be a risk, in reality probably a low risk of an impact as an average borehole draws water from 30m deep. A ground water impact assessment is a sensible way forward.”
With the recommended conditions applied, then the development will accord with the relevant planning policies to protect water quality and public amenity and prevent pollution and flooding.
Biodiversity: The application is supported by an Extended Phase 1 survey (JL Ecology, April 2017) and Phase 2 bat activity surveys (JL Ecology, July 2017), undertaken in accordance with BCT Bat Survey Good Practice Guidelines (equivalent to a low suitability habitat for bats). The Biodiveristy Specialist identifies the following key findings from the survey report: - The c.1ha site comprises an improved and semi-improved grassland with species-rich hedgebanks on the northern, eastern and southern boundaries - Boundary hedgerows are likely to be used by nesting birds, and provide suitable dormouse habitat. No hedgerows are proposed for removal, but a small section will require realignment to enable access and mitigation (timing and supervision) has been recommended accordingly. - The habitat within the field was not favourable for reptiles. - There is potential to secure biodiversity net gain through a proposed western boundary species-rich native Devon hedgebank. - Bat activity surveys recorded five species, none of which were the particularly light averse Annex II species [lesser and greater horseshoe and barbastelle]. Bat activity levels throughout the site were considered low; all linear hedgebank features were used by foraging common pipistrelles. Mitigation has been proposed including: - Timing of any limited vegetation removal outside of bird nesting season. - Any works to the vegetation associated with the hedgebank for access to be undertaken by hand in either late Autumn [October] or Spring [March] under the supervision of a licensed dormouse ecologist or in winter [December - February inclusive] - after which the hedgebank will be left until April before earthworks commence. - Existing boundary hedgebanks will be retained and a new western boundary hedgebank created retaining foraging and commuting habitat for bats (as well as other wildlife). In addition it is proposed to include a small buffer adjacent to existing hedgebanks to ensure these features fall outside of residential curtilages, reduce interference and enable management as a retained wildlife corridor (under the auspices of a LEMP). Some of the letters of representation express concern that the application states the boundary hedges will be unaffected by the development, when in fact a new access needs to be created. Concern is also expressed that a very long section of hedge would need to be removed to create necessary visibility splays. The submitted drawing Proposed Highway Layout 100 Rev A shows the visibility splays which are in fact entirely outside of the application site boundary and do not include the boundary hedge. However, allowing for the re-aligned pavement, it appears that more hedge than has been shown would need to be removed. A more detailed plan to clarify this point has been requested form the applicant but is not available at the time of writing. While the creation of the access would require loss of a small section of hedgebank, the Biodiversity Specialist has concluded that the submission of a LEMP and EMMS will create the opportunity for a net biodiversity gain as a result of the development. The recommended conditions relating to the submission of a LEMP and Ecological Mitigation and Enhancement Strategy at Reserved Matters stage are included in the recommendation of this report. Overall, it is considered that proposed mitigation will avoid/minimise potential for impacts on protected species or important habitats, and the proposal has potential to deliver a meaningful net gain for biodiversity (and accordingly is in accordance with policy, NPPF Para 18, Core Strategy SP19, proposed JLP policies SPT11 and DEV28). Historic Environment: The owners of Myrtle Cottage which is located between the western boundary of the site and the adjacent road, are concerned about the impact of the development on the setting of their property which is 400 years old. The property is not listed building and is not in a Conservation Area, but is shown on the Ordinance Survey historic map of 1880s. Consultation with the Conservation Specialist then revealed there may be 2 other buildings near the site which could also be considered as Non Designated Heritage Assets (NDHA).
With specific respect to Myrtle Cottage which was the subject of a letter of objection, whilst it is acknowledged that the building is of a significant age, it is also noted that the building has been altered over the years. It is positioned perpendicularly to the road and the site, and the structure bordering the development site is a largely blank wall with one small first floor window facing toward the site. The wall provides a clear boundary for the cottage and the cottage with it curtilage does not principally address the site. These factors create some limits to the potential for impact on setting of that building.
