(Public Pack)Agenda Document for Development Management

Home , Devon Redlands, Frogmore and Sherford, Willand

Public Document Pack

Agenda for Development Management Committee Tuesday, 30th April, 2019, 10.00 am

Members of Development Management Committee Councillors: M Howe (Chairman), C Brown (Vice-Chairman), East Devon District Council M Allen, B Bailey, D Barratt, S Bond, P Burrows, P Carter, Blackdown House S Gazzard, B Ingham, G Jung, D Key, J Knight, H Parr, Border Road B de Saram and M Williamson Heathpark Industrial Estate Honiton EX14 1EJ Venue: Council Chamber, Exmouth Town Hall DX 48808 HONITON Tel: 01395 516551 Contact: Wendy Harris; Fax: 01395 517507 01395 517542; email: [email protected] www.eastdevon.gov.uk (or group number 01395 517546) Wednesday, 17 April 2019

Speaking on planning applications In order to speak on an application being considered by the Development Management Committee you must have submitted written comments during the consultation stage of the application. Those that have commented on an application being considered by the Committee will receive a letter or email (approximately 9 working days before the meeting) detailing the date and time of the meeting and instructions on how to register to speak. The letter/email will have a reference number, which you will need to provide in order to register. Speakers will have 3 minutes to make their representation. Please note there is no longer the ability to register to speak on the day of the meeting.

The number of people that can speak on each application is limited to:  Major applications – parish/town council representative, 5 supporters, 5 objectors and the applicant or agent  Minor/Other applications – parish/town council representative, 2 supporters, 2 objectors and the applicant or agent

The day before the meeting a revised running order for the applications being considered by the Committee will posted on the council’s website). Applications with registered speakers will be taken first.

Parish and town council representatives wishing to speak on an application are also required to pre-register in advance of the meeting. One representative can be registered to speak on behalf of the Council.

Registration to speak starts at 10am on Thursday 18 April up until 12 noon on Thursday 25 April by leaving a message on 01395 517525 or emailing [email protected].

page 1

Speaking on non-planning application items A maximum of two speakers from the public are allowed to speak on agenda items that are not planning applications on which the Committee is making a decision (items on which you can register to speak will be highlighted on the agenda). Speakers will have 3 minutes to make their representation. You can register to speak on these items up until 12 noon, 3 working days before the meeting by emailing [email protected] or by phoning 01395 517525. A member of the Democratic Services Team will only contact you if your request to speak has been successful.

1 Minutes of the previous meeting (Pages 7 - 10) Minutes of the Development Management Committee meeting held on 2 April 2019.

2 Apologies 3 Declarations of interest Guidance is available online to Councillors and co-opted members on making declarations of interest

4 Matters of urgency Information on matters of urgency is available online.

5 Confidential/exempt item(s) To agree any items to be dealt with after the public (including press) have been excluded. There are no items that officers recommend should be dealt with in this way.

6 Planning appeal statistics (Pages 11 - 18) Update from the Development Manager.

Applications for Determination

Please note that the following applications are all scheduled to be considered but the order may change. Please see the front of the agenda for when the revised order will be published.

7 17/3002/MOUT (Pages 19 - 72)

page 2 CLYST VALLEY

Applicant: Andrew Langdon (Langdon Properties).

Location: Dart Business Park Road, Past Darts Farm, Clyst St George.

Proposal: Outline application to extend Business Park to create 10 additional units to be used for offices, light industry and storage and distribution (Use Classes Order B1 & B8): all matters reserved other than access; consideration of scale and layout.

8 18/2589/MFUL (Pages 73 - 129) WOODBURY AND LYMPSTONE

Applicant: Mr Luke Salter (Salter Property Investments).

Location: Lympstone Nurseries, Church Road, Lympstone, Exmouth, EX8 5JU.

Proposal: Demolition of existing polytunnels/greenhouses and erection of 10 dwellings, public open space and a car park for use by the church.

9 19/0208/FUL (Pages 130 - 136) WOODBURY AND LYMPSTONE

Applicant: Ms Miles.

Location: Land Adjacent To Melford Rise, Toby Lane, Woodbury Salterton.

Proposal: Retention of agricultural barn.

10 19/0034/COU & 19/0035/COU (Pages 137 - 150)

page 3 RALEIGH

Applicant: F W S Carter & Son.

Location: Compound East 6 and Land Adjacent Compound East 6 (Land At Hogsbrook Farm), Greendale Business Park, Woodbury Salterton.

Proposal: Retrospective change of use to B8 class use (storage and distribution).

11 18/1464/FUL (Pages 151 - 173) BUDLEIGH SALTERTON

Applicant: Mr Leigh Rix.

Location: The Pound, Lower Budleigh, East Budleigh.

Proposal: Demolition of existing barn and construction of a single dwelling.

BREAK

Afternoon session – the applications below will not be considered before 2pm.

12 18/1957/MOUT (Pages 174 - 247) BEER AND BRANSCOMBE

Applicant: Clinton Devon Estates.

Location: Land Adjacent Short Furlong Short Furlong, Beer.

Proposal: Construction of up to 30 new dwellings (including affordable housing provision) outline application with all matters apart from access reserved.

13 18/2797/MOUT (Pages 248 - 293)

page 4 BROADCLYST

Applicant: Eagle One MMIII Ltd.

Location: Land North And South of Anning Road, Exeter Science Park, Clyst Honiton.

Proposal: Development of 15,329sqm floor space for Class B1b (Research and Development) uses with ancillary Class B1a and B1c uses and Science Park wide ancillary supporting uses (Retail – convenience (Class A1), café/restaurant (Class A3), crèche (Class D1) and conference and health/fitness facilities (Class D2)) together with associated infrastructure and works to form part of the Exeter Science Park (all matters reserved) on land north and south of Anning Road, Exeter Science Park, Clyst Honiton.

14 18/2799/MOUT (Pages 294 - 344) BROADCLYST

Applicant: Eagle One MMIII Ltd.

Location: Exeter Science Park, Clyst Honiton (East Of Langaton Lane).

Proposal: Erection of up to 150 dwellings with associated infrastructure and public open spaces including allotments/community gardens (all matters reserved except access).

15 18/1585/FUL & 18/1586/LBC (Pages 345 - 385) OTTERY ST MARY TOWN

Applicant: Belfield Developments Ltd. (Mr Justin Denno)

Location: The Priory, Paternoster Row, Ottery St Mary, EX11 1DP.

Proposal: Conversion of former elderly care home into 8 apartments incorporating modifications to rear section of building.

16 19/0545/AGR (Pages 386 - 390)

page 5 RALEIGH

Applicant: Geoff Pook.

Location: Stallcombe House, Sanctuary Lane, Woodbury, Exeter, EX5 1EX.

Proposal: Agricultural storage building.

Please note: Planning application details, including plans and representations received, can be viewed in full on the Council’s website.

This meeting is being audio recorded by EDDC for subsequent publication on the Council’s website.

Under the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014, members of the public are now allowed to take photographs, film and audio record the proceedings and report on all public meetings (including on social media). No prior notification is needed but it would be helpful if you could let the democratic services team know you plan to film or record so that any necessary arrangements can be made to provide reasonable facilities for you to report on meetings. This permission does not extend to private meetings or parts of meetings which are not open to the public. You should take all recording and photography equipment with you if a public meeting moves into a session which is not open to the public.

If you are recording the meeting, you are asked to act in a reasonable manner and not disrupt the conduct of meetings for example by using intrusive lighting, flash photography or asking people to repeat statements for the benefit of the recording. You may not make an oral commentary during the meeting. The Chairman has the power to control public recording and/or reporting so it does not disrupt the meeting.

Decision making and equalities For a copy of this agenda in large print, please contact the Democratic Services Team on 01395 517546

page 6 Agenda Item 1 EAST DEVON DISTRICT COUNCIL

Minutes of the meeting of Development Management Committee held at Council Chamber Blackdown House on 2 April 2019

Attendance list at end of document The meeting started at 10.00 am and ended at 12.18 pm

58 Minutes of previous meeting

The minutes of the Development Management Committee meeting held on 5 March 2019 were confirmed and signed as a true record.

59 Declarations of interest

Cllr Brian Bailey; 18/2203/MFUL; Personal interest; Exmouth Town Councillor. Cllr Bruce de Saram; 18/2203/MFUL; Personal interest; Exmouth Town Councillor. Cllr Steve Gazzard; 18/2203/MFUL; Personal interest; Exmouth Town Councillor. Cllr Paul Carter; 18/1442/FUL; Personal interest; Ottery St Mary Town Councillor and applicant known to the Councillor. Cllr Mark Williamson; 18/2203/MFUL; Personal interest; Exmouth Town Councillor. Cllr Peter Burrows; 18/0027/FUL; Personal interest; Seaton Town Councillor. Cllr Jim Knight; 18/0027/FUL; Personal interest; Seaton Town Councillor.

In accordance with the code of good practice for Councillors and Officers dealing with planning matters as set out in the Constitution, Cllr Jim Knight advised that he had been lobbied on application 18/0027/FUL and Cllr Peter Burrows declared that he had received correspondence from a neighbour in relation to application 18/0027/FUL.

60 Planning appeal statistics

The Committee received and noted the Development Manager’s report setting out appeals recently lodged and four appeal decisions notified - two had been allowed and two had been dismissed, one of which related to the Community Infrastructure Levy charge.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the appeal allowed on 48 Temple Street, Sidmouth. The Inspector determining that the proposed dwelling would not harm the character of the area or amenity of surrounding residents.

The Development Manager also drew the Committee’s attention that the Planning Inspector’s decision to uphold the refusal of planning permission at Green Close Drakes Avenue in Sidmouth. The Inspector dismissing the appeal on the basis that the Council’s affordable housing contribution was justified and had been reasonably calculated.

In response to a question, the Development Manager explained that the other appeal at 19 King Alfred Way was considered by the Inspector to have an acceptable impact upon the neighbours amenity whilst Officers, the Town Council and Ward Member had considered that the extension as constructed, and in excess of the size of the original approved extension, was harmful to the amenity of the neighbour.

The Committee received and noted the Development Manager’s report on the list of appeals in progress. page 7 Development Management Committee 2 April 2019

61 18/2203/MFUL (Major)

EXMOUTH WITHYCOME RALEIGH 18/2203/MFUL

Applicant: Barchester Health Care.

Location: Moreton, 13 Drakes Avenue, Exmouth, EX8 4AA.

Proposal: Redevelopment of site to provide 75 bed care home (use class C2), parking, landscaping and refuse store.

RESOLVED: APPROVED as per officer recommendation.

62 18/1442/FUL (Minor)

OTTERY ST MARY RURAL 18/1442/FUL

Applicant: Mr Christopher Gooding.

Location: Three Corners, Coombelake, Ottery St Mary, EX11 1NW.

Proposal: Construction of dwelling and use of workshop for storage and distribution of animal feed.

RESOLVED: REFUSED as per officer recommendation.

63 18/0027/FUL (Minor)

SEATON 19/0027/FUL

Applicant: Mr G Hill.

Location: Quantock, Harepath Road, Seaton, EX12 2SX.

Proposal: Demolish house and erect 3 dwellings.

RESOLVED: Approved as per officer recommendation.

page 8 Development Management Committee 2 April 2019

64 18/2588/OUT (Minor)

BROADCLYST 18/2588/OUT

Applicant: Mr & Mrs A J Street.

Location: Land To The South Of Southbrook House, Southbrook Lane, Whimple, EX5 2PG.

Proposal: Outline application (with all matters other than access reserved) of construction of up to 9 dwellings and other associated development.

RESOLVED: APPROVED as per officer recommendation but with an additional informative encouraging the applicant to consider a revised access if beneficial in accordance with any adjoining development that may come forward before the site is developed.

65 18/2207/VAR (Minor)

TALE VALE 18/2207/VAR

Applicant: DBD Construction.

Location: Barns Adjacent Bishopshayne Farm, Awliscombe, Honiton, EX14 3PR.

Proposal: Variation of condition 2 (approved plans), 3 (landscaping), 5 (materials), 6 and 7 (window details) of application 15/2250/FUL (conversion of redundant agricultural building to create 2 dwellings.

RESOLVED: Non-Material Amendment APPROVED as per officer recommendation.

66 18/2782/FUL (Minor)

COLY VALLEY 18/2782/FUL

Applicant: Miss Jess Huffman.

Location: The Cabin, Poltimore Farm, Farway, Colyton, EX24 6EJ.

Proposal: Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of replacement dwelling.

page 9 Development Management Committee 2 April 2019

RESOLVED: APPROVED as per officer recommendation.

Attendance List Councillors present (for some or all the meeting): M Howe (Chairman) C Brown (Vice-Chairman) M Allen B Bailey D Barratt S Bond P Burrows P Carter S Gazzard B Ingham G Jung D Key J Knight H Parr B de Saram M Williamson

Officers in attendance: Chris Rose, Development Manager Henry Gordon Lennox, Strategic Lead Governance and Licensing Wendy Harris, Democratic Services Officer

Chairman Date:

page 10 Agenda Item 6

EAST DEVON DISTRICT COUNCIL LIST OF PLANNING APPEALS LODGED

Ref: 18/2116/CPE Date Received 18.03.2019 Appellant: Mr & Mrs Dawes Appeal Site: Pughs Farm Monkton Honiton EX14 9QH Proposal: Existing Use of 1no. residential unit on land at Pugh's Farm, EX14 9QH Planning APP/U1105/X/19/3224975 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 18/1962/FUL Date Received 19.03.2019 Appellant: Mr & Mrs J. Hillier Appeal Site: Farrantshayes Farm Clyst Hydon Cullompton EX15 2NQ Proposal: Retention of alterations to access and formation of access track Planning Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 18/F0077 Date Received 21.03.2019

Appellant: Luke John Kent Appeal Site: Flat 1 31 Cranford Avenue Exmouth EX8 2QA Proposal: Appeal against an enforcement notice served in respect of the construction of a building without planning permission. Planning APP/U1105/C/19/3225216 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 18/0346/FUL Date Received 22.03.2019 Appellant: Mr T Johnson Appeal Site: Dunscombe Barn Salcombe Regis Sidmouth EX10 0PN Proposal: Proposed replacement dwelling Planning APP/U1105/W/19/3225267 Inspectorate Ref:

page 11

East Devon District Council List of Planning Appeals Decided

Ref: 17/1539/MFUL Appeal 18/00037/REF Ref: Appellant: Yourlife Management Services Ltd. Appeal Site: Land To The South Of Redgate Salterton Road Exmouth Proposal: Erection of a three and four storey building housing an extra care scheme (Class C2) comprising 59 one and two bedroom units with associated communal lounges, restaurant, wellness room, guest suite, house manager and care support accommodation, car parking, communal rechargeable scooter store, access and communal landscaped gardens and structures. Decision: Appeal Dismissed Date: 20.03.2019 Procedure: Informal Hearing Remarks: Delegated refusal, employment allocation reasons upheld (EDLP Strategies 22 & 32). BVPI 204: Yes Planning APP/U1105/W/18/3206548 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 18/1051/OUT Appeal 18/00055/REF Ref: Appellant: Mr & Mrs P Gamble Appeal Site: Land South Of Knights Lane All Saints Proposal: The erection of a detached dwelling (self-build) and associated parking with all matters, save means of access, reserved. Decision: Appeal Dismissed Date: 29.03.2019 Procedure: Written representations Remarks: Delegated refusal, sustainability, countryside protection and landscape reasons upheld (EDLP Strategies 7, 27 & 46 and Policies TC2 & TC4). BVPI 204: Yes Planning APP/U1105/W/18/3215645 Inspectorate Ref:

page 12 Ref: 17/1481/MRES Appeal 18/00039/REF Ref: Appellant: Containerspace Limited Appeal Site: Land Off Clapper Lane (formerly Allotments) Honiton Proposal: Construction of 10 no. dwellings and relocation of allotment gardens (reserved matters pursuant to outline consent 13/2508/MOUT seeking determination of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) Decision: Appeal Allowed (with Date: 03.04.2019 conditions) Procedure: Written representations Remarks: Delegated refusal, amenity and conservation reasons overruled (EDLP Policies D1 & EN10).

The Inspector considered that the proposal would be a well- considered modern development which would integrate successfully into Clapper Lane, enhancing the character and appearance of the area and preserving the setting of the Honiton Conservation Area. Consequently, the proposal would accord with East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 Policies D1 and EN10, which, amongst other things, seek proposals to achieve appropriate design which respects local distinctiveness and the character and appearance of Conservation Areas. The proposal would also perform strongly against the heritage and design requirements of the Framework. BVPI 204: Yes Planning APP/U1105/W/18/3207129 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 17/2493/FUL Appeal 18/00059/REF Ref: Appellant: Mr Harry Tucker Appeal Site: Manor Hotel Garages Beacon Place Exmouth Proposal: Demolition of existing garages and redevelopment of forecourt to form 2 new apartments over modified existing parking. Decision: Appeal Dismissed Date: 03.04.2019 Procedure: Written representations Remarks: Officer recommendation to approve, Committee refusal, conservation reasons upheld (EDLP Policies D1, EN9 & EN10). BVPI 204: Yes Planning APP/U1105/W/18/3216069 Inspectorate Ref:

page 13 East Devon District Council List of Appeals in Progress

App.No: 17/2953/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/D/18/3215268 Appellant: Mr & Mrs J Shuker Address: Churston Harcombe Road Axminster EX13 5TB Proposal; Retrospective application for the construction of a detached garage Start Date: 9 January 2019 Procedure: Householder Questionnaire Due Date: 14 January 2019

App.No: 18/0869/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/18/3218286 Appellant: Mr Dyer Address: Strawberry Fields Livery Yard Meeting Lane Lympstone Exmouth EX8 5HS Proposal; Conversion of two barns/stables to form one dwelling with a link extension, and use of remaining buildings for ancillary domestic purposes Start Date: 25 January 2019 Procedure: Written reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 1 February 2019 Statement Due Date: 1 March 2019

App.No: 18/2086/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/18/3219001 Appellant: Mr & Mrs Wood Address: 88 Hulham Road Exmouth EX8 3LB Proposal; Construction of detached dwelling and creation of new vehicular access Start Date: 25 January 2019 Procedure: Written reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 1 February 2019 Statement Due Date: 1 March 2019

page 14 App.No: 18/1002/OUT Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/18/3219114 Appellant: Mr & Mrs Coals Address: 100 Granary Lane (Land To Rear) Budleigh Salterton EX9 6EP Proposal; Proposed Dwelling (outline application with all matters reserved) Start Date: 30 January 2019 Procedure: Written reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 6 February 2019 Statement Due Date: 6 March 2019

App.No: 18/1456/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/19/3220012 Appellant: Mr Woodley (CJ Woodley Ltd) Address: Paradise Barn Church Road Colaton Raleigh Proposal; New dwelling to replace demolished barn, incorporating stone boundary wall Start Date: 11 February 2019 Procedure: Written reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 18 February 2019 Statement Due Date: 18 March 2019 :

App.No: 18/0054/COU Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/19/3220990 Appellant: Mr A Oakes Address: Pendennis House 4 Gold Street Ottery St Mary EX11 1DG Proposal; Change of use from office to a self contained flat on the ground floor. Start Date: 12 February 2019 Procedure: Written reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 19 February 2019 Statement Due Date: 19 March 2019

page 15 App.No: 18/2514/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/19/3221035 Appellant: Mr A Newton Address: Garages 1 - 7 Raddenstile Lane Exmouth EX8 2JH Proposal; Conversion and extension of garages to create one dwelling Start Date: 12 February 2019 Procedure: Written reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 19 February 2019 Statement Due Date: 19 March 2019

App.No: 18/1548/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/18/3216504 Appellant: Mr Steve Hollis Address: Land East Of Redlane Cross Rocombe Proposal; Erection of an equestrian manege, American style barn and formation of a new vehicular access Start Date: 19 February 2019 Procedure: Written reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 26 February 2019 Statement Due Date: 26 March 2019

App.No: 18/0450/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/18/3216506 Appellant: Mr Stuart Phillips Address: 8 Mill Street Ottery St Mary EX11 1AD Proposal; Alterations and extensions to create 5 No flats Start Date: 19 February 2019 Procedure: Written reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 26 February 2019 Statement Due Date: 26 March 2019

page 16 App.No: 18/1474/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/18/3216628 Appellant: John Lomax Address: Land Adj Heathfield Longmeadow Road Lympstone Exmouth EX8 5LF Proposal; Change of use from workshop and garage to single dwelling (re-submission of application 17/1168/FUL) Start Date: 19 February 2019 Procedure: Written reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 26 February 2019 Statement Due Date: 26 March 2019

App.No: 18/2280/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/19/3222734 Appellant: Mrs Jayne Ough Address: 55 Peaslands Road Sidmouth EX10 9BE Proposal; Construction of two storey dwelling within garden and provision of additional parking space Start Date: 11 March 2019 Procedure: Written reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 18 March 2019 Statement Due Date: 15 April 2019

App.No: 18/1094/MOUT Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/19/3221978 Appellant: OG Holdings Retirement Benefit Scheme Address: Land East Of Two Bridges Two Bridges Road Sidford Proposal; Outline application accompanied by an Environmental Statement (with scale and appearance reserved) for the change of use of agricultural land to employment land (B1, B8 and D1 uses) to provide 8,445 sqm of new floorspace, new highway access, cycle and footway, improvements to flood attenuation, building layout and road layout, new hedgerow planting and associated infrastructure. Start Date: 18 March 2019 Procedure: Inquiry Questionnaire Due Date: 25 March 2019 Statement Due Date: 17 May 2019 Inquiry Date: 16 – 18 July 2019

page 17 App.No: 18/1462/PDQ Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/18/3218381 Appellant: Mr & Mrs S Connell Address: Barn At Easting 330931, Northing 101522 Land Adjacent Poppins Goldsmith Lane All Saints Proposal; Change of use together with building operations reasonably necessary to convert the building into a single dwelling. Start Date: 18 March 2019 Procedure: Written Reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 25 March 2019 Statement Due Date: 22 April 2019

App.No: 18/0308/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/18/3218802 Appellant: Green Acres Homes Address: W I Hall And Adjacent Land At West Hill Road West Hill Proposal; Demolition of WI hall and construction of 3 no. dwellings Start Date: 21 March 2019 Procedure: Written Reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 28 March 2019 Statement Due Date: 25 April 2019

App.No: 18/2290/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/19/3220378 Appellant: Mr A J Oborn Address: 17 Townsend Avenue Seaton EX12 2BG Proposal; Erection of new two storey two-bedroom house in garden plot Start Date: 22 March 2019 Procedure: Written Reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 29 March 2019 Statement Due Date: 26 April 2019

App.No: 18/1790/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/D/19/3223201 Appellant: Mr & Mrs Robert and Serena Sexton Address: Broadlands Combe Raleigh Honiton EX14 4TQ Proposal; Construction of double storey side extensions Start Date: 2 April 2019 Procedure: Householder Questionnaire Due Date: 7 April 2019

page 18 Agenda Item 7

Ward Clyst Valley

Reference 17/3002/MOUT

Applicant Andrew Langdon (Langdon Properties)

Location Dart Business Park Road Past Darts Farm Clyst St George

Proposal Outline application to extend Business Park to create 10 additional units to be used for offices, light industry and storage and distribution (Use Classes Order B1 & B8): all matters reserved other than access; consideration of scale and layout

RECOMMENDATION: 1. That the Habitat Regulations Appropriate Assessment attached to this Committee report be adopted; 2. That the application be APPROVED subject to conditions.

Crown Copyright and database rights 2019 Ordnance Survey 100023746

page 19

Committee Date: 30th April 2019

Clyst Valley Target Date: (CLYST ST 17/3002/MOUT 23.03.2018 GEORGE)

Applicant: Andrew Langdon, Langdon Properties

Location: Dart Business Park Road Past Darts Farm

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That the Habitat Regulations Appropriate Assessment attached to this Committee report be adopted; 2. That the application be APPROVED subject to conditions.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This application is before Members as the Officer view is contrary to that of the Parish Council and the proposal represents a departure from the adopted East Devon Local Plan and is contrary to Policies CSG5, CSG6 and CSG9 of the Clyst St. George Neighbourhood Plan.

The site lies in the open countryside within an area designated as Green Wedge and Coastal Preservation Area in the Local Plan, and identified within the Clyst St. George Neighbourhood Plan as being outside of the business park area and identified as an area of woodland for protection.

Within the open countryside new development is strictly controlled by the Local Plan and Neighbourhood Plan so that it does not have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of its surroundings. Some development may be acceptable where it accords with other policies, or where the benefit of the proposal outweigh any harm.

In this instance the Local Plan (Policy E7 - Extensions to Existing Employment Sites) would only allow the small scale expansion of existing businesses or where extensions to existing employment sites are proposed where these are proportionate to the existing size and scale of site operations and any impacts arising from the proposals are acceptable. The scale of the proposed

17/3002/MOUT page 20

development is not considered to be small scale and represents a departure from the local plan. The Neighbourhood Plan supports business development within the identified business parks (which the site falls outside of) however it also identifies the woodland on the site as being of particular value and worthy of protection and seeks appropriate mitigation for any loss of trees which the site cannot provide. This all weighs heavily against the proposal.

Outline permission is sought, although in order that the proposal can be accurately assessed, matters of scale and layout, in addition to access are to be considered.

The site forms part of a woodland plantation, much of which will need to be removed to accommodate the development proposed. Part of the site also lies within an area identified as floodzone 2/3.

It is anticipated that the proposed development could create between 40-50 new jobs, some of which would result from the expansion of existing businesses operating from the business park. This matter is considered to weigh heavily in favour of the proposal and accords with the provisions of the NPPF in support of a prosperous rural economy (Paragraph 83).

No highway objections are raised to the proposal and whilst part of the development will be visible in longer range views, some of the harm arising from this would be mitigated by planting and the current built development surrounding the site. Other technical issues, including surface water drainage details, flooding and wider environmental mitigation will need further information, although the principle is considered to be acceptable.

The new units will be more visible from neighbouring properties than the current level of development on the site, due to the removal of trees and increased activity on the site, however the distances between the new units and existing properties is considered to be reasonable, and the orientation and positioning of the development is considered to be such that any additional light and noise nuisance would be focused away from the properties.

Overall, and on balance, it is considered that the economic benefits arising from the proposed development and the creation of a significant number of new jobs outweighs any visual or other harm arising from the proposed development and conflict with the Neighbourhood Plan policies that seek to retain the woodland and restrict employment development to within existing employment areas.

This recommendation is however very finely balanced and given the conflict with local and neighbourhood plan policies, a refusal of planning permission could be justified if harm from this is considered to outweigh the benefits of the proposal.

17/3002/MOUT page 21

CONSULTATIONS

Local Consultations

Parish/Town Council

06/02/18 - The PC wishes to object to the application on a number of grounds.

The proposal would involve the removal of an extensive area of woodland and associated wildlife that would cause significant harm to the area. We are informed that this area of woodland actually formed part of the landscaping mitigation works which were part of the original consent to create the business park. The scheme would also involve development in area which is designated 'green wedge' and we can see little benefit that would be achieved (very minor economic impact) to outweigh the substantial harm caused.

The site area is within a flood zone and this issue has been highlighted by the Applicant. In our view, the proposal does not adequately address the problems caused by loss of flood plain but clearly other Statutory Consultees will no doubt comment further.

There would be additional traffic flows as a result of the increase in the number of units which is a concern and no consideration has been given to access to the site by pedestrians and cycle users. Whilst the site is served by cycle path from Topsham, the access from Clyst St George is wholly inadequate as it involves the use of a very narrow, substandard pavement which also means that pedestrians must cross the A376 at a point where no crossing exists."

26/06/18 – The Parish Council objects to this application, We have concerns that the development will result in the loss of woodland and affect the amenity of the neighbours. If consent is granted, there will be a significant rise in traffic movements and we would ask that a contribution is sought for improvements to paths and cycle network serving the site, particularly the route from the George and Dragon roundabout.

20/11/18 - Please find below the Parish Council's response to the above Planning Application.

Comments by a majority of Councillors :-17/3002/MOUT Clyst St George Parish Neighbourhood Plan referendum result has confirmed our Plan, judging this application against the plan we wish to emphasise that We wish the D.M.C to take the following polices into account when determining this application.

Policy No. CSG4 Areas of Ecological Significance Areas of ecological significance should be protected from the impact of development. Development proposals that adversely affect areas of ecological significance will be resisted.

Policy No. CSG6 Protection of Trees and Woodlands

17/3002/MOUT page 22

Development proposals should avoid the loss of or damage to trees, woodland or hedgerows that contribute positively to the character, biodiversity and amenity of the area. Development proposals which could result in loss or damage to aged or veteran trees will not be supported. Where it is unavoidable, development proposals must provide for appropriate replacement planting on the site, together or as close as possible to it together with a method statement for the ongoing care and maintenance of that planting. Such replacement planting should be in the ratio of three trees for the loss of a large tree, two for a medium sized tree and one for a small tree. New development within the proximity of existing mature trees will be expected to have an arboricultural method statement in place before any development commences. This will detail tree protection strategies to be employed during construction. The areas of woodland delineated on Map 7 are regarded as important natural features. Any development proposals that would result in the loss, damage or deterioration of these areas will be resisted.

The area of woodland on this site is on Map 7 and has an ecological value and should be enhanced as set out in the ecology survey.

Policy No. CSG5 Development Outside the Settlement Areas Development proposals on land outside the confines of the settlement areas will usually be supported if they are necessary for the purposes of agriculture, or farm diversification or outdoor recreation, without harming the countryside. Such development proposals should make a positive contribution to the preservation of the countryside and its biodiversity and enhancing its setting, or its responsible use and enjoyment by the public. Development proposals will not be supported that result in the net loss of: i. publicly accessible open space, footpaths or bridleways; ii. important views; iii. landscape features; iv. biodiversity features; v. higher grade agricultural land; or vi. damage to the essential character of the area.

The report from EDDC's Landscape Architect highlights that views of this site from across the Clyst would be adversely affected and makes recommendations that the Parish Council supports. We have seen no evidence that the application is being modified to take these reports into account.

Technical Consultations

County Highway Authority Outline application to extend Business Park to create 10 additional units to be used for offices, light industry and storage and distribution (Use Classes Order B1 & B8): all matters reserved other than access.

LOCATION: Dart Business Park Road Past Darts Farm Clyst St George

Observations:

17/3002/MOUT page 23

The site already benefits from a car park. The site also benefits from good vehicle access from both the Topsham direction and the A376. I would suggest a few improvements that would encourage cyclists and continues to work towards our aim of reducing congestion utilising the nearby Exe Estuary trail and encouraging sustainable employee commuting. This is to extend the shared use path on Topsham road by approximately 60m, which would therefore reach this sites vehicular access, extend the already planned footpath and crossings through the site to include cyclists as well and finally, although outside of this application, to look into opening up a pedestrian/cycle access onto the site from Ebford Lane.

Recommendation: THE HEAD OF PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENT, ON BEHALF OF DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL, AS LOCAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY, HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

Further comments:

The nearest County Highway Authority road to the extended business park is the C527 with the proposed extension to the business park to also use the existing access.

The business park has significant existing traffic, although that being said the site can be accessed from either the Topsham direction, the Sandygate roundabout of Exeter, or Exmouth using primary and secondary county highway roads. Therefore I do not believe with the size of the additional units any business will exceed light industry and light storage, therefore the nature of the units limits the additional traffic expected.

I would recommend that should this planning application be submitted for reserved measures, that work is carried out upon the corner of the extended estate road, to safely accommodate the swept path of articulated vehicles. In addition to cycle parking facility provision, especially with the nearby Exe-estuary trail, this will reduce the impact of any traffic intensification as well as encourage sustainable travel.

Overall, the County Highway Authority has no objection to this outline planning application.

Recommendation: THE HEAD OF PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENT, ON BEHALF OF DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL, AS LOCAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY, HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

Contaminated Land Officer I have considered the application and do not anticipate any contaminated land concerns. However there may be potential for materials to be encountered during oversite works and I therefore recommend that the following condition is included in any approval:

Should any contamination of soil and/or ground or surface water be discovered during excavation of the site or development, the Local Planning Authority should be contacted immediately. Site activities in the area affected shall be temporarily

17/3002/MOUT page 24

suspended until such time as a method and procedure for addressing the contamination is agreed upon in writing with the Local Planning Authority and/or other regulating bodies. Reason: To ensure that any contamination existing and exposed during the development is identified and remediated.

Natural England 13/02/18 – Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.

FURTHER INFORMATION REQUIRED TO DETERMINE IMPACTS ON EXE ESTUARY SPECIAL PROTECTION AREA (SPA), EXE ESTUARY RAMSAR SITE AND EXE ESTUARY SITE OF SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC INTEREST (SSSI)

As submitted, the application could have potential significant effects on the above designated sites. Natural England requires further information in order to determine the significance of these impacts and the scope for mitigation.

The following information is required:

Further information on the proposed lighting scheme. The proposed lighting scheme should not increase luminance over that at present. It would ideally be reduced. Given the close proximity of the application site to designated sites, Natural England have concerns about the impacts of noise during demolition/construction. Further information regarding construction methods and timing should be contained within a Construction and Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). The least sensitive period for birds that are qualifying features of the Exe Estuary SPA is summer. If noise levels are high enough cause disturbance, demolition and construction activities should be timed for the months May to August. Without this information, Natural England may need to object to the proposal. Please re-consult Natural England once this information has been obtained. Natural England's advice on other issues is set out below.

Additional Information required The proposed development site is just 120m from the designated sites (Exe Estuary SPA, Exe Estuary Ramsar Site and Exe Estuary SSSI).

Natural England are concerned about potential impacts on the designated sites from any additional lighting and from noise during demolition and construction works and request consultation on the further information detailed above.

Local Plan policy We note that the application site is covered by the following Local Plan policies:

Strategy 8: Green Wedge Strategy 44: Coastal Preservation Area

17/3002/MOUT page 25

Please note that if your authority is minded to grant planning permission contrary to the advice in this letter, you are required under Section 28I (6) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) to notify Natural England of the permission, the terms on which it is proposed to grant it and how, if at all, your authority has taken account of Natural England's advice. You must also allow a further period of 21 days before the operation can commence.

Further general advice on the protected species and other natural environment issues is provided at Annex A.

If you have any queries relating to the advice in this letter please contact me on 0208 026 7400.

Should the applicant wish to discuss the further information required and scope for mitigation with Natural England, we would be happy to provide advice through our Discretionary Advice Service. Please consult us again once the information requested above, has been provided.

Annex A - Additional advice

Natural England offers the following additional advice:

Landscape

Paragraph 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) highlights the need to protect and enhance valued landscapes through the planning system. This application may present opportunities to protect and enhance locally valued landscapes, including any local landscape designations. You may want to consider whether any local landscape features or characteristics (such as ponds, woodland or dry stone walls) could be incorporated into the development in order to respect and enhance local landscape character and distinctiveness, in line with any local landscape character assessments. Where the impacts of development are likely to be significant, a Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment should be provided with the proposal to inform decision making. We refer you to the. Landscape Institute Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment for further guidance.

Soils

Guidance on soil protection is available in the Defra Construction Code of Practice for the Sustainable Use of Soils on Construction Sites, and we recommend its use in the design and construction of development, including any planning conditions. Should the development proceed, we advise that the developer uses an appropriately experienced soil specialist to advise on, and supervise soil handling, including identifying when soils are dry enough to be handled and how to make the best use of soils on site.

Protected Species

Natural England has produced standing advice1 to help planning authorities understand the impact of particular developments on protected species. We advise

17/3002/MOUT page 26

you to refer to this advice. Natural England will only provide bespoke advice on protected species where they form part of a SSSI or in exceptional circumstances. Local sites and priority habitats and species

You should consider the impacts of the proposed development on any local wildlife or geodiversity sites, in line with paragraph 113 of the NPPF and any relevant development plan policy. There may also be opportunities to enhance local sites and improve their connectivity. Natural England does not hold locally specific information on local sites and recommends further information is obtained from appropriate bodies such as the local records centre, wildlife trust, geoconservation groups or recording societies.

Priority habitats and Species are of particular importance for nature conservation and included in the England Biodiversity List published under section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. Most priority habitats will be mapped either as Sites of Special Scientific Interest, on the Magic website or as Local Wildlife Sites. List of priority habitats and species can be found here2. Natural England does not routinely hold species data, such data should be collected when impacts on priority habitats or species are considered likely. Consideration should also be given to the potential environmental value of brownfield sites, often found in urban areas and former industrial land, further information including links to the open mosaic habitats inventory can be found here.

Ancient woodland and veteran trees

You should consider any impacts on ancient woodland and veteran trees in line with paragraph 118 of the NPPF. Natural England maintains the Ancient Woodland Inventory which can help identify ancient woodland. Natural England and the Forest Commission have produced standing advice for planning authorities in relation to ancient woodland and veteran trees. It should be taken into account by planning authorities when determining relevant planning applications. Natural England will only provide bespoke advice on ancient woodland/veteran trees where they form part of a SSSI or in exceptional circumstances. 1 https://www.gov.uk/protected-species-and-sites-how-to-review-planning-proposals 2http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140711133551/http:/www.naturalengla nd.org.uk/ourwork/conservation/biodiversity/protectandmanage/habsandspeciesimpo rtance.aspx

Annex A - Additional advice Environmental enhancement Development provides opportunities to secure a net gain for nature and local communities, as outlined in paragraphs 9, 109 and 152 of the NPPF. We advise you to follow the mitigation hierarchy as set out in paragraph 118 of the NPPF and firstly consider what existing environmental features on and around the site can be retained or enhanced or what new features could be incorporated into the development proposal. Where onsite measures are not possible, you may wish to consider off site measures, including sites for biodiversity offsetting. Opportunities for enhancement might include: Providing a new footpath through the new development to link into existing rights of way.

17/3002/MOUT page 27

Restoring a neglected hedgerow. Creating a new pond as an attractive feature on the site. Planting trees characteristic to the local area to make a positive contribution to the local landscape. Using native plants in landscaping schemes for better nectar and seed sources for bees and birds. Incorporating swift boxes or bat boxes into the design of new buildings. Designing lighting to encourage wildlife. Adding a green roof to new buildings. You could also consider how the proposed development can contribute to the wider environment and help implement elements of any Landscape, Green Infrastructure or Biodiversity Strategy in place in your area. For example: Links to existing greenspace and/or opportunities to enhance and improve access. Identifying opportunities for new greenspace and managing existing (and new) public spaces to be more wildlife friendly (e.g. by sowing wild flower strips) Planting additional street trees. Identifying any improvements to the existing public right of way network or using the opportunity of new development to extend the network to create missing links. Restoring neglected environmental features (e.g. coppicing a prominent hedge that is in poor condition or clearing away an eyesore). Access and Recreation Natural England encourages any proposal to incorporate measures to help improve people's access to the natural environment. Measures such as reinstating existing footpaths together with the creation of new footpaths and bridleways should be considered. Links to other green networks and, where appropriate, urban fringe areas should also be explored to help promote the creation of wider green infrastructure. Relevant aspects of local authority green infrastructure strategies should be delivered where appropriate. Rights of Way, Access land, Coastal access and National Trails Paragraph 75 of the NPPF highlights the important of public rights of way and access. Development should consider potential impacts on access land, common land, rights of way and coastal access routes in the vicinity of the development. Consideration should also be given to the potential impacts on the any nearby National Trails. The National Trails website www.nationaltrail.co.uk provides information including contact details for the National Trail Officer. Appropriate mitigation measures should be incorporated for any adverse impacts. Biodiversity duty Your authority has a duty to have regard to conserving biodiversity as part of your decision making. Conserving biodiversity can also include restoration or enhancement to a population or habitat. Further information is available here.

27/06/18 – Thank you for consulting us on these additional plans. However, this information does not change our advice given on 12th February 2018. Having reviewed the additional information, I have the following comments:

As stated in our previous response: As submitted, the application could have potential significant effects on the designated sites (Exe Estuary SPA, Exe Estuary Ramsar Site and Exe Estuary SSSI) 120m away. Natural England requires further information in order to determine the significance of these impacts and the scope for mitigation (refer to previous advice - attached).

17/3002/MOUT page 28

- Ecologist additional comments (11/05/2018)

Point 5 notes that any lighting scheme should be sympathetic to local conditions and that it should be reviewed by an ecologist. We would agree with this but there are no further details to examine. The applicant therefore needs to provide detail of the proposed lighting scheme which should demonstrate how this will avoid impacts on the SPA together with any functionally linked areas used by SPA birds, not just the actual boundary of the SPA.

Point 10 notes that external construction work will not be carried out during winter months from Oct/Nov to February inclusive. We have already advised that demolition and construction works should be carried out in summer months only (this could be extended to include April to September) - a point also advised in the agent correspondence on 28/05/2018.

If the applicant wishes to pursue the option to work outside the recommended period they will need to provide additional evidence to justify any deviation from this working period e.g. evidence that SPA birds are not using the surrounding area during the proposed period of construction (e.g. from Wetland Bird Survey Data or other surveys). They should also provide evidence that the level and duration of noise and visual disturbance generated by construction and demolition activities e.g. piling, drilling, use of machinery etc. will not cause disturbance to the SPA birds. This should be contained within a Construction and Environmental Management Plan (CEMP).

Without this further information, Natural England may need to object to the proposal (refer to our previous advice attached). Please re-consult Natural England once this information has been obtained.

Further comments 24/10/18 - Our main concerns:

1. Noise impacts from construction and demolition works (refer to Point 10)

We are satisfied with the proposal to restrict works to the months of April to September (Point 10: No construction work/working between 1st October - 31st March). This needs to be clarified to include construction and demolition works.

2. Lighting impacts (refer to Point 5)

Due to the sensitivity of the location in close proximity to the Exe Estuary SPA and Ramsar Site, there should be a condition which requires that the lighting should not exceed the lower E2 lighting standard for rural areas (standards are referred to in the additional information).

The statement that "significant lighting already exists around the industrial park" does not provide justification for this development to mirror those levels and further add to the light levels in the area. We note that the lighting scheme will be reviewed by an ecologist.

17/3002/MOUT page 29

We also note that a CEMP will be conditioned and provided to the LPA (refer to Point 12).

Further comments 18/03/19 - EXE ESTUARY SPA/ EXE ESTUARY RAMSAR SITE/ EAST DEVON PEBBLEBED HEATHS SAC/ EAST DEVON HEATHS SPA/ DAWLISH WARREN SAC

Thank you for your consultation on this Appropriate Assessment for the above development, received by Natural England on 19 February 2019, and in accordance with Paragraph 63 (3) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. Please be advised that, on the basis of the mitigation measures (CEMP, restricted hours of working and noise and lighting restrictions) being secured through conditions, Natural England concurs with your authority’s conclusion that the proposed development will not have an adverse effect on the integrity of Exe Estuary SPA and Exe Estuary Ramsar Site, East Devon Pebblebed Heaths SAC, East Devon Heaths SPA, Dawlish Warren SAC.

Further comments 03/04/19 –

Natural England has previously commented on this proposal and made comments five times to the authority. The advice provided in our previous responses applies equally to these amendments.

The proposed amendments to the original application are unlikely to have significantly different impacts on the natural environment than the original proposal.

Environmental Health

23/01/18 – I have considered this application and would require all the following documentation to be submitted and agreed by the LOcal PLanning Authority (which was requested at pre-app stage) before any recommendations can be made by Environmental Health.

I am concerned about this development impacting on local residents including these properties which are very close to the proposed site:

1. The properties below may be particualrly affected by the development proposal:

LITTLE ORCHARD EBFORD EXETER EX3 0PA NEWINGTON EBFORD EXETER EX3 0PA STILE COTTAGE EBFORD EXETER EX3 0PA BUNTINGS EBFORD EXETER EX3 0PA FOUR CHIMNEYS EBFORD EXETER EX3 0PA

17/3002/MOUT page 30

FAIR HAVEN EBFORD EXETER EX3 0PA

2. Noise from the Exmouth to Exeter Road is generally the dominant noise source in this location. However, from time to time and particularly at night, this road becomes significantly quieter and other potential noise sources could affect local residents, particularly those in the aforementioned list. The proximity and potentially "different" noise sources from the proposed application may have an impact on the nearest properties. For example vehicles coming in and out of the site have a different noise characteristic than traffic moving along the Exmouth Road. I believe this to have potentially more impact at night when the road becomes less busy.

3. I am also concerned about other issues including the noise impact from electromechanical plant and have a list of proposed planning conditions below:

Noise and other environmental impacts Prior to the commencement of the development the applicant must provide an Environmental Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority detailing the way in which environmental impacts will be addressed and incorporated into the design, layout and management of the site. This may include the use of noise mitigation measures such as bunds and acoustic barriers The Plan shall consider the impacts of noise (including low frequency noise), traffic, odour, smoke, air pollution and light on the local environment and air quality, and the way in which these impacts will be mitigated. The Plan shall also include details of the foul and surface water drainage systems, and arrangements for the prevention of pollution of any nearby watercourse.

Reason: To protect the amenity of local residents and to ensure compliance with Local Plan policy EN15."

Times of operations (including servicing) from the operational use of the site Monday to Saturday Sunday Servicing, deliveries & associated activities 07:00 to 18:00 10:00 to 16:00 Recycling Facilities, Waste & other collections 07:00 to 18:00 None

Reason: To protect the amenity of local residents and to ensure compliance with Local Plan policy EN15."