The application is outline only and as such there is opportunity for the site arrangement, including the position of open space, landscaping and the orientation of new buildings, to be designed to respond appropriately to the character and significance of Myrtle cottage and the two other NDHAs that the Conservation Specialist has identified nearby. The Specialist agrees with my assessment that the potential effect on the setting of these NDHA’s would not preclude development but must be a consideration when it comes to detailed design of the reserved matters and sees “no heritage reason to object to the development in principle.” A planning condition is therefore recommended requiring a heritage impact assessment to be form part of any reserved matters application for this site which ensures heritage impacts are properly considered and policies BE4 and Section 16 of the NPPF are satisfactorily addressed.
The DCC Historic Environment Service has recommended a condition requiring a scheme of archaeological investigation. This is included in the recommendation of this report, and satisfies the requirement of Local Plan policies BE7-10 and Section 16 of the NPPF. Overall therefore, no harm is to the historic environment is identified as a result of the proposed development which can be adequately controlled through the proposed planning conditions.
Environmental Health: Further to the consideration of impacts on private water supply which are discussed earlier in this report, the Environmental Health Specialist has considered the submitted Contaminated Land Assessment which identified no known risks, and in response recommended a planning condition which would apply in the event that unexpected contamination is found during construction. This adequately addresses the related human health considerations for the purposes of this outline planning application. And the requirements of policy BE16 are met.
Planning Obligations – Community facilities and Education funding The applicant has submitted a viability assessment which has been reviewed by the Council’s Specialist and the conclusions have been agreed. The information provided evidences that the development would not be deliverable if it were required to meet all the planning obligations requested (namely education and village hall/community facility requests). Therefore, the Council must determine how to allocate the £95,000 available for planning obligations.
The WDBC Specialist has responded to the application noting that the site is not sufficiently large to accommodate provision of playing pitches and is unlikely to include a space sufficient for meaningful ‘kick-about.’ The size of the development does warrant a Local Area for Play (LAP) which could be incorporated into the area of Public Open Space. However, it should be noted that the Council does not normally promote the provision of small, isolated LAPs which would be the case if one were required in this location. Full details of the on-site public open space will be required at the reserved matters stage.
Liaison with the Parish Council has indicated that the key priority for Folly Gate is the refurbishment or replacement of the existing Village Hall which provides opportunities for both play and sports. Given the additional pressures that the new residents will bring on the existing village hall, a financial contribution towards its refurbishment or replacement was considered to help mitigate this pressure and make the development acceptable in planning terms. The suggested allocation of funds for the village hall are just £15,000 which reflects the current absence of identifiable projects from the Parish Council on which funds would be spent. It is understood that quotes are being secured and project planning is underway to include costs.
In addition, it is recognised that there is a significant shortfall in funds available for the education contributions requested by Devon County Council which has prompted an objection from the Chief Planner. It should be noted that even if all the £95,000 available for planning obligations were allocated to education, there would remain a shortfall of £116,610. While it is accepted that provision of educational infrastructure is a key component of the consideration of the sustainability of the development, similarly community facilities for leisure and recreation are also an important factor in sustainability. For that reason, it is recommended that a small contribution is made to the village hall, for projects to be identified and agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Should those projects not be agreed or not come forward, then a clause in the s106 can be used to ensure funds are repaid to be allocated to the outstanding education contribution requests. The majority of the funds available, being £80,000 are suggested to be paid to DCC to be distributed between the costs it identifies.
Taking this recommendation into account, the proposal accords with policy H26 of the Local Plan, Section 8 of the NPPF and in particular, within the financial (viability) constraints of this development, also makes a positive contribution to the sustainability of Follygate.
Other matters: • A condition requiring a scheme to provide electric car vehicle charging points is included on the recommendation of the Environmental Health team. Implementation of such infrastructure provision will make a positive contribution to the sustainability of the scheme.
• It is noted that policy BE14 suggests that a contribution to Local Art will be appropriate in some schemes. In view of the viability evidence provided, which concludes that the applicant’s conclusions that the full s106 contributions requested cannot reasonably be met by this development, an additional public art contribution is not appropriate or necessary for the success of this scheme.
• In response to recent caselaw (APP/T2405/A/14/2227076), it is considered appropriate to require by planning condition, agreement of an appropriate mix of housing at the reserved matters stage. This will enable the Council to ensure the housing mix delivered on this site meets an evidenced local need and will not adversely skew the housing market.
• Some letter express concern that this appears to be a ‘gated community’, but it should be noted this is an outline application only and the layout on the indicative plan is for illustration purposes only. Design and detailed layout will be determined through reserved matters applications.
Conclusion: The proposal for residential development in this location is considered compatible with the adjacent residential development which exists along parts of its boundaries. While the site is located in the countryside, it is immediately adjacent to and relates well to the settlement limits being located between the established southern and northern parts of the village with both being within easy walking distance. Policy NE10 of the Local Plan states that:
“Development within the countryside outside settlement limits or not otherwise in accordance with policies or allocations in the Plan will not be permitted unless: (i) It provides an overriding economic or community benefit and cannot be reasonably located within an existing settlement; (ii) It does not cause unacceptable harm to the distinctive landscape character of the area and the important natural and made features that contribute to that character including views; (iii) Where the development is not associated with agriculture the best and most versatile land is only developed if sufficient lower grade land is not available or that available lower grade land has an environmental value that outweighs agricultural considerations.”
WDBC cannot currently demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply and so the delivery of new housing including affordable housing for which there is an identifiable need within the Borough, is a material planning consideration and an important community and economic benefit. The number of dwellings proposed is not out of scale with the size of the settlement. Heritage, highways, biodiversity, landscape, drainage and amenity impacts can be satisfactorily addressed through use of planning conditions as recommended above.
The applicant submitted a viability report to address the assertion the application made, that the total planning obligation amounts requested could not be provided. Officers are satisfied that the data provided supports that case and recommend that the reduced education contribution is acceptable in order to also support the village hall community facility and to retain the level of affordable housing and contribute to overall housing delivery in the Borough.
The site is in a sustainable location, well served by a level public footpath with lighting. The pavement connects with both the southern and northern parts of the village making the pub and village hall accessible on foot. The site is served by frequent public transport bus service and the A386 provides a direct route into Okehampton and Exeter which both provide employment opportunities for future occupants. Provision of electric car vehicle charging points and planning obligations for education and village hall will further enhance this site as a sustainable location to locate housing development.
In conclusion, there are no identified adverse impacts as a result of the proposed development, the suggested planning conditions secure the additional information required to account for unresolved heritage, and drainage impacts, and there is nothing which significantly and demonstrably outweighs the benefits of the proposal which are set out in this report. Accordingly, in the absence of a 5 year housing land supply and in line with the NPPF paragraph 11, the application is recommended for approval subject to the suggested conditions and s106 agreement.
This application has been considered in accordance with Section 38 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
Planning Policy
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.