Noise impact from electromechanical plant Any plant (including ventilation, refrigeration and air conditioning units) or ducting system to be used in pursuance of this permission shall be so installed prior to the first use of the premises and be so retained and operated that the noise generated at the boundary of the nearest neighbouring property shall not exceed Noise Rating Curve 25, as defined in BS8233:2014 Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction for Buildings Code of Practice and the Chartered Institute of Building Service Engineers Environmental Design Guide. Details of the scheme shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the first use of the premises.

17/3002/MOUT page 31

Reason: To protect the amenity of local residents from noise.

Construction impacts A Construction and Environment Management Plan must be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to any works commencing on site, and shall be implemented and remain in place throughout the development. The CEMP shall include at least the following matters : Air Quality, Dust, Water Quality, Lighting, Noise and Vibration, Pollution Prevention and Control, and Monitoring Arrangements. Construction working hours shall be 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 1pm on Saturdays, with no working on Sundays or Bank Holidays. There shall be no burning on site. There shall be no high frequency audible reversing alarms used on the site.

Reason: To protect the amenities of existing and future residents in the vicinity of the site from noise, air, water and light pollution.

Further comments 30.01.18 – EH require a full and comprehensive noise assessment which is carried out by and independent noise consultant, which details the noise levels now from the site and the levels predicted, the report must also contain any recommendations and mitigation measures.

The noise information submitted was not considered detailed enough or sufficient in content.

Further comments 27/06/18 - I have looked at the noise report submitted by ACT Acoustics and they have stated that to achieve the 5 dB below background which is what we require, each unit must emit less than 68 dB (A) @ 1 meter from the westerly façade, they also go on to say on page 9 that they understand that units are to primarily be used for offices and storage so this level can be achieved.

Correct me if I am wrong but are they applying for B8? If this is the case then from the report with no mitigation or recommendations submitted I can only assume that B8 usage would not reach the required noise levels, therefore I can only object to the application on noise grounds.

Further comments 19/02/2019

I would like to recommend the following conditions to be attached to any permission granted: The specific noise level of any vehicle movement or plant installed and operated on the site must not exceed 25dBa (5dB below nighttime background which can be taken as 30dBa) at the boundary of the nearest noise sensitive dwellings, and must not exceed the background level at any other time. Background noise level to be measured at each unit must emit less than 68 dB (A) @ 1 meter from the westerly façade,

The premises shall not be open for business except between the hours of 1800hrs and 0700hrs Monday to Friday, or 1800hrs and 1300hrs on Saturdays, and not at all on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

Reason: To protect the amenity of local residents.

17/3002/MOUT page 32

Further comments 04/04/19 –

I have reviewed earlier environmental health comments and additional information now provided. We have no objection to the development in principle but consider that conditions would be required in order to protect the amenity of residents, some of whom live close to the west/south west boundary. There is one specific query though - the description of the development on the portal is for B1 and B8 units, whereas on the application B1 and B2 uses are applied for. B2 uses have the potential to create noise, dust and odour and therefore would require additional conditions as the proposed uses are not specified. B8 uses sometimes request extended working hours and again this needs to be clarified. I have covered both scenarios in the controls that I am suggesting.

I therefore recommend that the following conditions be applied to any approval, with their requirements being maintained thoughout the life of the site:

1. Prior to the commencement of the development the applicant must provide an Environmental Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority detailing the way in which environmental impacts will be addressed and incorporated into the design, layout and management of the site. The Plan shall consider the impacts of noise (including low frequency noise), traffic, odour, smoke, air pollution and light on the local environment and air quality, and the way in which these impacts will be mitigated. The Plan shall also include details of the foul and surface water drainage systems, and arrangements for the prevention of pollution of any nearby watercourse. Reason: To protect the amenity of local residents and to ensure compliance with Local Plan policy EN15

2. Noise emitted from any refrigeration unit, cooling system, extract ventilation system or any other specific noise source shall be inaudible beyond the boundary of the premises. Within one month of the installation of such equipment, details of any acoustic mitigation required to achieve this noise level shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the equipment shall not be used until and unless the mitigation has been installed as agreed. For these purposes, "inaudibility" shall be determined as the specific noise level (after corrections have been applied) being at least 5dB less than the lowest background noise level measured at the time of the assessment, all measured in accordance with BS4142:2014. Reason: To protect adjoining occupiers from excessive noise.

3. No machinery shall be operated, no processes carried out and no deliveries accepted or despatched except between the hours of 7am and 7pm Monday to Friday, or 7am and 1pm on Saturdays, and not at all on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Reason: To protect the amenities of local residents from noise.

4. No external openings, plant or vehicular access shall be located on the western elevations of units A-D, as shown on the site layout plan. Reason: To protect the amenities of close by residents from noise, emissions or light pollution in accordance with Policy EN15.

17/3002/MOUT page 33

5. A Construction and Environment Management Plan must be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to any works commencing on site, and shall be implemented and remain in place throughout the development. The CEMP shall include at least the following matters : Air Quality, Dust, Water Quality, Lighting, Noise and Vibration, Pollution Prevention and Control, and Monitoring Arrangements. Construction working hours shall be 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 1pm on Saturdays, with no working on Sundays or Bank Holidays. There shall be no burning on site. There shall be no high frequency audible reversing alarms used on the site. Reason: To protect the amenities of existing and future residents in the vicinity of the site from noise, air, water and light pollution.

6. A lighting scheme shall be provided for the site which complies with the requirements of the Institute of Light Engineers guidance on the avoidance of light pollution. The lamps used shall not be capable of reflecting light laterally, upwards or off the ground surface in such a way that light pollution is caused. No area lighting shall be operated outside the agreed working hours of the site, although low height, low level, local security lighting may be acceptable. Reason: To comply with Policy EN15 for the avoidance of light pollution.

Environment Agency 29/01/18 – Thank you for your consultation of 08 January 2018 in respect of the above planning application.

Environment Agency position We broadly agree with the conclusions of the flood risk assessment (FRA) submitted and have no objections to the proposal. Your authority may consider it appropriate to condition the permission to ensure implementation of the mitigation measures recommended by the FRA. The reasons for our position are set out below.

Reasons We have reviewed the FRA (dated December 2017) prepared by Dennis Gedge Consulting Engineer. Our position is on the basis that a design flood level of 4.7mAOD has been referenced in the FRA and that both ground levels and finished floor levels for the development have been set accordingly. In addition, there is support for the mitigation work to secure a degree of replacement floodplain storage.

Local knowledge of the area indicates that tide-locking scenarios prevent the drainage of surface water into the adjoining River Clyst, owing to the presence of private defences with valved outlets. It is therefore felt that creating a new drainage channel along the western boundary of the site, linking in to the existing channel through Odhams Wharf, would assist with water storage in the locality and potentially aid any surface water management scheme for the development. We would ask that you highlight this matter to the Lead Local Flood Authority (Devon County Council) in respect of their responsibility to comment on surface water matters. We provide you with an annotated plan to show the suggested drainage channel.

Further comments 29/06/18 – Thank you for consulting us on this planning application.

Environment Agency position

17/3002/MOUT page 34

We recommend that you do not determine this application until the applicant has clarified whether it is possible to incorporate a 'safe refuge' into units I and J. If this is not possible, we advise you to reconsult us so that we can recommend conditions in respect of flood resilience and flood warning and evacuation.

Before determining the application your Authority will also need to be content that the flood risk Sequential Test has been satisfied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) if you have not done so already. As you will be aware, failure of the Sequential Test is sufficient justification to refuse a planning application.

The reasons for this position are set out below.

Reasons - Flood risk

The 'less vulnerable' nature of the development in flood zone is considered appropriate in principle in this location provided that the flood risk Sequential Test can be satisfied and it is demonstrated that the proposed development will be safe from flooding over its lifetime.

We have reviewed the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) prepared by Dennis Gedge, dated December 2017. The assessment of flood risk is acceptable. It has derived a design water level of 4.7mAOD. Whilst no specific analysis of climate change allowances has been undertaken, the design water level is felt to be precautionary on the basis that it reflects the level associated with the extent of flood zone 2 (i.e. 1-in- 1000 year AEP).

We note that the majority of the development will have floor levels above the design water level and that compensatory flood plain will be provided - the implementation of this can be secured by condition. However, we are concerned that the finished floor levels of units I and J fall approximately 400mm below the design water level.

To manage the impact of this we recommend that the applicant designs units I and J to ensure that they allow for safe refuge on a higher level (i.e. mezzanine or second floor) and incorporate the potential to fit flood defence barriers across openings. We recommend that this is considered before the application is determined. If the applicant demonstrates that this is not possible, an alternative method of flood risk management will need to be provided, e.g. flood resilient measures and a flood warning and evacuation plan.

Advice - Flood Resilience

In view of the potential flood risks in this locality, we would also recommend that flood resilient construction practices and materials are incorporated in the design and build phase. Choice of materials and simple design modifications can make the development more resistant to flooding in the first place, or limit the damage and reduce rehabilitation time in the event of future inundation. Detailed information on flood proofing and mitigation can be found by referring to the CLG free publication 'Improving the Flood Performance of New Buildings'. Please see the link below:

17/3002/MOUT page 35

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/flood-resilient-construction-of-new- buildings

The applicant should also prepare a flood plan which outlines how they will respond to a flood. Further advice on this can be found in the following links: https://www.gov.uk/prepare-for-a-flood

Advice to the LPA

The application should not be determined until the applicant has supplied information to demonstrate that the flood risks posed by the development can be satisfactorily addressed. Also, a note that the site was a former gas depot and retail fuel outlet. There were no land contamination reports submitted with the application and we don't think it warrants inclusion of a contaminated land condition.

We would like to be re-consulted on any information submitted to address our concerns and we will provide you with bespoke comments within 21 days of receiving formal re- consultation. If you are minded to approve the application at this stage contrary to this advice, we request that you contact us to allow further discussion and/or representations from us.

Further comments 07/09/18 - Thank you for reconsulting us on this planning application.

Environment Agency position

There are some remaining issues that need to be resolved, which were raised in our previous correspondence (DC/2018/119540/02-L01 dated 29 June 2018) in regards to minimum floor level of all the units and whether it is possible to incorporate a 'safe refuge' within units I and J.

Before determining the application your Authority will also need to be content that the flood risk Sequential Test and first part of the Exception Test has been satisfied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) if you have not done so already.

Advice to LPA

We do not normally comment upon the acceptability of a Sequential Test, or the first part of the Exception Test.

We can confirm the flood risks to the site i.e. parts of the site lie within Flood Zones 1, 2 and 3a. We note that the site is allocated, but the allocation was not informed by a Level 2 SFRA. If the site was not sequentially tested as part of the Local Plan process, then the Sequential Test will need to be undertaken at this stage. Your Authority will need to be content that it has been satisfied before determining the application.

17/3002/MOUT page 36

previously advised you on the second part of the Exception Test in respect of whether the development will be safe from flooding over its lifetime, not increase flood risk elsewhere and, where possible, reduces flood risk over all. Our previous advice was that the majority of the development would be above the design flood level, but that the finished floor levels of units I and J are too low. It does not appear to have been established whether the floor levels of these units can be raised or, if not, whether flood resilience/resistance measures can be incorporated into the buildings. Please can you provide confirmation on this and your Authority's view on whether you are minded to approve the application as submitted.

If you are minded to approve the application at this stage contrary to this advice, we request that you contact us to allow further discussion and/or representations from us.

Further comments 05/11/18 - We write further to letter from the applicant's agent John Milverton on 02 October 2018 and your amended plan consultation of 09 October 2018.

Environment Agency position

Our position remains unchanged from our letters of 29 June 2018 and 07 September 2018 in that we consider the proposal will only be acceptable if floor levels of units I and J are raised to the level of 4.70mAOD recommended in the applicant's Flood Risk Assessment (FRA). Nonetheless, if your authority is minded to approve the application, taking into account other material considerations, then we would ask to be reconsulted so we can recommend suitably worded planning conditions to manage flood risks to the proposal.

Reasons - Flood risk

Mr Milverton's letter of 02 October 2018 highlights the change in our position between our letters of 25 January 2018 and 29 June 2018. Our first letter supported the FRA's recommendation that floor levels be set at 4.70mAOD and assumed that the levels of the proposed units had been set accordingly. However, in our letter of 29 June 2018 it came to our attention that units I and J were in fact to be set 400mm below the level of 4.70mAOD.

We note Mr Milverton's comments that the units could be raised by 400mm but that this would have a consequence for access and parking. We acknowledge that it is for your authority to determine the balance of material issues here. Our detailed comments on the flood risks to these units has been set out in our previous letters in June and September. If your authority is minded to approve without raising the level of units I and J we would asked to be reconsulted to in order to recommend suitable planning conditions to address flood resistance and resilience measures to protect the building against flood depths of up to 400mm.

We also note that Mr Milverton requests that your authority undertake the flood risk Exception Test. However, because the proposal is for a 'less vulnerable' use the application of the Exception Test is unnecessary.

17/3002/MOUT page 37

Advice to LPA

We do not normally comment upon the acceptability of a Sequential Test, or the first part of the Exception Test.

It will also be for your Authority to review the information submitted by the applicant to determine whether the first part of the Exception Test is satisfied i.e. whether you consider that there are wider sustainability benefits which outweigh flood risk. We have previously advised you on the second part of the Exception Test in respect of whether the development will be safe from flooding over its lifetime, not increase flood risk elsewhere and, where possible, reduces flood risk over all.

Our previous advice was that the majority of the development would be above the design flood level, but that the finished floor levels of units I and J are too low. It does not appear to have been established whether the floor levels of these units can be raised or, if not, whether flood resilience/resistance measures can be incorporated into the buildings. Please can you provide confirmation on this and your Authority's view on whether you are minded to approve the application as submitted.

If you are minded to approve the application at this stage contrary to this advice, we request that you contact us to allow further discussion and/or representations from us.

Further comments 03/04/19 - Environment Agency position

We are happy to remove our previous objection.

Reason The Environment Agency is pleased to note that the finished floor levels for Units I and J have now been raised to 4.70mAOD. This detail is shown by the Space Architects drawing reference 297_L02.04 Rev P2.

On the basis that this now aligns with the design flood level, we can confirm that we have no objections to the proposal.

EDDC Trees 29/11/18 - In principle I would object to this application as it results in a net loss in woodland and is thus contrary to our local planning polices D1 and D2.

17/3002/MOUT page 38

For clarity, the woodland has not been made the subject of a Tree Preservation Order, as it is protected by the Forestry Act 1967. However, if it was thought there was an attempt to remove the trees in a manner to circumvent the Forestry Act a Tree Preservation Order would be made.

Should the application be approved there should be conditions to cover the follow, based on the reserved matters finalised layout:

Submission of suitable tree protection details in accordance with BS5837:2012 for all retained trees.

A detailed landscaping scheme for significant landscape planting including trees to reduce the landscape impact due to the loss of woodland.

A detailed management plan for the successful establishment of landscape planting and for the proactive management of the retained woodland trees.

South West Water 07/06/18 - I refer to the above and would advise that South West Water has no comment other than to re-confirm the presence of a public water main within the site and no structures or the proposed wetland swale must be located within 3m of this.

10/10/18 - I refer to the above and would advise that South West Water has no comment on the amended plans.

21/03/19 - I refer to the above and would advise that South West Water has no comment.

Economic Development Officer 13/02/18 - Re: 17/3002/MOUT (Dart Business Park, Clyst St George)

Outline application to extend business park to create 10 additional units to be used for offices, light industry and storage and distribution (Use classes order B1 & B8): all matters reserved other than access.

We have reviewed this outline application and the associated documents.

We note the objection of the Parish Council but cannot concur with their assessment of the economic impact of this development. The high level of existing demand for this workspace which is now at capacity (including live enquiries being received by our ED service), coupled with the strong (C.50 FTE) jobs provision warrant strong economic support for the application. The 2,400 sqm of additional commercial and light industrial space will enable new and growing businesses in our district to secure attractive accommodation close to existing labour markets and with good transport and broadband connectivity.

There is a critical shortage of well-located B1 office accommodation in East Devon, such that the East Devon Business Centre is full to capacity and we are currently applying for ERDF funding to help address this market failure in Honiton. B8 provision

17/3002/MOUT page 39

outside of the Growth Point is also in short supply with JLL reporting a shortage of sites coming to market offering an adequate logistics function.

This proposal will improve the self-containment and sustainability of our district which has seen strong housing development outstrip employment land supply by a substantial margin and significant out-commuting continue. Foremost in our minds should be the requirement of the local businesses already onsite who are seeking to expand their business, providing additional local jobs and growing our economy. Failure to meet the needs of these developing enterprises constrains economic and employment growth, leading to reduced investment, fewer opportunities for young people wanting to seek careers in East Devon and ultimately, lost incomes as the businesses are lost to other locations.

Economic Development welcome this investment and recommend the scheme is supported.

Further comments 15/03/19 –

I have read the documents sent and admit to being at a loss as to how, in the face of such compelling specific evidence of economic need, benefit and even loss through planning delay, it has not been possible to make a determination that these outweigh the loss of trees which are not subject to a TPO.

The facts have been clearly set out and are entirely consistent with our own service's finding that we are facing market failure in East Devon in the supply of B use premises to meet demand. I have reiterated this so many of my planning consultation responses over the last 2 years, supported by evidence of constrained supply from the CoStar database, that Planning colleagues should feel sufficiently informed and confident to balance this demonstrable harm to employment opportunity in the district and relevant policy against the less pressing and consequences of workspace delivery in this instance.

It is with regret that we report EDDC remains 36% behind in the delivery of new jobs compared to new housing in the district since the adoption of our local plan and this balanced target in 2013. As a council, we are compelled to be more supportive of positive and appropriate commercial development, such as that proposed here, which directly addresses this unsustainable imbalance and provides meaningful careers for younger people.

We concur with the submitted evidence of demand and limited B use premises supply and recommend the application is supported in the strongest possible terms and with the least possible delay to avoid further loss of valuable employment on site.

EDDC Landscape Architect - Chris Hariades 30/08/18 - The site is considered sensitive to the type of development proposed and the current scheme is likely to have an adverse landscape and visual impact. On the basis of the details submitted the scheme should be considered in conflict with the following Local Plan policies and is consequently unacceptable in terms of landscape design/ impact:

17/3002/MOUT page 40

o Strategy 3 - Sustainable development, para a) Conserving and enhancing the environment. o Strategy 7 - Development in the countryside o Strategy 8 - Green wedges o Strategy 46 - Landscape conservation and enhancement, especially sections 1 and 2 o D1 Landscaping - paras 1, 2, and 3 o D2 Landscape requirements - paras 1 and 2 o D3 Trees In view of the site sensitivity and the importance of the existing site woodland to the local landscape character it is not considered that an outline application is suitable for the extent of development proposed and a full application should be submitted with all necessary supporting documentation showing clearly the full extent of tree loss. It is recommended that the applicant seeks the advice of a qualified landscape architect as to whether a suitable scheme can be designed that can adequately address the issues raised above and to prepare an amended Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment and amended layout and landscape design scheme covering hard and soft landscape elements as part of a full application

12/09/18 - I have now reviewed the LVIA by Taylor Grange and consider it fundamentally flawed in that the extent of tree loss which the development would entail is not clearly defined within the submitted details and therefore cannot be fully assessed within the LVIA.

In view of the nature of the proposals, which will entail the loss of approximately 1 Ha of woodland and extension of the development footprint within a designated Green Wedge, a full application is required addressing the points raised in my landscape response, in particular section 2.2, which includes reconsidering the layout to the northern part of the site to make better use of available space, lowering the height of the development and reducing the extent of woodland loss to the south.

The submitted LVIA will then need to be updated accordingly.

The LVIA recognises the importance of the existing woodland as a significant landscape feature forming part of a larger woodland block which provides a strong woodland character to the area. Key considerations which the LVIA needs to address more substantively are: a) the impact of the loss of tree and woodland cover within the site on this wider block of woodland and local landscape character b) the extent to which the development will be visible from the key visual receptors - the use of photomontage from key views to the northwest and west would be helpful to illustrate this.

In respect of the Green Wedge, the existing woodland within and adjacent to the site is of great importance in maintaining visual separation between Ebford and the existing business and retail park and a more thorough consideration is needed on whether the loss of woodland associated with the development together with the introduction of new buildings with increased roof height would add to existing or sporadic

17/3002/MOUT page 41

development or damage individual identity of a settlement or could lead to or encourage settlement coalescence.

Further comments 06/12/18 –

Generally I would agree with the comments received from Tyler Grange dated 9.11.2018 in respect of the landscape and visual impact of the proposed scheme but disagree with their assessment of the visual impact in views from the northwest, especially elevated land at Bridge Hill. The Tyler Grange response quotes para 7.8 of the LVIA which, while recognising that the development may just be partially visible from this location, states it would be 'heavily filtered by remaining trees'. However from the information on the Landscape Scheme and Habitat Creation Plan it would seem that with the exception of a line of hedgerow on the western site boundary which itself is to be cut back, all other existing site trees to the northwest of the proposed buildings are to be removed. Given the loss of this screen cover and the fact that the proposed buildings will be set on a mound some 6m higher than existing site buildings it would seem that Tyler Grange may have underestimated the visual effect of the development from this view point.

I accept that the proposed development when viewed from here will be seen in the context of existing development of Dart Park and Odhams Wharf to the west but am concerned that although a woodland buffer is to be retained to the southern end of the site the highest proposed buildings may protrude above this. A photomontage from this view point would help to further understand the degree of change in this view and also to inform the impact of the development on the Green Wedge.

In respect of the revised tree protection plan I note that the protective fencing lines are still shown beneath the canopies of a number of trees. If the trees as shown are intended to be indicative only then this should be stated and the positions of trees to be retained adjusted clear of protective fencing. If they are accurately plotted then the protective fence lines need to be adjusted clear of their root protection zones.

In relation to the submitted landscape and habitat creation plan this is incomplete with significant areas of ground left blank.

I note that landscape and tree protection are reserves matters and would expect tree protection plan and hard and soft landscape details to be submitted for approval as part of a reserved matters application should outline consent be granted but for avoidance of doubt the status of these submitted drawings should be clarified.

DCC Flood Risk Management Team

We are content with the principles of the proposals. However, further details will be required at the next stage of planning to demonstrate that these proposals are feasible.

You mentioned that you are having difficulties with the levels of the road around buildings G – J, at the detailed design stage (ideally the next stage of planning) you will need to demonstrate that the existing drainage system can accommodate the slight increase in impermeable area. If the existing drainage could be improved, perhaps by

17/3002/MOUT page 42

providing a means of attenuation within the area of the G – J buildings, that would be helpful.

We would prefer that model outputs to demonstrate that the surface water drainage system is viable do not show flooding up to the 1 in 100 year (+40% allowance for climate change) rainfall event.

Further details of oil interceptor/s can be provided at the detailed design stage. As this is an industrial site I think oil interceptors should be implemented if a SuDS management train cannot be implemented.

We will require details of exceedance routes and maintenance at the detailed design stage. Maintenance should take into account any SuDS features located within flood zones. Maintenance checks should be made after flood events and any features remediated if necessary.

Overflow from the swale will need to be considered at the next stage of planning. As this area can experience tidal locking I think overflows from the swale will need to be considered carefully.

Details of any bank levels to the swale will be needed at the next stage of planning. Details of the outfall from the swale to the ditch (ordinary watercourse) will also be needed to demonstrate that a suitable and sustainable outfall can be constructed.

Planting details could be submitted at the detailed design stage.

At the moment it looks like the attenuation tank behind Units B and C will be in grassed areas and so should not experience any loadings (e.g. from delivery vehicles). However, this should be clarified at detailed design stage. 01/02/18 - Recommendation:

At this stage, we object to this planning application because we do not believe that it satisfactorily conforms to Policy EN22 (Surface Run-Off Implications of New Development) of the East Devon Local Plan (2013-2031). The applicant will therefore be required to submit additional information in order to demonstrate that all aspects of the proposed surface water drainage management system have been considered.

Observations:

Only principles of the surface water drainage management plan have been submitted. Further details of the plan need to be submitted.

Details of the greenfield runoff rates for the site are required, including long-term storage.

The applicant will also be required to submit MicroDrainage model outputs, or similar, in order to demonstrate that all components of the proposed surface water drainage system have been designed to the 1 in 100 year (+40% allowance for climate change) rainfall event.

17/3002/MOUT page 43

The applicant must submit information regarding the adoption and maintenance of the proposed surface water drainage management system in order to demonstrate that all components will remain fully operational throughout the lifetime of the development.

The applicant must submit details of the exceedance pathways and overland flow routes across the site in the event of rainfall in excess of the design standard of the surface water drainage management system.

An assessment of the site for above-ground SuDS components, including source control components, should be completed.

Further comments:

Recommendation:

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: o 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 SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE STRATEGY.

Reason: To ensure that surface water runoff from the development is managed in accordance with the principles of sustainable drainage systems.

Reason for being a pre-commencement condition: A detailed permanent surface water drainage management plan is required prior to commencement of any works to demonstrate that the plan fits within the site layout, manages surface water safely and does not increase flood risk downstream.

Advice: Refer to Devon County Council's Sustainable Drainage Guidance. o No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until details of the exceedance pathways and overland flow routes across the site in the event of rainfall in excess of the design standard of the proposed 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 surface water runoff generated from rainfall events in excess of the design standard of the proposed surface water drainage management system is safely managed. o No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the full details of the adoption and maintenance arrangements for the proposed permanent

17/3002/MOUT page 44

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.

Reason for being a pre-commencement condition: These details need to be submitted prior to commencement of any works to ensure that suitable plans are in place for the maintenance of the permanent surface water drainage management plan, for the reason above. o 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.

Reason for being a pre-commencement condition: A plan needs to be demonstrated prior to the commencement of any works to ensure that surface water can be managed suitably without increasing flood risk downstream, negatively affecting water quality downstream or negatively impacting on surrounding areas and infrastructure.

Advice: Refer to Devon County Council's Sustainable Drainage Guidance.

Observations:

Following my previous consultation response (FRM/ED/3002/2018; dated 1st February 2018), the drainage consultant acting on behalf of the applicant has provided additional information in relation to the surface water drainage aspects of the above planning application, in an e-mail dated 13th August 2018, for which I am grateful.

If the swale is to be constructed without a liner then groundwater should be assessed (possibly by monitoring levels) to ensure that the swale will not be overwhelmed by groundwater during rainfall events.

The swale will also need to be assessed during a 'tide-locked' scenario. The watercourse which the swale is currently proposed to drain to can 'back-up' during high tides, this may prevent the swale from draining and may even cause the swale to 'back- up'. The watercourse isn't very well defined here so this scenario should be carefully assessed.

17/3002/MOUT page 45

If part of the site will have to drain to an existing surface water drainage system then it will need to be demonstrated that the existing system has capacity to accept an increase in volume draining to it. If there is potential to improve the existing system then this should be pursued.

If a SuDS Management Train cannot be implemented then a robust statement will need to address this. If a SuDS Management Train cannot be implemented then oil interceptors should be utilised.

A scaled plan depicting the surface water drainage system will be needed at the next stage of planning. This plan should depict levels and falls of all surface water drainage components, as well as any side slopes.

Maintenance details for all components of the surface water drainage system will need to be submitted. If Sustainable Drainage features are to be situated within flood zones then the maintenance details will need to take account of this. Sustainable Drainage features will need to be inspected after flood events and remediated if necessary.

If any surface water drainage features are likely to experience any loadings (such as from heavy goods vehicles) then this should be assessed and clarified at the next stage of planning.

Other Representations

A total of 9 representations have been received, with 8 raising objections and one in support. The comments are summarised below

Objections • Increased noise and disturbance • Land is within Green Wedge • Loss of trees • Loss of and impact on wildlife and protected species • Removal of the trees would reduce air quality and increase environmental pollution • Significant visual impact from removal of trees and new buildings • Buildings too large and over bearing • Increased risk of flooding • Additional sewage pollution • No justification for additional industrial buildings • Proposed earth moving would exacerbate existing flooding issues • Loss of privacy and overlooking • Loss of outlook • Light pollution • Inappropriate use of contaminated land • Impact on protected habitats • Potential damage to water main • Additional traffic and delivery vehicles • Inappropriate position of proposed cycle track

17/3002/MOUT page 46

Support • Will bring additional jobs to the area

POLICIES

Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 Policies

Strategy 3 (Sustainable Development) Strategy 4 (Balanced Communities) Strategy 5 (Environment) Strategy 7 (Development in the Countryside) Strategy 8 (Development in Green Wedges) Strategy 44 (Undeveloped Coast and Coastal Preservation Area)

D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) D2 (Landscape Requirements) D3 (Trees and Development Sites)

EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) EN14 (Control of Pollution) EN21 (River and Coastal Flooding) EN22 (Surface Run-Off Implications of New Development)

E5 (Small Scale Economic Development in Rural Areas) E7 (Extensions to Existing Employment Sites)

TC2 (Accessibility of New Development) TC4 (Footpaths, Bridleways and Cycleways) TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) TC9 (Parking Provision in New Development)

Government Planning Documents NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework 2019) National Planning Practice Guidance

Neighbourhood Plan Clyst St George Parish Neighbourhood Plan CGS1 – Sustainable Development CGS3 – Flood Risk CGS5 – Development Outside the Settlement Areas CGS6 – Protection of Trees and Woodland CGS9 – Design Matters CGS17 – Parking Standards for New Development CGS19 – Business Development

Site Location and Description

17/3002/MOUT page 47

The application site is located to the south of the Dart’s Business Park in Clyst St George. It extends to an area of 1.22ha, part of which, until recently, has been used as a fuel storage depot with the remainder currently part of a wooded plantation.

The site falls within the ‘Made’ Clyst St. George Neighbourhood Plan area.

Proposed Development

This application seeks outline planning permission to extend Darts Business Park by the creation of 10 additional units to be used for offices, light industry and storage and distribution (Use Classes B1 and B8). The application seeks to consider access, scale and layout as part of the proposal, with other matters reserved.

Illustrative plans have been submitted, although during the course of the application details of the site layout and scale of the buildings are now being considered in detail, together with the proposed access arrangements. These indicate the units being accommodated in four blocks with 8 smaller units (188m²) each, similar to those most recently constructed on the business park, and two larger units (468m²) each.

The application states that between 40-50 additional jobs would be created, some of which would be as a result of the expansion of businesses which are already located on the business park, and some new businesses moving into the units.

CONSIDERATIONS AND ASSESSMENT

In determining this application it is considered that the main issues relate to:

• Principle of the proposed development • Economic benefits • Landscape and visual impact • Impact on trees • Residential Amenity • Highway safety • Drainage and flooding • Noise and pollution • Ecology • Impact on protected landscapes • Planning balance

Principle

The site lies in the open countryside as defined by Strategy 7 of the East Devon Local Plan where all development must be strictly controlled so that it does not impact unreasonably on the character and appearance of its surroundings. That does not preclude all development, however only proposals which are in accordance with a specific policy of the Local Plan or Neighbourhood Plan would be permissible. In this instance as the site lies outside of any recognised built up area boundary it must be judged whether there are any economic based policies or Neighbourhood Plan policies which would support the provision of new business units.

17/3002/MOUT page 48

Policy E7 of the local plan supports the small scale (our emphasis) expansion of existing employment sites where these are at or near full occupancy, provided that it is proportionate to the existing size and scale of site operations and that the following criteria are met:

1. The local highways network is capable of accommodating the additional traffic 2. No detrimental impact on residential amenity 3. No protected landscapes or historic interests or other enviornemental interests are adversely affected, and existing local biodiversity and habitats are conserved or enhanced.

Whilst Policy E7 relates to the expansion of existing business parks, it also relates to ‘small scale’ expansion, proportionate to the size and scale of existing operations. It is therefore necessary firstly to consider the scale of the proposed development and whether the proposal would constitute ‘small scale’ In this respect, the proposal is for the development of 10 commercial and light industrial units, totalling a floor space of around 2,400 square metres. Whilst the policy does not specify what is small scale it is not considered that a development of this scale would be classed small scale. With this in mind and as there are no other specific policies which support the proposed development it is considered that the principle is contrary to Strategy 7 (Development in the Countryside) of the Local Plan.

Policy CSG19 of the Neighbourhood Plan supports business development within the existing business parks. As the site is outside of the business park, the proposal is contrary to this Neighbourhood Plan policy. This weighs heavily against the proposal.

Policy CSG5 deals with development outside of the Settlement Areas stating:

‘Development proposals on land outside the confines of the settlement areas will usually be supported if they are necessary for the purposes of agriculture, or farm diversification or outdoor recreation, without harming the countryside. Such development proposals should make a positive contribution to the preservation of the countryside and its biodiversity and enhancing its setting, or its responsible use and enjoyment by the public.

Development proposals will not be supported that result in the net loss of: i. publicly accessible open space, footpaths or bridleways; ii. important views; iii. landscape features; iv. biodiversity features; v. higher grade agricultural land; or vi. damage to the essential character of the area.’

The proposal is for new employment units and would result in the partial loss of a woodland feature and as such is contrary to this policy.

Also with regard to the Neighbourhood Plan, Policy CSG6 protects trees and identifies the woodland that forms part of the site as being an important natural feature stating the following:

17/3002/MOUT page 49

‘Development proposals should avoid the loss of or damage to trees, woodland or hedgerows that contribute positively to the character, biodiversity and amenity of the area. Development proposals which could result in loss or damage to aged or veteran trees will not be supported. Where it is unavoidable, development proposals must provide for appropriate replacement planting on the site, together or as close as possible to it together with a method statement for the ongoing care and maintenance of that planting. Such replacement planting should be in the ratio of three trees for the loss of a large tree, two for a medium sized tree and one for a small tree. New development within the proximity of existing mature trees will be expected to have an arboricultural method statement in place before any development commences. This will detail tree protection strategies to be employed during construction. The areas of woodland delineated on Map 7 are regarded as important natural features. Any development proposals that would result in the loss, damage or deterioration of these areas will be resisted.‘

The proposal would result in the loss of some of woodland (as identified on Map 7) without significant replacement planting and as such the proposal is contrary to Policy CSG6. This also weighs heavily against the proposal.

In addition to the above, the site is located within the Coastal Preservation Area and Green Wedge. The related policies seek to retain the open status of the coastal area and resist coalescence. However, the site has existing built development to three sides and as such it is considered that it would be difficult to argue that the development would harm the open status of the coast or result in settlement coalescence to an extend that could justify refusal of planning permission.

In light of the above, the application is contrary to local and neighbourhood plan policies and has been advertised as a departure. This weighs heavily against the proposal.

It is however necessary to establish whether there are any material considerations that support the proposal and outweigh any harm caused by the proposal being contrary to local and neighbourhood plan policy. These are addressed below alongside a more detailed consideration of the other considerations.

Economic Benefits

Darts Business Park has been operating from the site since the 1970’s and has over the last few years seen a change in shift from a more industrial base with a number of workshops and repair businesses to a light industrial/office base, particularly through the construction of the ‘Topsham Units’ a range of 7 small units (140m²) which are occupied by a range of business including a sail maker and a charcuterie.

The proposed units are larger than these, with 8 being 188m² and 2 being 468m² which would offer a range of modern units which does not currently exist on the park. Supporting information suggests that between 40 and 50 new jobs would be created by the proposal and would offer a medium sized unit.

17/3002/MOUT page 50

The application is supported by letters from commercial property agents stating that there are a lack of business units on the market resulting in an outflow of companies to Willand and Cullompton; lack of vacancies at Darts Business Park; with evidence provided of interest in units on the site.

The Councils Economic Development Officer (EDO) has been consulted on the application and the additional information submitted in respect of the demand for new units and additional floorspace, and considers that at the present time “we are facing market failure in East Devon in the supply of B use premises to meet demand”. It is considered that the shortage of new jobs is failing the District. The East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 recognises that the creation of jobs and economic growth is one of the main issues of greatest importance, and whilst it is recognised that the majority of new jobs and employment provision will be made as part of the major development of the West End of the District, in the rest of East Devon employment provision will mostly be geared to serving local needs with jobs being located close to existing homes to minimise commuting and offering people the opportunity to have options in their transport options. It is noted that within the CSGNP of those in employment, work mainly in Exeter and the business survey showed only 1% of people working for a business in the Parish, actually reside in the Parish.

In respect of the economic benefits of the proposal the EDO considers that:

”The high level of existing demand for this workspace which is now at capacity (including live enquiries being received by our ED service), coupled with the strong (C.50 FTE) jobs provision warrant strong economic support for the application. The 2,400 sqm of additional commercial and light industrial space will enable new and growing businesses in our district to secure attractive accommodation close to existing labour markets and with good transport and broadband connectivity.”

The need to provide a sufficient number of jobs against the development of new housing is also recognised and the creation of new jobs and economic development outside of the large West End and other substantial industrial areas such as Greendale Busienss Park and Hill Barton in smaller units is considered to be essential to achieving the growth and continued economic success of the wider district.

The National Planning Policy Framework considers that in order to support a prosperous rural economy planning policies and decision should enable the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business in rural areas and recognises that sites to meet local business needs in rural areas may have to be found adjacent to or beyond existing settlements.

It is therefore considered that there are clear economic benefits associated with the proposal that will help to improve self-containment and sustainability by the development of local jobs and encourage a reduction in out-commuting, particularly to Exeter, and that the expansion of local business already on site should be encouraged.

This economic benefit weigh heavily in favour of the proposal with the final balance between these benefits and any harm from the proposal being contrary to local and

17/3002/MOUT page 51

neighbourhood plan policy discussed under the Conclusion section after consideration of all other matters.

Landscape and Visual Impact

The application site lies in the the open countryside as defined by Strategy 7 (Development in the Countryside) where new development will only be permitted where it would not harm the distinctive landscape, amenity and environmental within which which it is located. The site lies outside of the East Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, or any other designated area where development should be restricted, but is located within an area identified as being a Green Wedge, where Strategy 8 (Development in Green Wedges) of the Local Plan which seeks to restrict new development which could lead to the coalescence of adjacent or neighbouring settlements, and seeks to retain open land between settlements.

As detailed above, the site also forms part of a woodland protected by Policy CSG6 of the Neighbourhood Plan, a feature identified as contributing positively to the area.

The site comprises part of a plantation area that was planted around 30 years ago understood to have been part of the wider management scheme of the original development of the business park. It has continued to grow since although there has been little management of the woodland during this time. It is not covered by a TPO as it is covered under the Forestry Act and therefore requiring consent from the Forestry Commission for works.

The site is largely constrained by the presence of a gas main which dissects the site, the trees on it and its location including with part of the site within an area identified as being within floodzone 2/3. The central area of the site is at a higher level than the existing units.

The proposed units will be visible in views from the west and south west, specifically in the stretch of road between the entrance to the Business Park and the junction of Bridge Hill with Elm Grove Road. From these vantage points they will be visible, and the loss of trees will be apparent, with the proposed units breaking through the existing treed skyline, however it is considered to a certain extent they will be viewed against the backdrop of the existing units, both the Darts Business Park units but also those at Odhams Wharf.

A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) has been submitted as part of the proposal which assessed the impact which the proposed buildings would have from various receptor points. This report concludes that there would be some localised effects resulting from the loss of the trees the western boundary, particularly the loss of the coniferous trees due to their larger scale and prominence in existing views.

Whilst the findings of the submitted LVIA are generally agreed there is some disagreement regarding the visibility of the proposed units in views from the northwest particularly the elevated land at Bridge Hill. From this vantage point it is considered that the visual impact of the proposed buildings would be more significant. This being said the development from this aspect would be seen in the context of the existing development of the existing business park and Odhams Wharf to the west, and whilst

17/3002/MOUT page 52

some planting and a woodland buffer is to be retained to the southern end of the site, some of the buildings may be visible above this.

As stated above there will be some additional visual impact arising from the proposed development in these views, however the development is not readily visible from other views and the overall impact arising from the development is considered to be limited and localised which can to a certain extent be mitigated by additional planting and appropriate landscaping.

Trees

The proposal will result in the loss of a significant proportion of the trees within the plantation amounting to an area of approximately 1 hectare for which there is no opportunity to accommodate replacement planting. The applicant argues that the loss is mitigated by the following:

• removal of a fuel depot from the floodplain of the estuary; • highway safety improvements; • flood improvements; • improved amenity along footpath; • improved woodland management; and, • improved appearance of the business park.

Whilst these are improvements that are of benefits as a result of the proposal, they could equally be achieved without the need for the application.

Whilst the trees within the area are not of any individual merit the plantation does offer screening to the existing development on the site and is identified within the Neighbourhood Plan as an important local feature under Policy CGS6. The trees to the south would be largely retained, but those to the west would be removed, with the exception of some specimen trees on the western boundary.

This area of woodland is identified in the CSGNP Policy CSG6 as being regarded as an important natural feature with the policy seeking to resist any development proposals that would result in the loss, damage or deterioration of these areas. The application proposal would result in the removal of a large proportion of the trees from this area of plantation to accommodate the units, associated roads and infrastructure.

The Councils Arboricultural Officer and Landscape Architect in considering this removal both recognise that although the plantation is relatively young and has not been managed for many years, overall the trees make a valuable contribution to the character of area. Their removal would open up views into the site, with replacement planting and landscaping taking a number of years to provide substantive and effective screening. The views of the Parish Council are also appreciated, and it is recognised that the neighbourhood plan has been recently adopted and the harm arising from removal of this area of plantation, identified for protection within the neighbourhood plan has therefore to be balanced against any other benefits which may arise from the proposed development.

17/3002/MOUT page 53

Some concern has been raised regarding the available space to provide meaningful additional planting to the western boundary to ensure the removal of significant numbers of trees in this area can be completely mitigated. In this respect the landscape details which have been submitted recognise that it will not be possible to fully mitigate the trees removed, and the proposed development will result in the net loss of woodland. Detailed landscaping proposals would form part of a reserved matters application, however it is considered that subject to appropriate conditions to ensure that significant additional planting is undertaken, the impact arising from the removal of the trees can be minimised.

Residential Amenity

There are two residential properties which share boundaries with the site to the west, and a further 6 which are in close proximity to this. The proposed development would extend the built form of the business park towards the rear of these properties, and remove a number of trees from within the plantation which would increase the visibility of the proposed units. A woodland swale and new planting is proposed to the east of these properties. Concern has been raised regarding the position of the buildings and the relationship with the existing properties, particularly as the application was submitted in outline with all matters other than access reserved. During the course of the application, however, it has been confirmed that matters of scale and layout of the site and buildings should also be considered as part of the current proposal. This provides some certainty in the consideration of the proposal and in this respect it is considered that whilst the outlook from these properties would be altered by the proposal, the distance between the proposed units and the existing properties, at their closest would be in excess of 45 metres.

Other amenity concerns have been raised in terms of noise and nuisance and light pollution, which are appreciated, and which have also been raised as an issue in terms of potential impact on habitats. The impact of light and noise can be a significant issue in terms of neighbour amenity, although it is noted that the orientation of the buildings is such that the rear of the units would be facing the existing dwellings with the result that the buildings themselves should provide a visual and acoustic barrier between the dwellings and the main activity areas of the proposed units. Having said this and in order to ensure that appropriate protection is afforded for the occupiers of the existing dwellings, conditions relating to noise and light pollution, as required by Environmental Health are considered to be appropriate, and in addition no external lighting to the rear of the units should be permitted.

Subject to the above being appropriately conditioned, it is considered that the impact on residential amenity arising from the proposed development would be acceptable.

Highway safety

Access to the new units would be taken from the existing business park entrance, with a new link road being created to the south of the Topsham Units linking into the existing hardstanding area to front of the former fuel depot, which is currently used as a vehicle sales area.

17/3002/MOUT page 54

It is considered that the additional traffic generated by the additional units would be able to be accommodated using the existing internal road network with the proposed additional linking road and that the existing junction with the adopted highway network, including the visibility splays and road construction is capable of accommodating any increase in vehicle numbers.

Internal parking and turning facilities are also considered to be appropriate to the development proposed.

The site is considered to be reasonably sustainable in terms of alternative transport with bus stops outside the site, and at St George and Dragon for the main Exeter to Exmouth route. In addition the site lies on the Exe Valley Cycle way and is well served by dedicated cycle routes which offer an alternative to car borne visitors.

Drainage and flooding

The site has been the subject of considerable discussion regarding suitable drainage arrangements, disposal of surface water and potential flood risk.

Part of the site is located within an area identified as being within floodzone 2/3 where new development will normally be resisted. Having said this the nature of the proposed use is categorised as ‘less vulnerable’. There is an identified shortfall of available business floorspace of the nature proposed and demand for this is high. Given this and the fact that the majority of the site lies outside of the floodzone it is considered subject to appropriate floor levels being achieved and suitable flood resistance/resilience measures being adopted the proposal will be acceptable in this regard.

A drainage strategy and flood risk assessment has been submitted with the application which are indicated as being illustrative at this stage, the details of which are considered acceptable in principle as commented by the Environment Agency subject to confirmation that appropriate floor levels can be achieved. Revised plans have been received which confirm that the floor levels indicated within units I and J would now meet the recommended 4.70m AOD to ensure that these units can be provided with safe refuge and that flood resistance and resilience measures can be put in place to protect the building against flood depths of up to 400mm, and the previous objections in this respect have been overcome.

In terms of surface water arrangements, considerable discussion has taken place to ensure that an appropriate scheme can be achieved. The resultant scheme comprises a large wetland swale to the west of the development with a restricted rate of flow into it and then a restricted rate of flow out to the natural watercourse, with potential for the swale to slightly overflow to permit the land around it to become a wetland reserve as part of the development proposal.

Noise, pollution, and contaminated land

17/3002/MOUT page 55

The introduction of further business units in this location has the potential to increase/introduce additional noise and pollution (generally in the form of light pollution) to the area. The proposal seeks consent for B1 and B8 uses which tend to be less polluting than other business uses, although the activity associated with an unrestricted B8 use in terms of vehicle movements, reversing alarms and light pollution can be significant.

In order to minimise any additional impact arising from the development a number of mitigation measures are suggested, including restrictions on noise levels at the boundary of the site and the submission of an Environmental Management Plan to ensure that the proposed development does not result in a loss of amenity for the occupiers of nearby residential properties. Some concern has also been raised that the occupation of some of the units by an unrestricted B8 use could give rise to noise nuisance and would not be able to comply with the 5dB below background noise level required at the site boundary. It is understood that whilst a B1/B8 use is being sought, the intended occupiers would be able to comply with this requirement. However in order to ensure that the proposed units do not give rise to nuisance, conditions to restrict hours of operation, and noise levels will be necessary.

Similarly light pollution can have a significant impact on the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties (and wildlife, which is considered below). With this in mind the submitted layout has been arranged such that the units to the south west of the site are orientated to have the rear of the buildings are sited between the access road and the nearest residential properties. The openings on these elevations are suggested to be limited, which is considered appropriate, and this together with restrictions on the position and nature of any external lighting are considered to be fundamental to ensuring that no nuisance arises from the development.

The former use of part of the site for the storage and distribution of fuel, using above ground storage tanks has ceased and the tanks removed. The Contaminated Land Officer has been consulted but does not anticipate any contaminated land concerns in respect of the development. Notwithstanding this, and as a precautionary measure a suitable condition will be required in the event of any contamination being found.

Ecology

An ecological assessment has been submitted with the application which included an appraisal of the site and the potential impact arising from the proposed development on habitats and protected species. This found that the woodland plantation was not an integral part of the neighbouring Exe Estuary designated sites or contributes to its ecological functionalities. It also found that there was no evidence of badgers or dormice, great crested newts or roosting bats, although the site provided potential for reptiles and breeding birds.

The site has been identified in the Clyst St George Neighbourhood Plan as an area of woodland that should be protected for its ecological and visual value. Whilst this is appreciated and the loss of a significant area of the plantation is regrettable, if the Business Park is to expand there is no other direction in which it could go. This woodland is not accessible to the public and whilst there is some ecological value, it is not a significant site or of any particular sensitivity.

17/3002/MOUT page 56

Having regard to this and the impact which a loss of part of the plantation would have, a number of mitigation measures are proposed including protection of reptile habitats, installation of bird nesting boxes on the units, bat boxes on trees, a 15 year woodland management plan for retained trees, and the review of any lighting scheme by an ecologist. Subject to the above being implemented in full it is considered that suitable provision will made to ensure the adequate protection of protected species.

Appropriate Assessment and Habitats Mitigation

The nature of this application and its location close to the Pebblebed Heaths and their European Habitat designations is such that the proposal requires a Habitat Regulations Assessment. An Appropriate Assessment (see attached) required as a result of the Habitat Regulations Assessment and Likely Significant Effects from the proposal has been undertaken and found to be acceptable by Natural England on the basis of the mitigation measures (CEMP, restricted hours of working and noise and lighting restrictions) being secured through conditions. Natural England conclude that the proposed development will consequently not have an adverse effect on the integrity of Exe Estuary SPA and Exe Estuary Ramsar Site, East Devon Pebblebed Heaths SAC, East Devon Heaths SPA, Dawlish Warren SAC.

Impact on protected landscapes

The site lies within an area identified as Green Wedge and Coastal Preservation Area, where development will not be permitted if it would add to sporadic or isolated development, or damage the individual identity of a settlement or open nature of the area. In this instance the site is effectively surrounded by existing development on three sides, with the existing business park to the north, other industrial and commercial premises and residential properties to the west, and a boat storage yard to the east. As such it is considered that development of the site would not encroach into the open countryside such that it would encourage or lead to any coalescence of existing settlements, given the relationship with existing development.

The main built form of Ebford lies to the east, beyond the boatyard and the additional plantation and on the opposite side of A376 Exmouth Road. The proposed development would not have any impact on this and would not extend any built form into the open countryside in this area.

Clearly some new development is proposed where none exists at the present time, and consequently the appearance of the area will change, however it is not considered that this will have any significant impact in terms of coalescence or will encroach on any important open land.

The proposal has the potential to have a significant effect on the neighbouring protected landscapes, particularly in terms of lighting once the development is operational, and noise during the construction phase. With this in mind and to ensure that any development takes place during the least sensitive periods of the year, i.e. between May and August and that appropriate management procedures will be required.

17/3002/MOUT page 57

CONCLUSION

The proposed development is contrary to Local Plan polices by proposing development within the countryside outside of an existing business park and of a large scale and consequently represents a departure from the local plan.

The proposal is also contrary to the Clyst St. George Neighbourhood Plan as it would lead to the outward expansion of the existing business park, and felling of part of a woodland that is identified as being an important natural feature.

The proposal will result in the substantial loss of part of an area of woodland identified in the Neighbourhood Plan for retention, and the proposed development will result in further built form and be more visually prominent than the current situation.

This weighs heavily against the proposal and could justify refusal of planning permission.

However the site is well related to the existing business park and there are significant benefits in terms of job creation and economic growth associated with the proposal and the visual impact is considered to be local not highly detrimental.

Coupled with the economic benefits are the lack of harm to highway safety, neighbour amenity, ecology, flood risk and drainage.

These weigh heavily in favour of the proposal and could be considered to justify a departure from local and neighbourhood plan policies and justify approval of permission.

Whilst very finely balanced, it is considered that the visual impact of the proposed development, and the loss of trees within the plantation does not result in a level of harm that outweighs the economic benefits and the creation of a significant number of new jobs resulting from the proposal, particularly given the location and characteristics of the site.

The application is therefore, on balance, recommended for approval subject to conditions.

RECOMMENDATION

1. That the Habitat Regulations Appropriate Assessment attached to this Committee report be adopted; 2. That the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

1. Approval of the details of the layout scale and appearance of the buildings and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced. (Reason - The application is in outline with one or more matters reserved.)

17/3002/MOUT page 58

2. Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. (Reason - In accordance with the requirements of Section 92 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990.)

3. The premises hereby approved shall only be used for the purposes within Classes B1 and B7 of the schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification. (Reason – To protect adjoining occupiers with noise and disturbance in accordance with the requirements of Policy EN14 (Control of Pollution) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031)

4. The development hereby permitted shall be undertaken in accordance with the conclusions and mitigation measures indicated in the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal dated February 2017 and Ecological Assessment dated 11 May 2018 by Colmer Ecology Ltd. (Reason - To ensure the planned mitigation measures for biodiversity enhancement and wildlife protection are appropriate and provided in an appropriate manner in accordance with Policies EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) and Strategy 5 (Environment) of the East Devon Local Plan and advice contained in Paragraphs 170, 172, 175 and 176 of the revised National Planning Policy Framework)

5. Should any contamination of soil and/or ground or surface water be discovered during excavation of the site or development, the Local Planning Authority should be contacted immediately. Site activities in the area affected shall be temporarily suspended until such time as a method and procedure for addressing the contamination is agreed upon in writing with the Local Planning Authority and/or other regulating bodies. (Reason: To ensure that any contamination existing and exposed during the development is identified and remediated and in accordance with Policy EN14 (Control of Pollution) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031)

6. Prior to the commencement of the development the applicant must provide an Environmental Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority detailing the way in which environmental impacts will be addressed and incorporated into the design, layout and management of the site. This may include the use of noise mitigation measures such as bunds and acoustic barriers The Plan shall consider the impacts of noise (including low frequency noise), traffic, odour, smoke, air pollution and light on the local environment and air quality, and the way in which these impacts will be mitigated. The Plan shall also include details of the foul and surface water drainage systems, and arrangements for the prevention of pollution of any nearby watercourse. (Reason: To protect the amenity of local residents and to ensure compliance with Local Plan policy EN15.)

7. A Construction and Environment Management Plan must be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to any works commencing on site,

17/3002/MOUT page 59

and shall be implemented and remain in place throughout the development. The CEMP shall include at least the following matters: Air Quality, Dust, Water Quality, Lighting, Noise and Vibration, Pollution Prevention and Control, and Monitoring Arrangements. Construction working hours shall be 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 1pm on Saturdays, with no working on Sundays or Bank Holidays. There shall be no burning on site. There shall be no high frequency audible reversing alarms used on the site. (Reason: To protect the amenities of existing and future residents in the vicinity of the site from noise, air, water and light pollution and in accordance with Policy EN14 (Control of Pollution) of the East Devon Local Plan 20132-2031)

8. As part of any reserved matters application, a lighting scheme shall be provided for the site which complies with the requirements of the Institute of Light Engineers guidance on the avoidance of light pollution. The lamps used shall not be capable of reflecting light laterally, upwards or off the ground surface in such a way that light pollution is caused. No area lighting shall be operated outside the agreed working hours of the site, although low height, low level, local security lighting may be acceptable. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the agreed scheme. (Reason: To ensure that light pollution levels are kept to a minimum in accordance with Policy EN14 (Control of Pollution) of the East Devon Local Plan and advice contained in Paragraph 180 of the revised National)

9. No development shall take place until details of proposed groundworks have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall include the following: • Plans showing the proposed grading and mounding of land areas including the levels and contours to be formed, showing the relationship of proposed mounding to existing vegetation and surrounding landform. • Sections showing the proposed grading and mounding of land areas including the levels to be formed, showing the relationship of proposed mounding to existing vegetation and surrounding landform. Each section shall include the existing site levels as a red dashed line. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of the development. (Reason - In the interests of amenity and to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and Policy D2 (Landscape Requirements) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031. These details are required prior to the beginning of construction as groundworks will take place at the start.)

10. As part of any reserved matters application a landscaping scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; such a scheme to include detailed plans outlining the soft landscape proposals accompanied by a specification detailing the proposed species, their planting size, the density at which they will be planted, any specific planting matrices, the number of plants of each species and notes describing how the scheme will be implemented. For the avoidance of doubt the scheme shall include additional planting on the northern and north western road boundaries. The landscaping scheme shall be carried out in the first planting season after commencement of

17/3002/MOUT page 60

the development unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall be maintained for a period of 5 years. Any trees or other plants which die during this period shall be replaced during the next planting season with specimens of the same size and species unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Reason - To ensure that the details are planned and considered at an early stage in the interests of amenity and to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policies D1 - Design and Local Distinctiveness and D2 - Landscape Requirements of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

11. As part of any reserved matters application a landscape management plan, including long term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscape areas, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to any development taking place. The proposals shall be carried out as approved for the full duration of the plan. (Reason - To ensure that the details are considered at an early stage in the interests of amenity and to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policies D1 - Design and Local Distinctiveness and D2 - Landscape Requirements of the Adopted New East Devon Local Plan 2016.)

12. As part of any reserved matters application a detailed Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No development or other operations shall take place except in complete accordance with the approved AMS. The AMS shall include full details of the following: a) Implementation, supervision and monitoring of the approved Tree Protection Scheme b) Implementation, supervision and monitoring of the approved Tree Work Specification c) Implementation, supervision and monitoring of all approved construction works within any area designated as being fenced off or otherwise protected in the approved Tree Protection Scheme d) Timing and phasing of Arboricultural works in relation to the approved development. Provision shall be made for the supervision of the tree protection by a suitably qualified and experienced arboriculturalist and details shall be included within the AMS.

The AMS shall provide for the keeping of a monitoring log to record site visits and inspections along with: the reasons for such visits; the findings of the inspection and any necessary actions; all variations or departures from the approved details and any resultant remedial action or mitigation measures. On completion of the development, the completed site monitoring log shall be signed off by the supervising arboriculturalist and submitted to the Planning Authority for approval. (Reason - To ensure retention and protection of trees on the site during and after construction in the interests of amenity and to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policies D1 - Design and Local Distinctiveness and D3 - Trees and Development Sites of the Adopted New East Devon Local Plan 2016.)

17/3002/MOUT page 61

13. As part of any reserved matters details of final finished floor levels and finished ground levels in relation to a fixed datum shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. (Reason - A pre-commencement condition is required to ensure that adequate details of levels are available and considered at an early stage in the interest of the character and appearance of the locality in accordance with Policy D1 - Design and Local Distinctiveness of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013- 2031.)

14. As part of any reserved matters application the detailed drainage design for the site shall be submitted building upon the principles outlined in the Flood Risk Assessment dated December 2017 and Drainage Strategy dated May 2018 by Dennis Gedge received on 18 December 2017 and 29 May 2018 respectively. (Reason: To ensure that the proposed drainage of the site is considered with the proposed layout of the site as a whole in accordance with Policies EN19 (Adequacy of Foul Sewers and Adequacy of Sewerage Treatment Systems) and EN22 (Surface Run-Off Implications of New Development) of the East Devon Local Plan.

15. Before development above foundation level is commenced, a schedule of materials and finishes, and, where so required by the Local Planning Authority, samples of such materials and finishes, to be used for the external walls and roofs of the proposed development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. (Reason - To ensure that the materials are sympathetic to the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policy D1 - Design and Local Distinctiveness of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

16. Noise emitted from any refrigeration unit, cooling system, extract ventilation system or any other specific noise source shall be inaudible beyond the boundary of the premises. Within one month of the installation of such equipment, details of any acoustic mitigation required to achieve this noise level shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the equipment shall not be used until and unless the mitigation has been installed as agreed. For these purposes, "inaudibility" shall be determined as the specific noise level (after corrections have been applied) being at least 5dB less than the lowest background noise level measured at the time of the assessment, all measured in accordance with BS4142:2014. (Reason: To protect the amenity of local residents from noise and in accordance with Policy EN14 (Control of Pollution) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031)

17. Notwithstanding the submitted details none of the units hereby approved shall be occupied until details of flood refuge, flood resistance and resilience measures have been installed in accordance with details which have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. These measures shall remain in place in perpetuity.

17/3002/MOUT page 62

(Reason – To ensure that a safe refuge and appropriate provision is made in the event of flooding and in accordance with the guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework 2018.

18. No machinery shall be operated, no processes carried out and no deliveries accepted or despatched except between the hours of 7am and 7pm Monday to Friday, or 7am and 1pm on Saturdays, and not at all on Sundays or Bank Holidays. (Reason: To protect the amenities of local residents from noise in accordance with Policy EN14 (Control of Pollution) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031)

19. No external openings, plant or vehicular access shall be located on the western elevations of units A-D, as shown on the site layout plan. (Reason: To protect the amenities of close by residents from noise, emissions or light pollution in accordance with Policy EN14 (Control of Pollution) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031).

20. 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 SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE STRATEGY. (Reason: To ensure that surface water runoff from the development is managed in accordance with the principles of sustainable drainage systems. Reason for being a pre-commencement condition: A detailed permanent surface water drainage management plan is required prior to commencement of any works to demonstrate that the plan fits within the site layout, manages surface water safely and does not increase flood risk downstream.)

21. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until details of the exceedance pathways and overland flow routes across the site in the event of rainfall in excess of the design standard of the proposed 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 surface water runoff generated from rainfall events in excess of the design standard of the proposed surface water drainage management system is safely managed. Reason for being a pre-commencement condition: A detailed permanent surface water drainage management plan is required prior to commencement of any works to demonstrate that the plan fits within the site layout, manages surface water safely and does not increase flood risk downstream.) 22. 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.

17/3002/MOUT page 63

(Reason: To ensure that the development's permanent surface water drainage management systems will remain fully operational throughout the lifetime of the development. Reason for being a pre-commencement condition: These details need to be submitted prior to commencement of any works to ensure that suitable plans are in place for the maintenance of the permanent surface water drainage management plan, for the reason above.)

23. 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. Reason for being a pre-commencement condition: A plan needs to be demonstrated prior to the commencement of any works to ensure that surface water can be managed suitably without increasing flood risk downstream, negatively affecting water quality downstream or negatively impacting on surrounding areas and infrastructure.)

Informative: In accordance with the requirements of Article 35 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 in determining this application, East Devon District Council has worked positively with the applicant to ensure that all relevant planning concerns have been appropriately resolved.

Plans relating to this application:

297_L01.01 REV P1 Location Plan 18.12.17

297_L01.04 REV P2 Proposed Site Plan 12.03.19

297_L02.01 REV P1 Proposed Combined Plans 18.12.17

297_L02.02 REV P1 Proposed Combined Plans 18.12.17

297_L02.03 REV P1 Proposed Combined Plans 18.12.17

297_L02.04 REV P2 Proposed Combined Plans 12.03.19

297_L03.01 REV P2 Combined Plans 12.03.19

297_L03.02 REV P1 Combined Plans 18.12.17

297_L03.03 REV P2 Combined Plans 12.03.19

17/3002/MOUT page 64

297_L03.04 REV P1 Combined Plans 18.12.17

297_L03.05 REV P1 Combined Plans 21.12.17

297_L01.02 REV P2 Proposed Site Plan 29.05.18 (AMENDED)

List of Background Papers Application file, consultations and policy documents referred to in the report.

17/3002/MOUT page 65

Appropriate Assessment

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, Section (63)

Application Reference 17/3002/MOUT

Brief description of Outline application to extend Business Park to create 10 additional proposal units to be used for offices, light industry and storage and distribution (Use Classes Order B1 & B8): all matters reserved other than access; consideration of scale and layout Location Dart Business Park Road Past Darts Farm Clyst St George Site is: Within 10km of Dawlish Warren SAC and the Exe Estuary SPA site

Within 10km of the Exe Estuary SPA site alone (UK9010081)

Within 10km of the East Devon Heaths SPA (UK9010121)

Within 10km of the East Devon Pebblebed Heaths SAC (UK0012602)

Within 10km of the Exe Estuary Ramsar (UK 542)

(See Appendix 1 for list of interest features of the SPA/SAC) Step 1 Screening for Likely Significant Effect on Dawlish Warren SAC, Exe Estuary SPA or Pebblebed Heaths SPA/SAC or Exe Estuary Ramsar sites

Risk Assessment Could the Qualifying The proposal is for an employment use and whilst within 10km of the Features of the Protected Landscapes, the employment units will not generate any European site be increase in recreation impacts on the Protected Landscapes in affected by the themselves proposal?

Consider both construction and The development will result in additional traffic, disturbance and operational stages. employment/industrial activity adjacent to the Exe Estuary. This could result in general noise and disturbance in addition to pressure from staff and visitors using the protected landscapes during break times. Additional disturbance is likely during the construction period

Conclusion of Screening

17/3002/MOUT page 66

Is the proposal likely to East Devon District Council concludes that there may be Likely have a significant Significant Effects ‘alone’ and/or ‘in-combination’ on features associated effect, either ‘alone’ or with the proposal at Dart Business Park, Road Past Darts Farm, Clyst St ‘in combination’ on a George European site? See evidence documents on impact of development on SPA/SAC at: East Devon District Council - http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/369997/exe- overarching-report-9th-june-2014.pdf

Exeter City Council - https://exeter.gov.uk/media/4153/sedesms.pdf

Teignbridge District Council - https://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/planning/biodiversity/exe-estuarydawlish- warren-habitat-mitigation/evidence-base/

An Appropriate Assessment of the plan or proposal is necessary.

Local Authority Officer Date:

Step 2 Appropriate Assessment NB: In undertaking the appropriate assessment, the LPA must ascertain whether the project would adversely affect the integrity of the European site. The Precautionary Principle applies, so to be certain the authority should be convinced that no reasonable scientific doubt remains as to the absence of such effects.

In-combination Effects Plans or projects with Whilst there is additional housing and tourist accommodation within 10km of potential cumulative in- the SPA/SAC which will add to the existing issues of damage and disturbance combination impacts. arising from recreational use, the proposal being of an industrial/business How impacts of current nature is not considered to add to the recreational pressure or to have an proposal combine with adverse effect on the integrity of the Exe Estuary SPA, Dawlish Warren SAC other plans or projects and Ramsar sites alone or in combination with other plans or projects. individually or severally.

Mitigation of in- combination effects. Assessment of Impacts with Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures As identified the application site lies close to the Exe Estuary Special included in the Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site. These sites are designated for their proposal. overwintering wildfowl and waders. In addition the works are within close proximity to the Dawlish Warren Special Area of Conservation (SAC), designated for its coastal geomorphology and dune systems. A Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and Additional Ecological Recommendations have been submitted as part of the application which outlines how the development could impact on the overwintering bird species. Because of the SPA and Ramsar designations the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 must be applied in the determination of this application. Regulation 61 requires East Devon District Council, as the competent authority, to undertake an Appropriate Assessment (AA) of the implications of this proposal on the site's conservation objectives before granting permission for a proposal which is likely to have a significant effect upon a European site.

17/3002/MOUT page 67

East Devon District Council has therefore assessed the impact from the development upon the Exe Estuary and Dawlish Warren, building upon the content contained in the Colmer Ecology submissions (the majority of which has been used in this AIA) and concludes the following:

Construction phase: No construction or demolition works shall be undertaken between 1 October and 31 March. Working practices and procedures shall be undertaken in accordance with a Construction and Environment Management Plan (CEMP) prepared and submitted to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. The removal of the existing fuel storage area must be carried out so as to remove the risk of having stored gas and fuel in close proximity to the Exe Estuary designated areas and all removal work must be carried out so as to reduce the risk of contamination and any fuel spillage into drainage ditches. The applicant must follow a working method statement in relation to any fuel tank removal.

Operation Phase All lighting of the site shall be undertaken in accordance with a scheme reviewed by an appropriately qualified ecologist and submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, and designed to meet zone E2 (rural/suburban) standards within the Guidance Note for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light 2011. Any cleared trees will be chipped and material removed, and at least four habitat log pies created beyond the south-western boundary of the site, but within the applicant’s control. Tree planting around the edge of the site will provide long term screening. Planting will comprise native species and be undertaken in accordance with an agreed landscaping scheme and any replacement trees will be of a broadleaf species, locally sourced and of UK stock.

Effect on Achievement of Conservation Objectives and Site Integrity Table 3.2 considers the impacts assessed above in relation to the achievement of the conservation objectives for the Exe Estuary SPA. Given that no influences or changes arise which could result in the failure to achieve any of the conservation objectives for any of the qualifying habitats or species, it is concluded that no adverse effect on the integrity of the Exe Estuary SPA would occur.

Are the proposed Yes – the above mitigation measures are considered to be appropriate to mitigation measures overcome any significant effects of the proposed development. sufficient to overcome the likely significant effects?

Conclusion List of mitigation CEMP submission measures and Hours of working restricted safeguards Noise and lighting limitations

17/3002/MOUT page 68

The Integrity Test Adverse impacts on features necessary to maintain the integrity of the land at Darts Business Park can be ruled out.

Conclusion of East Devon District Council concludes that there would be NO adverse effect Appropriate on integrity of the Dawlish Warren SAC, Exe Estaury SPA or Pebblebed Assessment Heaths SPA/SAC or Exe Estuary Ramsar sites provided the mitigation measures are secured as above.

Local Authority Officer Date:

21 day consultation to be sent to Natural England Hub on completion of this form.

Appendix 1. List of interest features:

Exe Estuary SPA Annex 1 Species that are a primary reason for selection of this site (under the Birds Directive): Aggregation of non-breeding birds: Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta Aggregation of non-breeding birds: Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola Migratory species that are a primary reason for selection of this site Aggregation of non-breeding birds: Dunlin Calidris alpina alpine Aggregation of non-breeding birds: Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa islandica Aggregation of non-breeding birds: Brent Goose (dark-bellied) Branta bernicla bernicla Wintering populations of Slavonian Grebe Podiceps auritus Wintering populations of Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus Waterfowl Assemblage >20,000 waterfowl over winter

Habitats which are not notified for their specific habitat interest (under the relevant designation), but because they support notified species. Sheltered muddy shores (including estuarine muds; intertidal boulder and cobble scars; and seagrass beds) Saltmarsh NVC communities: SM6 Spartina anglica saltmarsh

SPA Conservation Objectives With regard to the SPA and the individual species and/or assemblage of species for which the site has been classified (the ‘Qualifying Features’ listed below), and subject to natural change; Ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring; The extent and distribution of the habitats of the qualifying features The structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying features The supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely The population of each of the qualifying features, and, The distribution of the qualifying features within the site.

17/3002/MOUT page 69

SD1 Rumex crispus-Glaucium flavum shingle community SD2 Cakile maritima-Honkenya peploides strandline community SD6 Ammophila arenaria mobile dune community SD7 Ammophila arenaria-Festuca rubra semi-fixed dune community Annex I habitat: Fixed dunes with herbaceous vegetation (‘grey dunes’). SD8 Festuca rubra-Galium verum fixed dune grassland SD12 Carex arenaria-Festuca ovina-Agrostis capillaris dune grassland SD19 Phleum arenarium-Arenaria serpyllifolia dune annual community Annex I habitat: Humid dune slacks. SD15 Salix repens-Calliergon cuspidatum dune-slack community SD16 Salix repens-Holcus lanatus dune slack community SD17 Potentilla anserina-Carex nigra dune-slack community

Habitats Directive Annex II species that are a primary reason for selection of this site: Petalwort (Petalophyllum ralfsii )

SAC Conservation Objectives With regard to the SAC and the natural habitats and/or species for which the site has been designated (the ‘Qualifying Features’ listed below), and subject to natural change; Ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the Favourable Conservation Status of its Qualifying Features, by maintaining or restoring; • The extent and distribution of qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species • The structure and function (including typical species) of qualifying natural habitats • The structure and function of the habitats of qualifying species • The supporting processes on which qualifying natural habitats and the habitats of qualifying • species rely • The populations of qualifying species, and, • The distribution of qualifying species within the site. List of interest features:

East Devon Heaths SPA:

A224 Caprimulgus europaeus; European nightjar (Breeding) 83 pairs (2.4% of GB population 1992) A302 Sylvia undata; Dartford warbler (Breeding) 128 pairs (6.8% of GB Population in 1994)

Objectives:

Ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring;  The extent and distribution of the habitats of the qualifying features  The structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying features  The supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely  The population of each of the qualifying features, and,  The distribution of the qualifying features within the site.

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths SAC:

17/3002/MOUT page 70

This is the largest block of lowland heathland in Devon. The site includes extensive areas of dry heath and wet heath associated with various other mire communities. The wet element occupies the lower-lying areas and includes good examples of cross- leaved heath – bog-moss (Erica tetralix – Sphagnum compactum) wet heath. The dry heaths are characterised by the presence of heather Calluna vulgaris, bell heather Erica cinerea, western gorse Ulex gallii, bristle bent Agrostis curtisii, purple moor- grass Molinia caerulea, cross-leaved heath E. tetralix and tormentil Potentilla erecta. The presence of plants such as cross-leaved heath illustrates the more oceanic nature of these heathlands, as this species is typical of wet heath in the more continental parts of the UK. Populations of southern damselfly Coenagrion mercuriale occur in wet flushes within the site.

Qualifying habitats: The site is designated under article 4(4) of the Directive (92/43/EEC) as it hosts the following habitats listed in Annex I:

H4010. Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica tetralix; Wet heathland with cross- leaved heath H4030. European dry heaths

Qualifying species: The site is designated under article 4(4) of the Directive (92/43/EEC) as it hosts the following species listed in Annex II:

S1044. Coenagrion mercuriale; Southern damselfly

Objectives:

Ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the Favourable Conservation Status of its Qualifying Features, by maintaining or restoring;  The extent and distribution of qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species  The structure and function (including typical species) of qualifying natural habitats  The structure and function of the habitats of qualifying species  The supporting processes on which qualifying natural habitats and the habitats of qualifying species rely  The populations of qualifying species, and,  The distribution of qualifying species within the site.

Exe Estuary SPA

Qualifying Features: A007 Podiceps auritus; Slavonian grebe (Non-breeding) A046a Branta bernicla bernicla; Dark-bellied brent goose (Non-breeding) A130 Haematopus ostralegus; Eurasian oystercatcher (Non-breeding) A132 Recurvirostra avosetta; Pied avocet (Non-breeding) A141 Pluvialis squatarola; Grey plover (Non-breeding) A149 Calidris alpina alpina; Dunlin (Non-breeding) A156 Limosa limosa islandica; Black-tailed godwit (Non-breeding) Waterbird assemblage

Objectives:

17/3002/MOUT page 71

Exe Estuary Ramsar

Principal Features (updated 1999)

The estuary includes shallow offshore waters, extensive mud and sand flats, and limited areas of saltmarsh. The site boundary also embraces part of Exeter Canal; Exminster Marshes – a complex of marshes and damp pasture towards the head of the estuary; and Dawlish Warren - an extensive recurved sand-dune system which has developed across the mouth of the estuary.

Average peak counts of wintering water birds regularly exceed 20,000 individuals (23,268*), including internationally important numbers* of Branta bernicla bernicla (2,343). Species wintering in nationally important numbers* include Podiceps auritus, Haematopus ostralegus, Recurvirostra avosetta (311), Pluvialis squatarola, Calidris alpina and Limosa limosa (594).

Because of its relatively mild climate and sheltered location, the site assumes even greater importance as a refuge during spells of severe weather. Nationally important numbers of Charadrius hiaticula and Tringa nebularia occur on passage. Parts of the site are managed as nature reserves by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and by the local authority. (1a,3a,3b,3c)

17/3002/MOUT page 72 Agenda Item 8

Ward Woodbury And Lympstone

Reference 18/2589/MFUL

Applicant Mr Luke Salter (Salter Property Investments)

Location Lympstone Nurseries Church Road Lympstone Exmouth EX8 5JU

Proposal Demolition of existing polytunnels/greenhouses and erection of 10 dwellings, public open space and a car park for use by the church

RECOMMENDATION: 1. That the Habitats Regulations Appropriate Assessment attached to the Committee report be adopted. 2. That the application be APPROVED subject to a S106 agreement and conditions.

Crown Copyright and database rights 2019 Ordnance Survey 100023746

page 73

Committee Date: 30th April 2019

Woodbury And Target Date: Lympstone 18/2589/MFUL 19.02.2019 (LYMPSTONE)

Applicant: Mr Luke Salter (Salter Property Investments)

Location: Lympstone Nurseries, Church Road, Lympstone

Proposal: Demolition of existing polytunnels/greenhouses and erection of 10 dwellings, public open space and a car park for use by the church

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That the Habitats Regulations Appropriate Assessment attached to the Committee report be adopted. 2. That the application be APPROVED subject to a S106 agreement and conditions.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This application is before Members because it is a departure from the Local Plan (LP) and the Lympstone Neighbourhood Plan (LNP).

The Lympstone Nurseries site is allocated for 6 houses in the Lympstone Neighbourhood Plan which has been ‘made’. The application is a departure from the LP and LNP because part of it would be located outside of the built-up area boundary of the village on land to the south and west of the former nursery site and because the proposal is for 10 dwellings and not the 6 dwellings for which it has been allocated.

The site is occupied by glass houses and poly tunnels from its former nursery use and an open field immediately to the west of this and forms a very prominent open- space within the village which contributes to the diversity, distinctiveness and character of the conservation area and the setting of heritage assets which includes the grade II* listed church to the north. This is an important space within the settlement, and as such it is acknowledged that the site is very sensitive to change.

Concerns from Historic England about the encroachment of development into the rural space beyond the confines of the existing nursery which is an important element of the grade II* listed church’s setting have been carefully considered and addressed through amendments to an extent that officers are satisfied that that the less than substantial harm to the setting of heritage assets has been clearly

18/2589/MFUL page 74

and convincingly justified (Para 194, NPPF) and that there are sufficient public benefits to outweigh the resulting harm caused by the small encroachment of development into the rural setting of the church, which forms an important open green space within the conservation area.

These public benefits include the provision of the large area of public open space, the provision of church car parking, the footpath links to link into existing public rights of way which will improve permeability and connectivity of the site with parts of the village, provision of new housing, coupled with the removal of the existing buildings which detract from the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area.

The proposal is considered to be policy compliant in respects of its impacts on residential amenity, ecology, biodiversity and arboriculture, affordable housing highway safety, archaeology, flood risk and drainage.

Whilst finally balanced, and recognising that the proposal is a departure from the Local Plan and the Neighbourhood Plan because part of it would fall outside of the BuAB of the village within the Green Wedge, and would exceed the housing allocation within the LNP, it is considered that the benefits of the scheme and the comprehensive, high quality redevelopment of the site on the former nursery buildings would outweigh the limited harm that would arise from the proposal.

The application is therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions.

CONSULTATIONS

Local Consultations

Woodbury & Lympstone - Cllr R Longhurst The amendment to the plans removes much of the development proposed off the greenhouse site and on the green wedge. I very much approve of this action and fully support the revised plan.

Further comments: My previous coment has caused some confusion. I fully support this amendment as it reduces some of the additional development in the Green Wedge area which was my only concern in the first plan.. The inclusion of this land in the NDP was an intentional act of the Community to protect the view from the Church in perpetuity. This development does just that and arguements about the exact location of boundary lines is somewhat nebulous since at the time we did not have the services of a surveyor or the benefit of detailed plans. I am delighted for our Community that after all this time we have a result we can be proud of.

Parish/Town Council 18/2589/MFUL Demolition of existing polytunnels /greenhousesand erection of 10dwellings ,public open space and a car park for use by the Church at Lympstone Nurseries.

Support in principle.

18/2589/MFUL page 75

This site is allocated for housing in the Neighbourhood Plan. It was assessed in the 2011 SHLAA as having the capacity for between 11 - 19 dwellings. No detailed study of the type now undertaken was made before the allocation for 6 houses was included in the Neighbourhood Plan. The figure of 6, together with other allocated sites, added up to the 40 dwellings required by the then EDDC draft local plan. The text makes clear that there would be an opportunity to develop the site for up to 9 dwellings subject to a development brief and consultation. The developers commissioned 4 architects to prepare design briefs for the site. These all illustrated how it would be possible to accommodate 10 dwellings within the area currently occupied by greenhouses and polytunnels. The Council is supportive of the provision of 10 houses, one more than was envisaged in the Neighbourhood Plan. The greatest concern is that the scheme only includes 1 3bed dwelling with the others being all 4 bed dwellings. Policy 4 of the Neighbourhood Plan clearly sets out the particular need in the village for affordable housing, two and three bedroom family homes and single storey homes adapted for the elderly. While affordable housing may not be able to be provided due to viability issues the Council would like to see some smaller dwellings or even a couple of flats adapted for older people provided within the scheme.

The applicant's Design and Access statement is an excellent analysis of the existing character of the village and demonstrates how this has informed the design of the scheme. The proposals show how the important views from the Church towards the Mill will be preserved and a new village street created. The dwellings have pitched roofs and make extensive use of traditional materials, a mixture of natural slate and clay tiles for the roofs, render and brickwork for the walls. Agreement is needed on the exact pattern of use of these materials and also the colour of the ppc aluminium windows. Unlike most of the recent development in the village their design accords with the principles set out in Policy 7 of the Neighbourhood Plan. In design terms the least successful elements of the scheme are the 3 large detached properties at the southern end of the site.

The Neighbourhood Plan (Policy 17) also requires the provision of a new 'village green'. The western half of the site has been designed to provide a simple open green space with a small discretely sited parking area for occasional use by the Church. The attenuation pond needs to be carefully designed so that it is integrated into the proposed lower meadow area. The Council considers that the scheme will provide an attractive area of public open space. Being brought into public ownership will ensure that this green area is not subject to pressure for further infill development. The two parking spaces for the development are an unfortunate intrusion into this space and should be re-located within the housing development.

The development is likely to increase traffic using the main route into the village, a road which is only single carriageway width in places, with a number of pinch points. The Council welcomes the provision of a new footpath inside the boundary wall which will enable pedestrians to avoid walking around a blind bend in the road. This section of road has no footway and is a route used by parents and children going to school. The wall should be retained at its existing height (the preliminary highway and levels plan PHL-101 shows it being reduced in height around the entrance to the site) and repaired.

18/2589/MFUL page 76

The site is in a sensitive position in the Conservation Area, opposite the Church. The Heritage Impact Assessment concludes that in most respects there will be significant conservation gains. The removal of the unsightly nursery buildings and their replacement with a well-designed group of houses together with the new public open space will enhance the character and appearance of the village which outweighs the loss of some of its rural character. The developers are to be commended on the extensive consultations carried out on the proposals prior to the submission of the application. The scheme received generally positive support from these consultations.

Further comments:

05/04/19 Support

These amended plans meet most of the concerns outlined in the Council's earlier comments.

The Council is disappointed that there are still no affordable or smaller properties in the scheme as sought by Policy 4 of the Neighbourhood Plan.

It is recognised that the development extends beyond the built up area boundary (BUAB) in the Neighbourhood Plan. In most instances the BUAB follows existing property boundaries but in this case it simply follows a rather arbitrary line across the site reflecting the original submission to the SHLAA process. The amended scheme does not extend as far beyond the BUAB as the original scheme. The dwellings are all within the area which has existing structures on it. The whole site extending to the Brook is also identified by EDDC as' brownfield land' . It is government policy to encourage the re-development of such land (NPPF para 118) The revised scheme now provides additional land for public open space adjacent to the Brook. This will provide a pleasant route to join the footpath to the East and soften the view of the development from Mill Field. Care has been taken to provide a green boundary to Plots 8-10 rather than a standard boarded fence.

The Council considers that the benefits of this carefully designed scheme outweigh the encroachment of the development beyond an arbitrary boundary line and meet the aspirations for the area expressed in the Neighbourhood Plan Policy 17.

Technical Consultations

County Highway Authority Observations: The site is situated off Church Road, the C224.

The development will allow for the improvement off the access visibility splay with a new access wall no higher than 600mm.

Each new dwelling will have two dedicated off-carriageway parking spaces therefore reducing the likeliness of an impact upon the local highway network, the site will also include two footway accesses for integrity to the surrounding sustainable network.

18/2589/MFUL page 77

I do not believe the number of additional dwellings from this proposal will cause an unjust impact on the local highway network. Therefore the County Highway Authority has no objections to raise as part of this application.

Recommendation: THE HEAD OF PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENT, ON BEHALF OF DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL, AS LOCAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY, HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.

Housing Strategy Officer Melissa Wall This site lies partially within the built up area boundary for Lympstone and is allocated in the Lympstone Neighbourhood Plan for small scale housing. The application is for 10 dwellings and is therefore a major development. Under strategy 34, 50% (5 units) should be provided as affordable housing.

The applicant has submitted a viability assessment claiming that the site cannot support the provision of affordable housing, although it is not entirely clear from the report the reasons why. The Council will appoint an external consultant to review the viability assessment.

Regardless of the viability argument, the applicant is also claiming that Vacant Building Credit should be applied. To support the re-use of brownfield land, where vacant buildings are reused or redeveloped, any affordable housing contribution due should be reduced by a proportionate amount. This should be equivalent to the existing gross floorspace of the existing buildings. The planning officer has confirmed that they support the application of VBC on this site. Therefore based on the floor areas provided in the planning application where the existing buildings amount to 2,400 sq. m and the proposed floor area is 2,670 sq. m the resulting requirement would be to provide 0.5 units of affordable housing. As it is not possible to provide 0.5 units on-site a commuted sum would be required and this would amount to £23,248. If the floor areas stated above change than this will affect the calculation of the credit to be applied.

EDDC Trees No objection to the principle of the proposed scheme.

Should the application be approved we will require the following additional information and minor adjustments:

i) Point 4 of the arboricultural method statement need to make it explicit that the tree protection fencing will be in place prior to the commencement of any works on site.

ii) Can the northern path around the principle oak (T1) showing in the hard landscape plan be moved further towards the road to completely avoided the root protection area of this tree.

iii) We will need the arboricultural method statement and tree protection plan to be amended to included the construction of the northern most footpath around the oak (T1).

18/2589/MFUL page 78 iv) Any approval would need to be subject to the submission of a soft landscaping plan to include the planting of trees and shrubs. vi) Tree T5, Group 1, Hedge 1 and Area 1 whilst shown as retained within the Arboricultural report this is not the case for other submitted details.

I am happy to provide draft conditions when required.

Further comments:

02/04/19 No objection to the proposed scheme subject to the following conditions:

Tree protection

Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved (including demolition and all preparatory work), an amended scheme for the protection of the retained trees, in accordance with BS 5837:2012, including a tree protection plan(s) (TPP) and an arboricultural method statement (AMS) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Specific issues to be dealt with in the TPP and AMS: a) The existing AMS and TPP shall be amended to reflect the approved site plans. b) Location and installation of services/ utilities/ drainage. c) Details of footpath construction to the north of the retained Oak (T1). d) A specification for protective fencing to safeguard trees during both demolition and construction phases and a plan indicating the alignment of the protective fencing. e) Details of site access, temporary parking, on site welfare facilities, loading, unloading and storage of equipment, materials, fuels and waste as well concrete mixing and use of fires (horticultural pruning waste). f) Boundary treatments within the RPA of retained trees. g) A complete specification of any tree or hedgerow pruning works h) Provision made for arboricultural inspection and supervision of all tree protection measures. Including the reporting of inspection findings to the local planning authority. Arboricultural inspection and supervision shall including pre- commencement sign off, of installed tree protection measures, ad-hock monthly site inspections and final approval for removal of tree protection measures.

The development thereafter shall be implemented in strict accordance with the approved details or any variation as may subsequently be agreed in writing by the LPA.

Reason: Required prior to commencement of development to satisfy the Local Planning Authority that the trees to be retained will not be damaged during demolition or construction and to protect and enhance the appearance and character of the site and locality, in accordance with Policy D3 - Trees and Development Sites of the East Devon Local Plan 2016 and pursuant to section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Informative:

The following British Standards should be referred to: a) BS: 3998:2010 Tree work - Recommendations

18/2589/MFUL page 79

b) BS: 5837 (2012) Trees in relation to demolition, design and construction - Recommendations

Tree Planting Prior to commencement of any works on site (including demolition and ground works); full details of all proposed tree planting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This will include planting and maintenance specifications, including cross-section drawings, use of guards or other protective measures and confirmation of location, species and sizes, nursery stock type, supplier and defect period. All tree planting shall be carried out in accordance with those details and at those times. Any trees that are found to be dead, dying, severely damaged or diseased within five years of the completion of the building works or five years of the carrying out of the landscaping scheme (whichever is later), shall be replaced in the next planting season by specimens of similar size and species in the first suitable planting season.

Reason: To comply with the duties indicated in Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to safeguard and enhance the amenity of the area, to maximise the quality and usability of open spaces within the development, and to enhance its setting within the immediate locality in accordance with Policies D1 - Design and Local Distinctiveness, D2 - Landscape Requirements, D3 - Tree and Development Sites of the East Devon Local Plan 2016.

Informative: The following British Standards should be referred to: a) BS: 3882:2015 Specification for topsoil b) BS: 3998:2010 Tree work - Recommendations c) BS: 3936-1:1992 Nursery Stock - Part 1: Specification for trees and shrubs d) BS: 4428:1989 Code of practice for general landscaping operations (excluding hard surfaces) e) BS: 4043:1989 Recommendations for Transplanting root-balled trees f) BS: 5837 (2012) Trees in relation to demolition, design and construction - Recommendations g) BS: 7370-4:1993 Grounds maintenance part 4. Recommendations for maintenance of soft landscape (other than amenity turf). h) BS: 8545:2014 Trees: from nursery to independence in the landscape - Recommendations i) BS: 8601:2013 Specification for subsoil and requirements for use

EDDC Landscape Architect - Chris Hariades

1 INTRODUCTION This report forms the EDDC's landscape and green infrastructure response to amended information submitted in relation to the above application.

The report provides a review of amended landscape related information submitted with the application in relation to adopted policy, relevant guidance, current best practice and existing site context and should be read in conjunction with the submitted information.

2 REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROVIDED

18/2589/MFUL page 80

Generally the amended layout is acceptable in terms of landscape design and impact.

The following matters require further design consideration and/ or clarification: a) The key in the General Arrangement plan, drawing no. 18-180-C-200 Rev E, indicates the dark green colouring on the plan as 'Proposed marginal'. This appears to be an error and should be checked with the applicant.

b) The proximity of the garages to plot nos. 7 and 10 to the eastern boundary hedge is of concern and it is difficult to see how the garages could be constructed without causing damage to the hedge which is identified in the ecological assessment as species rich. The garage positions/ dimensions should be amended to provide a 1.5m clearance from the face of the hedge.

c) In order to protect the future integrity of this hedge, which abuts Lympstone footpath 1, a 1.5m high post and rail fence should be provided along the development side of the hedge line to denote the adjacent plot boundaries, with the hedge itself remaining within the ownership of the management company or other body responsible for managing the public open space within the development.

d) The General Arrangement plan, dwg. no. 18-180-C-200, shows the access to the church path being controlled by two bollards at the entrance. In practice this is a cumbersome arrangement and a suitable timber boom gate of the type shown below would be easier to manage.

e) A statement should be provided by the applicant as to how access to the church car park will be managed.

f) The proposed tree and planting strips between parking bays within the proposed church car park are unfeasibly narrow and will be prone to vehicle overrun and damage. A single block of planting 2.5m wide in the centre of each run of parking bays would provide a more robust and sustainable solution.