The relevant development plan policies are set out below:
West Devon Borough Council Core Strategy 2011 SP1 – Sustainable Development SP4 – Infrastructure Provision SP5 – Spatial Strategy SP6 –Density of Housing Development SP7 – Strategic Distribution of Housing SP8 – Inclusive Communities SP9 – Meeting Housing Needs SP10 – Supporting the Growth of the Economy SP11 – Rural Regeneration SP13 – Community Services and Facilities SP14 – Accessibility Planning SP15 – Traffic Management SP16 – Safer Communities SP17 – Landscape Character SP18 – The Heritage and Historical Character of West Devon SP19 – Biodiversity SP20 – Promoting High Quality Design SP21 – Flooding SP24 – Sustainable Rural Communities
West Devon Borough Council Local Plan Review 2005 (as amended 2011) NE10 – Protection of the Countryside and Other Open Spaces BE4 – Features and Artefacts of Local Importance BE5 – Important Open Space within Settlements BE7 – Archaeology and Sites of Local Importance BE8 – Archaeology and Sites of Local Importance BE9 – Archaeology and Sites of Local Importance BE10 – Archaeology and Sites of Local Importance BE13 – Landscaping and Boundary Treatment BE14 – Public Art BE16 – Potentially Polluting Activity BE17 – Potentially Polluting Activity BE18 – Potentially Polluting Activity BE19 – Development on Contaminated Land H26 – Open Space Provision in New Residential Developments H31 – Residential Development in the Countryside H32 - Residential Development in the Countryside H33 - Residential Development in the Countryside H37 – Meeting Local Housing Needs in Rural Areas H42 – Disabled and Those with Mobility Issues T1 – Walking and Cycling T2 – Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety T3 – Protection of Existing Footways, Cycleways and Bridleways T8 – Car Parking T9 – The Highway Network PS2 – Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems PS3 – Sewage Disposal PS4 – Private Water Supply PS9 – Transmission and Distribution of Electricity
Emerging Joint Local Plan
Status of emerging JLP policies for decision makers The Plymouth & South West Devon Joint Local Plan has undergone a main modifications consultation (22 Oct – 03 Dec 2018) as part of the examination in public to determine the soundness of the plan. The joint councils are waiting to hear from the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) regarding the next steps. Until PINS provide an update, the JLP councils are unable to commit to a timetable for adoption.
The National Planning Policy Framework provides guidance on the weight that can be given to policies in emerging local plans in paragraph 48:
48. Local planning authorities may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to: a) the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced its preparation, the greater the weight that may be given); b) the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given); and c) the degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given)
The JLP is nearing the conclusion of the examination process, and can be considered to be at an advanced stage of preparation.
Whilst technically all objections are unresolved until the Inspectors’ issue their Final Report, some policies which did not receive objections at the Reg 19 stage could be given very significant weight. The nature and scope of objections made regarding each policy have been taken into account when determining the weight to be apportioned to each emerging policy.
The Council consider that all emerging policies are compliant with the NPPF. It should be noted that the JLP is being examined against the provisions of the 2012 NPPF, and therefore for the purposes of paragraph 48 of the NPPF policies should also be assessed for their conformity against the 2012 NPPF.
In considering the merits of this proposal, case officer recommendations are informed by the weight that can be attributed to emerging JLP policies and adopted development plan policies, as well as the degree of conformity with the 2018 NPPF.
PLYMOUTH AND SOUTH WEST DEVON JOINT LOCAL PLAN -: PUBLICATION (as considered by the Full Councils end Feb/Early March 2017)
SPT2 Sustainable linked neighbourhoods and sustainable rural communities SPT3 Provision for new homes SPT13 European Protected Sites – mitigation of recreational impacts from development TTV1 Prioritising growth through a hierarchy of sustainable settlements TTV2 Delivering sustainable development in the Thriving Towns and Villages Policy Area TTV30 Empowering local residents to create strong and sustainable communities TTV31 Development in the Countryside DEV1 Protecting amenity and the environment DEV2 Air, water, soil, noise and land DEV3 Sport and recreation DEV4 Playing pitches DEV8 Meeting local housing need in the Thriving Towns and Villages Policy Area DEV9 Accessible housing DEV10 Delivering high quality housing DEV20 Place shaping and the quality of the built environment DEV21 Conserving the historic environment DEV22 Development affecting the historic environment DEV24 Landscape character DEV28 Protecting and enhancing biodiversity and geological conservation DEV29 Green and play spaces (including Strategic Green Spaces, Local Green Spaces and undesignated green spaces) DEV30 Trees, woodlands and hedgerows DEV31 Specific provisions relating to transport DEV32 Meeting the community infrastructure needs of new homes DEV33 Waste management DEV37 Managing flood risk and Water Quality Impacts
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.