3 LANDSCAPE CONDITIONS

Should the application be approved the following landscape conditions should be included:

1) No development work shall commence on site until the following information has been submitted and approved: 2) a) A full set of hard landscape details covering earthworks, walls, retaining structures, fencing, pavings and edgings, site furniture and signage. b) Details of existing and proposed levels and drainage scheme incorporating appropriate SuDS features, maximising opportunities for rainwater collection, reuse, attenuation and filtration within the site. c) Details of locations, heights and specifications of proposed external lighting. d) Samples of proposed gravel finishes to paths and roads.

18/2589/MFUL page 81

e) A full set of soft landscape details including planting plans showing locations and number of new tree, shrub and herbaceous planting, type and extent of new grass areas, existing vegetation to be retained and removed and means of protection.

f) Plant schedule indicating form size and density of planting.

g) Specification for soil quality, cultivation, planting/ sowing, mulching and means of plant support and protection during establishment period.

h) Measures for protection of existing perimeter trees and hedgerow during construction phase in accordance with BS5837: 2012. Approved protective measures shall be implemented prior to commencement of construction and maintained in sound condition for the duration of the works.

2) In addition, the following standard EDDC landscape conditions should apply:

L01N, Landscaping - full permissions L02N Landscaping - groundworks L06N Landscaping - fences and boundaries L11N Landscaping - landscape management which should include the following details: o Extent, ownership and responsibilities for management and maintenance. o Details of how the management and maintenance of open space will be funded for the life of the development. o Inspection and management arrangements for existing and proposed trees and hedgerows. o Management and maintenance of grass areas. o Management and enhancement of biodiversity value. o Management and maintenance of any boundary structures, drainage swales and other infrastructure/ facilities within public areas.

L15N Landscape condition for full planning permissions (omitting non relevant parts/sections)

EDDC Conservation

CONSULTATION REPLY TO PLANNING WEST TEAM PLANNING APPLICATION AFFECTING LISTED BUILDING AND CONSERVATION AREA

ADDRESS: Lympstone Nurseries, Church Road, Lympstone

GRADE: APPLICATION NO: 18/2589/MFUL

CONSERVATION AREA: Lympstone

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing polytunnels/greenhouses and erection of 10 dwellings, public open space and a car park for use by the church

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF HISTORIC CHARACTER/ ARCHITECTURAL MERIT:

18/2589/MFUL page 82

The proposed site lies within the historic centre of Lympstone, within the conservation area and is situated opposite St Mary's Church, grade II*. On the south side of Church Road are two terraces of properties flanking the site, the majority of which are grade II listed. The significance of these heritage assets are certainly contributed by their setting, and the ribbon development of the village forms part of the distinct and strong character in this part of Lympstone. Properties tend to be positioned directly on the rear of the highway and undeveloped land is enclosed by stone walls. The most prevalent aspect of the site is its openness with views from Church Road towards Waddon Brook and return views of the church from the public rights of way that border the site.

HOW WILL PROPOSED ALTERATIONS AFFECT HISTORIC CHARACTER OF BUILDING AND ITS SETTING:

The site occupied by the former nursery and the field immediately to the west of this form is a very prominent open-space within the village and this certainly contributes to the diversity, distinctiveness and character of the conservation area. This is an important space within the settlement, and as such the site is very sensitive to change.

There have been several previous responses relating to development on the site under 14/0098/PREAPP & 15/0220/PREAPP and more recently under 17/0244/PREAPP. The issues remain the same from a heritage perspective including the location of the site within the centre of the Lympstone Conservation Area, the setting of the Grade II* Church and the Grade II terraces flanking the site and the character of this part of Lympstone (ribbon development). as already suggested this is a prominent and sensitive open site with views across to rural fields and the brook to south.

Following the latest pre-application advice the current application for residential development of 10no. dwellings has now been submitted. Both the pre-application submission and the application show a good understanding of the site and its importance within Lympstone and this has been supplemented by a Statement of Significance and Heritage Impact Assessment in conjunction with other relevant information regarding the site. In addition, the applicants have carried out extensive consultation and interpretation of the site.

The removal of the Nursery buildings and paraphernalia is welcomed and will significantly improve the appearance of the Conservation Area. However, to develop the site for some level of housing, public open space and a car park, the emphasis must be on the impact that this will have on the Conservation area and the adjacent listed buildings including the Grade II* Church. Detailed comments and points of concern have been already been raised by Historic England and the Landscape Officer and these views are noted by the Conservation Team. In particular, the heritage issues relate mainly to the car parking and the development itself.

Car parking: the overall concerns from Historic England are re-iterated and the relocation of the car park would certainly be an acceptable alternative. All parking should be limited to the eastern side of the site and within the development itself. Proper screening and surface materials will be crucial;

18/2589/MFUL page 83

Development: if the principle of development is considered to be acceptable it would have been preferable for the pattern of development to follow the line of the main road more closely. The scale of the properties is too large and a terrace or semi's would be better, similar in design to the two new properties (Pebbles & Meadow Gate). This would allow for the integrated garages referred to by HE, better continuity and a closer density to give the character afforded either side of the new development and to lose the 3no. large detached dwellings to south of the site. The separate detached garages to these three Units 8, 9 & 10 only amplify the fact that they are out of keeping with the overall character and appearance of the site and the mire closely knit proposed development to the north of the site. Flat roof garages are also rather incongruous features eg. Unit 7, Unit 1, Unit 9 etc. These should be less remote from the Units.

Design: whilst a contemporary take for the design is acceptable, the dwellings appear out of scale with their surroundings and further consideration should be given to reducing their size, altering the ratio of void to solid (placement of openings). In addition, the size of some of the openings and the features eg. dormers are too large, further division of rooflights needed.

Conclusion: there is no doubt that the removal of the Nursery buildings is an improvement and that the new development will certainly have an impact on the setting of the heritage assets and the overall character and appearance of the site and wider Lympstone Conservation Area. It is agreed, as stated in the Impact Assessment (Section 10) that the development will have a significant effect on the character of the existing space. However, only if all aspects of design, layout, landscaping, materials etc are of a high standard can it offer positive change and benefit.

Further comments on amended plans received 19th March 2019:

The amended plans seek to address the concerns raised by the various consultees. The following comments relate to the previously raised heritage issues:

Car parking: it is noted that the 'Church parking' is retained in the same location. To minimise the impact, proper screening and surface materials will be crucial. It is also noted that there are a number of bollards restricting access to the parking. Would traditional gates be more appropriate in some of the locations? However, the remainder of the parking associated with the development has been removed from the western side of the site and is now contained only within the eastern side of the site within the development itself, and this is welcomed;

NB. the Table showing the number of parking spaces appears to have some anomalies, in particular the spaces for Unit 1 & 2, where no1 is parked infront of No. 2. In addition, all Units appear to have 3 spaces rather than two.

Development: some minor changes have been made to the dwellings fronting Church Road, but their actual size, location/siting remains practically the same. The garage and parking spaces to Unit 1 have been re-located and some re-arrangement of fenestration is noted. Again, changes to Units 5, 6 and 8 are minimal, but notable is the re-location of the garages to Unit 6 and 8 creating a more attractive frontage to the open space within the site.

18/2589/MFUL page 84

The 3no. large detached dwellings to south of the site remain, but the separate detached garages to these three Units 8, 9 & 10 have been re-located towards the front of the plots within close proximity to the built form of the individual dwellings. This provides a better relationship for the Units and wider development and allows a more attractive and open garden space to the rear of the 3no. properties. Additional landscaping along the southern edge reinforces this part of the layout.

Design: only minor change appear to have been made to the elevations and the dwellings remain the same in terms of size and scale. However, the development as a whole is a tighter group (mainly within the scope of the existing buildings on site - see Drawing PL 1.3) having incorporated all of the Unit parking within the overall built form group and relocating the garages. Additional planting and screening will hopefully create a feeling of spaciousness.

Unit 5 now has further differentiation as it turns the corner and appearing as two elements (units) rather than one. Unit 8 is now to be a slate roof rather than zinc roofing. These are all welcomed. There is no objection to a contemporary approach to the development. However, there is still some concern over the style of fenestration: placement of openings, size of dormers and plain glazed rooflights. Full details of these along with materials by condition will hopefully allay further concerns;

The amended plans have made a number of significant changes to the parking arrangements and the form of the development group. The next step will be to ensure that materials, detailing (eaves and verge details, chimneys, placement of flues, vents, meter boxes etc, fenestration, dormers, joinery etc) and landscaping, are conditioned and that a high quality and appropriateness to the site in Lympstone is agreed.

The site is in a sensitive location in the Conservation Area, opposite the Church. The removal of the nursery buildings and their replacement with a high quality residential development scheme together with the public open space will enhance the character and appearance of the village and whilst inevitably the existing open nature of the site will be altered this will need to be weighed against any conservation gains and the wider public benefit.

Devon County Archaeologist I refer to the above application and your recent consultation. The proposed development lies within 50m of the parish church of St Mary, a grade II* listed building (ref: 1165089) and, as such, I would advise that the Planning Authority's Conservation Officer and Historic England are consulted with regard to any comments they may have an the impact upon the setting of this designated heritage asset.

The following comments are made without prejudice to any comments made by the Conservation Officer or Historic England.

18/2589/MFUL page 85

The archaeological investigations undertaken in support of this planning application have demonstrated that the site contains archaeological deposits associated with the medieval and post-medieval occupation of this part of the historic village. Artefactual material also indicates the potential for prehistoric and Romano-British activity in this area. As such, groundworks for the construction of the proposed development will expose and destroy archaeological and artefactual deposits associated with these heritage assets. While these heritage assets are not if such significance that the Historic Environment Team would recommend preservation in situ, I would advise that the impact of development upon the archaeological resource should be mitigated by a programme of archaeological work that should investigate, record and analyse the archaeological evidence that will otherwise be destroyed by the proposed development.

The Historic Environment Team therefore recommends that this application should be supported by the submission of a Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) setting out a programme of archaeological work to be undertaken in mitigation for the loss of heritage assets and archaeological interest. The WSI should be based on national standards and guidance and be approved by the Historic Environment Team.

If a Written Scheme of Investigation is not submitted prior to determination the Historic Environment Team would advise, for the above reasons and in accordance with paragraph 199 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2018) and Policy EN6 (Nationally and Locally Important Archaeological Sites) of the East Devon Local Plan, 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 developer has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation (WSI) which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out at all times in 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 Policy EN6 (Nationally and Locally Important Archaeological Sites) of the East Devon Local Plan and 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'

This pre-commencement condition is required to ensure that the archaeological works are agreed and implemented prior to any disturbance of archaeological deposits by the commencement of preparatory and/or construction works. I would envisage a suitable programme of work as taking the form of the archaeological excavation of all areas affected by the proposed development that may contain archaeological or artefactual deposits to ensure an appropriate record is made of the heritage assets prior to their destruction by the proposed development. The results of the fieldwork and any post-excavation analysis undertaken - including the analysis and dating of palaeoenvironmental samples taken during the field evaluation of the site - would need to be presented in an appropriately detailed and illustrated

18/2589/MFUL page 86

report, and the finds and archive deposited in accordance with relevant national and local guidelines.

I will be happy to discuss this further with you, the applicant or their agent. The Historic Environment Team can also provide the applicant with advice of the scope of the works required, as well as contact details for archaeological contractors who would be able to undertake this work. Provision of detailed advice to non-householder developers may incur a charge. For further information on the historic environment and planning, and our charging schedule please refer the applicant to: https://new.devon.gov.uk/historicenvironment/development-management/.

Historic England

LYMPSTONE NURSERIES, CHURCH ROAD, LYMPSTONE, EXMOUTH, EX8 5JU Application No. 18/2589/MFUL

Thank you for your letter of 21 November 2018 regarding the above application for planning permission. On the basis of the information available to date, we offer the following advice to assist your authority in determining the application.

Historic England Advice The Nursery site in Lympstone has been identified in the adopted Neighbourhood Plan as a site suitable for development. The allocation is for the current nursery site retaining significant areas of open space around it. In the Neighbourhood Plan, the site is identified for 6 units with an opportunity for that to be increased to 9 following a development brief.

The current proposal is for 10 units located on the eastern half of the site. Two units sit outside the site allocation, 06 & 08 as well as the gardens of 09 and 10. The other proposed development that falls outside the allocated site is the car-park to the west of the open field along with the proposed access track. There is also an attenuation pond to the south of the open land.

The site is within the Lympstone Conservation Area and the setting of the grade II* listed Parish Church of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. These form the focus of Historic England's statutory remit. In terms of the built form within the conservation area, this has a tight grain with many of the buildings nestling together to form small scale and intimate spaces that reinforce the linear nature of the site. This section of the conservation area is identified as having a looser grain. However, this relates to the large plots on the north side of the road and the site itself is bound by rows of terraced cottages to the east and a cluster of buildings to the west, which both reinforce the linear character of the settlement.

The church sits to the north of the site in an elevated position, affording views of the current rural landscape that separates the two main blocks of development within the conservation area. The rural open character of the field is an important part of the church's setting. It creates a strong contrast with the defined linear and tight grained character of Lympstone to provide the church with a sense of primacy and prominence within the settlement. The views out of the church are a clear reminder of the village's rural origin as well as providing an aesthetic quality to the experience of place,

18/2589/MFUL page 87

especially with the prominent tree within the field that helps to frame views through to the rising pasture land beyond.

Historic England has two main areas of concern. This is the impact of the car-park and proposed access track to the west and the encroachment of the housing into principal views to the rural landscape from the church.

In terms of the encroachment of development, the current views out from the church are framed by a substantial tree leading views through to the rural landscape beyond. The current site is tucked behind the tree and does not impinge on these open views. The application looks to bring the development west (units 3, 6 & 8) and extend it beyond the current extent of the poly tunnels. This will introduce development into this view and alter its current rural experience.

In our view steps needs to be taken to minimise the introduction of development into this view. The frontages of the units on to the green should be set back from their current location, moving them further to the east. This will reduce the encroachment of development into the green and open landscape, a key aspect of the church's setting. The garage of number 8 is an intrusive feature and rather prominent in these views. This should be relocated. Furthermore, parking associated with the residential development should be removed from the open space and accommodated within the existing site boundary. This will allow for the development to reduce its overall impact on the views, and allow the green open space to retain a sense of primacy rather than feeling encroached upon by the proposed new dwellings.

The other aspect that raises concern is the car-parking. Its location and choice of materials have looked to minimise its impact on views from the church. We are wary over the use of proposed material choice as it is reliant on the level of use and the time allowed for the grass to establish itself. The other aspect to consider is the introduction of the road. A cross section has been provided that creates a haha arrangement that looks to screen the track in views. However, the church is elevated and offers views from a higher vantage point. We appreciate that the approach is for a low key access and details of this should be provided to demonstrate how this will be achieved and managed in the long term. If the council are satisfied by the justification provided for the car-park in this location then they should seek further steps to avoid and minimise the impact of the development, through amendments to its layout as well as use of boundary treatments to provide natural screening (Para 190. NPPF).

The council may wish to explore alternative layouts in order to rationalise development. One option could be to replace unit 8 with the car-park. This would negate the need for a road access across the site and locate low density development adjacent to the allocation boundary. This will reduce the number of units within the site but there is potential to increase the density of development, varying the scale and massing of the new units within the body of the current layout. There are limitations to this option including the distance from the church and possible lack of natural surveillance. There is also likely to be an issue with viability that the council will need to consider along with other points within the wider planning balance (Para 196, NPPF).

In terms of the approach taken in designing the Lympstone Nurseries development, it has avoided creating a cul-de-sac and has continued the linearity of the settlement as

18/2589/MFUL page 88

well as providing active frontages to the open green space. We would prefer the garages along the Church Road elevation to be included to reinforce the strong boundary created in the village. At present, they break up the rhythm of the façade through the single storey flat roofed sections. The general design approach is contemporary but retains a vernacular quality that will allow the buildings to sit within the conservation area. We would suggest that further consideration is given to the layout of windows. For example, the overall arrangement in unit 3 appears inconsistent with the rhythm seen within the conservation area. Furthermore, the size and scale of the dormers also needs consideration as they appear fairly significant additions within the roofscape (Para 200).

Recommendation In determining this application you should bear in mind the statutory duty of section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings or their setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess and section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas.

Your authority should take these representations into account and seek amendments, safeguards or further information as set out in our advice. If there are any material changes to the proposals, or you would like further advice, please contact us.

Further comments 04.04.19:

Thank you for your letter of 19 March 2019 regarding further information on the above application for planning permission. On the basis of this information, we offer the following advice to assist your authority in determining the application.

Historic England Advice Thank you for consulting Historic England on the amendments to the proposals at the Lympstone Nursery site. Historic England's interest lies in the contribution of this site to the Lympstone Conservation Area and the setting of the grade II* listed Church of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

In our previous advice, we raised concerns regarding the encroachment of development into the rural space beyond the existing confines of the nursery development, which is an important element of the grade II* listed church's setting and an important open space within the conservation area. We also had concerns regarding the introduction of the church car-parking and access road into the currently undeveloped section of the site. We raised the question regarding alternative alignments and the need to reflect the character of development on the site.

The revised drawings have looked to address some of these concerns through some minor amendments to the positioning of the buildings and the rearrangement of parking on the main development site. The significance of the heritage assets and the contribution made by it setting to that significance is set out in our earlier advice, so we do not intend to repeat that here. Consequently, we would like to make the following comments on the revised aspect of the proposals.

18/2589/MFUL page 89

Encroachment into development Historic England's concern relate to the encroachment of development into the green rural landscape that is clearly delineated by the prominent oak trees in views from the church.

The amendments have made some improvements through the relocation of the garage at No. 8 as well as the increased band of parkland along the southern boundary.

It would appear that some steps have been taken to rationalise the parking on the nursery side of the application site. The master-plan suggests that this has been reduced to 2 spaces per unit, while the plan seems to indicate 3 spaces for each unit. Clarification on this point is required.

It is unfortunate that as part of these minor alterations to address the concerns raised by Historic England, further changes have been undertaken, notably the reorientation of unit 5, that actually results in the buildings being more conspicuous in the more sensitive area of the site. The proposals now bring Unit 5 and the road closer to the oak tree. This will consequently, result in development appearing more prominently in views from the church and conservation area due to its position being brought forward. It is not clear the reasons for this amendment but it does raise concerns about the impact of the development on the heritage assets.

We are disappointed that further steps have not been taken to set the frontages of units 5 and 6 further east, so that they more closely align to the location of the existing buildings on site. There is an opportunity through the loss of the garage of No. 5 to move the development back by several metres, so that it creates the impression of a terrace with no. 3 and shifts the development further east. The unit would still have 2 parking spaces as seen to the south of the house but would be less conspicuous in views from the church. Unit 6 could also be set back as its garden is primarily located to the south. Unit 8 may need to be rationalised further in order not to project forward; however, with these steps undertaken the entire development would be more closely aligned to the existing nursery buildings on the site ensuring that the contribution of the green open space is maintained.

Church Parking We maintain our concerns regarding the car park due to the introduction of permanent infrastructure into the rural open space in front of the church. The council need to ensure that the layout seeks to minimise the level of intervention and sufficient screening should be in place in order to screen the site using appropriate boundary treatments. The choice of materials and the overall treatment of the road and car- parking area are paramount and should be agreed with the conservation officer. Management of the site The management of this site needs to be secured through the planning process to ensure that the proposed low level intervention is maintained in the long term and that less sensitive materials are not introduced at a later stage. The management of the site need to be undertaken by a party who have sufficient resources and expertise to ensure that the open space continues to make a positive contribution to the conservation area and listed buildings.

Quantum of development

18/2589/MFUL page 90

The application looks to provide 10 units, which exceeds the maximum of 9 identified in the Neighbourhood Plan. The council need to determine whether this deviation from policy has been sufficiently demonstrated.

We maintain the view that the loss of one unit from the site would allow for the layout of the development to be greatly rationalised including the removal of the church car park and access road as this could now be situated within the allocated site.

Policy The NPPF highlights that Local Planning Authorities should look for opportunities for new development within conservation areas and within the setting of heritage assets to enhance or better reveal their significance. Proposals should aim to preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to or better reveal the significance of the asset (para.200 NPPF).

We have again highlighted a number of areas where further steps should be taken in order to address the concerns raised regarding the impact on the conservation area and the setting of the grade II* listed building. The council need to be satisfied that sufficient steps have been taken to avoid or minimise the conflict between the asset's conservation and aspects of the development (Para 190). The council also need to be confident that sufficient steps have been taken to clear and convincingly justify the harm caused by aspects of the proposal as identified as required under para 194 and for any aspects that deviate from the neighbourhood plan.

If the harm can be justified then, the any justified harm will need to be considered within the planning balance, to ensure that the public benefit outweighs the harm identified (Para 196, NPPF).

Recommendation In line with the advice set out in the above correspondence, Historic England would strongly encourage the LPA to ensure that sufficient steps have been taken to avoid or minimise the impact of the development on the significance of the heritage assets and the character and appearance of the conservation area.

The LPA should be confident that the harm has been clear and convincingly justified (Para 194, NPPF) and that there are sufficient public benefits to outweigh the resulting harm caused by the encroachment of development into the rural setting of the church, which forms an important open green space within the conservation area (Para 196, NPPF).

As the application affects a listed building, the statutory requirement to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building, its setting and any features of special interest (ss.66 (1), Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Area) Act 1990) must be taken into account by your authority when making its decision.

Furthermore, as the application affects a conservation area, the statutory requirement to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area (s.72, 1990 Act) must be taken into account by your authority when making its decision.

18/2589/MFUL page 91

The following comments are made without prejudice to any comments made by the Conservation Officer or Historic England.

Reason

18/2589/MFUL page 92

Environment Agency Thank you for consulting us on this application.

Environment Agency position

We have no objections to the proposed development.

Reason

The submitted Flood Risk Assessment and drainage strategy provide the appropriate detailed information regarding the risk of flooding to the site, including the impact of climate change in the future.

Further comments:

Thank you for reconsulting us on the above planning application.

Environment Agency position

We confirm that our position remains as set out in our letter dated 10 December 2018 that we have no objections to this proposal.

If the area of land within the flood zone or within 8m of the main river benefits from any permitted development rights, we would recommend that these are removed to reduce

18/2589/MFUL page 93

flood risk by ensuring that no additional structures, fencing or land raising can occur within this area without prior planning consent.

Advice to LPA

Part of the application site is located within Flood Zones 2 and 3, defined as having a medium and high probability of flooding respectively. Technically, the application will therefore be subject to the flood risk Sequential Test as set out in the NPPF. However, the proposed masterplan indicates that the dwellings themselves will be located outside of the flood zone and that the parts of the site at risk of flooding will instead form part of the green infrastructure network. We welcome this and are satisfied that a sequential approach has been taken to the layout of this site.

Informative

This proposal is located adjacent to a watercourse which is designated a main river at this location. Under the terms of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 a permit is required for any proposed works or structures, in, under, over or within eight metres of the top of the bank of the river. This was formerly called a Flood Defence Consent although some activities are now excluded or exempt. Further details and guidance on how to apply or register an exemption are available on the GOV.UK website: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-activities- environmental-permits.

A permit is separate to and in addition to any planning permission granted.

DCC Flood Risk Management Team We have no in-principle objections to the above planning application, from a surface water drainage perspective, at this stage.

If the Planning Case Officer is minded to grant planning permission in this instance, I request that the following pre-commencement planning condition/s is/are imposed:

- 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 & Drainage Strategy Technical Note 0743 8th November 2018.

Reason: To ensure that surface water runoff from the development is managed in accordance with the principles of sustainable drainage systems.

18/2589/MFUL page 94

Advice: Refer to Devon County Council's Sustainable Drainage Guidance. Observations:

The applicant has submitted a feasible surface water drainage strategy which follows the principles set out in the surface water management hierarchy. The strategy utilises an above ground basin providing number benefits in terms of water quality, biodiversity, amenity and flood risk.

Further information should be provided at the next stage with regards to the reinforced grass construction proposed for the car park area and access road as well as a maintenance schedule for this element of the drainage strategy. This will provide an element of source control at the site.

South West Water With reference to the planning application at the above address, the applicant/agent is advised to contact South West Water if they are unable to comply with our requirements as detailed below.

Asset Protection

Please find enclosed a plan (view on "associated documents" tab) 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.

Clean Potable Water

South West Water is able to provide clean potable water services from the existing public water main for the above proposal.

Foul Sewerage Services

South West Water advises a Planning Condition to emphasise that: Foul drainage from the Development (and no other drainage) shall be connected to the public foul or combined sewer.

Reason: To ensure the discharge of drainage from the Development shall not be prejudicial to the public sewerage system and ensure there are adequate public foul sewerage facilities to receive foul water flows, in order to safeguard the public and environment.

Surface Water Services

The statutory Water and Sewerage Undertaker supports the Planning Policy Guidance for Flood Risk & Coastal Change statement. To accompany its planning application, the applicant must demonstrate how its proposed development will have separate foul and surface water drainage systems and not be detrimental to existing infrastructure,

18/2589/MFUL page 95

the public and environment (and that any provisions for protecting infrastructure have been agreed with SWWL as service-provider). The applicant should demonstrate to your LPA that its prospective surface run-off will discharge as high up the hierarchy of drainage options as is reasonably practicable (with evidence that the Run-off Destination Hierarchy has been addressed, and reasoning as to why any preferred disposal route is not reasonably practicable):

1. Discharge into the ground (infiltration); or where not reasonably practicable,

Provide written evidence as to why Infiltration devices, including Soakaways, Swales, Infiltration Basins and Filter Drains do not meet the design standards as specified in either H3 Building Regulation standards for areas less than 100m2. Soakaways serving larger areas must meet the design standard specified in BS EN 752-4 (para 3.36) or BRE Digest 365 Soakaway Design.

2. Discharge to a surface waterbody; or where not reasonably practicable,

Provide written evidence for refusal of discharge consent from owner of water body (Environment Agency, Local Authority, Riparian Owner etc)

3. Discharge to a surface water sewer, highway drain, or another drainage system; or where not reasonably practicable,

Provide written evidence for refusal of discharge to drainage system (Highway Authority, Environment Agency, Local Authority, Private ownership)

4. Discharge to a combined sewer.( Subject to Sewerage Undertaker carrying out capacity evaluation) South West Water will carry out a hydraulic capacity review of the combined sewerage network before permission will be granted to discharge to the combined sewer.

Having reviewed the applicant's current information as to proposed surface water disposal for its 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).

I trust this clarifies the water and drainage material planning considerations for your LPA, however if you have any questions or queries, please do not hesitate to contact me either via e-mail: [email protected] or direct line: 01392 443983.

Please quote reference number MPP111218 EX8 5JU in all communications and correspondence.

18/2589/MFUL page 96

Natural England Thank you for your email consulting Natural England on the Appropriate Assessment for the above development in accordance with Paragraph 63 (3) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. Please be advised that, on the basis of the appropriate financial contributions being secured to the South-east Devon European Sites Mitigation Strategy (SEDESMS), Natural England concurs with your authority's conclusion that the proposed development will not have an adverse effect on the integrity of East Devon Pebblebed Heaths SAC, East Devon Heaths SPA, Exe Estuary SPA and Exe Estuary RAMSAR site.

Other Representations

At the time of writing this report 63 letters of objection and 20 letters of support have been received. The objections can be summarised as:

• Development will be outside the boundary of the LNP • Over development of the site • Increase in traffic and highway safety • Green wedge should be preserved • Too many dwellings are proposed over the allocation • Loss of rural character of the site • Attenuation pond and parking should be in the boundary • Contrary to the Neighbourhood Plan allocation • Contrary to Local Plan Strategies 6, 7 and 8 • Impact on setting of grade II* listed church and Conservation Area • No affordable housing • Light pollution • Design would be out of character • Urbanisation of the countryside • Visual intrusion • The site is not brownfield • Not been informed by a development brief • Vacant building credit should not be applied • Lack of community consultation • Quantum of development does not align with the LNP • Impact of lighting • Impact from noise and traffic • Who will pay for maintenance of public area • Buildings too close to Oak tree • Increase in surface water run-off and flooding • Precedent will be set if permission granted • No dwellings for the elderly • Building on a greenfield site • Proposal has not been shown in the context of the BUAB • Impact on ecology and biodiversity

18/2589/MFUL page 97

• The proposal does not follow the LNP which the community voted for • Encroachment into the countryside

POLICIES

Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 Policies Lympstone Neighbourhood Plan (Made)

Strategy 6 (Development within Built-up Area Boundaries)

Strategy 7 (Development in the Countryside)

Strategy 8 (Development in Green Wedges)

Strategy 27 (Development at the Small Towns and Larger Villages)

Strategy 34 (District Wide Affordable Housing Provision Targets)

Strategy 48 (Local Distinctiveness in the Built Environment)

Strategy 49 (The Historic Environment)

Strategy 50 (Infrastructure Delivery)

D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness)

D2 (Landscape Requirements)

D3 (Trees and Development Sites)

EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features)

EN7 (Proposals Affecting Sites which may potentially be of Archaeological Importance)

EN8 (Significance of Heritage Assets and their setting)

EN9 (Development Affecting a Designated Heritage Asset)

EN10 (Conservation Areas)

EN21 (River and Coastal Flooding)

EN22 (Surface Run-Off Implications of New Development)

TC2 (Accessibility of New Development)

TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access)

TC9 (Parking Provision in New Development)

18/2589/MFUL page 98

Government Planning Documents National Planning Practice Guidance NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework 2019)

Site Location and Description

The site occupies a roughly rectangular plot of 1.4Ha. The northern boundary abuts Church Road and Wotton Brook marks the southern boundary. Land to the east and west is residential. Land beyond Wotton Brook is permanent pasture that is used for informal recreation.

The site slopes gently from northeast to south west. The western side of the site was used as a plant nursery and comprises a mix of small glass houses, office accommodation and poly-tunnels. The eastern half of the site is used as horse paddock.

The boundary to Church Road comprises a wall approximately 0.9-1.2m high, part brick and part stone surmounted with some sections of hedge and railing. The eastern boundary comprises a thin, species rich hedge which has been allowed to grow up unchecked for some time. The western boundary comprises a lower species poor hedge. The boundary adjacent to the watercourse is fenced with scrub and trees along the bank.

There is no public access within the site. Lympstone footpath 1 runs adjacent to the eastern boundary between Church Street and Wotton Brook. Land beyond Wotton Brook is crossed by Lympstone footpaths 1, 2 and 3.

The site is generally enclosed by landform and buildings although from the top of the site there are westerly views down the valley to hills to the west side of the Exe estuary. The parish church (grade II* Listed) is a prominent feature in views to the north. There are filtered views to the south and east to the meadow beyond Wotton Brook.

While the north east corner of the site falls within the Lympstone Built Up area Boundary of Lympstone village as defined by the Lympstone Neighbourhood Plan, the remainder of the site is outside and is therefore classed as countryside as defined by the EDDC Local Plan. The entire site is designated as Green Wedge and falls within the Lympstone Conservation Area. There are a number of heritage assets in the vicinity including the Lympstone Parish Church (grade II* listed) which is situated immediately to the north of the application site. There are a number of grade II listed dwellings along Church Road. The Mill 100m to the southeast is also grade II listed. The Exe Estuary SAC lies 500m to the west.

The southern edge of the site is designated as flood zone 2 and 3.

Proposed Development:

Planning permission is sought for the residential redevelopment of the nurseries site on the eastern half of the site with 10 no detached two storey dwellings with associated garages, car parking and infrastructure and with a large area of public open space and a 15 space car park for use of the church to the western side. The submitted site plan shows the development to be laid out in a small estate form arranged around a central

18/2589/MFUL page 99

vehicular access point off Church Road continuing the linearity of the settlement to the north of the site and with larger dwellings in more generous sized plots to the south.

The general design approach is contemporary whilst retaining a vernacular form with the use of pitched roofs and chimney features, where the dwellings would be constructed from a pallete of traditional materials which include the use of rendered and brickwork walls, aluminium windows and vertical timber boarding under a mix of natural slate and clay tiled roofs. Contemporary architectural detailing would be provided through the pattern of fenestration, recessed doorways, dormer windows and the projecting box windows.

A high quality area of public space would be provided on the western side of the site incorporating seating and a natural play space along with gravelled pathways which would connect with the existing public footpath to the west of the site. Provision would be made for 15 no overspill car parking spaces for the church which would have a grasscrete surface finish. A footpath is proposed in the North West corner of the site leading to a new pedestrian access onto Church Road.

ANALYSIS

The main issues for consideration are the principle of development, layout and impact upon the character and appearance of the area, impact upon heritage assets; affordable housing provision; highway safety; archaeology; impact upon trees; impact upon ecology; flood risk and planning obligations.

Principle

Paragraph 12 of the NPPF states that where a planning application conflicts with an up-to-date development plan (including any neighbourhood plans that form part of the development plan), permission should not usually be granted. Local Planning Authorities may take decisions that depart from an up-to-date development plan, but only if material considerations in a particular case indicate that the plan should not be followed.

Lympstone is identified as settlement suitable for residential development under the provisions of Strategy 27 (Development at the Small Towns and Villages) of the Local Plan based on the range of accessible services and facilities it has to meet many of the everyday needs of local residents with reasonable access to public transport. The application site is considered to be well related to the village’s services and facilities and would be well located in sustainability terms to access them.

The Lympstone Neighbourhood Plan (LNP) is 'made' and therefore its policies are a material consideration and should be afforded full weight. Chapter 5 (Housing) of the LNP states that for the period 2012 to 2026, in accordance with the Local Plan, the Parish Council through its Working Party has identified land, mainly within the village BuAB, to accommodate 40 dwellings (The Allocated Sites). The Lympstone Nurseries site was one of four identified preferred locations for new residential development within the village and the site is allocated for housing for 6 dwellings within Objective 1 of the LNP.

18/2589/MFUL page 100

The new built-up area boundary of Lympstone is provided within Map 2 of the LNP which includes sites allocated for housing to meet the housing need for the village across the NP period including the Lympstone Nurseries site. The LNP provides further commentary about the application site stating 'it should be noted that nursery site is extremely sensitive due to its position within the within the Conservation Area and proximity to nearby listed buildings, therefore any development there will be subject to a development brief and removal of existing visually intrusive structures. The BuAB (Built-up Area Boundary) amendment would be a line tight to the west of the existing greenhouses down to the main east/ west sewer and bounded by the lane to the east and Church Road to the north. Any such development must not compromise the current open views in front of the church and will retain the prominent Oak tree'.

Whilst the site is a housing allocation for 6 dwellings, the text makes it clear that ‘there may be an opportunity to develop the Nursery site for up to 9 dwellings but this will be subject to a development brief and consultation'.

Policy 17 of Objective 11 (Open Space) of the LNP states that The Nursery site will be developed as an 'Enabling Development' and in so doing create a new 'village green' on the land opposite the church. This will be the subject of a Development Management Brief and an agreement between the Parish Council and the landowners.

Whilst the principle of residential development within the built-up area boundary of the site is considered to be acceptable under the provisions of objective 1 of the LNP and Strategy 6 (Development within Built-up Area Boundaries) of the East Devon Local Plan, it should be noted that one of the proposed dwellings (unit 8) and the rear gardens to 8, 9 and 10 falls outside of the built-up area boundary and is therefore considered to be in the countryside under the provisions of Strategy 7 (Development within the Countryside) of the Local Plan. The application has therefore been advertised as a departure from the Local Plan on the basis that part of the residential development would be located outside of the built-up area boundary on land to the south and west of the former nursery site and because the proposal is for 10 dwellings and not the 6 dwellings for which it has been allocated.

Whilst this is the case, the fact that the proposal would be partly within the former Lympstone Nursery site as well as on agricultural land to the south and west that is outside of the BuAB in the countryside, in the Green Wedge and for 10 units is not in itself a reason to object to the application, moreover it is a matter of assessing the harm that would arise from the proposal and its conflict with Strategies 7 and 8 of the Local Plan and the LNP. Harm that has to be assessed against any public benefits arising from the scheme.

Strategy 7 (Development in the Countryside) of the Local Plan states that development in the countryside will only be permitted where it would not harm the distinctive landscape, amenity and environmental qualities within which it is located, including:

1. Land form and patterns of settlement 2. Important natural and manmade features which contribute to the local landscape character, including topography, traditional boundaries, areas of importance for nature conservation and rural buildings.

18/2589/MFUL page 101

3. The adverse disruption of a view from a public place which forms part of the distinctive character of the area or otherwise causes significant visual intrusions.

Strategy 8 (Development in Green Wedges) of the Local Plan states that within Green Wedges, development will not be permitted if it would add to existing sporadic or isolated development or damage the individual identity of a settlement or could lead to or encourage settlement coalescence.

The built up area boundary as drawn in the LNP results in a site that is an irregular shape and does not reflect the built form of the existing nursery site and its buildings on the ground, the boundary excluding some of the site and buildings. Officers consider that the applicant has demonstrated that a more comprehensive residential development could be achieved on the site in utilising the footprint of the existing buildings which results in a more regular shaped site in which a residential layout can be better accommodated. This is considered to be a more logical manner in which to re-develop the site.

It is acknowledged that the proposal would encroach into the countryside as it proposes development in the form of unit 8 and the rear gardens to units 8, 9 and 10 on agricultural land to the south and west which is a concern that has been raised by a number of local residents. The extent of this encroachment into the countryside and Green Wedge was a concern shared by officers which has resulted in the submission of amended plans re-positioning a number of the dwellings eastwards into the boundary. Furthermore, the detached garages to plots 8, 9 and 10 have been moved north to ensure that this part of the proposal is more closely related to the development and within the boundary. The applicants have also introduced an area of public open space behind plots 8, 9 and 10 on the southern part of the site which would help to soften the impact of the proposal on this part of the site and reduce the amount of development that encroaches into the countryside and the Green Wedge.

On balance, it isn’t considered that the development proposed outside of the boundary for 10 units, on the footprint of the existing nursery site and buildings would result in significant harm to the distinctive landscape, amenity and environmental qualities of the area or undermine the objectives of the Green Wedge designation. It should be noted that the entire site falls within the Green Wedge and that the amended plans which have reduced the amount of development from within the Green Wedge along with the introduction of the open space to the south of the development would assist in softening the impact of the rear gardens of the properties to the south of the site. Furthermore, the benefits to be derived from the removal of the unsightly nursery buildings, a more comprehensive residential scheme and layout and the additional areas of open space with footpath links to the existing public footpath network are considered to outweigh the limited additional harm that would arise from a small amount of the development being positioned outside of the boundary of the LNP and the conflict with Strategies 7 and 8 of the Local Plan.

Layout, Character and Appearance

The application site plays an important role in the Conservation Area as an area of open space forming part of a belt of substantially undeveloped land which divides higher and lower Lympstone. The western half of the site, currently undeveloped,

18/2589/MFUL page 102 forms much of the outlook from the public vantages in front of the site and gives a strong rural character to this part of the village. It is accepted that this is an important space within the settlement and as such, the site is very sensitive to change. Whilst the buildings on the site from its previous use as a nursery detract from the character and appearance of the area and the setting of heritage assets because of their transient nature and appearance, it is accepted that redevelopment of the site for housing, the creation of a village green and a parking area will have an impact on the character of the space and the visual amenity of the surrounding area.

Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the Local Plan requires that proposals: 1. Respect the key characteristics and special qualities of the area in which the development is proposed. 2. Ensure that the scale, massing, density, height, fenestration and materials of buildings relate well to their context. 3. Do not adversely affect: a) The distinctive historic or architectural character of the area. b) The urban form, in terms of significant street patterns, groups of buildings and open spaces. c) Important landscape characteristics, prominent topographical features and important ecological features. d) Trees worthy of retention. e) The amenity of occupiers of adjoining residential properties. f) The amenity of occupants of proposed future residential properties,

Generally the application has provided a very detailed analysis of the existing character of the village and a good understanding of the site, its heritage and its importance within Lympstone which has informed the design and layout of the development. The proposed housing scheme is considered to be very well designed in terms of its layout, its contemporary interpretation of vernacular design, the scale and massing of the buildings and the manner in which it creates a high quality townscape continuing the linearity of the settlement with a frontage onto Church Road and through the creation of a strong edge and active frontages to the village green and public open space to the west.

Officers have worked with the applicants to address concerns raised by the Council’s Conservation Officer and Landscape Architect and those of Historic England to create a layout which forms a tighter knit group of dwellings, whilst ensuring that the development does not encroach significantly on open views out from the church and the re-positioning of detached garages to the front of plots in closer proximity to the built form of the individual dwellings. It is considered that these amendments provide a better relationship for the units and wider development and allows for a more attractive and open space to the south of the site.

Whilst the consolidation of built form and the inevitable urbanisation of the site will result in the loss of some of the sites rural character and the extent of the proposed housing will reduce the perceived sense of open space connecting to the open countryside beyond, it is considered that if constructed to a high standard, the proposed layout, materials and architectural design of the dwellings would form an interesting and contemporary interpretation of the vernacular form of properties found within the area which would make a positive contribution to the evolution of this part of the village.

18/2589/MFUL page 103

The site is in a prominent and sensitive location in the village and the Conservation Area, opposite the Church. The removal of the nursery buildings and their replacement with a high quality residential development scheme together with the public open space will enhance the character and appearance of the village and whilst inevitably the existing open nature of the site will be altered, the impact on the character and appearance of the area needs to be weighed against the wider public benefit.

Policy RC2 (New Open Space, Sports Facilities and Parks) of the Local Plan states that within or adjoining urban or built-up areas, permission will be granted for new open space areas, allotments, sports facilities and parks, the accommodation of the visual and performing arts, and the upgrading or enhancement of existing facilities provided the following criteria are met: 1. They do not unduly affect the character and appearance of the area and the visual and physical amenities enjoyed by adjoining residential areas. 2. They are accessible by public transport, bicycle and on foot. 3. Appropriate car and cycle parking is provided. 4. The proposed road access to the site provides for safe exit and entry and the local road network can safely accommodate the extra traffic the proposal would generate. 5. The facilities are located without detriment to the best and most versatile agricultural land, nature conservation interest and the conservation of areas of landscape, scientific, archaeological or historic interest.

Concerns have been raised about the impact of the village green, the car park and the attenuation basin and the impact they would have on the character and appearance of the area. Whilst these concerns are noted, it is considered that the new village green (a requirement of Neighbourhood Plan policy 17) has been well designed to provide a simple open green space with a small discretely sited parking area for occasional use by the Church. Whilst the addition of gravelled pathways would have a degree of an urbanising impact, generally the treatment of the village green is considered to be naturalistic and sympathetic to the rural landscape character of the site. Much will depend on the chosen materials and finishes for the hard surfacing and the landscaping and overall landscape management of the site which will be the subject of a condition.

The attenuation pond also needs to be carefully designed so that it is integrated into the proposed lower meadow area. The proposed village green is considered to be well considered and would meet the provisions of policy 17 of the Neighbourhood Plan whilst providing benefit to its users.

Concern has also been raised about the proposed overspill car parking area which is to be provided in the north eastern western corner of the site. Officers consider the chosen area for the parking to be sensitively and discretely sited within the corner of the site so as not to impact significantly on the character and appearance of the area. The proposed parking area would be constructed from grasscrete or a similar type of hard surfacing as maybe agreed by the Local Planning Authority where it will be necessary to ensure that the appearance of the parking area is as natural looking as possible to ensure it assimilates into the site and the surrounding open space. Careful attention will also need to be given to how the car parking area is managed and landscaping to help soften its impact. Subject to conditions controlling the surfacing, planting and management of the car park, it is considered that it will be of public benefit

18/2589/MFUL page 104

and that its chosen siting will not significantly harm the character and appearance of the area.

On balance, it is considered that there would be significant gains to this part of the village through the removal of the nursery buildings which negatively impact on the visual amenity of the site and the character and appearance of the area. Furthermore, the design approach to the residential development, coupled with the delivery of the village green which has been well designed and considered would enhance the character and appearance of this prominent site which would be of benefit to the village as a whole. The substantial public benefits that would be derived from the scheme through the provision of the large area of public open space, the church car parking, the footpath links to link into existing public rights of way which will improve permeability and connectivity of the site with parts of the village, coupled with the removal of the existing buildings would outweigh the impact the proposal would have on the character and appearance of the area.

The proposal is considered to comply with the provisions of policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and D2 (Landscape Requirements) of the Local Plan. Furthermore, it is considered that the proposal complies with objective 5 (Design) of the LNP which seeks to ensure that development is of a high quality design and sympathetic to the character of the village. Policy 7 of this objective states that new buildings should be of individual design that respects the local character and that there is room for imaginative new design sympathetic to the traditional buildings of Lympstone which is considered to apply to this development.

Heritage Impact

Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires a decision maker, in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. The Local Planning Authority is also required to give considerable weight and importance to the duty imposed by Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 with respect to any buildings or other land in a Conservation Area and to the special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of that area. This is reflected in the National Planning Policy Framework and within the Council's Local Plan policies in relation to development affecting the setting of Conservation Areas and buildings of special architectural and historic interest (Policies EN9 and EN11 refers).

The NPPF advises that LPA’s should look for opportunities for new development within conservation areas and within the setting of heritage assets to enhance or better reveal their significance. Proposals should aim to preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to the asset to better reveal the significance of the asset (paragraph 200 refers).

The site is within the Lympstone Conservation Area and the setting of the grade II* listed Parish Church of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. On the southern side of Church Road are two terraces of properties flanking the site, the majority of which are grade II listed. The significance of these heritage assets are contributed by their

18/2589/MFUL page 105

setting and the ribbon development of the village which forms part of the distinct and strong character in this part of Lympstone.

In terms of the built form within the conservation area, this has a tight grain with many of the buildings nestling together to form small scale and intimate spaces that reinforce the linear nature of the site. This section of the conservation area is identified as having a looser grain but this relates to the large plots on the north side of the road and the site itself is bound by rows of terraced cottages to the east and a cluster of building to the west, which both reinforce the linear character of the settlement. Properties along Church Road tend to be positioned directly on the rear of the highway and undeveloped land is enclosed by stone walls. The most prevalent aspect of the site is its openness with views from Church Road towards Wotton Brook and return views of the church from the public rights of way that border the site.

The views expressed by Historic England refer to the site forming part of the most prominent open areas within the Conservation Area, historically forming the connection with the village's rural hinterland. They advise that this open context also contributes to the rural setting of the grade II* listed church. Both the site occupied by the former nursery and the field immediately to the west form a very prominent open space within the village and this contributes to the diversity, distinctiveness and character of the Conservation Area and to the setting of heritage assets. Both are important spaces within the settlement and as such the site is considered to be very sensitive to change. The identified heritage constraints are recognised within the LNP where it is stressed that the site is extremely sensitive due to its position within the Conservation Area and proximity to nearby listed buildings.

Historic England have advised that the grade II* listed church sits to the north of the site in an elevated position, affording views of the current rural landscape that separates the two main blocks of development within the conservation area. The rural open character of the field is an important part of the church’s setting. It creates a strong contrast with the defined linear and tight grained character of Lympstone to provide the church with a sense of primacy and prominence within the settlement. The views out of the church are a clear reminder of the village’s rural origin as well as providing an aesthetic quality to the experience of place, especially with the prominent tree within the field that helps to frame views through to the rising pasture land beyond. In their original consultation response, Historic England raised two main areas of concern: • The encroachment of the housing into principal views to the rural landscape from the church • The impact of the car park and the proposed access track to the west.

Housing Impact:

In respect of the encroachment of development on land to the west, Historic England advised that current views out from the church are framed by a substantial tree leading views through to the rural landscape beyond. The current site is tucked behind the tree and does not impinge on these views. Historic England raised concerns that the proposal will introduce development to the west (units 3, 6 and 8) extending it beyond the current extent of the poly tunnels introducing development into this view and

18/2589/MFUL page 106 altering its current rural experience. There was concern that this encroachment of development into the green and open landscape would adversely affect a key aspect of the setting of the church. Similar concerns were raised in respect of the position of detached garages being intrusive and prominent features in these views and car parking spaces for dwellings that were originally positioned amongst the open space.

In their original consultation response, Historic England suggested that a number of steps could be taken to minimise the introduction of development into this view by:

• Setting the frontages of units back from their current location, moving them further to the east to reduce the encroachment of development into the green and open landscape, a key aspect of the church’s setting. • Relocating the garage to plot 8 considered to be an intrusive feature prominent in these views. • Removing parking associated with the residential development should be from the open space and accommodated within the existing site boundary.

It was suggested that these changes would allow for the development to reduce its overall impact on the views and allow the green open space to retain a sense of primacy rather than feeling encroached upon by the proposed new dwellings.

In response to these concerns, the applicant provided amended plans which have set the frontages of units onto the public green back by moving them further east and by re-positioning detached garages alongside the southern plots and by removing parking from the open space which Historic England agree are improvements to the scheme as well as introducing the new area of parkland along the southern boundary.

However in making these changes, Historic England, in their latest response have raised concern that the proposals now bring unit 5 and the access road closer to the oak tree resulting in a development that would appear more prominently in views from the church and the conservation area due its re-positioning forward.

Historic England have put forward a number of suggestions to ensure that the development more closely aligns with the location of the existing buildings by moving the frontages of units 5 and 6 further east so that it creates the impression of a terrace with no. 3 and shifts the development further east, setting back unit 6 and rationalising unit 8 further in order not to project forward.

These suggestions have been put forward to the applicant who has submitted a further amended site plan which has removed the garage between plots 3 and 5, reduced the living room size of plot 6 and rearranged plot 8’s parking from two side by side spaces to two parallel spaces. This allows for plots 5, 6 and 8 to be moved circa 1.5 metres east which would further ensure that this part of the housing scheme does not significantly impinge upon views from the listed church. Officers have taken the decision not to re-consult on the amended plans because the re-positioning of these plots is considered to be a betterment over the submitted site plan and because it is considered that the amendments have further reduced the impact of the development on the setting of heritage assets in accordance with Historic England’s latest comments.

Car Park:

18/2589/MFUL page 107

The other area of concern was the introduction of the overspill car parking area for the church and the access road and the introduction of permanent infrastructure into the rural open space in front of the church. Historic England have advised that the Council need to ensure that the layout seeks to minimise the level of intervention and sufficient screening should be in place in order to screen the site using appropriate boundary treatments. The choice of materials and the overall treatment of the road and car- parking area are paramount in ensuring that the car park does not adversely affect the setting of the church and the conservation area. It is accepted that the car park could be provided within the housing development itself which would reduce its impact however it is also accepted that the chosen position of the car park offers a more practical solution where it is closest to the church and where it will aid pedestrian access for those less abled. In addition, the car park is considered to be discretely located where it would not be overly prominent in views from the listed church and the Conservation Area.

Planning Balance:

There is no doubt that the removal of the Nursery buildings would be an improvement to the character of the area with conservation gains that are welcomed both by the Council’s Conservation Officer and Historic England. However, it is also acknowledged that the site is in a sensitive location in the Conservation Area, opposite the grade II * listed church and that new housing development on the site will have an impact on the setting of the heritage assets and the overall character and appearance of the site and the wider Lympstone Conservation Area. It is agreed, as stated in the applicant’s Heritage Impact Assessment (Section 10) that the development will have a significant effect on the character of the existing space.

Paragraph 193 of the NPPF states that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance.

Paragraph 194 requires that any harm to, or loss of the significance of a designated heritage assets (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting) should require clear and convincing justification.

In this case, following receipt of the amended plans which have sought to address the heritage concerns raised by the Council’s Conservation Officer and Historic England, it is considered that the impact of the proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of designated heritage assets where under the provisions of paragraph 196 of the NPPF there is a need for the decision maker to weigh this harm against the public benefits of the proposal.

It is considered that the changes to the scheme have positively responded to the concerns raised and has significantly reduced the development’s overall impact on views of the grade II* listed church and the conservation area whilst allowing the proposed area of green open space to retain a sense of primacy. The housing scheme would have an impact on the rural setting of the church and the open space which is an important space within the conservation area and it is accepted that the proposal

18/2589/MFUL page 108

could be rationalised further to further reduce the impact on the setting of heritage assets. The suggestions in the latest response from Historic England have been put forward to the applicant who made further changes to the scheme to reduce the amount it encroaches on views from the church.

The impact of the development on the setting of the church and conservation area need to be weighed against the benefits of removing the unsightly polytunnels and glass houses and the conservation gains this would bring to this part of the village. Furthermore, the design and layout of the development is considered to be well considered and of a high quality which subject to securing the suggested high standard of finish, materials and detailing would be a positive addition to the site. Views of the development would be broken up by the provision of the large area of the village green, the delivery of which is considered to be of public benefit. Similarly, the parking area to the North West would be discretely positioned within the corner of the site and through the imposition of conditions careful attention will be given to the treatment of the car park, its hard surfacing and landscaping to ensure that its appearance is sympathetic to the character of the area and assimilates into the development.

On balance, officers are satisfied that that the less than substantial harm to the setting of heritage assets has been clear and convincingly justified (Para 194, NPPF) and that there are sufficient public benefits to outweigh the resulting harm caused by the encroachment of development into the rural setting of the church, which forms an important open green space within the conservation area (Para 196, NPPF). These public benefits include the provision of the large area of public open space, the church car parking, the footpath links to link into existing public rights of way which will improve permeability and connectivity of the site with parts of the village, coupled with the removal of the existing buildings which detract from the character and appearance of the area.

Affordable Housing:

The site was formerly in use as a commercial nursery (horticulture) and therefore the lawful use of the site is considered to be agricultural. The applicant’s planning statement asserts that the land is brownfield (or previously developed land) although the lawful use of the site does not fit within the NPPF’s definition of previously developed land which states:

‘Land which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land (although it should not be assumed that the whole of the curtilage should be developed) and any associated fixed surface infrastructure. This excludes: land that is or has been occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings; land that has been developed for minerals extraction or waste disposal by landfill purposes where provision for restoration has been made through development control procedures; land in built-up areas such as private residential gardens, parks, recreation grounds and allotments; and land that was previously-developed but where the remains of the permanent structure or fixed surface structure have blended into the landscape in the process of time."

Whilst the issue of whether the site should be considered to be previously developed land is not necessarily pertinent to whether housing on the site should be permitted because it is an allocation within the LNP it is pertinent to whether Vacant Building

18/2589/MFUL page 109

Credit can be applied to the site in respect of reducing the affordable housing contribution by including the floorspace of existing vacant buildings on the site.

Paragraph 63 of the NPPF states that ‘to support the re-use of brownfield land, where vacant buildings are being reused or redeveloped, any affordable housing contribution should be reduced by a proportionate amount’.

The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) at paragraphs 26, 27 and 28 sets out the following guidance on VBC and the circumstances in which it should be applied:

What is the vacant building credit?

National policy provides an incentive for brownfield development on sites containing vacant buildings. Where a vacant building is brought back into any lawful use, or is demolished to be replaced by a new building, the developer should be offered a financial credit equivalent to the existing gross floorspace of relevant vacant buildings when the local planning authority calculates any affordable housing contribution which will be sought. Affordable housing contributions may be required for any increase in floorspace.

What is the process for determining the vacant building credit?

Where there is an overall increase in floorspace in the proposed development, the local planning authority should calculate the amount of affordable housing contributions required from the development as set out in their Local P plan. A ‘credit’ should then be applied which is the equivalent of the gross floorspace of any relevant vacant buildings being brought back into use or demolished as part of the scheme and deducted from the overall affordable housing contribution calculation. This will apply in calculating either the number of affordable housing units to be provided within the development or where an equivalent financial contribution is being provided.

The existing floorspace of a vacant building should be credited against the floorspace of the new development. For example, where a building with a gross floorspace of 8,000 square metre building is demolished as part of a proposed development with a gross floorspace of 10,000 square metres, any affordable housing contribution should be a fifth of what would normally be sought.

Does the vacant building credit apply to any vacant building being brought back into use?

The vacant building credit applies where the building has not been abandoned.

The courts have held that, in deciding whether a use has been abandoned, account should be taken of all relevant circumstances, such as:

• the condition of the property • the period of non-use • whether there is an intervening use; and • any evidence regarding the owner’s intention

Each case is a matter for the collecting authority to judge.

18/2589/MFUL page 110

The policy is intended to incentivise brownfield development, including the reuse or redevelopment of empty and redundant buildings. In considering how the vacant building credit should apply to a particular development, local planning authorities should have regard to the intention of national policy.

In doing so, it may be appropriate for authorities to consider:

• whether the building has been made vacant for the sole purposes of redevelopment • whether the building is covered by an extant or recently expired planning permission for the same or substantially the same development

A number of representations have been received which have questioned whether VBC should apply to this site because it has been designed to incentivise brownfield development which would not apply to the Lympstone Nursery site because of its previous horticultural use. It has been suggested that the glass houses and polytunnels from the horticultural use remaining on site should not be deducted from any required affordable housing contribution. This matter has been the subject of much discussion and legal opinion where it has been concluded that VBC should apply to agricultural buildings because there is no distinction in the NPPG to suggest that they should be excluded and because VBC should be applied to any vacant building provided it has not been abandoned. Therefore, it is considered that VBC should be applied to this site and that the affordable housing contribution should be reduced by a proportionate amount.

The application is for 10 dwellings, a major development where under the requirements of paragraph 63 of the NPPF, affordable housing should be sought. Under the provisions of Strategy 34 (District Wide Affordable Housing Provision Targets) of the Local Plan, the policy requirement is for 50% (5 units) of the development to be provided as affordable housing.

Following legal advice on the matter, officers have advised that Vacant Building Credit can be applied to this proposal where there are vacant buildings on the site. In accordance with the NPPF and NPPG any affordable housing contribution due should be reduced by a proportionate amount equivalent to the existing gross floorspace of the existing buildings.

Therefore based on the floor areas provided in the planning application where the existing buildings amount to 2,457 sqm and the proposed floor space from the development is 2,584 sqm the resulting requirement would be to provide 0.5 units of affordable housing. As it is not possible to provide 0.5 units on-site a commuted sum would be required and this would amount to £22,488 and will be secured through a section 106 agreement.

Residential Amenity

Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) requires that proposals do not adversely affect the residential amenities of existing residents. The proposed housing would have its greatest impact on the occupiers of Meadow Gate to the east whose rear garden runs parallel to the site. Unit 1 would be positioned adjacent to the Meadow Gate and would be separated from the property by the public footpath. Unit 1 would

18/2589/MFUL page 111

be orientated such that it does not have an unduly harmful physical impact on the occupiers of the property to sustain an objection. First floor bedroom windows would face into the rear garden of the unit and would allow only oblique views towards the rear garden of Meadow Gate but not to a degree that would result in unacceptable levels of overlooking or loss of privacy.

Units 7 and 10 would be positioned further south of the site with their respective rear and side elevations facing towards the rear end of land at the rear of Meadow Gate. These properties would have a number of first floor windows facing east however this is not considered to be residential curtilage such that it is not considered that the first floor windows would result in an unacceptable level of overlooking or loss of privacy to the rear garden of this property.

The remainder of the development is considered to be sufficiently distanced from the nearest residential properties so as not to adversely affect residential amenity.

The overspill car park to the west of the site would be positioned at the rear of the rear garden of The Firs which sits in a generous sized plot. Given the intended occasional use of the car park as an overflow for the church coupled with its sunken position behind a boundary hedge, it isn’t considered that car park would result in any significant harm to residential amenity to sustain an objection.

On balance, the proposal is considered to comply with the provisions of policy D1 which seeks to ensure that the amenity of existing occupiers is not adversely affected.

Highway Safety

Policy TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) of the Local Plan states that planning permission for new development will not be granted if the proposed access or the traffic generated by the development would be detrimental to the safe and satisfactory operation of the local or wider highway network.

Vehicular access into the site is proposed to be taken from the existing former nursery site access off Church Road which is a ‘C’ class road. The proposal would allow for the improvement of the access visibility splay where the existing walls are to be rebuilt to a maximum of 600 mm height to ensure that visibility splays are not obstructed.

The County Highway Authority has raised no objections to the proposal and it is considered that a safe and sustainable access can be provided that would result in no severe impacts on the local highway, a key test within the NPPF.

Car parking for the development will be provided at a ratio of 2 spaces per dwelling in addition to a garages for individual plots. The proposal is considered to comply with the provisions of policy TC9 (Parking Provision in New Development) of the Local Plan.

The proposal makes excellent provision for pedestrian access paths that will pass through the open space and connect to the public footpath network. Permeability through the development and through the open space is a strong feature of this scheme which will encourage pedestrian movement creating a continuous link through the site enabling pedestrians to walk off road rather than along Church Road which

18/2589/MFUL page 112

has no footway. This would be a safety benefit for pedestrians accessing the school and church nearby. A new pedestrian access would be provided to the North West corner of the site onto Church Road from the open space which would allow users of the church parking area access across the road to the church.

Archaeological Impact

The County Council’s Archaeologist has advised that the archaeological investigations undertaken in support of this planning application have demonstrated that the site contains archaeological deposits associated with the medieval and post-medieval occupation of this part of the historic village. Artefactual material also indicates the potential for prehistoric and Romano-British activity in this area. As such, groundworks for the construction of the proposed development will expose and destroy archaeological and artefactual deposits associated with these heritage assets. While these heritage assets are not of such significance that the Historic Environment Team would recommend preservation in situ, it has been advised that the impact of development upon the archaeological resource should be mitigated by a programme of archaeological work that should investigate, record and analyse the archaeological evidence that will otherwise be destroyed by the proposed development.

The Historic Environment Team therefore recommends that a condition is imposed that prevents any development from being undertaken until the developer has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) setting out a programme of archaeological work to be undertaken in mitigation for the loss of heritage assets and archaeological interest. The WSI should be based on national standards and guidance and be approved by the Historic Environment Team. Such a condition would ensure the proposal complies with paragraph 199 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2018) and Policy EN6 (Nationally and Locally Important Archaeological Sites) of the Local Plan.

Arboricultural Impact

The proposal seeks to avoid the unnecessary removal of any trees or vegetation. With the exception of the position of a footpath around the principle veteran oak tree (T1) at the front of the site, the Council’s tree officer has advised there are no objections to the principle of the proposed scheme. The amended plans have moved the proposed path closer to Church Road such that it would now be positioned outside of the rooting environment of the tree which makes a significant contribution to the character and appearance of the area, the protection of which is paramount. A number of discrepancies have been raised with some of the detail contained within the report but it is considered that a condition can be imposed requiring the submission of an Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan. The proposal is considered to comply with the provisions of policy D3 (Trees and Development Sites) of the Local Plan.

Ecological Impact

The application is accompanied by an Ecological Impact Assessment prepared by EPS ecology Ltd which provides a detailed assessment of the likely impacts of the development on species and habitats which are protected under the Wildlife and

18/2589/MFUL page 113

Countryside Act 1981 and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations. Subject to conditions requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the ecological mitigation measures contained within the report which would include the submission of a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) it is considered that the proposal would have no significant impacts on protected species and that biodiversity and ecological gains can be secured across the site. The proposal is considered to comply with the provisions of policy EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) of the Local Plan.

Habitats Regulation Assessment and Appropriate Assessment

The nature of this application and its location close to the Pebblebed Heaths and its European Habitat designations is such that the proposal requires a Habitat Regulations Assessment. An Appropriate Assessment is attached to this report and has been agreed by Natural England. In partnership with Natural England, the council and its neighbouring authorities of Exeter City Council and Teignbridge District Council have determined that housing and tourist accommodation developments in their areas will in-combination have a detrimental impact on the Exe Estuary and Pebblebed Heaths through impacts from recreational use. The impacts are highest from developments within 10 kilometres of these designations. It is therefore essential that mitigation is secured to make such developments permissible. This mitigation is secured via a combination of funding secured via the Community Infrastructure Levy and contributions collected from residential developments within 10km of the designations. This development will be CIL liable and the financial contribution has been secured. On this basis, and as the joint authorities are working in partnership to deliver the required mitigation in accordance with the South-East Devon European Site Mitigation Strategy, this proposal will not give rise to likely significant effects.

Flood Risk and Drainage

The majority of the site is located in flood zone 1 and although the southern part of is located within Flood Zones 2 and 3, defined as having a medium and high probability of flooding respectively. The Environment Agency have advised that technically, the application will therefore be subject to the flood risk Sequential Test as set out in the NPPF. However, the proposed masterplan indicates that the dwellings themselves will be located outside of the flood zone and that the parts of the site at risk of flooding will instead form part of the green infrastructure network. This approach is welcomed and the EA are satisfied that a sequential approach has been taken to the layout of this site and therefore raise no objections to the application on flood risk grounds.

The County Council’s Flood Risk Management Team have advised they have no in- principle objections to the application, from a surface water drainage perspective on the basis that the applicant has submitted a feasible surface water drainage strategy which follows the principles set out in the surface water management hierarchy. The strategy proposed utilises an above ground basin providing a number benefits in terms of water quality, biodiversity, amenity and flood risk. A condition is recommended for the submission of the detailed design of a permanent surface water drainage management scheme prior to commencement of any works to demonstrate that the plan fits within the site layout, manages surface water safely and does not increase flood risk downstream.

18/2589/MFUL page 114

In the absence of any objections from the Environment Agency or the Flood Risk Management Team, it is considered that the proposals comply with the provisions of policies EN21 (River and Coastal Flooding) and EN22 (Surface Run-Off Implications of New Development) of the Local Plan.

Planning Obligations

In order to secure the necessary planning obligations a Section 106 agreement is required to secure the following: • A financial contribution of £22,488 towards affordable housing. • Details of the transfer of the open space and car park to the Parish Council and/or management company. • Timescales for the delivery of the public open space and car park • Details of the management and maintenance arrangements for the public open space and car park.

CONCLUSION:

The Lympstone Nurseries site is allocated for 6 houses in the Lympstone Neighbourhood Plan and this application is a departure from the Local Plan and the LNP because part of it would be located outside of the built-up area boundary of the village on land to the south and west of the former nursery site and because the proposal is for 10 dwellings and not the 6 dwellings for which it has been allocated. This weighs against the proposal in principle.

In this case, whilst the proposal is finally balanced, its benefits have been carefully assessed against the harm that would arise from allowing the development to encroach into the countryside and the Green Wedge along with the impacts on heritage assets which include the grade II* listed church and the Conservation Area.

Having regard for the above and the fact that the site forms a very prominent open- space within the village which is an important space within the settlement and is very sensitive to change, it is considered that there are a number of material considerations which weigh in favour of the application which include the provision of the large area of public open space, the provision of church car parking, the footpath links to link into existing public rights of way which will improve permeability and connectivity of the site with parts of the village, coupled with the removal of the existing buildings which detract from the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area.

Concerns from Historic England about the encroachment of development into the rural space beyond the confines of the existing nursery which is an important element of the grade II* listed church’s setting have been carefully considered officers are satisfied that that they have been adequately addressed by amendments to the

18/2589/MFUL page 115

proposal and that the less than substantial harm to the setting of heritage assets has been clearly and convincingly justified (Para 194, NPPF) and that there are sufficient public benefits to outweigh the resulting harm caused by the encroachment of development into the rural setting of the church, which forms an important open green space within the conservation area (Para 196, NPPF).

Whilst finally balanced and recognising that the proposal is a departure from the Local Plan and the Neighbourhood Plan because part of it would fall outside of the BuAB of the village within the Green Wedge and would exceed the housing allocation within the LNP, it is considered that the benefits of the scheme and the provision of a comprehensive, high quality and well-designed redevelopment of the site on the former nursery buildings would outweigh the limited policy harm that would arise from the proposal. The application is strongly supported by the Parish Council and ward councillors who recognise that the public benefits that would arise from the removal of the unsightly nursery buildings and their replacement with a well-designed group of houses, together with the new public open space which will enhance the character and appearance of the village, outweighing the loss of some of its rural character.

Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval subject to a S106 agreement and conditions.

RECOMMENDATION

1. That the Habitat Regulations Appropriate Assessment attached to the Committee Report be adopted. 2. That the application be APPROVED subject to a S106 legal agreement and the following conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission and shall be carried out as approved. (Reason - To comply with section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed at the end of this decision notice. (Reason - For the avoidance of doubt.)

3. Notwithstanding the submitted details, no development above foundation level shall take place until the following details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

• Samples of materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the dwellings, garages and car ports • Roofing materials including product details, sample and method of fixing. • Size, type and manufacturers model of all roof lights, including method of flashing. • New rainwater goods including profiles, materials and finishes. • New window types and dormers including sections, mouldings, profiles And paint colour/finishes. Sections through casements, frames and glazing bars should be at a scale of 1:2 or 1:5.

18/2589/MFUL page 116

• New door types including sections, mouldings, profiles and paint colour/finishes. Sections through panels, frames and glazing bars should be at a scale of 1:2 or 1:5. • Eaves and verge details including construction and finishes. • External vents, flues and meter boxes. • New chimney stacks including materials, detailing and pots • Type of render including proportions of mix, method of application and colour/finishes. • Details including samples of any surfacing of the access, parking or hardstanding areas • Walls, fences and other means of enclosure or boundary treatment (colour and materials)

The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

(Reason - To ensure that the materials are considered at an early stage and are sympathetic to the character and appearance of the area, the Conservation Area and the setting of heritage assets) in accordance with Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness), EN9 (Development Affecting a Designated Heritage Asset) and E10 (Conservation Areas) of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

4. Prior to commencement of any part of the development, the Local Planning Authority shall have received and approved in writing a Construction Management Plan (CMP) to include the following:

(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; and (j) details of wheel washing facilities and obligations (k) Details of the amount and location of construction worker parking.

18/2589/MFUL page 117

(Reason: A pre-commencement condition is required to ensure that adequate facilities are available for construction and other traffic attracted to the site in accordance with Policy TC7 - Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

5. Notwithstanding the submitted details, no soft or hard landscaping of the site shall commence on site until the following information has been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

a) A full set of hard landscape details covering earthworks, walls, retaining structures, fencing, pavings and edgings, hard surfacing, site furniture and signage. b) Details of existing and proposed levels and drainage scheme incorporating appropriate SuDS features, maximising opportunities for rainwater collection, reuse, attenuation and filtration within the site. c) Details of locations, heights and specifications of proposed external lighting. d) Samples of proposed gravel finishes to paths and roads. e) A full set of soft landscape details including planting plans showing locations and number of new tree, shrub and herbaceous planting, type and extent of new grass areas, existing vegetation to be retained and removed and means of protection. f) Plant schedule indicating form size and density of planting. g) Specification for soil quality, cultivation, planting/ sowing, mulching and means of plant support and protection during establishment period. h) The method of access control to the open space i) Sections through the drainage basin and details of inlets and outlets

The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

(Reason: To ensure that the materials are considered at an early stage and are sympathetic to the character and appearance of the area, the Conservation Area and the setting of heritage assets) in accordance with Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness), EN9 (Development Affecting a Designated Heritage Asset) and E10 (Conservation Areas) of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

6. No development above foundation level shall take place until a landscaping scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; such a scheme to include the planting of trees, hedges, shrubs, herbaceous plants and areas to be grassed. The scheme shall also give details of any proposed walls, fences and other boundary treatment. The landscaping scheme shall be carried out in the first planting season after commencement of the development unless any alternative phasing of the landscaping is agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the landscaping shall be maintained for a period of 5 years. Any trees or other plants which die during this period shall be replaced during the next planting season with specimens of the same size and species unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Reason - To ensure that the details are planned and considered at an early stage in the interests of amenity and to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policies D1 - Design and Local

18/2589/MFUL page 118

Distinctiveness and D2 - Landscape Requirements of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

7. No construction of any building above foundation level shall commence until details of fencing, walling or any other hard or soft landscape boundary treatments have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any walls and/or fences shall be erected in accordance with the approved details within the curtilage of the dwelling house before it is first occupied. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), these walls and/or fences shall not thereafter be altered, removed or replaced without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. (Reason - In the interests of amenity and to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and Policy D2 (Landscape Requirements) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

8. A landscape management plan, including long term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscape areas other than privately owned domestic gardens, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to any development above foundation level. The proposals shall be carried out as approved for the full duration of the plan. (Reason - To ensure that the details are considered at an early stage in the interests of amenity and to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policies D1 - Design and Local Distinctiveness and D2 - Landscape Requirements of the Adopted New East Devon Local Plan 2013- 2031.)

9. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved (including and all preparatory work), the following tree protection measures as identified in the submitted Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) and Tree Protection Plan (TPP) prepared by Advanced Arboriculture (ref TH/A177/0918v2.0) dated 10th April 2019 will have been completed: a) The tree protection fencing shall be in place and in accordance with the agreed specification. b) The installed tree protection will have been inspected by an appropriately experience and qualified Arboricultural Consultant commissioned to act as the project Arboricultural Supervisor. c) The findings of the Arboricultural Supervisors initial site inspection shall be forwarded to Local planning Authority prior to the commencement of works on site.

During the development herby approved, the following tree protections measures identified in the above AMS and TPP will be undertaken: d) The AMS and TPP shall be strictly followed. e) Ad-hock six weekly site inspections shall be undertaken by a suitably qualified tree specialist and the finding recorded in the site monitoring log. f) Any departures from the approved TPP and AMS shall be reported to the Local Planning Authority in writing within five working days of the site inspection.

18/2589/MFUL page 119

On completion of the development hereby approved: g) A completed site monitoring log shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for approval and final discharge of the tree protection condition.

(Reason: To satisfy the Local Planning Authority that the trees to be retained will not be damaged during demolition or construction and to protect and enhance the appearance and character of the site and locality, in accordance with Policy D3 - Trees and Development Sites of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 and pursuant to section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990)

9. Prior to commencement of any works on site (including demolition and ground works); full details of all proposed tree planting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This will include planting and maintenance specifications, including cross-section drawings, use of guards or other protective measures and confirmation of location, species and sizes, nursery stock type, supplier and defect period. All tree planting shall be carried out in accordance with those details and at those times. Any trees that are found to be dead, dying, severely damaged or diseased within five years of the completion of the building works or five years of the carrying out of the landscaping scheme (whichever is later), shall be replaced in the next planting season by specimens of similar size and species in the first suitable planting season. (Reason: To comply with the duties indicated in Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to safeguard and enhance the amenity of the area, to maximise the quality and usability of open spaces within the development, and to enhance its setting within the immediate locality in accordance with Policies D1 - Design and Local Distinctiveness, D2 - Landscape Requirements, D3 - Tree and Development Sites of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031).

10. Notwithstanding the submitted details, no development shall take place until the developer has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation (WSI) which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out at all times in 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 Policy EN6 (Nationally and Locally Important Archaeological Sites) of the East Devon Local Plan and 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. This pre-commencement condition is required to ensure that the archaeological works are agreed and implemented prior to any disturbance of archaeological deposits by the commencement of preparatory and/or construction works).

11. Notwithstanding the submitted details, 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

18/2589/MFUL page 120

with the principles of sustainable drainage systems, and those set out in the Flood Risk & Drainage Strategy Technical Note 0743 dated 16th April 2019.

(Reason: To ensure that surface water runoff from the development is managed in accordance with the principles of sustainable drainage systems. Reason for being a pre-commencement condition: A detailed permanent surface water drainage management plan is required prior to commencement of any works to demonstrate that the plan fits within the site layout, manages surface water safely and does not increase flood risk downstream in accordance with the provisions of policy EN22 (Surface Runoff Implications of New Development) 2013-2031).

12. Prior to commencement of any development, a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) for the whole site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall be based on the proposed mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures contained within the Ecological Impact Assessment prepared by EPS Ecology Ltd received on the 12th November 2018. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details. (Reason: To ensure that the impacts of the development on ecology/ protected species and the landscape is suitably mitigated for and to comply with policies EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features), D2 (Landscape Requirements) and Strategy 46 (Landscape Conservation and Enhancement and AONBs) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031. The LEMP is required prior to commencement as some mitigation will be needed at the start of the development).

13. A Construction and Environment Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to any works commencing on site, and shall be implemented and remain in place throughout the development. The CEMP shall include at least the following matters: Air Quality, Dust, Water Quality, Lighting, Noise and Vibration, Pollution Prevention and Control, and Monitoring Arrangements. Construction working hours shall be 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 1pm on Saturdays, with no working on Sundays or Bank Holidays. There shall be no burning on site. There shall be no high frequency audible reversing alarms used on the site. (Reason: A pre-commencement condition is required to ensure that the details are agreed before the start of works to protect the amenities of existing and future residents in the vicinity of the site from noise, air, water and light pollution in accordance with Policies D1 - Design and Local Distinctiveness and EN14 - Control of Pollution of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

14. No development above foundation level shall take place until details of the layout of the vehicular and pedestrian access onto Church Road to include elevations, cross sections, materials and finishes have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details. (Reason - To ensure that the works to the accesses are sympathetic to the character and appearance of the area, the Conservation Area and the setting of heritage assets) in accordance with Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness), EN9 (Development Affecting a Designated Heritage Asset) and E10 (Conservation Areas) of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

18/2589/MFUL page 121

15. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re- enacting that Order with or without modification) no works within the Schedule 2 Part 1 Classes A, B, C, D or E for the enlargement, improvement or other alterations to the dwellings hereby permitted, other than works that do not materially affect the external appearance of the buildings or for the provision within the curtilages of the dwellinghouses hereby permitted of any building or enclosure, swimming or other pool required for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouses as such, shall be undertaken. (Reason: To ensure that extension and alterations cannot be made to the dwellings without planning permission in the interests of the character and appearance of the development, the Conservation Area and the setting of heritage assets) in accordance with Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness), EN9 (Development Affecting a Designated Heritage Asset) and E10 (Conservation Areas) of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

16. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re- enacting that Order with or without modification) no works within the Schedule 2, Part 2 of Class A for the erection, construction, maintenance or alteration of a gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure shall be undertaken. (Reason: If uncontrolled, boundary treatments other than those approved as part of a landscaping plan could adversely affect the character and appearance of the development, in the interests of the character and appearance of the area, the Conservation Area and the setting of heritage assets) in accordance with Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness), EN9 (Development Affecting a Designated Heritage Asset) and E10 (Conservation Areas) of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

17. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re- enacting that Order with or without modification) no works within the Schedule 2, Part 14 of Classes A and B for the installation of micro regeneration solar PV or solar thermal equipment on a dwellinghouse or standalone micro regeneration within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse shall be undertaken. (Reason: If uncontrolled, the installation of solar PV could adversely affect the character and appearance of the development, in the interests of the character and appearance of the area, the Conservation Area and the setting of heritage assets) in accordance with Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness), EN9 (Development Affecting a Designated Heritage Asset) and E10 (Conservation Areas) of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

18. Visibility splays shall be provided, laid out and maintained for that purpose at the site access in accordance with the attached diagram PHL-101 Rev C where the visibility splays provide intervisibility between any points on the X and Y axes at a height of 0.6 metres above the adjacent carriageway level and the distance back from the nearer edge of the carriageway of the public highway (identified as X) shall be 2.4 metres and the visibility distances along the nearer edge of the carriageway of the public highway (identified as Y) shall be 25.0 metres in a north westerly direction and 27.0 metres in the other direction.

18/2589/MFUL page 122

(Reason: To provide adequate visibility from and of emerging vehicles in the interests of highway safety in accordance with policy TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031).

19. 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 private lane in the interests of highway safety in accordance with policy TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031).

20. The proposed footpath from the car park to Church Road as shown on the drawing no 0208LYM PL1.2 Rev A shall be made available as soon as the church vehicle parking area has been completed. (Reason: To provide the parking amenity for churchgoers in the interests of highway safety in accordance with policy TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031).

Plans relating to this application:

EPS Ecology Ecological Assessment 12.11.18 Sept 2018

Location Plan 12.11.18

0208_LYM_PL_ Proposed Elevation 19.03.19 U7_3.4 REV A : UNIT 7 GARAGE (AMENDED)

0208_LYM_PL_ Proposed Elevation 15.03.19 U7_3.0 REV A : UNIT 7 (AMENDED)

0208_LYM_PL_ Proposed Elevation 15.03.19 U7_3.1 REV A : UNIT 7 (AMENDED)

0208_LYM_PL_ Proposed Elevation 15.03.19 U7_3.2 REV A : UNIT 7 (AMENDED)

0208_LYM_PL_ Proposed Elevation 15.03.19 U7_3.3 REV A : UNIT 7 (AMENDED)

18/2589/MFUL page 123

0208_LYM_PL_ Proposed Elevation 15.03.19 U8_3.0 REV A : UNIT 8 (AMENDED)

0208_LYM_PL_ Proposed Elevation 15.03.19 U8_3.1 REV A : UNIT 8 (AMENDED)

0208_LYM_PL_ Proposed Elevation 15.03.19 U8_3.2 REV A : UNIT 8 (AMENDED)

0208_LYM_PL_ Proposed Elevation 15.03.19 U8_3.3 REV A : UNIT 8 (AMENDED)

0208_LYM_PL_ Proposed Elevation 19.03.19 U8_3.4 REV A : GARAGE UNIT 8 (AMENDED)

0208_LYM_PL_ Proposed Floor Plans 15.03.19 U9_2.0 REV A : GROUND (UNIT 9) (AMENDED)

0208_LYM_PL_ Proposed Floor Plans 15.03.19 U9_2.1 REV A : FIRST (UNIT 9) (AMENDED)

0208_LYM_PL_ Proposed roof plans 15.03.19 U9_2.2 REV A : (UNIT 9) (AMENDED)

0208_LYM_PL_ Proposed Elevation 15.03.19 U9_3.0 REV A : UNIT 9 (AMENDED)

0208_LYM_SK_ Proposed Elevation 15.03.19 U9_3.1 REV A : UNIT 9 (AMENDED)

18/2589/MFUL page 124

0208_LYM_SK_ Proposed Elevation 15.03.19 U9_3.2 REV A : UNIT 9 (AMENDED)

0208_LYM_PL_ Proposed Elevation 15.03.19 U9_3.3 REV A : UNIT 9 (AMENDED)

0208_LYM_PL_ Proposed Elevation 19.03.19 U9_3.4 REV A : GARAGE UNIT 9 (AMENDED)

0208_LYM_PL_ Proposed Elevation 15.03.19 U10_3.2 REV A : UNIT 10 (AMENDED)

0208_LYM_PL_ Proposed Elevation 15.03.19 U10_3.3 REV A : UNIT 10 (AMENDED)

0208_LYM_PL_ Proposed Elevation 19.03.19 U10_3.4 REV A : GARAGE UNIT 10 (AMENDED)

+DRAINAGE Flood Risk Assessment 17.04.19 TECHNICAL NOTE (AMENDED)

(AMENDED) Transport Statement 17.04.19

0208_LYM_PL_ Proposed Floor Plans 15.03.19 U1/2_2.0 REV A : GROUND (UNIT 1+2( (AMENDED)

0208_LYM_PL_ Proposed Floor Plans 15.03.19 U1/2_2.1 REV A : FIRST (UNIT 1+2)(AMENDED)

0208_LYM_PL_ Proposed Floor Plans 15.03.19 U1/2_2.2 REV A

18/2589/MFUL page 125

: SECOND (UNIT 1+2)(AMENDED)

0208_LYM_PL_ Proposed roof plans 15.03.19 U1/2_2.3 REV A : UNIT 1+2 (AMENDED)

0208_LYM_PL_ Proposed Elevation 15.03.19 U1/2_3.1 REV A : UNIT 1+2 (AMENDED)

0208_LYM_SK_ Proposed Elevation 15.03.19 U2_3.2 : UNIT 2 (AMENDED)

0208_LYM_PL_ Proposed Elevation 15.03.19 U3_3.2 REV A : UNIT 3 (AMENDED)

0208_LYM_PL_ Proposed Elevation 19.03.19 U1/2_3.4 REV A : UNIT 1+2 GARAGE (ADDITIONAL)

0208_LYM_PL_ Proposed Elevation 15.03.19 U5_3.2 REV A : UNIT 5 (AMENDED)

0208_LYM_PL_ Proposed Elevation 15.03.19 U5_3.3 REV A : UNIT 5 (AMENDED)

0208_LYM_PL_ Proposed Elevation 15.03.19 U5_3.4 REV A : UNIT 5 (AMENDED)

0208_LYM_PL_ Proposed Floor Plans 15.03.19 U4_2.0 REV A : GROUND (UNIT 4) (AMENDED)

0208_LYM_PL_ Proposed Floor Plans 15.03.19 U4_2.1 REV A :

18/2589/MFUL page 126

FIRST (UNIT 4) (AMENDED)

0208_LYM_PL_ Proposed roof plans 15.03.19 U4_2.2 REV A : UNIT 4 (AMENDED)

0208_LYM_PL_ Proposed Elevation 15.03.19 U4_3.0 REV A : UNIT 4 (AMENDED)

0208_LYM_PL_ Proposed Elevation 15.03.19 U4_3.1 REV A : UNIT 4 (AMENDED)

0208_LYM_PL_ Proposed Elevation 15.03.19 U4_3.2 REV A : UNIT 4 (AMENDED)

ARBORICULTU TH/A177/0918v2.0 17.04.19 RAL REPORT

List of Background Papers Application file, consultations and policy documents referred to in the report.

18/2589/MFUL page 127

Appropriate Assessment

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, Section (63)

Application 18/2589/MFUL Reference

Brief description of Demolition of existing polytunnels/greenhouses and erection of 10 proposal dwellings, public open space and a car park for use by the church

Location Lympstone Nurseries, Church Road, Lympstone

Site is: Within 10km of Dawlish Warren SAC and the Exe Estuary SPA site

Within 10km of the Exe Estuary SPA site alone (UK9010081)

Within 10km of the East Devon Heaths SPA (UK9010121)

Within 10km of the East Devon Pebblebed Heaths SAC (UK0012602)

Within 10km of the Exe Estuary Ramsar (UK 542)

(See Appendix 1 for list of interest features of the SPA/SAC) Step 1 Screening for Likely Significant Effect on Lympstone Nurseries, Church Road, Lympstone

Risk Assessment Could the Qualifying Features of the Yes - additional housing within 10km of the SPA/SAC will increase European site be recreation impacts on the interest features. affected by the proposal?

Consider both construction and operational stages. Conclusion of Screening Is the proposal likely East Devon District Council concludes that there would be Likely to have a significant Significant Effects ‘alone’ and/or ‘in-combination’ on features associated effect, either ‘alone’ with the or ‘in combination’ on proposal a European site? at Lympstone Nurseries in the absence of mitigation.

See evidence documents on impact of development on SPA/SAC at: East Devon District Council - http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/369997/exe- overarching-report-9th-june-2014.pdf

An Appropriate Assessment of the plan or proposal is necessary.

Local Authority Date: Officer

18/2589/MFUL page 128

In-combination Effects Plans or projects with Additional housing or tourist accommodation within 10km of the SPA/SAC potential cumulative add to the existing issues of damage and disturbance arising from in-combination recreational use. impacts. How impacts of In –combination plans/projects include around 29,000 new dwellings current proposal allocated around the estuary in Teignbridge, Exeter and East Devon combine with other Local Plans. plans or projects This many houses equates to around 65,000 additional people individually or contributing to recreational impacts. severally. Mitigation of in- The Joint Approach sets out a mechanism by which developers can make combination effects. a standard contribution to mitigation measures delivered by the South East Devon Habitat Regulations Partnership.

Residential development is also liable for CIL and a proportion of CIL income is spent on Habitats Regulations Infrastructure. A Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANGS) has been delivered at Dawlish and a second is planned at South West Exeter to attract recreational use away from the Exe Estuary and Dawlish Warren.

Assessment of Impacts with Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures Joint approach standard mitigation contribution required included in the • Residential units £201.61 x 10 (the additional number of units)= proposal. • £2061.10

Are the proposed Yes - the Joint Approach contribution offered is considered to be sufficient. mitigation measures sufficient to overcome the likely significant effects? Conclusion List of mitigation measures and Total Joint Approach contribution of £2061.10 here has been secured by safeguards Unilateral Undertaking

The Integrity Test Adverse impacts on features necessary to maintain the integrity of the Lympstone Nurseries, Lympstone, can be ruled out.

Conclusion of East Devon District Council concludes that there would be NO adverse Appropriate effect on integrity of Dawlish Warren SAC, Exe Estuary SPA or Assessment Pebblebed Heaths SPA/SAC or Exe Estuary Ramsar sites provided the mitigation measures are secured as above.

Local Authority Officer Date:

21 day consultation to be sent to Natural England Hub on completion of this form.

18/2589/MFUL page 129 Agenda Item 9

Ward Woodbury And Lympstone

Reference 19/0208/FUL

Applicant Ms Miles

Location Land Adjacent To Melford Rise Toby Lane Woodbury Salterton

Proposal Retention of agricultural barn

RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions

Crown Copyright and database rights 2019 Ordnance Survey 100023746

page 130

Committee Date: 30th April 2019

Woodbury And Target Date: Lympstone 19/0208/FUL 29.03.2019 (WOODBURY)

Applicant: Ms Miles

Location: Land Adjacent To Melford Rise Toby Lane

Proposal: Retention of agricultural barn

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE with conditions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This application is before Members as the officer recommendation is contrary to the view of the Ward Members.

Planning permission is sought for the retention of an agricultural barn on the site of a former agricultural building. The new barn has been constructed using the original concrete base and block work plinth of the previous building with new timber clad walls above. The pitched roof of the building has a profiled metal roof over a wooden frame.

The application site is located within the open countryside on land that was formerly occupied as a snail farm. The other structures that were associated with the previous use have been removed with only the new building now on site. The site is enclosed by high hedging and a gated access to the site extends from Toby Lane.

Supporting information suggests that the site forms part of a 1.9ha holding, with the building being used for the storage of hay cut from the land and associated machinery. The building would also be used in association with the keeping of horses on the land.

Some doubt has been raised regarding the permanence of the structure that was previously on the site, and that insufficient justification has been provided to warrant retention of the new building. Concern has also been expressed regarding the future intended use of the building.

Whilst these concerns are appreciated, and the specification of the new building is somewhat excessive for the use proposed, justification for the need for a building has been submitted; there is no visual harm from the building and its

19/0208/FUL page 131

occupation can be controlled by condition to ensure that its use remains agricultural.