Conditions in full:
1. Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of grant of outline planning permission. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than whichever is the later of the following dates: (I) the expiration of three years from the date of the grant of outline planning permission; or if later (II) the expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.
Reason: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 (as amended).
2. The development hereby authorised shall be carried out in accordance with detailed drawings which shall previously have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. These detailed drawings shall show the following: i) the design and external appearance of the proposed buildings; ii) their siting; iii) existing and proposed site levels together with proposed slab levels; iv) the materials for construction; v) The arrangements for the disposal of foul and surface water; vi) the areas for (i) parking (ii) and turning of vehicles in accordance with Devon County Council's Highways Development Management Advice for the Determination of Planning Applications; vii) all other works including walls, fences means of enclosure and screening; viii) the location, extent and layout of open spaces and play spaces; ix) the design, layout, levels, gradients, materials, drainage, lighting and method of construction of all new roads and connection with existing roads. x) full detail of all play areas xi) provision of ducting for high speed broadband xii) provision of electric vehicle charging
Reason: To ensure that adequate information is available for the proper consideration of the detailed proposals and to protect the appearance and character of the area.
3. Prior to the submission of reserved matters, the applicant shall agree with the Local Planning Authority the proposed housing mix.
Reason: To ensure the housing delivered meets evidenced local need and accords with Core Strategy Strategic Policy 1: Sustainable Development, Strategic Policy 8: Inclusive Communities.
4. The development hereby approved shall accord with the drawing 170502 L 01 01 Location Plan (red line) dated May 2017, and with respect to the site access only, development shall accord with the drawing Proposed Highway Layout 100 Rev A received by the Local Planning Authority 20 December 2017.
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.
5. The Reserved Matters application(s) shall be accompanied by a Heritage Impact Assessment, carried out by a suitably qualified professional, which assesses the effect of the development on the significance and setting of nearby non-designated heritage assets. The reserved matters detailed design of the development shall respond to the findings of the Heritage Impact Assessment and apply the recommendations therein.
Reason: To protect heritage interests and in accordance with NPPF paragraph 197. 6. Before development proceeds above slab level, full details of a hard and soft Landscape Scheme have been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Landscape Scheme shall be prepared by an appropriately qualified professional and shall include:
• details of ground preparation prior to importation of topsoil, including decompaction of material and removal of any debris including plastic, wood, rock and stone greater in size than 50mm in any dimension; • materials, heights, levels and extent of hard landscape treatment, including access and hardstanding areas; • details, including design and materials, of ancillary structures such as bin stores and signage; • details of lighting including function, location, design and intensity; • details of new ground profiles including retaining bunds and banks; • materials, heights and details of fencing and other boundary treatments; • materials, heights, levels and extent of hard landscape treatment, including access points, tracks, roads and any hardstanding areas; • the location, number, species, density, form and size of proposed tree, hedge and shrub planting; • the method of planting, establishment and protection of tree, hedge and shrub planting; • maintenance schedules for the establishment of new planting and its ongoing management; • all planting shall be implemented within the first planting season following substantial completion of the development.
In accordance with the advice in the submitted Extended Phase 1 Survey April 2017, the proposed planting of species-rich Devon hedgebanks along the western boundary of site should comprise of native species of local provenance. Landscape planting should include native wildflower and grass mixes.
All elements of the Landscape Scheme shall be implemented and maintained in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. All work shall be completed in accordance with the timetable agreed in writing. Any tree or plant which dies, fails to thrive or is removed within a minimum period of 5 years from implementation shall be replaced with the same species unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interest of public amenity and the conservation and enhancement of the local landscape character and biodiversity.