Given that the applicant has provided an agricultural justification for the building, and given the lack of any other harm, the proposal is considered to be acceptable and in accordance with Local Plan Policy D7.

CONSULTATIONS

Local Consultations

Parish/Town Council NOT SUPPORTED. No agricultural justification or supporting statement. Outside of the local plan. WPC do not consider the previous poly tunnel to have been a permanent structure.

Woodbury & Lympstone - Cllr B Ingham I recommend this application is rejected because it does not include a justified agricultural use. Livery or a livery store is not good enough.

Woodbury & Lympstone - Cllr R Longhurst This must have slipped past me - I object on the same grounds as Cllr Ingham.

Technical Consultations

Environmental Health I have considered the application and do not anticipate any environmental health concerns.

Other Representations

None received

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

Planning permission was refused in the 1990’s for the siting of a mobile home and construction of a dwelling in conjunction with a snail farming enterprise on the site.

The building that previously occupied the site was granted permission in 1993 as part of the snail farming use of the land

POLICIES

Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 Policies

Strategy 7 (Development in the Countryside)

D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) D7 (Agricultural Buildings and Development)

19/0208/FUL page 132

EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) EN14 (Control of Pollution)

Government Planning Documents

NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework 2019) National Planning Practice Guidance

Site Location and Description

The application site is located on the southern side of Toby Lane and accessed from a long driveway. The land on which the building is sited is within the open countryside and enclosed by established trees and planting.

Proposed Development

Planning permission is sought for the retention of a new agricultural building on the site of a former building which was used in conjunction with the neighbouring land as part of a snail farming enterprise.

The building has been sited on the concrete base of the former snail house, with the walls using the blockwork plinth base with new timber cladded walls above. The pitched roof of the building is finished in profiled metal sheeting.

ANALYSIS

Consideration and Assessment

The main issues are considered to be the principle and justification for the proposed building; and any impact on the character and appearance of the area, on residential or other amenity, or highway issues.

Principle

The site is located within the open countryside where under the provisions of Strategy 7 (Development in the Countryside) of the East Devon Local Plan, development is strictly controlled. Strategy 7 states that development in the countryside will only be permitted where it is in accordance with a specific Local or Neighbourhood Plan policy that explicitly permits such development and where it would not harm the distinctive landscape, amenity and environmental qualities within which it is located.

Policy D7 (Agricultural Buildings and Development) of the Local Plan supports new agricultural buildings where there is a genuine agricultural need, it is well integrated and of a suitable design, will not be detrimental to amenity, there are no other suitable buildings on the holding, it will not lead to unacceptable levels of traffic and there is no mixing of surface and foul sewers.

Subject to meeting the criteria to Policy D7, the principle of an agricultural building in this location is considered to be acceptable.

19/0208/FUL page 133

Justification/Need

Information submitted with the application suggests that the building would be used in conjunction with the applicant’s use of the surrounding land for the keeping of horses. In this respect the barn would be used for the storage of hay and feedstuffs, and the storage of machinery and tack. As the keeping of horses is not agriculture, this in itself would not meet the requirement of Policy D7, although on appeal it is likely that an Inspector would give some weight to the need for a store in association with the use of the land for the keeping of horses.

The applicant’s agent has subsequently submitted additional information stating that the applicant owns 1.9ha of agricultural holding which was previously used in conjunction with the snail business that operated from the site. Since this enterprise ceased it is understood that the land is used for the production of hay which is cropped twice a year and then sold on. The barn is used for the storage of hay and farm equipment including tractor and hay cutter associated with the business.

There are no other buildings associated with the holding, as the other structures on the site that were associated with the snail farm have been removed.

From the information provided a suitable justification has been put forward to justify the need for a storage building in association with the production of hay (an agricultural use) and for the keeping of feed and equipment for the horses.

Character and Appearance of Area

The barn is not visible from any public vantage points, it is well screened by existing planting and would not cause any harm to the character and appearance of the area.

The site is not subject to any specific landscape or other designations.

Amenity

The building will be used to store hay and machinery, and it is not anticipated that its use would have any unreasonable or unacceptable impact on the amenity presently enjoyed by the occupiers of nearby properties.

Highway Safety

The building would be accessed via an existing farm access from Toby Lane. The site plan indicates that there is sufficient space to allow vehicles to turn and exit the site in a forward gear. No concerns have been raised by the County Highway Authority and it is considered that the proposal complies with policy TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) of the Local Plan.

Other Issues

Some concern has been raised regarding the quality of the construction of the building and the fact that the build specification of the building far exceeds that required for an

19/0208/FUL page 134

agricultural building. This has led to some speculation regarding the future intentioned occupation and the possibility of the building being used for residential or other purposes. Whilst the construction is somewhat over specification for a normal agricultural building, its use and occupancy can, and in this instance should, be restricted by appropriate conditions.

There will be no foul drainage required in association with the building and its uses.

CONCLUSION

The proposal is considered to comply with Policy D7 of the Local Plan as an agricultural need for the building has been provided, the building is well integrated and does not have a harmful visual impact, it will not be detrimental to residential amenity, there are no other suitable buildings on the site and the local highway network can copy with traffic associated with the building.

In addition, concerns regard the future use of the building can be controlled through condition and further planning applications.

Having regard for the above observations the proposal is considered to be acceptable and the application is therefore recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE subject to the following conditions

1. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed at the end of this decision notice. (Reason - For the avoidance of doubt.)

2. The building hereby approved shall be used for the purposes of agriculture or purposes incidental to such a use and shall not be used for any residential, commercial or other business purpose. (Reason: To define the permission and in the interests of conserving the character and appearance of the countryside in accordance with Strategy 7 (Development in the Countryside) and D7 (Agricultural Buildings and Development) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

NOTE FOR APPLICANT

Informative: In accordance with the aims of Article 35 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 East Devon District Council works proactively with applicants to resolve all relevant planning concerns; however, in this case the application was deemed acceptable as submitted.

Plans relating to this application:

A.03 Proposed roof plans 01.02.19

19/0208/FUL page 135

T.01 Location Plan 30.01.19

Su.01 Approved Other Plans 30.01.19 Building

A.01 Block Plan 30.01.19

A.02 Proposed Combined 30.01.19 Plans

List of Background Papers Application file, consultations and policy documents referred to in the report.

19/0208/FUL page 136 Agenda Item 10

Ward Raleigh

Reference 19/0034/COU & 19/0035/COU

Applicant F W S Carter & Son

Location Compound East 6 and Land Adj Compound East 6 (Land At Hogsbrook Farm) Greendale Business Park Woodbury Salterton Proposal Retrospective change of use to B8 class use (storage and distribution)

RECOMMENDATION: Approval retrospective (conditions)

Crown Copyright and database rights 2019 Ordnance Survey 100023746

19/0034/COU

Crown Copyright and database rights 2019 Ordnance Survey 100023746

page 137 19/0035/COU

Committee Date: 30th April 2019

Raleigh Target Date: (WOODBURY) 19/0034/COU 15.03.2019

Applicant: F W S Carter & Son

Location: Compound East 6 Land At Hogsbrook Farm

Proposal: Retrospective change of use to B8 class use (storage and distribution)

RECOMMENDATION: Retrospective Approval (conditions)

Committee Date: 30th April 2019

Raleigh Target Date: (WOODBURY) 19/0035/COU 15.03.2019

Applicant: F W S Carter & Son

Location: Land Adj Compound East 6 (Land At Hogsbrook Farm)

Proposal: Retrospective change of use to B8 class use (storage and distribution)

RECOMMENDATION: Retrospective Approval (conditions)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

These applications are before Members because the officer recommendations differ from the view of the Ward Member.

The two applications are considered together as they raise almost identical issues, are for identical proposals, and physically adjoin each other.

Both applications relate to an area of land which is part of Hogsbrook Farm, adjacent to the Greendale Business Park. The land is currently used for B8 purposes, and is bounded by a fence, with a hedge adjacent to the fence on the western boundary of the sites. Access to the site is via a private road leading off a C Class road to the north of the site. The land in question is not within any

19/0034/COU & 19/0035/COU page 138

special designations. Despite the current use of the land, it lies outside the authorised boundary of Greendale Business Park (which includes part of the Hogsbrook Farm site), as defined in the East Devon Villages Plan.

Retrospective planning permissions are sought to change the use of the land to a B8 use.

In terms of the principle of the proposal, the application site lies within the open countryside, where development would not normally be permitted. Therefore, the proposals represent departures from the Local Plan and do not benefit from any local plan policy support.

There are however considered to be a number of other material considerations that weigh heavily in favour of the proposals and that justify the grant of planning permissions despite the lack of planning policy support.

These material considerations include the fact that one of the sites benefits from consent for its hardstanding and fencing; the economic benefits from retaining the businesses and jobs on the sites; the location of the sites between two areas already in employment use; amount of time that the sites have been in employment use; the sites being the most logical area for the extension of Greendale given that it is almost at capacity; and the limited visual impact from the proposals.

In light of these material considerations, given the lack of any technical objections to the applications, and subject to conditions to control the height of any storage on the site, noise, lighting and deliveries, it is considered that, on balance, both proposals are acceptable. Therefore, it is recommended that both applications are approved.

CONSULTATIONS

19/0034/COU:

Local Consultations

Parish/Town Council NOT SUPPORTED. This land is designated agricultural land, outside of the permitted development area and should not have B8 use development.

Raleigh - Cllr G Jung I have viewed the documents for 19/0034/COU for retrospective change of use to B8 class use (storage and distribution) at Compound East 6 Land at Hogsbrook Farm Greendale Business Park Woodbury Salterton I cannot support this planning application as it is outside the current approved employment area at and around Greendale Business Park which is in the EDDC Village Plan document. However, I reserve my final views on this application until I am in full possession of all the relevant arguments for and against.

19/0034/COU & 19/0035/COU page 139

Further comments: Thank you for sending me the draft copies for the 2 planning applications at Hogsbrook Farm

I have read the report for both 19/0034/COU and 19/0035/COU

As both applications do not comply to the our approved Local Plan and the Villages Plan Policies I am afraid I still consider that these applications should not be supported by the planning authority.

However I reserve my final views on these applications until I am in full possession of all the relevant arguments for and against.

Technical Consultations

Environmental Health I have considered this retrospective application and recommend the following conditions are attached to any permission granted: No high frequency audible reversing alarms shall be permitted on any site vehicle or vehicle based at the site (white noise alarms are permitted). (Reason - To protect the amenities of local residents from high frequency alarm noise which is audible over considerable distances in accordance with Policy EN14 (Control of Pollution) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

The site shall only be used for storage and no machinery shall be operated, no processes carried out and no deliveries accepted or dispatched except between the hours of 07:00 and 18:00 Monday to Friday and 07:00 and 13:30 on Saturdays. No operations shall be carried out on Sundays and Bank Holidays. (Reason - To protect the amenities of local residents from noise in accordance with Policy EN14 (Control of Pollution) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

No lighting on site (other than emergency lighting) shall be operated between the hours of 1800hrs and 0700hrs Monday to Saturday morning and 1300hrs on Saturdays to 0700hrs on Monday mornings and no operation on bank holidays. (Reason - In the interests of the character and appearance of the area and to minimise light pollution in accordance with policy EN14 (Control of Pollution) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

County Highway Authority The access road to this site is private.

The nearest HMPE roads are the C56 and the L623. Neither roads have road collisions recorded at the junction upon this private road since the change of use to B8. I do not believe the change of use will have an adverse effect on traffic capacity or highway parking in the vicinity and therefore have no objection to this application.

Recommendation:

19/0034/COU & 19/0035/COU page 140

THE HEAD OF PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENT, ON BEHALF OF DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL, AS LOCAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY, HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

Economic Development Manager We have reviewed the submitted documents and the positive employment (supporting 21 jobs) and local economic outcomes of permission in this instance are clear.

We note the lack of available secure storage compound provision in East Devon and the lack of Highways objection. There is a clear economic justification for confirming this open storage use, active since 2006 and in such proximity to the existing employment sites.

As a district, we continue to see housing development outstrip the supply of new jobs creating an increasingly unsustainable imbalance which the current scheme will play some part in addressing. We must concur with the advice of the Property Consultant that the requirement for such open storage greatly exceeds supply and this is adversely impacting the ability of local businesses to grow.

Other Representations Five letters of objection have been received, in which the following concerns are raised:

- The site is outside the designated boundary of Greendale. - The site can be seen from the public domain. - The use of the site is unauthorised. - The proposal does not comply with the local plan.

19/0035/COU:

CONSULTATIONS

Local Consultations

Parish/Town Council NOT SUPPORTED. This land is designated agricultural land, outside of the permitted development area and should not have B8 use development.

Raleigh - Cllr G Jung I have viewed the documents for 19/0035/COU for Retrospective change of use to B8 class use (storage and distribution) | Land Adj Compound East 6 (Land at Hogsbrook Farm) Greendale Business Park Woodbury Salterton I cannot support this planning application as it is outside the current approved employment area at and around Greendale Business Park which is in the EDDC Village Plan document. However, I reserve my final views on this application until I am in full possession of all the relevant arguments for and against.

Further comments: Thank you for sending me the draft copies for the 2 planning applications at Hogsbrook Farm

19/0034/COU & 19/0035/COU page 141

I have read the report for both 19/0034/COU and 19/0035/COU

However I reserve my final views on these applications until I am in full possession of all the relevant arguments for and against.

Technical Consultations

Economic Development Manager As with 19/0034/COU - We have reviewed the submitted documents and the positive employment and local economic outcomes of permission in this instance are clear. The PCL Design & Access Statement holds that B8 use of the site directly supports 17 jobs and will help deliver a further 156.

19/0034/COU & 19/0035/COU page 142

that the requirement for such open storage greatly exceeds supply and this is adversely impacting the ability of local businesses to grow.

Other Representations Five letters of objection have been received, in which the following concerns are raised:

- The site is outside the designated boundary of Greendale. - The site can be seen from the public domain. - The use of the site is unauthorised. - The proposal does not comply with the local plan.

PLANNING HISTORY

Reference Description Decision Date

13/2183/FUL Retrospective application for Withdrawn 17.02.2014 the retention of the use of land for the siting of 5no residential caravans to serve existing business.

18/2661/COU Retrospective change of use to Withdrawn 08.01.2019 B8 class use (storage and distribution)

17/2441/CPE Certificate of lawfulness for CPE 17.01.2018 existing use of land for open Refused storage

17/2350/VAR Variation/removal of condition 1 Approved 25.09.2018 of approval granted under reference 09/0099/FUL to remove reference to the use of fruit growing

18/2660/COU Retrospective application for Withdrawn 08.01.2019 the change of use of land at Compound East 6, Greendale Business Park to B8 Use

POLICIES

Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 Policies Strategy 1 (Spatial Strategy for Development in East Devon)

19/0034/COU & 19/0035/COU page 143

Strategy 7 (Development in the Countryside)

D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness)

D2 (Landscape Requirements)

D3 (Trees and Development Sites)

EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features)

EN6 (Nationally and Locally Important Archaeological Sites)

EN14 (Control of Pollution)

EN16 (Contaminated Land)

EN22 (Surface Run-Off Implications of New Development)

E7 (Extensions to Existing Employment Sites)

TC2 (Accessibility of New Development)

TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access)

TC9 (Parking Provision in New Development)

East Devon Villages Plan 2018

Government Planning Documents NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework 2019) NPPG (National Planning Practice Guidance)

Site Location and Description

The two applications relate to two adjoining areas of land which are part of Hogsbrook Farm, adjacent to the Greendale Business Park. The land is currently used for B8 purposes, and is hard surfaced, bounded by fencing, with a hedge adjacent to the fence on the western boundary of the sites. The sites slope slightly down from south to north.

Access to the site is via a private road leading off a C-Class road to the north of the site. The land in question is not fall within any special landscape or other designations. Despite the current use of the land, it lies outside the boundary of Greendale Business Park (which includes part of the Hogsbrook Farm site), as defined in the East Devon Villages Plan.

Proposed Development

19/0034/COU & 19/0035/COU page 144

Retrospective planning permission is sought to change the use of both sections of land to a B8 open storage use.

The sites have been used unlawfully for a number of years for a range of storage and distribution uses following work in the late 2000’s when the sites were used as a compound under permitted development rights by a utility provider installing a gas pipeline across the district.

The western most site (Compound East 6) site also benefits from consent in 2009 for the retention of existing hardstanding and fencing and use for fruit growing. The application in 2017 (17/2350/VAR) in effect clarified that the hardsurfacing and fencing on the site are lawful even though the fruit growing enterprise never commenced.

ANALYSIS

In assessing these applications, it is considered that the main issues are the principle of development; the impact on the character and appearance of the area; on highway safety and residential amenity.

Principle of Development

Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Council formally adopted the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 on 28 January 2016, and the policies adopted therein are the ones on which this application is determined.

Strategy 7 (Development in the Countryside) defines as all those parts of the plan area that are outside the built-up area boundaries, and outside of site specific allocations shown on the Proposals Map. It states that development in the countryside will only be permitted where it is in accordance with a specific Local or Neighbourhood Plan policy that explicitly permits such development, and where it would not harm the distinctive landscape, amenity and environmental qualities within which it is located.

The application site is not located within in any built-up area boundary and is not specifically allocated for development on the Proposals Map. There are no other specific Local Plan policies which permit development such as that proposed, and there is no Neighbourhood Plan covering this part of the District.

There are no policies in the adopted Local Plan that support the proposal. Policy E5 (Small Scale Economic Development in Rural Areas) permits small scale economic development in rural areas where this would involve the conversion of existing buildings on previously developed land, or where well related in scale and form and in sustainability terms to the village and surrounding areas. This policy is not applicable to a large scale industrial area such as Greendale Business Park and, in any case, it is considered that Greendale, and the proposals in question, are not small scale.

Policy E7 (Extensions to Existing Employment Sites) permits the proportionate expansion of business or employment sites which are located outside of built up areas. However, it specifically states that the policy "will not apply at Hill Barton and

19/0034/COU & 19/0035/COU page 145

Greendale Business Parks". The site is considered to form part of the Greendale Business Park.

In light of the above, the sites lie within the open countryside, and are not supported by a specific local plan policy. As such the proposals are contrary to Strategy 7 of the local plan and represents a departure from local plan policy.

In addition to the above, the East Devon Villages Plan defines the extent of the authorised business park at Greendale. The application sites being clearly outside of the authorised business park area and there are no specific policies for Greendale Business Park within the Villages Plan.

Notwithstanding the lack of planning policy support for the proposal, there needs to be a consideration of whether there are any other material considerations that may support the development.

The material considerations are considered to be the following in this instance:

• The fact that the hardsurfacing and fencing on Compound East 6 is lawful. As such the proposal already has the visual appearance of having been developed and forming part of the adjoining business park; • The economic benefits from allowing the proposal to proceed as detailed by the Economic Development Manager and involving a number of companies and some 38 employees; • The location of the site between Greendale and Hogsbrook meaning that its countryside value is diminished; • That the sites have been is use for almost 10 years and as such it could be difficult to justify to a Planning Inspector (or in court if enforcement action were taken) that the harm is great enough to refuse and that after all of this time the site should not be used and returned to agriculture; • Greendale being at capacity (vacant space being only 0.25% of the total) with the site being the most logical, and least harmful way in which further development can be accommodated; • Limited views of the sites from the public highway.

These material considerations are considered to be of sufficient weight and benefit to enable the applications to be supported despite the lack of local plan policy support for either proposal.

The impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

The proposals are retrospective and, therefore, the impact it would have on the area is already present.

The sites are adjoined to north and south by existing development, and screened by a hedge to the west. Therefore, the main view of the site is from the east. However, public vantages of the site from this direction are limited, long distance and are of the site in the context of the employment development to its north and south. Therefore, given the site context, it is considered that the visual impact from either site is limited.

19/0034/COU & 19/0035/COU page 146

This assessment is supported by the Landscape Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) submitted with the application, which demonstrates that views of the site are limited from public vantage points.

Although, clearly, the proposal would result in an increase in the developed area, given how this is read in conjunction with the surrounding development, with public views of the site generally being limited to long distance views, it is considered that the visual impact of the proposal is minimal, particularly if the height of open storage on the site is restricted by condition.

Highways Impact.

The proposal would not result in any changes to the access to the Hogsbrook Farm part of the Greendale Industrial Estate. Given this, and as the County Highway Authority (CHA) has not objected to the proposal, it is considered that the application is acceptable from this perspective.

Residential Amenity.

The application site is not located close to any residential properties. Given that, and the nature of the proposal, it is considered that the application is acceptable from this perspective.

The Council's Environmental Health Department has considered the proposal, and has not raised any objections. Instead, it has recommended some conditions which should be imposed in the event that this application is approved. These conditions are considered to be reasonable and will control noise, lighting and delivery times.

CONCLUSION

Both application sites lies within the open countryside, where development would not normally be permitted. Therefore, the proposals represent departures from the Local Plan and do not benefit from any local plan policy support.

There are however considered to be a number of other material planning considerations that weigh heavily in favour of the proposal and that justify a grant of planning permission despite the lack of planning policy support.

These material considerations include the fact that one of the sites benefits from consent for its hardstanding and fencing; the economic benefits from retaining the businesses and jobs on the site; the location of the sites between two areas already in employment use; amount of time that the sites have been in employment use; the sites being the most logical area for the extension of Greendale given that it is almost at capacity; and the limited visual impact from the proposals.

19/0034/COU & 19/0035/COU page 147

RECOMMENDATION 1 - 19/0034/COU:

APPROVE subject to the following conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed at the end of this decision notice. (Reason - For the avoidance of doubt.)

2. No high frequency audible reversing alarms shall be permitted on any site vehicle or vehicle based at the site (white noise alarms are permitted). (Reason - To protect the amenities of local residents from high frequency alarm noise which is audible over considerable distances in accordance with Policy EN14 (Control of Pollution) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

3. The site shall only be used for storage and no machinery shall be operated, no processes carried out and no deliveries accepted or dispatched except between the hours of 07:00 and 18:00 Monday to Friday and 07:00 and 13:30 on Saturdays. No operations shall be carried out on Sundays and Bank Holidays. (Reason - To protect the amenities of local residents from noise in accordance with Policy EN14 (Control of Pollution) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

4. No lighting on site (other than emergency lighting) shall be operated between the hours of 1800hrs and 0700hrs Monday to Saturday morning and 1300hrs on Saturdays to 0700hrs on Monday mornings and no operation on bank holidays. (Reason - In the interests of the character and appearance of the area and to minimise light pollution in accordance with policy EN14 (Control of Pollution) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

5. No external storage on the site shall exceed a height of 4m from existing ground level. (Reason: In the interest of the visual amenity of the area in accordance with Strategy 7 (Development in the Countryside) and Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the East Devon local Plan.

NOTE FOR APPLICANT

Plans relating to this application:

7877-LP1 REV B Location Plan 08.01.19

7877-01 REV A Proposed Site Plan 08.01.19

19/0034/COU & 19/0035/COU page 148

RECOMMENDATION 2 - (19/0035/COU):

APPROVE subject to the following conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed at the end of this decision notice. (Reason - For the avoidance of doubt.)

NOTE FOR APPLICANT

Plans relating to this application:

7877-LP2 REV B Location Plan 08.01.19

7877-02 REV A Proposed Site Plan 08.01.19

19/0034/COU & 19/0035/COU page 149

List of Background Papers Application file, consultations and policy documents referred to in the report.

19/0034/COU & 19/0035/COU page 150 Agenda Item 11

Ward Budleigh Salterton

Reference 18/1464/FUL

Applicant Mr Leigh Rix

Location The Pound Lower Budleigh East Budleigh

Proposal Demolition of existing barn and construction of a single dwelling

RECOMMENDATION: 1. That the Habitat Regulations Appropriate Assessment attached to this Committee Report be adopted; 2. That the application be APPROVED subject to conditions.

Crown Copyright and database rights 2019 Ordnance Survey 100023746

page 151

Committee Date: 30th April 2019

Budleigh Salterton Target Date: (EAST BUDLEIGH) 18/1464/FUL 17.08.2018

Applicant: Mr Leigh Rix

Location: The Pound Lower Budleigh

Proposal: Demolition of existing barn and construction of a single dwelling

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That the Habitat Regulations Appropriate Assessment attached to this Committee Report be adopted;

2. That the application be APPROVED subject to conditions.

ADDENDUM REPORT

The application was considered by Members at the 12th February 2019 Committee (see attached report) where it was deferred to seek further written comments from Natural England to assess the impact on protected species. Members considered that it would be appropriate to seek the views of Natural England on the following:

1. Whether the proposed ecological mitigation is acceptable to natural England (particularly given the rarity of the bats involved); and 2. Whether it is necessary and appropriate to seek evidence of the re-location of the bats before the demolition of the existing building.

The application is before Members again to be assessed in light of the receipt of further comments from Natural England.

Since the 12th February Committee further comments have been received from Ward Member Cllr Dent stating the following:

‘I note that Natural England now support the application provided that the bat barn is constructed and occupied prior to the demolition of the existing barn. Natural England also note the applicant has submitted a lighting plan indicating that the maximum light spill would be marginally under the required level of 1lux which comes in at .92 lux.

I remain concerned that this lighting mitigation is very close to the limit and despite the fact that the application has received no objections from the LPA Tree Officer or County Highways and is considered to be in accordance with

18/1464/FUL page 152

National, Local and Neighbourhood Plan Policies, i still feel uncomfortable that this is only a draft report.

Having witnessed first hand the strong concerns and objections of local residents I remain unable to support the officer recommendation to approve.’

In response to the deferral of the application and questions above, Natural England have provided the further comments on the 28th March 2019:

‘Thank you for contacting Natural England regarding planning application 18/1464/FUL Demolition of existing barn and construction of a single dwelling. The Pound, Lower Budleigh, East Budleigh.

East Devon District Council are seeking the views of Natural England on the suitability of the mitigation to be provided and whether or not there should be evidence of the re-location of the bats before the demolition of the existing building.

In your attached letter you have highlighted that Natural England raised ‘no objection subject to securing mitigation’, which you believe referred to ‘the provision of a substantial ‘bat barn’ that has been bespoke designed to be suitable for the bat species previously identified during the appropriate survey that use the site and surrounding area’. I have attached a copy of our response above for information. Natural England’s comment clearly refers to impacts upon the East Devon Pebblebed Heaths SAC, East Devon Heaths SPA and Exe Estuary SPA (see heading ‘Designated Sites – No Objection Subject to Securing Mitigation’).

Our previous response states that ‘Natural England has produced standing advice to help planning authorities understand the impact of particular developments on protected species. We advise you to refer to this advice. Natural England will only provide bespoke advice on protected species where they form part of a SSSI or in exceptional circumstances’. This is because, as you are aware, in determining a planning application, it is the responsibility of the Local Planning Authority, to ensure that protected species issues are fully considered and that ecological surveys have been carried out where appropriate. Due to the level of local interest in this planning application, we have exceptionally decided to provide some additional comments (in relation to bats) to assist you with your assessment. Normally we would refrain from further comment at this stage so as not to prejudice the consideration of a bat licence by our wildlife licensing colleagues.

Having considered the ecological reports and independent assessment, and taking into account the mitigation proposed and secured by conditions as described, we concur with your opinion that the development is licensable. With the proven presence of light averse bat species, it is important that the proposed bat mitigation and habitat features are not lit. The lighting plan and landscape scheme to be conditioned, should be designed to achieve this.

We concur that the bat house must be available for bat occupation prior to demolition. Had this been a significant maternity or hibernation roost then we may have considered it necessary for evidence of relocation of bats before demolition,

18/1464/FUL page 153

but unless otherwise required through the licensing process, we are satisfied that the protected species aspect of this application has been dealt with satisfactorily.’

The comments from Natural England confirm that the proposed mitigation is acceptable, that the proposal as submitted is likely to be granted a bat licence by Natural England for the works, and that it is only necessary to secure provision of the bat house prior to demolition.

On the basis that Natural England have confirmed the approach outlined in the original report, the application is again recommended for approval as detailed in the attached report to Members.

18/1464/FUL page 154

ORIGINAL REPORT

Committee Date: 12th February 2019

Budleigh Salterton Target Date: (EAST BUDLEIGH) 18/1464/FUL 17.08.2018

Applicant: Mr Leigh Rix

Location: The Pound Lower Budleigh

Proposal: Demolition of existing barn and construction of a single dwelling

RECOMMENDATION: 1. That the Habitat Regulations Appropriate Assessment within the Committee Report be adopted; and 2. That the application be APPROVED with conditions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This application is before committee as the recommendation from the planning officer differs from that of the Ward Members.

Policies from both the East Devon Local Plan 2013 – 2031 and the East Budleigh with Bicton Neighbourhood Plan have been assessed.

Residential Development is considered acceptable in principle within Built-up Area Boundaries subject to policy within the Local Plan and Neighbourhood Plan.

The application is a revised submission of 17/2282/FUL that was withdrawn. The current application seeks to address previous concerns over the developments impact to local wildlife and upon the amenity of the adjoining property of Pound House. The application has altered the footprint of the build to ensure sufficient relief from the adjoining property is provided. The overall ridge height has been reduced to no higher than the existing barn. Therefore, from an amenity point of view, the proposal is considered acceptable.

The site is considered to be sufficiently screened by the existing boundary treatment which consists of fencing and mature vegetation. Due to the sites levels the dwelling would be cut into the site. This in addition to the scale, form and bulk of the build, to a similar level to that of the existing barn, results in a visual impact that is considered to be minimal. The proposed materials consist of local stone, timber cladding and natural slate, all considered acceptable to the sites rural

18/1464/FUL page 155

setting. Access to the site is provided by a track over a listed green space within the recently adopted East Budleigh Neighbourhood Plan. This small green space already has an informal track that is used to access the barn, albeit infrequently. It is considered that the installation of a no-dig access road over existing compacted earth track would not significantly alter the green spaces character or impact upon its use by the general public. Furthermore, it was made clear during the drafting of the East Budleigh and Bicton Neighbourhood Plan that Clinton Devon Estates, who own the land, would continue to have a vehicular right of access over the land. Therefore, overall, there are minimal concerns with regards to the developments visual intrusiveness.

Many third party objectors and local Ward Members have expressed concerns over the developments potential impact upon local wildlife, most notably bats that currently use the existing barn as a roost. The submitted Ecology Report and Mitigation Plan has been reviewed by an independent Ecologist employed by the Council who concluded that the proposed mitigation measures were adequate and in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework. However it was emphasized that the proposed bat barn should be constructed prior to the demolition of the existing barn to allow for the bats to migrate. Any permission granted shall be conditioned so that the barn is in place and readily available to be used as a roost. Additionally the independent ecologist’s comments raised concerns over potential light spill from the dwelling onto the bat barn, and that any light spill should be kept below 1 lux. A lux plan was completed and submitted to the planning authority showing maximum light spill of 0.92 lux. The survey methods and proposed mitigation is also considered to be in compliance with Natural England’s Standing Advice and Policy within the East Devon Local Plan. A license for the works from Natural England will also be required.

The development has been reviewed and commented on by the Local Authorities Tree Officer. The Arboricultural Method Statement and accompanying Tree Protection Plan comply to BS5837:2012 and considered to comply with policies D1, D2 and D3 of the Local Plan.

The application has also been reviewed by the County Highways Team who have no objection to the application.

Overall the application is considered to be in accordance with National, Local and Neighbourhood Plan Policy and therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions.

CONSULTATIONS

Local Consultations

Budleigh - Cllr S Hall This application is causing much concern with the residents of East Budleigh.

Before I consider my position on this I would like to hear of independent sources that stare that two bat species affected would almost certainly take up residence in the alternative accommodation mentioned.

18/1464/FUL page 156

Some experts consider that re- housing does not always happen.

The other consideration would be adequate protection for the various trees onsite..

Further comments:

I’m content to agree with the Officer recommendation to approve. I’m satisfied with the mitigation solutions that have been proposed.

Budleigh - Cllr A Dent Good afternoon,

Having studied the papers and comments for this application it seems there are very few material grounds for objection. That said, I would nee to be convinced that that mitigation plans for protecting the local bat species are going to be effective.

There is some loss of green space and the possibility of light loss to the neighbour. The site is within the Built Up Area Boundary of the Village and it is not in a conservation area.

Along with the Parish Council I believe this is a finely balanced application where the benefit of removing a dilapidated barn to provide sustainable accommodation just outweighs the potential harm to the environment and the wildlife. Therefore it has my support.

Budleigh - Cllr T Wright I have again considered this application and register my formal objection as I have not been satisfied that the plans afford effective protection to safeguard the future of the bats.

Parish/Town Council At last night'a meeting, the pc approved the planning application by 6 to 4 in favour. However there are very strong objections from residents and various local organisation i.e. The Otter Valley Association and Natural England, which we feel must be seriously considered. HARM TO LOCAL GREEN SPACE - laying down of an aggregate driveway through the Pound with frequent domestic use. The driveway suggested would have to be driven into the ground which will result in damage to tree roots. Crowning, pruning, service trench digging and the effect of heavy machinery will severely affect the health of protected trees. The Pound is designated as of Historical importance and free for the use of residents and visitors and historical documents support this. One of the main objections is the untold harm to wildlife particularly the endangered long-eared bats which roost in the barn. These are a protected species and the removal of them to the purpose-built bat house in the grounds of the proposed newbuild would not guarantee their preservation or indeed that they would use this new accommodation. Residents have extensively researched the probable effect on the bats and adjacent rare wildlife which form part of a necessary food chain. Concern for the bats has been validated by experts (Natural England) who agree with the objections.

18/1464/FUL page 157

The adjacent house Pound Place will be affected by this overbearing new structure which will not be in keeping with local housing. A point of concern is that the person who wrote the supporting reports for Clinton Devon Estates informed residents that they could not write to Natural England with objections until the building plans had been passed, which seems a very contentious remark to make.

Objections have been received in the form of emails and a village petition with nearly a hundred signatures.

Further comments:

Objections - Application Reference 18/1464/FUL The Council reviewed extra information relating to the above Application, specifically:- * The Consultation Response to EDDC by Encompass Ecology Ltd dated 18th October 2018 * The Second Report by Richard Green Ecology (October 2018 v 1.1) * The Letter of Representation from the East Budleigh Parish Wildlife Protection and Conservation Group (EBPWPCG) dated 17th September 2018. The Council's views can be summarised as follows:- The Issue of Bats 1. Councillors agreed with Encompass Ecology and Richard Green Ecology that the bat barn must be built before the destruction of the existing barn. In this regard the Council believed (a) it is important that a Schedule of Works be submitted to the EDDC to explain how the perceived difficulties with this work could be overcome and (b) it will be essential to allow a suitable period - 1 year was suggested by some parishioners - between the construction of the new barn and the destruction of the existing barn to allow migration of bats from the existing roost to the new barn. 2. Councillors agreed with Encompass Ecology that (a) lighting may be an issue, (b) that no lighting should be positioned on the bat barn and (c) that the light spill on the barn should be quantified and should be no more than 0.5 - 1.0 lux as measured at the new bat barn and "flight corridor" of the bats on a moonless night. The Council were of the opinion that a lighting lux plan, as proposed by Encompass Ecology, should be made public. 3. Councillors noted that the Report from Richard Green Ecology acknowledges that rare bats roost in the existing barn. (Details are given in the EBPWPCG Letter). Also Councillors noted that Natural England has yet to issue a licence for this development. Councillors believed that, prior to the grant of a licence, Natural England should conduct a survey of the species of bat present in the existing barn given to the rarity of some species. Councillors agreed with Encompass Ecology that it is regrettable that such a survey is not available. 4. Councillors noted that EDDC will be mindful of the Habitats Directive Article 12.1 and Conservation and Habitat and Species Regulation 2010 (as amended) when considering this Application. Other Issues The Driveway Councillors concluded that the proposed driveway would replace an existing driveway and hence would not create an issue, provided appropriate care was taken not to disturb the roots of the adjacent trees. Dormice

18/1464/FUL page 158

Councillors were appraised that scrub had already been cleared from around the site which may have disturbed dormice in the vicinity. Conclusion and Recommendation Councillors present at this Planning Meeting understood that they did not have the authority to change the Parish Council's previous decision (i.e. no objection) on this Application. However an informal show of hands at the Planning Meeting showed that the majority of Councillors objected to the Application, in part because of the new information received. The clerk will contact EDDC to verify the position regarding a change of Minuted decisions within the 6 month regulation period. Disease management Confirming the cause of symptoms of bleeding canker on horse chestnut is critical to any recommendations about effective control measures. Surveys are also recommended to assess the number and condition of affected trees. There is no chemical treatment currently registered or approved for use in the UK to cure or arrest the development of bleeding canker caused by Pseudomonas syringae pv aesculi: -If cankering lesions become extensive the entire trunk may be girdled and the tree will inevitably die and have to be removed. -Consider removing major branches that are infected and show dieback. Recently- dead branches of horse chestnut may be susceptible to sudden fracture and drop as the wood dries out. -Trees with bleeding cankers on the trunk can still have healthy-looking crowns and may not pose an immediate safety risk. -Some trees may survive for many years as disease progression can be very slow or even show signs of recovery (vigorous callus development at the margins of cankers when bark has been killed by the disease). -Removing affected trees can be unnecessary. Significant numbers of trees do recover.

Technical Consultations

EDDC Trees The proposed scheme and supporting arboricultural report demonstrate a reasonable approach to developing this site with respect of BS5837:2012. Thus the scheme is considered to accord with our adopted local planning policies D1, D2 and D3.

The arboricultural report makes reference to the removal of the Horse chestnut (T1) which requires removal based on its impaired condition. This has been undertaken under planning permission 17/1377/TRE. As a condition of this planning permission a new tree should have been planted. This has not yet been undertaken. I would like to see the location and species of the tree included within the arboricultural report and confirmation as to when this tree is going to be planted.

Should the application be approve I would suggest it is carried out in accordance with the draft conditions below:

Tree Protection - Approved Tree Protection Plan(TPP) and Arboricultural Method Statement(AMS) Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved (including demolition and all preparatory work), the following tree protection measures as identified in the

18/1464/FUL page 159

submitted Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) and Tree Protection Plan (TPP) dated 29th day of August 2018 will have been completed:

a) The tree protection fencing and / or ground protection shall be in place and in accordance with the agreed specification. b) The installed tree protection will have been inspected by an appropriately experience and qualified Arboricultural Consultant commissioned to act as the project Arboricultural Supervisor. c) The findings of the Arboricultural Supervisors initial site inspection shall be forwarded to Local planning Authority prior to the commencement of works on site.

During the development herby approved, the following tree protections measures identified in the above AMS and TPP will be undertaken: d) The AMS and TPP dated 29th day August 2018 shall be strictly followed. e) Ad-hock monthly site inspections shall be undertaken by a suitably qualified tree specialist and the finding recorded in the site monitoring log. d) Any departures from the approved TPP and AMS shall be reported to the Local Planning Authority in writing within five working days of the site inspection. e) All excavation within the Root Protection Areas (RPA) of retained trees shall be undertaken under arboricultural supervision as detailed in paragraphs 7.4 and 7.6 of the arboricultural report and the observations recorded within the site monitoring log. Root pruning that may be required, shall be undertaken in accordance BS 5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - Recommendations Paragraph 7.2.

On completion of the development hereby approved: f) A completed site monitoring log shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for approval and final discharge of the tree protection condition.

Reason: To satisfy the Local Planning Authority that the trees to be retained will not be damaged during demolition or construction and to protect and enhance the appearance and character of the site and locality, in accordance with Policy D3 - Trees and Development Sites of the East Devon Local Plan 2016 and pursuant to section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Informative: The following British Standards should be referred to: a) BS: 3998:2010 Tree work - Recommendations b) BS: 5837 (2012) Trees in relation to demolition, design and construction - Recommendations

Pre-commencement Meeting Before any development or construction work begins, a pre-commencement meeting shall be held on site and attended by the developers appointed arboricultural consultant, the site manager/foreman and a representative from the Local Planning Authority (LPA) to discuss details of the working procedures and agree either the precise position of the approved tree protection measures to be installed OR that all tree protection measures have been installed in accordance with the approved tree protection plan. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details or any variation as may subsequently be agreed in writing by the LPA.

18/1464/FUL page 160

Reason: Required prior to the commencement of development in order that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied that the trees to be retained will not be damaged during development works and to ensure that, as far as is possible, the work is carried out in accordance with the approved details pursuant to section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in accordance with Policy D3 - Trees and Development Sites of the East Devon Local Plan 2016.

Arboricultural Site Monitoring The completed schedule of site supervision and monitoring of the arboricultural protection measures as approved in condition (INSERT CONDITION NUMBER) shall be submitted for approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority within 28 days from completion of the development hereby permitted. This condition may only be fully discharged on completion of the development, subject to satisfactory written evidence of compliance through contemporaneous supervision and monitoring of the tree protection throughout construction by a suitably qualified and pre-appointed tree specialist.

Reason: In order to ensure compliance with the tree protection and arboricultural supervision details submitted under condition (insert condition(s)) pursuant to section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in accordance with Policy D3 - Trees and Development Sites of the East Devon Local Plan 2016.

Natural England Thank you for consulting Natural England regarding planning application 18/1464/FUL 'Demolition of barn and construction of single dwelling (AMENDED PLANS). The Pound, Lower Budleigh, East Budleigh'.

In your email dated 31st October 2018, you request that Natural England provides advice on European Protected Species.

Natural England has published Standing Advice on protected species. Standing Advice is a material consideration in the determination of applications in the same way as any individual response received from Natural England following consultation.

The Standing Advice should not be treated as giving any indication or providing any assurance in respect of European Protected Species (EPS) that the proposed development is unlikely to affect the EPS present on the site; nor should it be interpreted as meaning that Natural England has reached any views as to whether a licence is needed (which is the developer's responsibility) or may be granted.

You should apply our Standing Advice to this application and having done so, if you require further advice on European Protected Species, please could you:

o Indicate which European Protected Species you require advice on. o Outline which specific section of the standing advice you are having difficulty in applying in relation to this application. o Set out what you require assistance with in the form of specific questions and include the case history.

18/1464/FUL page 161

Once you have gathered together this information please contact us at: [email protected].

Natural England SUMMARY OF NATURAL ENGLAND'S ADVICE (in line with the South East Devon European Sites Mitigation Strategy (SEDESMS) and the Joint Approach of your authority)

DESIGNATED SITES - NO OBJECTION SUBJECT TO SECURING MITIGATION Habitats Regulations Assessment - Recreational Impacts on European Sites This development falls within the 'zone of influence' for the East Devon Pebblebed Heaths SAC East Devon Heaths SPA and Exe Estuary SPA as set out in the Local Plan and the South East Devon European Sites Mitigation Strategy (SEDEMS). It is anticipated that new housing development in this area is 'likely to have a significant effect' upon the interest features of the SAC/SPA, when considered in combination, through increased recreational pressure. In line with the SEDEMS and the Joint Approach of Exeter City Council, Teignbridge District Council and East Devon District Council, we advise that mitigation will be required to avoid such an effect occurring and enable you to reach a conclusion of "no likely significant effect". You should not grant permission until such time as this mitigation has been secured. Providing appropriate mitigation is secured to avoid impacts upon the European site occurring there should be no additional impacts upon the SSSI interest features of East Devon Pebbled Heaths

Protected Landscapes - East Devon AONB The proposed development is for a site within or close to a nationally designated landscape namely East Devon AONB. Natural England advises that the planning authority uses national and local policies, together with local landscape expertise and information to determine the proposal. The policy and statutory framework to guide your decision and the role of local advice are explained below.

Your decision should be guided by paragraph 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework which gives the highest status of protection for the 'landscape and scenic beauty' of AONBs and National Parks. For major development proposals paragraph 116 sets out criteria to determine whether the development should exceptionally be permitted within the designated landscape.

Alongside national policy you should also apply landscape policies set out in your development plan, or appropriate saved policies. We also advise that you consult the relevant AONB Partnership or Conservation Board. Their knowledge of the site and its wider landscape setting, together with the aims and objectives of the AONB's statutory management plan, will be a valuable contribution to the planning decision. Where available, a local Landscape Character Assessment can also be a helpful guide to the landscape's sensitivity to this type of development and its capacity to accommodate the proposed development.

The statutory purpose of the AONB is to conserve and enhance the area's natural beauty. You should assess the application carefully as to whether the proposed

18/1464/FUL page 162

development would have a significant impact on or harm that statutory purpose. Relevant to this is the duty on public bodies to 'have regard' for that statutory purpose in carrying out their functions (S85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, 2000). The Planning Practice Guidance confirms that this duty also applies to proposals outside the designated area but impacting on its natural beauty.

Sites of Special Scientific Interest Impact Risk Zones The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 requires local planning authorities to consult Natural England on "Development in or likely to affect a Site of Special Scientific Interest" (Schedule 4, w). Our SSSI Impact Risk Zones are a GIS dataset designed to be used during the planning application validation process to help local planning authorities decide when to consult Natural England on developments likely to affect a SSSI. The dataset and user guidance can be accessed from the data.gov.uk website

Further general advice on the consideration of protected species and other natural environment issues is provided at Annex A. We would be happy to comment further should the need arise but if in the meantime you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact us.

For any queries regarding this letter, for new consultations, or to provide further information on this consultation please send your correspondences to [email protected].