7. No works or development shall take place until a scheme for the protection of the retained trees has been agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. This scheme shall be in accordance British Standard 5837:2012 -Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - Recommendations and shall include: • an arboricultural method statement • a plan to a scale and level of accuracy appropriate to the proposal that shows the position, crown spread and Root Protection Area of every retained tree on site and on neighbouring or nearby ground to the site in relation to the approved plans and particulars (section 4 of BS5837:2012). The positions of all trees to be removed shall be indicated on this plan. • the details of each retained tree in a separate schedule (section 4 of BS5837:2012). • a schedule of tree works for all the retained trees in the paragraphs above, specifying pruning and other remedial or preventative work, whether for physiological, hazard abatement, aesthetic or operational reasons. All tree works shall be carried out in accordance with BS3998: Recommendations for Tree Work. • written proof of the credentials of the arboricultural contractor authorised to carry out the scheduled tree works • the details and positions (shown on the plan at paragraph (a) above) of the Root Protection Zone and Construction Exclusion Zones (section 6.2 of BS5837:2012) • the details and positions (shown on the plan at paragraph (a) above) of the Tree Protection Barriers (section 6.2 of BS5837:2012), identified separately where required for different phases of construction work (e.g. demolition, construction, hard landscaping). The Tree Protection Barriers must be erected prior to each construction phase commencing and remain in place, and undamaged for the duration of that phase. No works shall take place on the next phase until the Tree Protection Barriers are repositioned for that phase. • the details and positions (shown on the plan at paragraph (a) above) of any Construction Exclusion Zones (section 6.2 of BS5837:2012) • the details and positions (shown on the plan at paragraph (a) above) of the underground service runs (section 11.7 of BS5837:2012) • the details of any changes in levels or the position of any proposed excavations within 5 metres of the Root Protection Area of any retained tree, including those on neighbouring or nearby ground • the details of any special engineering required to accommodate the protection of retained trees (section 7 of BS5837:2012), (e.g. in connection with foundations, bridging, water features, surfacing) • the details of the working methods to be employed for the installation of any drives and paths within the RPAs of retained trees in accordance with the principles of “No-Dig” construction • the details of the working methods to be employed with regard to the access for and use of heavy, large, difficult to manoeuvre plant (including cranes and their loads, dredging machinery, concrete pumps, piling rigs, etc) on site • the details of the working methods to be employed with regard to site logistics and storage, including an allowance for enclosures, with particular regard to ground compaction and phytotoxicity • the details of the method to be employed for the stationing, use and removal of site cabins within any RPA (para. 5.5 of BS5837:2012) • the details of tree protection measures for the hard landscaping phase • the timing of the various phases of the works or development in the context of the tree protection measures
Reason: In the interest of public amenity and the conservation of trees.
8. Prior to commencement of any part of the site the Planning Authority shall have received and approved a Construction Management Plan (CMP) including: (a) the timetable of the works; (b) daily hours of construction; (c) any road closure; (d) hours during which delivery and construction traffic will travel to and from the site, with such vehicular movements being restricted to between 8:00am and 6pm Mondays to Fridays inc.; 9.00am to 1.00pm Saturdays, and no such vehicular movements taking place on Sundays and Bank/Public Holidays unless agreed by the planning Authority in advance; (e) the number and sizes of vehicles visiting the site in connection with the development and the frequency of their visits; (f) the compound/location where all building materials, finished or unfinished products, parts, crates, packing materials and waste will be stored during the demolition and construction phases; (g) areas on-site where delivery vehicles and construction traffic will load or unload building materials, finished or unfinished products, parts, crates, packing materials and waste with confirmation that no construction traffic or delivery vehicles will park on the County highway for loading or unloading purposes, unless prior written agreement has been given by the Local Planning Authority; (h) hours during which no construction traffic will be present at the site; (i) the means of enclosure of the site during construction works; (j) details of proposals to promote car sharing amongst construction staff in order to limit construction staff vehicles parking off-site (k) details of wheel washing facilities and obligations (l) The proposed route of all construction traffic exceeding 7.5 tonnes. (m) Details of the amount and location of construction worker parking. (n) Photographic evidence of the condition of adjacent public highway prior to commencement of any work; (o) site management arrangements, including the site office and developer contact number in the event of any construction/demolition related problems, and site security information. This CMP shall be strictly adhered to during the construction of the development hereby permitted, unless variation is approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity, public convenience and highway safety and preventing inconvenient obstruction and delays to public transport and service vehicles and to emergency vehicles.
9. If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the Local Planning Authority for, an investigation and risk assessment and, where necessary, a remediation strategy and verification plan detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation strategy and verification plan and prior to occupation of any part of the permitted development, a verification report demonstrating completion of the works set out in the approved remediation strategy and the effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority.
Reason: No site investigation can completely characterise a site. This condition is required to ensure that any unexpected contamination that is uncovered during remediation or other site works is dealt with appropriately.
10. Prior to commencement of development the applicant shall submit for approval, full details of proposed electric vehicle charging points to be provided, these details shall include the location, number and power rating of the charging points. This shall accord with good practice guidance on mitigating air quality impacts from developments produced by the Institute of Air Quality Management. This agreed scheme shall be implemented as agreed and available for use prior to first occupation of any building approved by this permission, and retained as such.
Reason: To protect air quality and support sustainable development in accordance with emerging Joint Local Plan policy DEV2 and NPPF paragraph 148.
11. Prior to commencement of development the following components of a scheme to deal with the environmental impacts of the construction phase of the development shall be submitted and approved by the local planning authority in writing. That scheme shall include details of noise impacts and controls, hours of operation, and dust impact assessment and proposed control in accordance with the Institute of Air Quality Management guidance for dust assessment from construction sites.
Reason: To protect air quality and amenity.
12. No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out at all times in strict accordance with the approved scheme, or such other details as may be subsequently agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure, in accordance with paragraph 199 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2018), that an appropriate record is made of archaeological evidence that may be affected by the development.
13. Prior to commencement of development, a Groundwater Impact Assessment undertaken by a suitably qualified professional shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority, when considering reserved matters application(s) to properly consider impacts on amenity, water quality and water supply to local properties which have private groundwater supplies.
14. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the detailed design of the proposed permanent surface water drainage management system has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with Devon County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority. The design of this permanent surface water drainage management system will be in accordance with the principles of sustainable drainage systems, and those set out in the Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy (Report Ref. 17014, Rev A, dated September 2017).
Reason: To ensure that surface water runoff from the development is managed in accordance with the principles of sustainable drainage systems.
Advice: Refer to Devon County Council’s Sustainable Drainage Guidance.
15. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the full results of a groundwater monitoring programme, undertaken over a period of 12 months, has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with Devon County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority. This monitoring should be conducted to provide adequate coverage of the site, with particular focus placed on the locations and depths of the proposed infiltration devices.
Reason: To ensure that the use of infiltration devices on the site is an appropriate means of surface water drainage management.
16. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the detailed design of the proposed surface water drainage management system which will serve the development site for the full period of its construction has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with Devon County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority. This temporary surface water drainage management system must satisfactorily address both the rates and volumes, and quality, of the surface water runoff from the construction site.
Reason: To ensure that surface water runoff from the construction site is appropriately managed so as to not increase the flood risk, or pose water quality issues, to the surrounding area. Advice: Refer to Devon County Council’s Sustainable Drainage Guidance.
17. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the full details of the adoption and maintenance arrangements for the proposed permanent surface water drainage management system have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with Devon County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority.
Reason: To ensure that the development’s permanent surface water drainage management systems will remain fully operational throughout the lifetime of the development.
18. No development shall commence until: The owner has submitted an application to the relevant Sewerage Undertaker for a public foul sewer requisition under 598 of the water Industry Act 1991 (which shall include the provision of public sewerage improvement works identified as necessary). No dwelling hereby approved shall be occupied or brought into use and there shall be no discharge to the public foul sewerage network, unless approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (as in accordance with the scheme of improvement works identified by the sewerage Undertaker as necessary to accommodate the discharge of foul sewage from the development).
Reason: To ensure adequate foul water infrastructure will serve the development.