ANNEX A Natural England offers the following additional advice: Protected Species Natural England has produced standing advice1 to help planning authorities understand the impact of particular developments on protected species. We advise you to refer to this advice. Natural England will only provide bespoke advice on protected species where they form part of a SSSI or in exceptional circumstances.

Environmental enhancement Development provides opportunities to secure a net gain for nature and local communities, as outlined in paragraphs 9, 109 and 152 of the NPPF. We advise you to follow the mitigation hierarchy as set out in paragraph 118 of the NPPF and firstly consider what existing environmental features on and around the site can be retained or enhanced or what new features could be incorporated into the development proposal. Where onsite measures are not possible, you may wish to consider off site measures, including sites for biodiversity offsetting. Opportunities for enhancement might include:

- Providing a new footpath through the new development to link into existing rights of way. - Restoring a neglected hedgerow. - Creating a new pond as an attractive feature on the site. - Planting trees characteristic to the local area to make a positive contribution to the local landscape. - Using native plants in landscaping schemes for better nectar and seed sources for bees and birds.

18/1464/FUL page 163

- Incorporating swift boxes or bat boxes into the design of new buildings. - Designing lighting to encourage wildlife. - Adding a green roof to new buildings.

You could also consider how the proposed development can contribute to the wider environment and help implement elements of any Landscape, Green Infrastructure or Biodiversity Strategy in place in your area. For example:

- Links to existing greenspace and/or opportunities to enhance and improve access. - Identifying opportunities for new greenspace and managing existing (and new) public spaces to be more wildlife friendly (e.g. by sowing wild flower strips) - Planting additional street trees. - Identifying any improvements to the existing public right of way network or using the opportunity of new development to extend the network to create missing links. - Restoring neglected environmental features (e.g. coppicing a prominent hedge that is in poor condition or clearing away an eyesore).

Access and Recreation Natural England encourages any proposal to incorporate measures to help improve people's access to the natural environment. Measures such as reinstating existing footpaths together with the creation of new footpaths and bridleways should be considered. Links to other green networks and, where appropriate, urban fringe areas should also be explored to help promote the creation of wider green infrastructure. Relevant aspects of local authority green infrastructure strategies should be delivered where appropriate.

Biodiversity duty Your authority has a duty to have regard to conserving biodiversity as part of your decision making. Conserving biodiversity can also include restoration or enhancement to a population or habitat. Further information is available here. Planning application 18/1464/FUL 'Demolition of existing barn and construction of a single dwelling. The Pound Lower Budleigh East Budleigh'.

Natural England has been contacted by a member of the public who has raised concerns for the impact that the above-mentioned planning proposal will have on protected species (namely 5 species of bat including both horseshoe species and grey long-eared bats).

In determining a planning application, it is the responsibility of the Local Planning Authority, to ensure that protected species issues are fully considered and that ecological surveys have been carried out where appropriate. Natural England has issued Standing Advice to assist Local Planning Authorities and developers in deciding whether there is a reasonable likelihood of protected species being present on a proposed development site. It provides detailed advice on those protected species most often affected by development to enable an assessment to be made of the suitability of a protected species survey and, where appropriate, a mitigation strategy to protect the species affected by the development.

18/1464/FUL page 164

Natural England recommends that the planning authority seek advice from their own in-house or the County Ecologist for advice in relation to this matter.

For information, grey long-eared bats, with only a small number of roosts in Devon, are a key species within the Back from the Brink project: https://naturebftb.co.uk/the- projects/grey-long-eared-bat/.

Other Representations 11 third party comments were made objecting to the proposed scheme due to concerns over the following;

Impacts upon wildlife, particularly rare bats within the existing building Loss of light Visual impact Detrimental impact upon neighbouring amenity Contrary to Neighbourhood Plan

PLANNING HISTORY

Application 18/2282/FUL – Demolition of existing barn and construction of single dwelling – Withdrawn.

POLICIES

Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 Policies

Strategy 6 (Development within Built-up Area Boundaries)

Strategy 46 (Landscape Conservation and Enhancement and AONBs)

D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness)

D2 (Landscape Requirements)

EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features)

D3 (Trees and Development Sites)

Strategy 6 (Development within Built-up Area Boundaries)

TC2 (Accessibility of New Development)

TC9 (Parking Provision in New Development)

East Budleigh with Bicton Neighbourhood Plan

Policy N1 (Protecting and Enhancing the Landscape, Biodiversity and Local Countryside Character)

Policy B2 (General Design Principles)

18/1464/FUL page 165

Policy B3 (Previously Developed Land)

Policy D1 (Built-up Area Boundary of East Budleigh Village)

National Planning Policy Framework National Planning practice Guidance

Site Location and Description

The site in question is located on the southern edge of East Budleigh. ‘The Pound’ lies within the Built up Area Boundary of the village and is situated within the East Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The existing barn is a mixture of cob and blockwork with a corrugated iron roof. The access to the site is provided via an existing track across 'The Pound', an open space characterised by mature trees, grassland and a park bench. The site displays the transition from the built environment into the open countryside.

Proposed Development

The application seeks permission to remove the barn and construct a two storey residential property. After a previous application, under reference 17/2282/FUL, was withdrawn, this revised application has sought to address previous concerns over the developments impact to the amenity enjoyed by Pound House and to local wildlife.

ANALYSIS

The key issues for consideration as part of this application are the principle of development, impact upon neighbouring amenity, visual impact, impact upon wildlife, impact upon trees and highway safety.

Principle of Development

The site is within the built-up area boundary of East Budleigh as defined by the Adopted East Devon Local Plan and Villages Plan. The spatial strategy for development is focused around the seven main towns and larger villages with a built up area boundary, as described by Strategy 27, will form focal points for development.

Strategy 6 of the Local Plan sets out criteria against which development within built up are a boundaries can be assessed. Therefore residential development, whilst acceptable in principle, is subject to detailed considerations that will be assessed below.

Impact on Neighbouring Amenity

Whilst some third party comments have opposed the application with regards to loss of amenity to Pound House, the revised design has significantly reduced the footprint of the previously proposed build and reduced the overall ridge height to be in line with that of the existing barn. The North West elevation has been pulled further away from the northern boundary as not to detrimentally impact upon the amenity of Pound

18/1464/FUL page 166

House through overbearing effect. The proposed building would be situated, at its closest point, 12.6 metres away from Pound House. The mono-pitch roof slopes from north to south and therefore the impact of the north east elevation is further softened. The dwellings north east elevation does not propose any windows at first floor level, instead light will be provided through the instillation of rooflights that would be positioned at least 2.26 metres above first floor level.

These particular changes have ensured that the proposed dwelling would not significantly impact the amenity of adjoining neighbours anymore than the existing building.

Visual Impact

During the assessment of the previous application (17/2282/FUL) concerns were raised over the developments visibility due to the dwellings size, particularly the overall height, and the resulting impact upon the surrounding rural character of the area. It was considered that the previous scheme would have been prominent from public viewpoints at Lower Budleigh Road. However the changes under this application ensure that the build would be largely screened by the surrounding mature trees to the west and from the built environment to the north and east. Due to the sites levels the dwelling would be cut into the site further mitigating the developments wider visual impact. This, in addition to the scale, form and bulk of the build, with a similar ridge height to that of the existing barn, results in the visual impact of the build being acceptable.

The proposed materials consist of local stone, timber cladding and natural slate, all considered acceptable to the builds rural setting. Whilst the site is located on the fringe of East Budleigh and inherently rural in character, the new dwelling would be largely screened and silent within the townscape due to the sites topography, mature hedge growth and being set within the context of other residential properties along Lower Budleigh Road.

Access to the site is provided by a track over 'The Pound', a listed green space within the recently adopted East Budleigh Neighbourhood Plan. Policy N2 of East Budleigh with Bicton Neighbourhood Plan states that 'Development within Local Green Space is ruled out other than in very special circumstances. Third party comments expressing concerns over the developments impact upon the open character of this space are acknowledged. This small green space already has an informal track that is used to access the barn, albeit infrequently. It is considered that the instillation of a no-dig access road over existing compacted earth track would not significantly alter the green spaces character or impact upon its use by the general public. Furthermore, it was made clear during the drafting of the East Budleigh and Bicton Neighbourhood Plan that Clinton Devon Estates, who own the land, would continue to have a vehicular right of access over the land for the purposes of serving the adjoining Pound Barn. The proposed 3D cellular porous access road ensures that the existing Horse Chestnuts health would not be jeopardised. The laying of a no dig track may have a degree of impact to the rural character of The Pound however this is not considered significant enough to warrant refusal.

Ecological Impacts

18/1464/FUL page 167

Policy EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features), of the East Devon Local Plan, aims to ensure that where development is permitted on sites of high biological value that appropriate mitigation measures are undertaken. This will require the development to reduce the negative impacts and where this is not possible adequate compensatory habitat enhancement or creation schemes will be required.

The submitted ecological appraisal and many third party comments have documented various protected species that inhabit the site. In particular the Ecological Survey has identified the presence of lesser horseshoe, greater horseshoe, brown long-eared, grey long-eared and natterer's Bats. These protected species are considered to be using the existing barn as a roost. The proposals include the provision of a bat barn that has been specifically designed to cater for the bats that currently roost in the barn to be in compliance with Regulations 53(9)(b) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended). The bat roost is positioned as close as reasonably possible to the roost that will be lost and includes features that are adapted to accommodate for specific species identified within the Ecology Report conducted by Richard Green Ecology. The bat barn will have a cooler ground floor and a warmer loft for long-eared and horseshoe bats. Crevices will also be provided in the loft and ground floor for crevice dwelling bats such as Natterers and pipistrelles. The existing barn is currently being used as a roost and therefore any permission granted would be conditioned to provide the bat barn prior to the barns demolition and retained in perpetuity. Bat barns that are found being used by bats are protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (2017).

The submitted Ecology Survey also states how the development should mitigate against adverse impacts to other species. Any permission given shall be conditioned to adhere to the recommendations within the submitted Ecology Survey and Mitigation Plan. It is recommended that bird nesting sites be provided and that scrub is carefully removed during the winter months in case of hibernating dormice. There is an existing badger sett in the south east corner of the site. The ecology survey acknowledges that it is highly likely the sett would be disturbed during the construction of the dwelling. Therefore it is proposed that a new sett be created within the field to the south also owned by Clinton Devon Estates. Due to the new sett being proposed out of the site, this information shall be conditioned to be provided prior to commencement of development.

The proposed mitigation measures submitted within the Ecological Mitigation Plan and survey methods within the ecological report are considered to be in compliance with Natural England's Standing Advice. Furthermore the Local Authority consulted with an independent ecologist to assess the Ecology Report and proposed Ecological Mitigation Plan. The report, provided by Encompass Ecology, states that the mitigation provided is sufficient to compensate for the loss of a non-maternal roost. Additionally the remaining proposed mitigation methods are thought to be acceptable. In accordance with the councils appointed ecologists recommendations, a request was made for a Lux Plan to be submitted to show that the light spill from the dwelling would be no more than 1 lux during a moonless night so as not to disrupt the bats flight paths. The requested survey was submitted communicating that light spill on the bat barn would be no more than the parameters stated (0.92 lux).

18/1464/FUL page 168

In addition to providing the mitigations measures that can be secured through any planning permission, before work is commenced the developer is legally required to obtain a licence from Natural England for the works.

Third party comments raising concerns over the developments impact on the sites wildlife habitats are noted. It is clear that many residents and the local Ward Members value The Pound and the role the site plays in accommodating a diverse range of wildlife. However taking into consideration the extensive Ecology Repot and Ecological Mitigation Strategy submitted by the applicant alongside comments made from Encompass Ecology, with reference to Natural England's standing advice, it is concluded that the development is in accordance with Policy EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) of the East Devon Local Plan and Policy N1 (Protecting and Enhancing the Landscape, Biodiversity and Local Countryside Character) of the Bicton and East Budleigh Neighbourhood Plan.

Impact on Trees

The Pound, located west of the site in question, has many Horse Chestnuts and an oak tree that form part of this green spaces rural character. Third party comments have raised concerns over the developments impact upon these trees. The proposed access track that runs across the green space is proposed to be a no-dig construction to prevent encroaching upon the trees root protection area. In addition to this, Tree Protection Details have been submitted to ensure exclusion zones are adhered to during construction. The Tree Officer considers the submitted tree survey, arboriculture method statement and tree protection details are acceptable. Any planning permission would be conditioned to adhere to recommendations set out within the submitted Arboriculture Method Statement.

Impact of the Proposal on Highway Safety.

The proposal would result in the formalisation of the existing access across The Pound, which would then egress onto a minor public road. Traffic movement on this road appears to be light and would, generally speaking, be slowly moving. Therefore, given the likely small amount of vehicle movements which would result from the proposed dwelling, it is considered that the proposal would not result in any highway related concerns. The County Highway Officer has not raised any concerns regarding this application.

Habitat Regulation Appropriate Assessment

The nature of this application and its location close to the Pebblebed Heaths, Exe Estuary and their European Habitat designations is such that the proposal requires a Habitat Regulations Assessment. This section of the report forms the Appropriate Assessment required as a result of the Habitat Regulations Assessment and Likely Significant Effects from the proposal. In partnership with Natural England, the council and its neighbouring authorities of Exeter City Council and Teignbridge District Council have determined that housing and tourist accommodation developments in their areas

18/1464/FUL page 169

will in-combination have a detrimental impact on the Exe Estuary and Pebblebed Heaths through impacts from recreational use. The impacts are highest from developments within 10 kilometres of these designations. It is therefore essential that mitigation is secured to make such developments permissible. This mitigation is secured via a combination of funding secured via the Community Infrastructure Levy and contributions collected from residential developments within 10km of the designations. This development will be CIL liable and the financial contribution has been secured. On this basis, and as the joint authorities are work in partnership to deliver the required mitigation in accordance with the South-East Devon European Site Mitigation Strategy, this proposal will not give rise to likely significant effects.

Conclusion

Overall the proposal is considered acceptable in principle and represents development that takes into consideration all the site constraints. Third party comments and Ward Member comments have highlighted concerns over the developments impact upon the biodiversity of the site. Whilst the comments are noted, it is concluded that the proposed mitigation plan reduces the negative impacts of the development and provides adequate compensatory habitats for those species impacted.

The application is not thought to be detrimental to the adjoining amenity of Pound House. The proposed scale, orientation and fenestration is thought to have little to no impact upon the amenity enjoyed by Pound House through overlooking or overbearing impact.

The design and layout of the dwelling would not be harmful to the local areas rural character. The site is largely screened by the existing boundary therefore resulting in the buildings visual impact being limited. It is appreciated that the proposed access track would have a degree of impact on the character of the current designated Local Green Space. However the track will ensure the long term survivability of the nearby chestnut trees and is also an operation that could be carried out under permitted development rights as stated within the General Permitted Development Order.

Therefore taking the above into account it is concluded that the development is in compliance with the East Devon Local Plan and the Bicton and East Budleigh Neighbourhood Plan. Therefore the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions that are listed below.

RECOMMENDATION

1. That the Habitat Regulations Appropriate Assessment within the Committee Report be adopted; and 2. That the application be APPROVED with conditions

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission and shall be carried out as approved.

18/1464/FUL page 170

(Reason - To comply with section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed at the end of this decision notice. (Reason - For the avoidance of doubt.)

3. Notwithstanding the provisions of Schedule 2 Part 2 Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no gates, fences, walls or other means of enclosure shall be erected within the curtilage of the dwellings hereby permitted, other than any approved as part of the landscaping scheme, without the prior express consent of the Local Planning Authority. (Reason - To retain the open character of the area in accordance with policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and EN1 (Developments Affecting Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

4. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the recommendations and mitigation measures in the Protected Species Survey and Ecological Mitigation Plan prepared by Richard Green Ecology dated June 2018. (Reason - In the interests of wildlife protection in accordance with Policy EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) of the East Devon Local Plan) and Policy N1 (Protecting and Enhancing the Landscape, Biodiversity and Local Countryside Character) of the East Budleigh and Bicton Neighbourhood Plan.)

5. Prior to the demolition of the existing barn the proposed bat barn shall be constructed in full and retained in perpetuity. (Reason: To allow the bats roosting in the existing barn to relocate to the bat barn thus retaining the nature conservation value of the site and to ensure the development is in compliance with Policy EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

6. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved (including demolition and all preparatory work), the following tree protection measures as identified in the submitted Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) and Tree Protection Plan (TPP) dated 29th day of August 2018 will have been completed:

During the development herby approved, the following tree protections measures identified in the above AMS and TPP will be undertaken:

18/1464/FUL page 171

d) The AMS and TPP dated 29th day August 2018 shall be strictly followed. e) Ad-hock monthly site inspections shall be undertaken by a suitably qualified tree specialist and the finding recorded in the site monitoring log. d) Any departures from the approved TPP and AMS shall be reported to the Local Planning Authority in writing within five working days of the site inspection. e) All excavation within the Root Protection Areas (RPA) of retained trees shall be undertaken under arboricultural supervision as detailed in paragraphs 7.4 and 7.6 of the arboricultural report and the observations recorded within the site monitoring log. Root pruning that may be required, shall be undertaken in accordance BS 5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - Recommendations Paragraph 7.2.

On completion of the development hereby approved: f) A completed site monitoring log shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for approval and final discharge of the tree protection condition.

(Reason: To satisfy the Local Planning Authority that the trees to be retained will not be damaged during demolition or construction and to protect and enhance the appearance and character of the site and locality, in accordance with Policy D3 - Trees and Development Sites of the East Devon Local Plan 2016 and pursuant to section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990)

7. The development shall be carried out in full accordance with the Lux Plan from Hoarelea received 18th December 2018. (Reason - In the interests of wildlife protection in accordance with Policy EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) of the East Devon Local Plan) and Policy N1 (Protecting and Enhancing the Landscape, Biodiversity and Local Countryside Character) of the East Budleigh and Bicton Neighbourhood Plan.)

NOTE FOR APPLICANT

Plans relating to this application:

18043 L 01.01 Existing Site Plan 22.06.18

18043 L 01.03 A Proposed Block Plan 22.06.18

18043 L 02.02 A Proposed Floor Plans 22.06.18 : GROUND

18/1464/FUL page 172

18043 L 02.03 A Proposed Floor Plans 22.06.18 : FIRST

18043 L 02.10 C Proposed Combined 31.10.18 : BAT BARN Plans PLAN+ELEVATI ONS

18043 L 02.11 : Proposed Combined 22.06.18 BAT BARN Plans PLAN+SECTION S

18043 L 03.05 A Sections 22.06.18 : PROPOSED NW

18043 L 03.06 A Sections 22.06.18 : PROPOSED NE

18043 L 03.07 A Sections 22.06.18 : PROPOSED SE

18043 L 03.08 A Sections 22.06.18 : PROPOSED SW

18043 L 03.09 A Sections 22.06.18 : PROPOSED NW

18043 L 04.02 A Proposed Elevation 22.06.18

List of Background Papers Application file, consultations and policy documents referred to in the report.

18/1464/FUL page 173 Agenda Item 12

Ward Beer And Branscombe

Reference 18/1957/MOUT

Applicant Clinton Devon Estates

Location Land Adjacent Short Furlong Short Furlong Beer

Proposal Construction of up to 30 new dwellings (including affordable housing provision) outline application with all matters apart from access reserved

RECOMMENDATION: 1. That the Habitat Regulations Appropriate Assessment attached to this Committee report be adopted; 2. That the application be APPROVED subject to conditions and the completion of a Section 106 agreement to secure: a. The provision of 43.3% affordable housing (including the provision of an overage clause and also a commuted sum towards the delivery of affordable housing off-site for any non-whole units as a result of the final number of dwellings on site); and b. The provision of the off-site habitat mitigation measures identified in section 4 of the 'Statement to Inform an Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017' (Richard Green Ecology January 2019)

Crown Copyright and database rights 2019 Ordnance Survey 100023746

page 174

Committee Date: 30th April 2019

Beer And Target Date: Branscombe 18/1957/MOUT 17.12.2018 (BEER)

Applicant: Clinton Devon Estates

Location: Land Adjacent Short Furlong Short Furlong

Proposal: Construction of up to 30 new dwellings (including affordable housing provision) outline application with all matters apart from access reserved

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That the Habitat Regulations Appropriate Assessment attached to this Committee report be adopted; 2. That the application be APPROVED subject to conditions and the completion of a Section 106 agreement to secure: a. The provision of 43.3% affordable housing (including the provision of an overage clause and also a commuted sum towards the delivery of affordable housing off-site for any non-whole units as a result of the final number of dwellings on site); and b. The provision of the off-site habitat mitigation measures identified in section 4 of the 'Statement to Inform an Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017' (Richard Green Ecology January 2019)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is brought before committee as the application is considered to be a departure from the development plan.

The application seeks outline consent for the development of up to 30 no. dwellings on an undeveloped and steeply sloping agricultural field. The site is located to the west side of the village, within the East Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and close to several protected habitats, most notably the Beer Quarry Caves Special Area of Conservation. It is mostly (with the exception of surface water drainage infrastructure) within the Built-up Area Boundary of the village as defined in the recently ‘made’ Beer Neighbourhood Plan. All matters apart from access are reserved, however indicative details of layout and some section details showing how the site might be developed have been provided. These details indicate 2 to 3 storey properties arranged either side of a central

18/1957/MOUT page 175

spine road accessed from Mare Lane through the existing Short Furlong development to the southeast.

In terms of planning policy the site lies mostly in an area allocated for residential development in the Beer Neighbourhood Plan. The application proposes delivery of affordable housing at a level of 43.3% and therefore has the potential to provide up to 12 affordable housing units (with the balance between 12 and 13 being secured as a proportionate commuted sum to be used for off-site affordable housing). This has the potential to meet part of Beer’s recorded outstanding affordable housing need of 27 units.

Viability information has been provided by the applicant which suggests that 43.3% is the maximum affordable provision that the development could support which was what the District Valuer on the Council’s behalf suggested was viable during the previous application which was refused in 2016. The Council’s viability consultant is satisfied that this is still the case to date. The provision of affordable housing in a village with a relatively high level of need weighs in favour of the proposal, where the Neighbourhood Plan seeks a level of provision of 50% or a minimum of 40% where viability indicates otherwise.

The Council has conducted a Habitat Regulations Assessment of the proposal and has found that with adequate mitigation the development will maintain the integrity of the Beer Quarry Caves SAC. The proposed access is considered to be suitable to serve the development.

The site’s location within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty would result in a relatively localised but nonetheless harmful impact on the landscape and the setting of the town that weighs heavily against the proposal. However, the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group has considered all other available sites, which potentially would have similar effect. The community, both through a public consultation exercise in 2016 and also via the Neighbourhood Plan referendum has selected the site in question as being the preferable one. The development may have some adverse effects on trees but given the heavy amount of habitat mitigation required, which includes substantial new planting both on and off the site, on balance this is considered acceptable.

Whilst concerns in relation to the ability to appropriately deal with surface water drainage relating to the site have been an ongoing issue, Devon County Council in their capacity as highways authority and Lead Local Flood Authority have recently advised that they are now satisfied with the proposals subject to a number of conditions.

In conclusion, the site offers one of the few opportunities to deliver housing for the village, some of which would be affordable, and this benefit must be balanced against the fact that the development strays outside of the allocated area for development and also the landscape harm to the AONB. In carrying out such a balancing exercise it is considered that the benefits from development outweigh the harm.

18/1957/MOUT page 176

CONSULTATIONS

Local Consultations

Beer And Branscombe - Cllr G Pook

I support the above application.

My general comments and specifically those relating to affordable housing submitted in response to the earlier application still hold. I do however note that the affordable percentage is exactly on the NP lower limit of 40% as opposed to the earlier application of 43% and the percentage is based on the number of units (as is normal) and not the number of bedrooms. The affordable units should be the smaller ones as this is the primary demand however one larger affordable house would have been a useful addition to the affordable housing mix available to the village. This application conforms with the emerging Neighbourhood Plan and has the support of the PC.

During the debate on this application concern was raised about loss of parking space available to the existing houses (2 unallocated spaces will be lost to the road access to the new houses). There was also concern that the current footpath to the school used heavily by school children as a safe alternative to Mare Lane will cross the access to the new houses. Could the developer look to include additional parking within the new site for the existing houses and to provide traffic calming and a designated crossing point within the development.

Parish/Town Council

The Parish Council supports the application with the access as shown on to Mare Lane.

The Parish Council did express concern regarding the safety of pedestrians especially children and requested that appropriate traffic calming measures be installed and a designated crossing space to maintain a safe route to school.

The Parish Council also expressed concern regarding the loss of parking spaces even though they are not designated parking spaces and requested that the developer replaces the informal parking spaces.

Further comments:

Comment Date: Thu 14 Feb 2019

The Parish Council supports this application. Additional reports are noted.

Technical Consultations

EDDC Landscape Architect - Chris Hariades

This report forms the EDDC's landscape response to the Outline application for development of 30 new dwellings on a green field site at Beer.

18/1957/MOUT page 177

The report provides a review of landscape related information submitted with the application in relation to adopted policy, relevant guidance, current best practice and existing site context and should be read in conjunction with the submitted information.

2 SCHEME PROPOSALS AND RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE

2.1 Site location, context and description of proposals

The site occupies an elevated position on the north western edge of Beer, above and to the south of Quarry Lane and to the west of Short Furlong and falls wholly within the East Devon AONB and close to the edge of the Beer Conservation Area. Access to the site is currently from a field gate adjacent to Short Furlong. The site comprises permanent pasture surrounded by hedgerow with mature trees. It occupies an elevated position to the side of a combe and is steeply sloping with a north-easterly aspect. Land rises to the south of the site to a wooded ridge-top. Beer primary school is situated to the southwestern boundary with adjoining public open space and the grounds of Beer Light Railway to the southern boundary. A small, recent housing development is situated on the western boundary. A permissive footpath runs immediately along the northern boundary and further housing is situated below this along Quarry Lane. Land to the west is permanent pasture comprising small irregular fields with mature hedgerow boundaries.

There are clear views from the site across the combe to fields and scattered development to the north and over the higher parts of Beer to the northeast. Views to the south and west are largely restricted to the existing field boundaries by landform, tree cover and buildings.

Proposed development comprises erection of 30 homes in a linear arrangement following the site contours with individual plots terraced into the slope. The site is adjacent to, but outside of, the Built Up Area Boundary as defined in the East Devon Villages Plan, adopted 2018. However it is understood that there is an allocation for up to 31 dwellings on the site within the emerging Beer Neighbourhood Plan 2014-31.

The surrounding landform and established tree cover provide a good degree of enclosure for the proposed development from the south and west and restricting development to the lower part of the site ensures that in all views it will be seen below the skyline. Nevertheless the development will be prominent in a number of views from the north and northeast. While these will generally be seen in the context of the existing village settlement the development would appear as a westerly extension of the village envelope in views from New Road and land and dwellings to the north of this.

2.2 Relevant national, regional and local landscape related policy

The following landscape policies and guidelines are considered relevant to the application:

National Planning Policy Framework 2018

18/1957/MOUT page 178

para. 172. Great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in [inter-alia] Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues. The conservation and enhancement of wildlife and cultural heritage are also important considerations in these areas.

The scale and extent of development within these designated areas should be limited. Planning permission should be refused for major development other than in exceptional circumstances, and where it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest. Consideration of such applications should include an assessment of: a) the need for the development, including in terms of any national considerations, and the impact of permitting it, or refusing it, upon the local economy; b) the cost of, and scope for, developing outside the designated area, or meeting the need for it in some other way; and c) any detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape and recreational opportunities, and the extent to which that could be moderated.

East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031

Strategy 3 - Sustainable Development

The objective of ensuring sustainable development is central to our thinking. We interpret sustainable development in East Devon to mean that [inter-alia] the following issues and their inter-relationships are taken fully into account when considering development: a) Conserving and Enhancing the Environment - which includes ensuring development is undertaken in a way that minimises harm and enhances biodiversity and the quality and character of the landscape.

Strategy 7 - Development in the Countryside

Development in the countryside will only be permitted where it is in accordance with a specific Local or Neighbourhood Plan policy that explicitly permits such development and where it would not harm the distinctive landscape, amenity and environmental qualities within which it is located, including:

1. Land form and patterns of settlement. 2. Important natural and manmade features which contribute to the local landscape character, including topography, traditional field boundaries, areas of importance for nature conservation and rural buildings. 3. The adverse disruption of a view from a public place which forms part of the distinctive character of the area or otherwise causes significant visual intrusions.

Strategy 46 - Landscape Conservation and Enhancement and AONBs

Development will need to be undertaken in a manner that is sympathetic to, and helps conserve and enhance the quality and local distinctiveness of, the natural and historic

18/1957/MOUT page 179

landscape character of East Devon, in particular in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Development will only be permitted where it:

1. conserves and enhances the landscape character of the area; 2. does not undermine landscape quality; and 3. is appropriate to the economic, social and well-being of the area.

D1 Proposals will only be permitted where they:

1. Respect the key characteristics and special qualities of the area in which the development is proposed. 2. Ensure that the scale, massing, density, height, fenestration and materials of buildings relate well to their context. 3. Do not adversely affect inter alia: • Important landscape characteristics, prominent topographical features and important ecological features. • Trees worthy of retention. 4. Have due regard for important aspects of detail and quality and should incorporate inter alia: • Use of appropriate building materials and techniques respecting local tradition and vernacular styles as well as, where possible, contributing to low embodied energy and CO2 reduction. • Appropriate 'greening' measures relating to landscaping and planting, open space provision and permeability of hard surfaces.

Landscaping

21.4 Natural and artificial landscaping can enhance the setting of new buildings and enable them to be assimilated into surroundings. Landscaping can also assist in nature conservation and habitat creation particularly in urban areas. 21.5 Tree planting and retention should form an integral part of a landscaping scheme submitted with a development proposal either initially or at a detailed planning stage. Such a scheme may include ground and shrub cover together with hard surfaces and paving materials, adequate lighting and grass verges. Continuity of fencing, walling or hedging with existing boundary treatments, which contributes to the street scene, will be sought where appropriate. Schemes will need to include integration of areas of nature conservation value and provision of new areas into proposals.

D2 Landscape Requirements

Landscape schemes should meet all of the following criteria: 1. Existing landscape features should be recorded in a detailed site survey, in accordance with the principles of BS 5837:2012 'Trees in Relation to Construction' (or current version) 2. Existing features of landscape or nature conservation value should be incorporated into the landscaping proposals and where their removal is unavoidable provision for suitable replacement should be made elsewhere on the site. This should be in addition to the requirement for new landscaping proposals. Where appropriate, existing habitat

18/1957/MOUT page 180

should be improved and where possible new areas of nature conservation value should be created. 3. Measures to ensure safe and convenient public access for all should be incorporated. 4. Measures to ensure routine maintenance and long term management should be included. 5. Provision for the planting of trees, hedgerows, including the replacement of those of amenity value which have to be removed for safety or other reasons, shrub planting and other soft landscaping. 6. The layout and design of roads, parking, footpaths and boundary treatments should make a positive contribution to the street scene and the integration of the development with its surroundings and setting.

D3 - Trees and Development Sites

Permission will only be granted for development, where appropriate tree retention and/or planting is proposed in conjunction with the proposed nearby construction. The council will seek to ensure, subject to detailed design considerations, that there is no net loss in the quality of trees or hedgerows resulting from an approved development. The development should deliver a harmonious and sustainable relationship between structures and trees. The recommendations of British Standard 5837:2012 (or the current revision) will be taken fully into account in addressing development proposals.

No building, hard surfacing drainage or underground works will be permitted that does not accord with the principles of BS 5837 or Volume 4 National Joint Utilities Group (NJUG) Guidelines for the Planning, Installation and Maintenance of Utility Apparatus in Proximity to Trees - Issue 2 (or the current revision or any replacement) unless, exceptionally, the Council is satisfied that such works can be accommodated without harm to the trees concerned or there are overriding reasons for development to proceed.

The Council will as a condition of any planning permission granted, require details as to how trees, hedges and hedge banks will be protected prior to and during and after construction. The Council will protect existing trees and trees planted in accordance with approved landscaping schemes through the making of Tree Preservation Orders where appropriate or necessary.

Planning permission will be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss.

4 REVIEW OF SUBMITTED INFORMATION

4.1 Landscape and visual impact Assessment (LVIA)

The Beer Neighbourhood Plan notes that proposals for development of the Short Furlong site 'should be informed by detailed landscape and visual impact assessment in line with current best practice guidance'. Although a Landscape and Visual Appraisal has been submitted in support of the application, the document does not

18/1957/MOUT page 181

follow recognised standard guidance set out in Guidance for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Edition 3 published by the Landscape Institute and the Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment, and has a number of shortcomings, including the following:

• Despite its title the assessment does not cover landscape effects of the proposed development and is limited to a visual assessment. • The consideration of landscape character does not relate the relevant National and Devon Landscape Character Areas and East Devon Landscape Character Types to the site context or consider how the key characteristics, landscape pressures and management guidelines they identify could be impacted by the scheme or inform its design. • No methodology has been provided showing how the visual effects identified have been assessed and evaluated. • The assessment fails to identify and assess all visual receptors likely to be impacted by the proposals. This includes private dwellings such as properties at Short Furlong and the Youth Hostel from which there are clear views over the site from the drive, house and terrace. There are also further locations on the public rights of way network in particular Beer Footpath 4 where the site can be seen from as well as the permissive path running along the northern boundary of the site. • Photographs used in the report do not appear to have been taken in recognised standard format in accordance with Photography and Photomontage in Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Landscape Institute Advice note 01/11. • The description for the view point photograph taken from Beer Light Railway (Section 4.2, viewpoint 1) inaccurately describes an intervening single line of trees as dense woodland, downplaying the visual impact of the development from this location. • The photographic visualisations are misleading in that they show the scheme with well- developed screen planting. The visualisations should show the scheme as it looks immediately at completion and after 15 years from completion and should be based on photographs taken in winter so as to show a worst case scenario.

In view of the above, the assessment should be considered unsatisfactory and a revised LVIA should be submitted in accordance with the guidance noted above, prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced consultant. Where necessary the design proposals should be amended to reflect any further mitigation measures which the revised LVIA may identify.

4.2 Review of submitted landscape drawings & other supporting information

Arboricultural survey

There appears to be an error in the numbering of hedgerow H1. A section of H1 is identified at the eastern end of the site, as per red line on aerial photo below, which is listed in the survey as a young, one metre high hawthorn hedge. A further section of hedgerow at the western end of the site along the line of the connecting drain to the Little Hemphay soakaway, as per purple line on the aerial image, is also labelled H1

18/1957/MOUT page 182

on Tree Protection Plan 1 of 2. This is a well-established hedgerow with a number of mature trees and does not fit the arboricultural survey description for H1. This discrepancy should be checked and clarified with details amended as necessary to ensure design proposals and tree protection measures take proper account of the hedgerows.

Ecological survey: No comment Design and access statement: No comment

Layout and landscape proposals

a) The layout should include for provision of 200m2 of amenity open space in accordance with EDDC open space standards of new development. b) The layout shows the south-westernmost plot being very close to the existing mature hedgerow H3 and the garden area is consequently pinched. Consideration should be given to adjusting the overall layout slightly to provide more space between the dwelling and the hedgerow. As well as gaining more garden for this plot it will help to protect the hedgerow by reducing the likelihood of the occupant trimming it back in order to gain more light. c) Proposed hedgebanks should be constructed in accordance with recommended guidance prepared by Devon Hedge Group. Further details can be found at the following link: http://devonhedges.org/wp- content/uploads/2015/11/8_Hedge-Creation-1.pdf d) Commentary on page 27 of the Landscape and Visual Appraisal states that Monteray Pines are to be included in screen planting in order to help integrate the development into the wider landscape. Although Monteray Pine is present within the town and coastal plateau, it is not a feature of the application site or its combe setting. Additionally this fast growing and very large tree is also unlikely to be suitable for planting in close proximity to dwellings where its vigour and size may become a nuisance for occupants, who may consequently feel compelled to hard prune or fell trees overhanging their property. Proposed screen planting should be carefully considered in terms of location and species selection in order to reflect local landscape character. e) Consideration should be given to dedicating the existing permissive footpath to the northern site boundary as a public footpath to provide permanent access as a planning gain should the application be approved.

Drainage proposals

a) The proposed drainage scheme provides for disposal of surface water on site principally by piping to buried infiltration tanks with two small overflow swales. Further consideration should be given to open systems for dealing with surface water discharge particularly by making the western swale into a pond or wetland feature. b) It is not clear where excess water from the proposed infiltration trench to the southern site boundary will discharge to and this should be clarified. Consideration should be given to providing an open ditch discharging to the western swale instead of the infiltration trench proposed to provide biodiversity benefit.

18/1957/MOUT page 183

5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Acceptability of proposals

It is likely that the proposed scheme will have some adverse impact on the setting of the village and the AONB. Prior to determining the application a satisfactory Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment prepared in line with current guidance should be submitted so that the extent of landscape and visual effects of the development can be properly understood.

Clarification of the description of hedgerow H1 in the arboricultural details as noted at section 4.1 above should also be provided.

If permission is granted, other points raised at section 4.2.1 above should be addressed at detailed design stage to accompany a full planning application.

5.2 Landscape conditions

In addition to the points noted at 5.1 above, should outline consent be granted for the proposed development the following details should be submitted as part of a full application: a) A full set of hard landscape details covering earthworks, external walls, retaining structures, fencing, pavings and edgings, site furniture and signage. b) Details of proposed levels and drainage scheme incorporating appropriate SuDS features. c) Details of locations, heights and specifications of external lighting. d) Detailed planting plans showing extent of existing trees and hedgerow to be retained and removed and details of proposed tree, shrub and perennial planting and grass and wildflower turfing and seeding. e) Specification for soil quality and preparation, tree pits and staking, hedge-banks, planting, turfing and seeding operations, mulching, watering and means of protection during establishment period. f) A landscape management plan should be provided covering a 10 year post completion period which should include the following details:

• Details of ownership and responsibilities for management and maintenance. • Details of how the management and maintenance of communal areas/ open space will be funded for the life of the development. • Monitoring, management and maintenance arrangements for o existing and proposed trees and hedgerows. o shrub and perennial planting. o grass areas including wildflower areas. o enhancement of biodiversity value.

18/1957/MOUT page 184

o any boundary structures, drainage swales and other infrastructure/ facilities within public areas.

Further comments 22/02/19:

1 INTRODUCTION

This report provides an update to EDDC's landscape response in relation to the above application in relation to amended information submitted by the applicant.

2 REVIEW OF AMENDED INFORMATION

2.1 Landscape and visual impact Assessment (LVIA)

A revised LVIA has been submitted based on industry standard guidance and is generally a fair assessment of the anticipated landscape and visual effects of the development. The assessment acknowledges that the proposals will have a high adverse landscape effect and visual effects for principal receptors ranging from high to low adverse, with views from Long Hill Road and New Road, the youth hostel and properties at Short Furlong being particularly effected. However, the landscape and visual effects are geographically limited to within 300-700m from the site and will be mitigated to some degree by site planning and appropriate native tree and hedgerow planting. It is also proposed to utilise suitable vernacular materials for building, although these are unspecified and will require agreement at detail design stage should the application be approved. The assessment considers siting of street lighting within the development to reduce light spill to surrounding areas. Further consideration would also need to be given at detail design stage to the extent and size of any Velux type roof lights within the development and ensuring that all such windows are fitted with blinds.

2.2 Layout and landscape details

Minor amendments have been made to the site layout to address earlier landscape comments, in particular the moving of southwestern most unit away from adjacent hedgerow. There is also provision of on-site amenity space although some of this is on sloping ground and confirmation should be provided of the total anticipated useable area to ensure compliance with EDDC standards.

3 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1 Acceptability of proposals

The proposed scheme will have adverse landscape and visual impact but within a limited geographic area. Proposed mitigation is appropriate and will help to some extent to limit adverse impact, particularly as new planting matures. Consideration should be given to dedicating the existing permissive footpath to the north of the site boundary, which is understood to be owned by the applicant, as a public footpath to provide permanent access as planning gain should the proposed scheme be recommended for approval.

18/1957/MOUT page 185

In the event that approval is recommended, the following conditions should be imposed:

3.2 Landscape conditions

1) No development work shall commence on site until the following information has been submitted and approved: a) A full set of hard landscape details covering earthworks, hedgebanks, walls, retaining structures, fencing, pavings and edgings, site furniture and signage. b) Details of existing and proposed levels and drainage scheme incorporating appropriate SuDS features. c) Details of locations, heights and specifications of proposed external lighting. d) Samples of proposed building materials and colour pallet for external walls, doors, window and guttering finishes and samples of paving materials to public areas other than tarmac. e) A full set of soft landscape details including planting plans showing locations and number of new tree, shrub and herbaceous planting, type and extent of new grass areas, existing vegetation to be retained and removed and means of protection. f) Plant schedule indicating form size and density of planting g) Specification for soil quality, cultivation, planting/ sowing, mulching and means of plant support and protection during establishment period. h) Measures for protection of existing perimeter trees during construction phase in accordance with BS5837: 2012. Approved protective measures shall be implemented prior to commencement of construction and maintained in sound condition for the duration of the works.

2) In addition, the following standard EDDC landscape conditions should apply:

L01N, Landscaping - full permissions

L02N Landscaping – groundworks

L06N Landscaping - fences and boundaries

L11N Landscaping - landscape management which should include the following details: Extent, ownership and responsibilities for management and maintenance. Details of how the management and maintenance of open space will be funded for the life of the development. Inspection and management arrangements for existing and proposed trees and hedgerows. Management and maintenance of grass areas. Management and enhancement of biodiversity value. Management and maintenance of any boundary structures, drainage swales and other infrastructure/ facilities within public areas.

L15N Landscape condition for full planning permissions (omitting non relevant parts/sections)

18/1957/MOUT page 186

East Devon AONB 31/10/2018

Background to comments, site description/context (a summary of the National, County and District character areas it falls within)

The site is wholly with the East Devon AONB, located to the western side of Beer to the rear of property off Townsend Rd and Short Furlong and immediately to the north of Beer Primary School. The land rises by some 30m from north to south and is currently open pasture Grade 3 farmland with mature hedgelines to its borders. It is understood that a permissive footpath runs along the northern boundary. At its nearest point, it is some 20m from the Conservation Area to the north and the area is part identified as a SHLAA site.

Natural England National Character Area Assessment NCA No: 147 NCA Name: Blackdowns

Brief description of the relevant special qualities, landscape and historic environment character • A landscape drained by small streams radiating out from the ridges into rivers with relatively short courses south to the sea. Springs emerge from the interface of the Greensand and clays. • Densely-wooded, steep scarp slopes with both ancient oak woodland, carpeted in bluebells and primroses, and conifer plantations which extend onto the ridges. Across the valleys a strong hedgerow pattern with hedgerow trees and small broadleaved woodlands exists with carr woodland along some watercourses. The combination of these woodlands and their location gives the perception that the area is relatively well wooded. • A mainly pastoral landscape with small, irregular fields of medieval origin on the slopes and in the smaller valleys. • An ancient dispersed settlement pattern with clustered hamlets and villages at road or river crossings, along springlines or at the mouth of rivers and estuaries. Farmsteads scattered throughout, nestled in dips or along springlines, with a noticeable occurrence of beech shelterbelts. • Strong local vernacular reflecting the geology: cob and thatch, grey limestone buildings, sandstone buildings with slate roofs and red brick detailing, Beer stone churches, and the locally distinctive chert (flintlike nodules) with red brick detailing and slate roofs.

Key Statements of Environmental Opportunity relevant to this site

• SEO 4: Protect the relatively unsettled, rural character of this nationally important landscape, maintaining open skylines and historic settlement form. Reflect the local vernacular and geodiversity in new development and encourage provision of high-quality green infrastructure. - Protecting locally distinctive building styles and the use of local materials, where appropriate and sustainable, and encouraging their integration into new development as well as sustainable technologies.

18/1957/MOUT page 187

- Softening the edges of urban areas to incorporate development into the landscape setting and minimising the impact of lighting and noise to maintain and enhance tranquillity and dark skies.

Devon Landscape Character Area Assessment

DCA Name: Sidmouth and Lyme Bay Coastal Plateau

Brief description of the special qualities, landscape and historic environment character

This area is made up of a variety of landscape types which together give rise to a distinctive coastal landscape, exposed to salt laden winds and comprising open plateau, dramatic cliff, secretive undercliff, steep wooded combe valleys and river estuary. Here the senses are stimulated by stunning scenery and dramatic landform, lofty remoteness on the plateau tops and contrasting dark secretive inaccessible undercliff and intimate picturesque settled combes. Both the plateau top and estuaries have a strong horizontal emphasis and a sense of space and air while from the cliff tops there are distinctive views out to sea and also along the cliffs. In parts the distinctive coastal cliffs are of chalk and limestone and are unique in a Devon context while to the west the cliffs are red sandstone.

Key management guidelines relevant to this site

• Protect the historic character of the combe villages and their settings, ensuring limited new development or property extensions that incorporate local buildings styles (whilst seeking to incorporate sustainable and low carbon construction and design). • Protect the villages' contained form, resisting linear spread or coalescence.