19. The proposed estate road, cycleways, footways, footpaths, verges, junctions, street lighting, sewers, drains, retaining walls, service routes, surface water outfall, road maintenance/vehicle overhang margins, embankments, visibility splays, accesses, car parking and street furniture shall be constructed and laid out in accordance with details to be approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before their construction begins, For this purpose, plans and sections indicating, as appropriate, the design, layout, levels, gradients, materials and method of construction shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that adequate information is available for the proper consideration of the detailed proposals.
20. No part of the development hereby approved shall be commenced until:
A) The access road has been laid out, kerbed, drained and constructed up to base course level for the first 20 metres back from its junction with the public highway B) The ironwork has been set to base course level and the visibility splays required by this permission laid out C) A site compound and car park have been constructed to the written satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority Reason: To ensure that adequate on site facilities are available for all traffic attracted to the site during the construction period, in the interest of the safety of all users of the adjoining public highway and to protect the amenities of the adjoining residents
21. The occupation of any dwelling in an agreed phase of the development shall not take place until the following works have been carried out to the written satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority:
A) The cul-de-sac carriageway including the vehicle turning head within that phase shall have been laid out, kerbed, drained and constructed up to and including base course level, the ironwork set to base course level and the sewers, manholes and service crossings completed; B) The cul-de-sac footways and footpaths which provide that dwelling with direct pedestrian routes to an existing highway maintainable at public expense have been constructed up to and including base course level; C) The cul-de-sac visibility splays have been laid out to their final level; D) The street lighting for the spine road and cul-de-sac and footpaths has been erected and is operational; E) The car parking and any other vehicular access facility required for the dwelling by this permission has/have been completed; F) The verge and service margin and vehicle crossing on the road frontage of the dwelling have been completed with the highway boundary properly defined; G) The street nameplates for the spine road and cul-de-sac have been provided and erected.
Reason: To ensure that adequate access and associated facilities are available for the traffic attracted to the site
22. When once constructed and provided in accordance with conditions 1 - 3 above, the carriageway, vehicle turning head, footways and footpaths shall be maintained free of obstruction to the free movement of vehicular traffic and pedestrians and the street lighting and nameplates maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that these highway provisions remain available
23. The existing access shall be effectively and permanently closed in accordance with details which shall previously have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority as soon as the new access is capable of use
Reason: To prevent the use of a substandard access and to minimise the number of accesses on to the public highway.
24. No works or development shall take place until a Landscape and Ecology Management Plan (LEMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The LEMP shall provide for the management and maintenance of public open space and green infrastructure for biodiversity, landscape and informal recreation purposes. The LEMP shall include: (i) All existing boundary hedgerows, trees and tree belts; (ii) Details of the proposed Village Green area shown on the drawings Illustrative Layout 170502 L 02 01 Rev C; (iii) Submission of a lighting strategy for during and post construction (to show avoidance of light spill onto boundary and internal hedgerows, to be informed by bat survey results); (iv) Details of inbuilt provision for birds and bats. All elements of the LEMP shall be implemented and maintained in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All work shall be completed in accordance with the timetable agreed.
Reason: In the interests of ecological and visual amenity.
25. Accompanying the submission of Reserved Matters, an Ecological Mitigation and Enhancement Strategy shall be provided which shall include impact avoidance mitigation and enhancement proposals for construction and operational phases. The Ecological Mitigation and Enhancement Strategy shall be fully integrated with the Landscape Details/Scheme and shall demonstrate a net gain in biodiversity across the site.
Reason: In the interests of ecological amenity.
26. Any vegetation clearance necessary shall be undertaken outside the bird breeding season (March – August inclusive). If this is not possible works shall be preceded by a breeding bird survey which shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval before the vegetation clearance can take place.
Any hedge bank vegetation clearance will be undertaken by hand in i) late Autumn (October) or Spring (March) under the supervision of a licensed dormouse ecologist or ii) in winter (December – February inclusive) – after which the hedge bank shall be left until April before earthworks commence.
Reason: In the interests of ecological amenity and species protection.