East Devon and Blackdown Hills AONBs and East Devon District Landscape Character Area Assessment (2008 version currently being updated)

LCT No: 2B LCT Name: Coastal slopes and combes

Brief description of the special qualities, landscape and historic environment character

Individual small coastal areas of generally wooded slopes and branching valley systems. Many valleys are narrow and steep, with well wooded upper slopes and remnant orchards, and have an intimate, tranquil and enclosed character. Other valleys are more gently sloping and have an open scrubby downland character, especially along their upper boundaries. Land cover is a mix of unenclosed woodland and small to medium irregular fields, mainly in pastoral cultivation and with much wet pasture. This gives way to scrub along the upper edge of the adjoining cliffs. There is little settlement on the steeper slopes, but within the wider combes historic settlements often occur as a series of hamlets, occasionally with a strong tourism influence where there is reasonable vehicular access. The road network is generally narrow and winding, with very little vehicle access to the coast. Steep paths down to beaches and

18/1957/MOUT page 188

the South West Coast Path provide extensive rights of way for pedestrians and access to the high, open and exhilarating top slopes with their extensive coastal views.

Key Characteristics

• Narrow, steep valleys or more open shallow systems • Coastal influence in exposure, vegetation and extensive views • Mix of unenclosed woodland, especially along watercourses, and small to medium irregular fields • Mainly pasture, with wet pasture and scrub • Earth banks • Old settlements in combes, with stone as dominant building material • Narrow winding roads and limited vehicle access to coast • Extensive coastal rights of way with steep paths down to beaches • High, open and exhilarating on top slopes, grading to intimate and enclosed in lower valley • Remnant orchards

Key management guidelines relevant to this site

Settlement and development: conserve by

• Maintaining the inherent pattern of sparse settlement.

Boundaries: conserve and enhance by

• Encouraging management that maintains the characteristic earth banks, often with mature tree rows on top. • Encouraging management and restoration of historic field boundaries.

Comments

NPPF 172 states that 'Great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues. The conservation and enhancement of wildlife and cultural heritage are also important considerations in these areas and should be given great weight in National Parks and the Broads. The scale and extent of development within these designated areas should be limited. Planning permission should be refused for major development55 other than in exceptional circumstances, and where it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest.

Consideration of such applications should include an assessment of: a) the need for the development, including in terms of any national considerations, and the impact of permitting it, or refusing it, upon the local economy; b) the cost of, and scope for, developing outside the designated area, or meeting the need for it in some other way; and

18/1957/MOUT page 189

c) any detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape and recreational opportunities, and the extent to which that could be moderated.'

Footnote 55. For the purposes of paragraphs 172 and 173, whether a proposal is 'major development' is a matter for the decision maker, taking into account its nature, scale and setting, and whether it could have a significant adverse impact on the purposes for which the area has been designated or defined.

Given the above, the local planning authority, as the 'decision maker' should evaluate, undertake and record an assessment for this development which will determine, given the AONB designation, the scale of development relative to the village and the intimate nature of this landscape type as defined in the landscape character assessment, if the proposed development is deemed or not deemed to be major development. In doing so it demonstrate it is having due regard to the purposes of AONB designation under Section 85 CROW Act 2000 and the requirements of NPPF 172.

We can see from the supporting documentation and images the proposed development will visually impact on the setting of the village at this location. Given the inherent pattern of sparse settlement in this character type and the intimate nature of the coombes, extending development beyond the town boundary will require a very sensitive approach if it is not to be regarded as creating negative impact and unacceptable development in the AONB.

Modelled viewpoints 10a and 11a in the LVA document demonstrate this potential impact well and underscore how important the built form material and landscape considerations need to be in this location. The indicative stylised trees, of Lombardy/poplar shape, are strikingly incongruous to the landscape character backdrop. Moreover, the indicative roof colour and scale of building exposure give concern over the character impact from these views, however limited. SEO4 of the Blackdown NCA states 'Softening the edges of urban areas to incorporate development into the landscape setting and minimising the impact of lighting and noise to maintain and enhance tranquillity and dark skies.'

The development approach should therefore recognise land form, the characteristic vegetation, earth banks, hedges and the built form of stone-built houses in Beer; a key characteristic of the landscape type and reflected in the adjacent Conservation area bordering the location to the north. It should also, for example, control the potential for post development alterations should approval be given which may alter the character of individual properties within the site over time including the proposed landscaping; in particular trees, for example through TPOs.

Given the site proximity to Beer Quarry Cave SAC, the type and operation of street and property lighting will be important. We note the proposed integration of bats boxes in buildings and welcome these, in addition to the good husbandry and enhancement of the mature hedgerows to the site.

We are unclear what function/role/purpose the thin red line and rectangular box to the north west of the site plays. Is this to form some potential alternative access, given the current concerns associated with using the Short Furlong access point? Or is it pedestrian access? Given the proximity to the nearby primary school, safe access

18/1957/MOUT page 190

provision for families/children should be integral to the design of any development in this location.

It is expected that the proposal will provide much needed affordable housing that will accord with the required Policy in the EDDC Local Plan and Beer Neighbourhood Plan and not result in the provision of further second homes, vacant for many weeks/month each year. The AONB welcomes measures to support appropriately designed and landscaped affordable housing for local communities to live and work in their area.

East Devon AONB Management Strategy 2014-19 Policy Reference(s)

P2 - Provide advice and support on planning policy and development to enable the special qualities of the AONB to be protected, conserved and enhanced.

Further Information

1. East Devon and Blackdown Hills AONBs and East Devon District Landscape Character Assessment & Management Guidelines (2008) 2. Devon Landscape Character Assessment (www.devon.gov.uk/landscapecharacter) 3. Natural England NCA profiles (Devon Redlands and Blackdowns) 4. East Devon AONB Management Strategy (2014)

Further comments 21/02/2019:

I will leave the HRA comments to Natural England but recognise the proposed off site landscaping measures will help to support the Site Improvement Plan objectives for Beer Quarry Caves SSSI/SAC. However, it will be critical that any woodland and particularly any hedgerow tree planting is very closely monitored to ensure establishment is successful and growth maintained. It is inherently challenging to successfully plant and grow-on trees in existing long established hedgerows.

Our previous comments related to the impact on the AONB in particular, when viewed from viewpoints 10 and 11. These comments remain relevant as does our reference to maintaining a vernacular form in the building materials which would enhance their integration further, in particular with the adjacent conservation area. We would recommend particular attention is paid to consideration of the use of local stone on those buildings giving the greatest impact from these viewpoints should this application proceed.

The image used in Appendix B does reflect a different impact when fenestration, cladding etc. is included. It gives an impression of a somewhat lessened impact and underscores the comment above regarding the impact a more sympathetic and vernacular built form would have in this highly visible location. However, we do query the landscaping graphics used. They appear to be greener in tone than those used in the more simplified examples in Figs 20-24 and possibly more extensive. It would be helpful to clarify if this is just digital variation on my part.

We reiterate that the AONB Partnership welcomes measures to support appropriately designed and landscaped affordable housing for local communities to live and work in their area.

18/1957/MOUT page 191

EDDC Trees

I have no major issues with the supplied information on tree grounds, the only one is the proximity of the two houses to TG4 in the northwest corner. Particularly the northern one, this is clearly shown in the RPA/canopy of the retained tree. During the occupancy of the two dwellings this tree will grow and cause conflict to it appearing over bearing to the houses and gardens which will put considerable pressure on the removal of the tree. Consideration should be given to creating an open area here rather than residential.

Further comments 01 Feb 2019:

The new supplied information doesn't remove my previous objections to the two housing plots by tree group TG4 which is against BS5837:2012 and EDDC Local Plan; I am satisfied all other Arboricultural information relating to the rest of the site

Natural England 9/11/2018

Planning consultation: Construction of up to 30 new dwellings (including affordable housing provision) outline application with all matters apart from access reserved Location: Land Adjacent Short Furlong Short Furlong, Beer, Devon

Thank you for your consultation on the above dated 27 September 2018 which was received by Natural England on the same date.

SUMMARY OF NATURAL ENGLAND'S ADVICE- FURTHER INFORMATION REQUIRED

Habitats Regulations Assessment

As submitted, the application could have potential significant effects on Beer Quarry and Caves Special Area of Conservation (SAC).

Natural England's advice is that this proposed development, and the application of mitigation measures to avoid or reduce the likely harmful effects from it, may need to be formally checked and confirmed by your Authority, as the competent authority, via an appropriate assessment (AA) in view of the European Site's conservation objectives and in accordance with the Conservation of Habitats & Species Regulations 2017.

This is because Natural England notes that the recent People Over Wind Ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union concluded that, when interpreting article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, it is not appropriate when determining whether or not a plan or project is likely to have a significant effect on a site and requires an appropriate assessment, to take account of measures intended to avoid or reduce the harmful effects of the plan or project on that site. The ruling also concluded that such measures can, however, be considered during an appropriate assessment to determine whether a plan or project will have an adverse effect on the integrity of the European site. Your

18/1957/MOUT page 192

Authority should have regard to this and may wish to seek its own legal advice to fully understand the implications of this ruling in this context.

Natural England advises that it is a matter for your Authority to decide whether an appropriate assessment of this proposal is necessary in light of this ruling. In accordance with the Conservation of Habitats & Species Regulations 2017, Natural England must be consulted on any appropriate assessment your Authority may decide to make.

A Bat Mitigation Strategy must be provided and secured at this outline stage.

Without this information, Natural England may need to object to the proposal.

Natural England's further advice is set out below.

Internationally and nationally designated sites

The application site is in close proximity to a European designated site (also commonly referred to as Natura 2000 sites), and therefore has the potential to affect its interest features. European sites are afforded protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, as amended (the 'Habitats Regulations'). The application site is in close proximity tthe Beer Quarry and Caves Special Area of Conservation (SAC) which is a European site important for it's population of hibernating bats including greater and lesser horseshoe bats and Bechstein's bat and also notified at a national level as Beer Quarry and Caves Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Please see the subsequent sections of this letter for our advice relating to SSSI features.

Natural England advises that the proposal is unlikely to have a significant effect on the Sidmouth to West Bay SAC and Lyme Bay and Torbay SAC.

Further information required

The consultation documents provided by your authority do not include information to demonstrate that the requirements of Regulations 63 and 64 of the Habitats Regulations have been considered by your authority, i.e. the consultation does not include a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA).

In advising your authority on the requirements relating to HRA, it is Natural England's advice that the proposal is not necessary for the management of the European site. Your authority should therefore determine whether the proposal is likely to have a significant effect on any European site, proceeding to the Appropriate Assessment (AA) stage where significant effects cannot be ruled out.

We advise that the Council use information contained in the Ecological Appraisal submitted with the application and the HRA carried out for the allocation of this housing site in the Beer Neighbourhood Plan to inform their own HRA/AA of the application.

The following matters should be addressed in the HRA/AA.

18/1957/MOUT page 193

• Beer Quarry and Caves SAC is important for bat hibernation. • The development would result in the permanent and irreversible loss of bat foraging habitat. • The qualifying bat SAC species are known to be light sensitive. • The impact on the integrity of the Beer Quarry and Caves SAC.

A Bat Mitigation Strategy is recommended in the Ecological Appraisal. However we advise that the framework for this strategy must be provided and secured at this outline stage.

The strategy should include the following features:

• Compensation for the loss of bat foraging habitat; • Site design to maintain and enhance connectively of commuting habitats through and surrounding the site; • Retention of suitable dark corridors; • A lighting strategy; • Inclusion of native planting, • Implementation of long term suitable management of created and maintained habits and • Appropriate and proportionate monitoring.

Beer Quarry and Caves SSSI

We advise your authority that provided it has been demonstrated there is no likely significant effect on the Beer Quarry and Caves SAC, the Beer Quarry and Caves SSSI does not represent a constraint in determining this application.

Should the details of this application change, Natural England draws your attention to Section 28(I) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), requiring your authority to re-consult Natural England.

Other advice

In addition, Natural England would advise on the following issues.

Protected Landscapes

The proposed development is for a site within or close to a nationally designated landscape, namely the East Devon AONB. Natural England advises that the planning authority uses national and local policies, together with local landscape expertise and information to determine the proposal and that you consult the relevant AONB Partnership or Conservation Board. The policy and statutory framework to guide your decision and the role of local advice are explained in Annex A of this letter.

Further general advice on protected species and other natural environment issues is provided at Annex A.

18/1957/MOUT page 194

If you have any queries relating to the advice in this letter please contact me at [email protected].

Should the applicant wish to discuss the further information required and scope for mitigation with Natural England, we would be happy to provide advice through our Discretionary Advice Service.

Please consult us again once the information requested above, has been provided.

ANNEX A - ADDITIONAL ADVICE

Natural England offers the following additional advice:

Landscape

Alongside national policy you should also apply landscape policies set out in your development plan, or appropriate saved policies.

We also advise that you consult the relevant AONB Partnership. Their knowledge of the site and its wider landscape setting, together with the aims and objectives of the AONB's statutory management plan, will be a valuable contribution to the planning decision. Where available, a local Landscape Character Assessment can also be a helpful guide to the landscape's sensitivity to this type of development and its capacity to accommodate the proposed development.

The statutory purpose of the AONB is to conserve and enhance the area's natural beauty. You should assess the application carefully as to whether the proposed development would have a significant impact on or harm that statutory purpose. Relevant to this is the duty on public bodies to 'have regard' for that statutory purpose in carrying out their functions (S85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, 2000).

We refer you to the. Landscape Institute Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment for further guidance.

Best and most versatile agricultural land and soils

Local planning authorities are responsible for ensuring that they have sufficient detailed agricultural land classification (ALC) information to apply the requirements of the NPPF. This is the case regardless of whether the proposed development is sufficiently large to consult Natural England. Further information is contained in Natural England's Technical Information Note 049.

Agricultural Land Classification information is available on the Magic website on the Data.Gov.uk website. If you consider the proposal has significant implications for

18/1957/MOUT page 195

further loss of 'best and most versatile' agricultural land, we would be pleased to discuss the matter further.

Protected Species

We have not assessed this application and associated documents for impacts on protected species.

Natural England has published Standing Advice on protected species. The Standing Advice includes a decision checklist which provides advice to planners on deciding if there is a 'reasonable likelihood' of protected species being present. It also provides detailed advice on the protected species most often affected by development.

You should apply our Standing Advice to this application as it is a material consideration in the determination of applications in the same way as any individual response received from Natural England following consultation.

If you have any specific questions on aspects that are not covered by our Standing Advice for European Protected Species or have difficulty in applying it to this application please contact us at with details at [email protected].

Local sites and priority habitats and species

18/1957/MOUT page 196

not routinely hold species data, such data should be collected when impacts on priority habitats or species are considered likely. Consideration should also be given to the potential environmental value of brownfield sites, often found in urban areas and former industrial land, further information including links to the open mosaic habitats inventory can be found here.

Ancient woodland and veteran trees

Environmental enhancement

Development provides opportunities to secure a net gain for nature and local communities, as outlined in paragraphs 9, 109 and 152 of the NPPF. We advise you to follow the mitigation hierarchy as set out in paragraph 118 of the NPPF and firstly consider what existing environmental features on and around the site can be retained or enhanced or what new features could be incorporated into the development proposal. Where onsite measures are not possible, you may wish to consider off site measures, including sites for biodiversity offsetting. Opportunities for enhancement might include:

• Providing a new footpath through the new development to link into existing rights of way. • Restoring a neglected hedgerow. • Creating a new pond as an attractive feature on the site. • Planting trees characteristic to the local area to make a positive contribution to the local landscape. • Using native plants in landscaping schemes for better nectar and seed sources for bees and birds. • Incorporating swift boxes or bat boxes into the design of new buildings. • Designing lighting to encourage wildlife. • Adding a green roof to new buildings.

• Links to existing greenspace and/or opportunities to enhance and improve access. • Identifying opportunities for new greenspace and managing existing (and new) public spaces to be more wildlife friendly (e.g. by sowing wild flower strips) • Planting additional street trees.

18/1957/MOUT page 197

• Identifying any improvements to the existing public right of way network or using the opportunity of new development to extend the network to create missing links. • Restoring neglected environmental features (e.g. coppicing a prominent hedge that is in poor condition or clearing away an eyesore).

Biodiversity duty

Your authority has a duty to have regard to conserving biodiversity as part of your decision making. Conserving biodiversity can also include restoration or enhancement to a population or habitat.

Further comments 21/2/2019

SUMMARY OF NATURAL ENGLAND'S ADVICE- FURTHER INFORMATION REQUIRED

Habitats Regulations Assessment

Natural England advises that your authority should not grant planning permission until they have undertaken their own Appropriate Assessment and Natural England have been consulted.

We consider that without appropriate mitigation the application would have an adverse effect on the integrity of Beer Quarry and Caves SAC.

A Bat Mitigation Strategy must be submitted and secured at this outline stage. We advise that an appropriate planning condition or obligation is attached to any planning permission to secure these measures.

Further information submitted

Statement to Inform an Appropriate Assessment January 2019

Natural England notes that the HRA has not been produced by your authority, but by the applicant. As competent authority, it is your responsibility to produce the HRA. We provide the advice enclosed on the assumption that your authority intends to adopt this HRA to fulfil your duty as competent authority.

The Statement concludes that the likelihood of significant effects arising from the proposal cannot be ruled out, either alone or in-combination. On the basis of the information provided, and excluding, at this stage, any measures specifically included in the proposal to avoid harmful effects on a European Site, Natural England concurs with this view.

The applicant's appropriate assessment concludes that it is able to ascertain that the proposal will not result in adverse effects on the integrity of Beer Quarry and Caves SAC (the SAC). Having considered the assessment, and the measures proposed to mitigate for all identified adverse effects that could potentially occur as a result of the proposal, Natural England advises that we concur with the assessment conclusions,

18/1957/MOUT page 198

providing that all mitigation measures are appropriately secured in any permission given.

Natural England advises that your authority should not grant planning permission until they have undertaken an Appropriate Assessment, in order to assess the implications of the proposal for the SAC, in view of the site conservation objectives. Natural England is a statutory consultee at the Appropriate Assessment stage of the Habitats Regulations Assessment process.

We concur with the Statement that mitigation is essential in order to avoid adverse effects on the integrity of the SAC. We also concur with the principle of off-site enhancement of bat foraging habitat close to the SAC. Bat mitigation strategy

The key principles of the bat mitigation strategy that must be secured in this outline consent are:

Minimise the area of grazed grassland, hedgerows and trees lost; Hedgerows should be double rows of species-rich native species and managed to be tall and thick. Note that hedgerows and trees will only perform a mitigation function once they have grown up. Therefore we recommend that these are planted at least two years prior to the commencement of development. Planting locations should maintain and enhance connectivity between the SAC and foraging/commuting habitats. With this permanent loss of habitat, the mitigation measures will need to be secured 'in-perpetuity'

Monitoring of planting success. All the bat species are light averse therefore it is vital that there should be no light spill from the houses or street lights onto surrounding vegetation. Note that it is not possible to set an acceptable lux level therefore conditions should not specify lux levels.

The biodiversity mitigation strategy should include more detailed location plans for the proposed woodland planting locations. If this is currently grazed pasture then this is likely to already provide bat foraging habitat. As well as tree planting, pond creation would provide good bat habitat.

We note that the off-site planting locations are currently under countryside stewardship agreements. The detailed locations of the planting will need to be agreed with Natural England as part of the reserved matters application. Please note that the proposed integral bat boxes in the dwellings are welcomed as a biodiversity enhancement but are not suitable for use by the SAC bat species.

Protected Landscapes Landscape & Visual Appraisal January 2019 We have no additional comments to add to our previous response. We advise referring to the East Devon AONB and the EDDC landscape architect for detailed advice on the LVIA.

Further comments on Appropriate Assessment:

18/1957/MOUT page 199

Thank you for your further consultation on the above dated 03 April 2019 which was received by Natural England on the same date.

SUMMARY OF NATURAL ENGLAND’S ADVICE- FURTHER INFORMATION REQUIRED Habitats Regulations Assessment

We consider that without appropriate mitigation the application would have an adverse effect on the integrity of Beer Quarry and Caves SAC.

The information submitted to date provides insufficient certainty that appropriate mitigation will be secured and delivered. A revised Bat Mitigation Strategy must be submitted and secured at this outline stage.

We advise that an appropriate planning condition or obligation is attached to any planning permission to secure these measures.

Appropriate Assessment 3 April 2019

The Statement concludes that the likelihood of significant effects arising from the proposal (on the SAC) cannot be ruled out, either alone or in-combination. On the basis of the information provided, and excluding, at this stage, any measures specifically included in the proposal to avoid harmful effects on a European Site, Natural England concurs with this view.

We concur with the conclusion of the Appropriate Assessment (AA) that mitigation is essential in order to avoid adverse effects on the integrity of the SAC. We also concur with the principle of off-site enhancement of bat foraging habitat close to the SAC.

However, we advise that in order to agree with your conclusion that “it can be considered beyond reasonable scientific doubt that there would be no impact on the site’s integrity” further details of the proposed on and off-site mitigation and details of how the local planning authority will secure this mitigation in-perpetuity must be submitted and included in the AA.

We are not aware that the amendments to the proposed bat mitigation strategy, as requested in our letter dated 11 February 2019, have been made. Confirmation of the following must be added to the mitigation proposals to pass the tests under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017:

• Mitigation measures must be in place and functional ready for the time that development impacts commence. To achieve this, there will need to be advance planting of landscaping bat mitigation features. Therefore we recommend that trees and hedgerows are planted at least two years prior to the commencement of development. • All the off-site mitigation areas must be shown within a blue line on application documents to allow these to be secured via a S106/unilateral undertaking or other suitable legal agreement.

18/1957/MOUT page 200

• Hedgerows should be double rows of species-rich native species and managed to be tall and thick (minimum height and width 3 metres by year 3). • With permanent loss of habitat, the mitigation measures will need to be secured ‘in-perpetuity’. • Monitoring of tree and hedgerow planting success, replacement of failures and ongoing management in-perpetuity is proposed.

At this outline stage, without an approved development layout, we advise that any requirement for, and the positioning of, screen fencing for bat mitigation purposes should considered in combination with the detailed lighting and landscaping plans and therefore be submitted as part of Reserved Matters.

On-site mitigation must be secured through soundly worded planning conditions.

Please can the Local Planning Authority advise us which mechanism they propose to use to secure the off-site mitigation? Conditions or suitable legal agreements should include the following to be submitted at Reserved Matters stage:

• Submission of all details set out in the bat mitigation strategy, approved and conditioned at outline stage. • A detailed lighting strategy to demonstrate no light spill from the houses or street lights onto surrounding vegetation. • A detailed planting scheme for the mitigation planting, including advance planting ahead of commencement of development.

Having considered the assessment, and the measures proposed to mitigate for all identified adverse effects that could potentially occur as a result of the proposal, Natural England advises that we concur with the assessment conclusions, providing that the above items form part of the mitigation measures and these are appropriately secured in any permission given.

Housing Strategy Officer Melissa Wall

This application is for up to 30 dwellings with 43.3% (13 units) as affordable. This site is located outside the built up area boundary defined by the East Devon District Council Villages plan however is included under the Beer Neighbourhood Plan and is allocated in the plan for housing (H3). The Beer Neighbourhood plan is due to go to neighbourhood planning referendum on 8th November 2018, the plan has been before the examiner and modifications recommended by the examiner have been made. In the examiner's final report it states that it has been agreed by all parties to extend the built up area boundary to include the subject site and the examiner agrees with this.

In accordance with Strategy 34 and policy H3 of the proposed Beer Neighbourhood Plan this site should provide 50% (15 units) affordable housing or if subject to viability considerations a minimum of 40% affordable housing. The applicant has submitted a viability assessment which accompanied the previous application for this site in 2016. At that time it was agreed by the district valuer that the site could support the provision of 43.3% affordable housing. The applicant has acknowledged that both house prices and costs will have changed in this time but the likelihood is that it wouldn't change

18/1957/MOUT page 201

the overall viability position as the increases would counterbalance each other. They are therefore proposing 43.3% (13 units) as per the original viability assessment and the planning officer will make a decision on whether this assessment is still valid. Strategy 34 states that an overage clause will be sought in respect of future profits and affordable housing provision, where levels of affordable housing fall below policy targets.

The masterplan shows an indicative mix of dwelling sizes to include 1 bedroom flats, 2, 3 and 4 bedroom house. A housing needs survey was carried out for Beer parish in July 2018 which identified a need for 21 affordable houses for rent and shared ownership. The identified bedroom need was predominately for smaller units comprising 1 or 2 bedrooms (need of 13) together with 2 bedroom houses (need of 6) and 3 bedroom houses (need of 2). The affordable dwellings should therefore meet the identified need. The tenure of the affordable dwellings should be as per policy with 70% (9 units) for rent and 30% (4) for shared ownership or similar route to home ownership. The housing needs survey supports this although the identified need is more heavily weighted to rented accommodation with 17 requiring rented properties and 4 being able to afford shard ownership.

The affordable units should be available in perpetuity and transferred to and managed by a preferred register provider. Within Beer there is an established CLT which own and manage affordable housing within the village and we understand that they may be interested in these units. The affordable units should be tenure blind and should all be built to meet M4(2) of Building Regulations, Category 2: accessible and adaptable dwellings. The affordable dwellings should be dispersed throughout the scheme. Nominations for the completed units should come through Devon Home Choice for the rented units and Help to Buy Southwest for the shared ownership (80% restriction on staircasing applies). Future occupants of the affordable units should have a local connection to the parish, cascading to surrounding parishes and finally the district.

Devon County Archaeologist

I refer to the above application. The proposed development lies in an area of archaeological potential with regard to the known concentration of prehistoric activity in and around Beer itself. While the County Historic Environment Record does not indicate any known archaeological sites within the actual development site there is the potential for groundworks associated with the construction of the new dwellings to exposed archaeological and artefactual deposits associated with the known prehistoric activity in the vicinity. While these heritage assets are not of such significance as to warrant preservation in situ, the impact of development upon the archaeological resource here should be mitigated by a programme of archaeological work that should investigate, record and analyse the archaeological evidence that will otherwise be destroyed by the proposed development.

The Historic Environment Team recommends that this application should be supported by the submission of a Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) setting out a programme of archaeological work to be undertaken in mitigation for the loss of heritage assets

18/1957/MOUT page 202

and archaeological interest. The WSI should be based on national standards and guidance and be approved by the Historic Environment Team.

'No development shall take place until the developer has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation (WSI) which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out at all times in accordance with the approved scheme, or such other details as may be subsequently agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority.

Reason 'To ensure, in accordance with Policy EN6 (Nationally and Locally Important Archaeological Sites) of the East Devon Local Plan and 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'

I would envisage a suitable programme of work as taking the form of the archaeological supervision of all groundworks associated with the construction of the proposed development to allow for the identification, investigation and recording of any exposed archaeological or artefactual deposits. The results of the fieldwork and any post-excavation analysis undertaken would need to be presented in an appropriately detailed and illustrated report, and the finds and archive deposited in accordance with relevant national and local guidelines.

Environment Agency

Comment Date: Wed 20 Feb 2019

We do not have any comment to make apart from the following.

18/1957/MOUT page 203

Flood Risk Standing Advice to LPA We have produced a series of standard comments for local planning authorities and planning applicants to refer to on 'lower risk' development proposals. These comments replace direct case-by-case consultation with us. This proposal falls within this category.

These standard comments are known as Flood Risk Standing Advice (FRSA). They can be viewed at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-assessment-for-planning- applications#when-to-follow-standing-advice We recommend that you view our standing advice in full before making a decision on this application. We do not need to be consulted further.

Devon County Council (Highways) 4/12/2018

The site is located on land to the north and west of the existing housing development of Short Furlong.

It should be noted that the road of Short Furlong is not an adopted highway because the proposed surface water drainage system for that road was unacceptable to the County Highway Authority (CHA).

This development proposes a new surface water drainage system which will incorporate the existing Short Furlong via a new Drainage Strategy for both sites. The CHA has concerns over the proposed surface water drainage strategy, which will be discussed in greater length later in this response.

The application is made in outline with all matters reserved except access. The existing cul-de-sac of Short Furlong leads on to Mare Lane with a footway and street lighting which then leads downhill to Townsend and the B3174 which is the primary route for Beer. This road links with the A3052 to the north west and to Seaton in the east.

Pedestrian and Cycle Access

It is proposed that that pedestrian access to the proposed development will be via Short Furlong, Mare Lane and Townsend to the town centre of Beer. The proposed and indicative layout of the housing development is linier in shape a with footway provision also being in a linier fashion. This may not be ideal as it means that pedestrians would have to walk the entire length of the development and Short Furlong before doubling back on themselves to access Mare lane and Townsend.

There is, it would appear, a permissive footpath within land under the control of the applicant, that could possibly access Townsend to the west of the development site and/or to Mare Lane near its junction with Short Furlong. However, there does not appear to be anything within the proposed development for this to connect or be an improved pedestrian amenity within the application. This appears to be an opportunity to comply fully with Policy TC4 of The Local Plan that has been missed. This may also be an opportunity for cycling provision to and from the site.

18/1957/MOUT page 204

I also note that the proposed maximum gradient for the access road into the new development is 1 in 10, this is too great for pedestrians and should be a maximum to 1 in 12 where the footway runs in contemporary manner or the road is to be of shared use.

Public Transport

There is an existing meagre bus service is available near Short Furlong via a hail and ride service.

Vehicular Access

As mentioned earlier vehicular access to the site is proposed via the existing Short Furlong cul-de-sac and as the design of the existing access from Short Furlong onto Mare Lane was subject of contemporary design criteria, I do not see any problems with the existing access arrangements or the additional number of traffic movements proposed.

Drainage Issues

The application is accompanied by a Drainage Strategy and should be read simply as 'a strategy' only, and not as the ultimate drainage solution.

As mentioned earlier the existing Short Furlong road has not been adopted by the highway authority because the soakaways are not considered suitable or constructed to any agreed design or functionality. There has been ongoing discussion with the applicants Drainage Consultants, the FRMT and the CHA to try and understand the specific problems of the site, it's geology and the existing problems of the highway drainage system in Mare Lane and how this impacts upon the lower streets and properties to the east in Beer.

These discussions have resulted in the correspondence below, some of which is in answer to the DCC's FRMT queries specifically:

Amy, Many thanks for sending the DCC FRMT and DCC Highways comments. We have lifted the queries from the four separate emails and provided comments in blue text.

DCC CHA comments 27/02/19 Following on from re-consultation with the receipt of additional information regarding this application, we are happy that this information does not affect our stance upon this application.

DCC FRMT comments 31/10/18 If further investigations are required at this stage then we would suggest excavating some deeper trial pits within the location of the currently proposed soakaway so that infiltration tests can be completed at the depths of the currently proposed soakaway (and so that the deeper substrata can be assessed). Noted and expected to be conditioned as outline in DCC FRMT email of 30/10/18

18/1957/MOUT page 205

Treatment upstream of the soakaway will need to be provided to ensure that surface water from the site will not pollute groundwater. The soakaway will be within, or close to, a groundwater source protection zone. The soakaway will be located at the Outer Zone of a GSPZ. We could provide a pre�treatment prior to discharge to the soakaway and if really necessary even an oil/petrol interceptor. Associated report text and drawing will be updated accordingly

We also have some concerns over the infiltration basins/swales being used for exceedance. Our first concern is regarding the underlying strata, if chalk is underlying these areas then we would prefer not to have large volumes of surface water infiltrating here. Our second concern is regarding over-topping of these features, these features will only be designed to provide ‘some’ storage of exceedance flows, if exceedance flows are above this then is there potential that these features will overtop and flow towards the properties to the north? Noted. The layout offers limited opportunities for exceedance features which are in place to provide storage for events above the 1 in 100 year plus 40% climate change event and/or in the case of any blockage within these systems. High magnitude events and blockage scenarios are difficult to accurately predict and therefore quantify and the exceedance areas are located based on site topography and open space. The detailed design of the basins has not yet been undertaken as we are still at strategy stage. The basins could be lined to prevent large scale infiltration and reduce the potential risk of ground water emergence. If the basin to the east were omitted then the exceedance route would be the new estate road leading to Short Furlong and then Mare Lane. We will provide further information to quantify the basin sizing and the associated report text and drawing will be updated accordingly.

The currently proposed drainage strategy provides potential levels of manholes and pipework. Some of these pipes will be about 7m deep. We would require some further information of this proposal to ensure that it is viable, particularly regarding maintenance, size of pipes, falls of pipes and excavation to lay the pipes. The drainage design is only preliminary at this stage. There are some deep manholes due to existing and proposed topography and locations of the soakaway and attenuation tank but we would expect to provide further information at the detailed design stage.

Will any trees need to be removed to construct the soakaway in the currently proposed location? We don’t believe so as we re-configured the route to the soakaway several times– would need double to check with Dom at Aspect.

DCC FRMT comments 30/10/18 It looks like the drainage information submitted is the same as submitted previously. However, if there are concerns over the highway networks capacity then I will note this in my response, this is something that needs to be clarified 2 now as I think discharging to the highway is the only option they have in this part of the site.

The discharge rate from the attenuation tank is above greenfield runoff rates, but the diameter of the outfall is 73mm and so if they go lower then there is a higher risk of blockage in the outfall. Noted.

18/1957/MOUT page 206

We would require further infiltration testing to demonstrate that this method of managing surface water is viable (tests should be at locations and depths relevant to the proposed soakaway). We would also want to see some groundwater monitoring for the winter period, it looks like they previously excavated trial pits in October and December and didn’t encounter groundwater. Testing and monitoring could be conditioned as previously. Noted and as expected.

I think groundwater re-emergence needs to be further assessed at reserved matters stage (if planning permission is granted). This assessment should cover the chalk as well, ideally they should sink some boreholes to clarify what’s directly beneath the soakaway and whether the material encountered is likely to weather or redirect flow laterally downstream. Noted and as expected. Please note proposed timescales suggested by DCC Highways in their email of 30/10/18 (opportunities to reduce timescale).

DCC Highway comments 30/10/18 Drainage Strategy Plan LH02F shows the location of TP1 & TP2 for the large soakaway situated towards the north west of the site. The cross section shows that the depth of TP1 and TP2 does not correspond with the proposed installed depth of the soakaway. Testing in accordance with BRE Digest 365 should be carried out over the proposed depth range of the soakaway to prove the soil infiltration rate is appropriate. At least two trial pits would be required to properly cover the area of the proposed soakaway. Noted and expected to be conditioned as outline in DCC FRMT email of 30/10/18

I can’t find any information regarding the seasonal high groundwater level for the area of the site with the proposed soakaway. Is this information available? If not they would need to carry this out. The borehole should be drilled to a depth of at least 2m below the lowest level of the proposed soakaway. Readings should be taken at least once per month and preferably twice per month (every two weeks) from December until the end of April. Ideally we would be provided with 12 months monitoring, however if the boreholes were installed now, then we could consider just monitoring from now until the end of May/end of June, providing the readings are showing a continuing falling trend in the groundwater level from the seasonal high (the seasonal high is normally Jan-April). Noted and expected to be conditioned as outline in DCC FRMT email of 30/10/18. Please note proposed timescales suggested by DCC Highways in their email of 30/10/18 (opportunities to reduce timescale).

I’m not sure if our concerns in my earlier e-mail have been addressed, particularly connecting into the existing storm drain from the proposed attenuation tank on the eastern area of the site. See below

DCC Highway comments 14/04/16 For the proposed attenuation system discharging back into the existing sewer on Mare Lane, you would need to know that at each particular design storm, that the existing system has sufficient capacity to deal with the additional discharge of attenuated storm water at the proposed rates. If the existing system does not have capacity the outcome could be flooding of the road. Brian may be able to advise on this, though you will probably also want the developer to survey the system and prove that it can cope. A

18/1957/MOUT page 207

proposed solution was sent to Jerry Upfield on 10/08/15 and the response from Jerry Upfield following discussions with Brian Hoare is attached. The system currently in use at Short Furlong was surveyed by Drainology in Mar, Apr, Jun 2015. Full reports can be supplied. The attenuated flows will discharge to the existing Mare lane system at discharge rates which are less than the current discharge rates from the 440m2 section of Mare Lane which is to be drained via the attenuation tank, offering betterment overall (see information below� MD calculations can be provided on request). Discharge from the attenuation tank will be limited to 6.1l/s. The requirement for further survey is noted and expected to be conditioned.

I can’t assess the micro-drainage calculations for the attenuation system. Perhaps Richard Rainbow can advise on the calculations provided? PDF copies of MD calcs were supplied as part of the FRA & DS report and also our email of 14/04/16. We suggest you (Graeme Peace) contact Josh Lewis for further support.

Are the additional gullies in line with what Brian was requesting, or was he looking for something more substantial? Yes these were as per previous discussions

It hasn’t been proven that the proposed soakaway at Little Hemphay will work. Further infiltration testing at the design depth and groundwater monitoring to prove the seasonal high groundwater level will be required. If this further testing and monitoring finds that soakaways will not work, what is the back up plan? They should have an alternative solution for the drainage in case soakaways don’t work. Noted and expected to be conditioned as outline in DCC FRMT email of 30/10/18. In the event infiltration does not work surface water will need to be attenuated and a controlled discharge released at greenfield rates into the existing watercourse at The Causeway, approximately 200m east of the site or further upstream if appropriate.

The factor of safety used in the soakaway calculation of 1.5 may need to be revised. It comes down what the consequence of failure is. This may also be true for the factor of safety used in the attenuation design. Noted.

The soakaway is located close to the bottom of the valley where the ground is starting to level out and therefore the slope of the ground at the soakaway construction location does not pose slope stability issues or increase the risk of re�emergence of water to the adjacent Quarry Lane. If potential failure of the soakaway is of concern then a low bund could be provided between the edge of the soakaway and the highway, the details of which would be determined at detailed design stage. Increasing the factor of safety for attenuation will not have any impact as it is only applicable to infiltration rates. The associated report text and drawing will be updated accordingly.

The flood routeing for exceedance events will take the majority of the storm water runoff to a shallow basin. The levels suggest the basin might be 3m above the ground to the north. Depending on how frequently this is used and how much water it will store, the consequence of re-emergence of infiltrating water down gradient must be considered. As part of the Detailed Design work further details would be specified. The basin could be lined to prevent large scale infiltration with a return system to allow gradual release of exceedance flows into the proposed drainage systems once the peak flow has passed. We will provide further information to quantify the basin sizing and the associated report text and drawing will be updated accordingly.

18/1957/MOUT page 208

I trust this answers the outstanding queries.

Kind Regards Mercedes

Summary of Drainage Issues Conclusion:

There are a number of drainage issues that will require further discussion with the applicant to resolve all outstanding concerns. Some of these issues it has been suggested could be conditioned within any grant of planning. However before I could recommend any conditions in respect of drainage issues, I and the FMRT would need to be absolutely clear that this particular drainage strategy will work without the possibility of it causing issues of over- topping the existing drainage systems down the line lower in the town.

Further to the above the council's CHA, FMRT and Asset Intelligence have been party to ongoing consultations with the developer's designers, geotechnical engineer's and drainage consultant who have satisfied the council that the proposed highway drainage scheme, which could include a secondary drainage attenuation feature to the west of the site at Little Hemphay. The secondary system could ultimately be discharged at acceptable rates to the Water Authority at either Peazen Flats/Townsend, agreement in principle below:

Further to the meeting with yourself and DCC Highways yesterday we have undertaken some further analysis to develop a Plan B option. At present surface water drainage is proposed to be via an infiltration feature at Little Hemphay to the west of the site and via an attenuated feature which also provides betterment to an area of Mare Lane to the east of the site. See attached plans.

Whilst feasibility soakaways have shown that infiltration to the west is viable there is always a risk that following further BRE365 compliant testing and groundwater monitoring that infiltration will not be feasible. Therefore the alternative is to attenuate and discharge at greenfield rates from a second attenuation feature located at Little Hemphay.

From the 0.735ha area of the site draining to the west (and the proposed drainage feature at Little Hemphay) we anticipate a potential 1 in 100 year Greenfield rate of 0.9l/s and for comparison a 1 in 10 year Greenfield rate of 0.5l/s.

In order to follow best practice and use the smallest potential viable flow control to prevent potential blockage a hydrobrake of 55mm is proposed which would discharge at a peak flow rate of 1.5l/s (see attached calcs). From FEH analysis of the surrounding 2.19km2 catchment draining into the watercourse running along The Causeway and beyond, this flow equates to 0.1% of the catchment total for the 1 in 100 year event (see attached evaluation).

It is also worth noting that the Greenfield runoff from the site would be entering the catchment anyway prior to development but that under the development proposals the volume is not increased but the point of release from the site is no longer dispersed.

18/1957/MOUT page 209

Whilst this attenuated discharge could be routed to the existing watercourse at The Causeway this is some distance from the site and would require routing along the highway- a difficult and probably non-economic option.

Another option would be a potential connection to the 150mm SWW combined service opposite Peazen Flats/Townsend and we have received the following agreement from SWW.

“Mercedes should infiltration prove to be unachievable a discharge at 1.5l/s by means of a storage tank not SUDs feature to the combined sewer as proposed would be permitted.”

Regards

Martyn Dunn Development Coordinator

Based on this assurance that suitable and effective drainage solutions could be incorporated within more detailed designs agreed bore-hole locations. Devon County Council is content that a development as described above will be viable without any undue risk of overbearing the existing surface water systems in and around Short Furlong or the wider area of Beer Town.

Recommendation: THE HEAD OF PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENT, ON BEHALF OF DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL, AS LOCAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY, RECOMMENDS THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE INCORPORATED IN ANY GRANT OF PERMISSION

1. Prior to commencement of any part of the site the Planning Authority shall have received and approved a Construction Management Plan (CMP) including:

18/1957/MOUT page 210

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; and (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;

2. No development shall take place until details of the layout and construction of the access have been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The approved details shall be implemented before the development is brought into use.

REASON: To ensure the layout and construction of the access is safe in accordance with the NPPF.

3. 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.

4. No development shall take place until a surface water drainage scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. Unless it is demonstrated that it is unfeasible to do so, the scheme shall use appropriate Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems. The drainage scheme shall be designed so that there is no increase in the rate of surface water runoff from the site resulting from the development and so that storm water flows are attenuated. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.

REASON: To protect water quality and minimise flood risk.

Devon County Council Flood Risk Management 1/03/2019

18/1957/MOUT page 211

Recommendation:

• No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until a programme of percolation tests has been carried out in accordance with BRE Digest 365 Soakaway Design (2016), and the results approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with Devon County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority. A representative number of tests should be conducted to provide adequate coverage of the site, with particular focus placed on the locations of the proposed infiltration devices/permeable surfaces.

Reason: To ensure that surface water from the development is discharged as high up the drainage hierarchy as is feasible.

Reason for being a pre-commencement condition: This data is required prior to the commencement of any works as it will affect the permanent surface water drainage management plan, which needs to be confirmed before development takes place.

• 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 informed by the programme of approved BRE Digest 365 Soakaway Design (2016) percolation tests and in accordance with the principles set out in the Drainage Strategy (Ref. Short Furlong, Beer; Drainage Strategy; Rev. V9; dated 23rd January 2019).

Reason: To ensure that surface water runoff from the development is discharged as high up the drainage hierarchy as is feasible, and is managed in accordance with the principles of sustainable drainage systems.

Advice: Refer to Devon County Council’s Sustainable Drainage Guidance.

• 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.

18/1957/MOUT page 212

Reason: To ensure that the use of infiltration devices on the site is an appropriate means of surface water drainage management.

Reason for being a pre-commencement condition: This data is required prior to the commencement of any works as it could affect the permanent surface water drainage management plan, which needs to be confirmed before development takes place.

• No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until details of the exceedance pathways and overland flow routes across the site in the event of rainfall in excess of the design standard of the proposed 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 surface water runoff generated from rainfall events in excess of the design standard of the proposed surface water drainage management system is safely managed.

• 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.

Observations:

The applicant has proposed to manage surface water via infiltration. Initial infiltration tests indicate that this could be a viable method. However, as acknowledged within the Drainage Strategy (Ref. Short Furlong, Beer; Drainage Strategy; Rev. V9; dated 23rd January 2019) further infiltration tests will be required at the proposed depths of the soakaway's and groundwater monitoring will be required to demonstrate that groundwater will not hinder infiltration.

18/1957/MOUT page 213

An assessment of the existing highway drainage serving the access road known as Short Furlong has been carried out. It is understood that a soakaway, or multiple soakaway's, manages surface water from this access road. However, it is not understood how well this soakaway performs. An assessment of the existing highway drainage within Mare Lane will need to be completed to confirm whether additional surface water can drain into this system. The details of this assessment should be submitted at the reserved matters stage along with confirmation from Devon County Council's Highways Development Management Team. Two detention basins, either unlined or partially unlined, are proposed to manage exceedance flows. This is commended, however we are concerned about over- topping of these basins. Whilst these basins will manage exceedance flows to an extent, over-topping will need to be prevented. Infiltration tests will need to be completed in the locations of the proposed basins to confirm whether infiltration is viable. Groundwater monitoring should confirm groundwater levels within the basins localities.

The topography of the site has been identified within the Drainage Strategy (Ref. Short Furlong, Beer; Drainage Strategy; Rev. V9; dated 23rd January 2019). The topography will need to be accounted for within the detailed design of the surface water drainage management plan. Currently there are numerous deep manholes and deep pipework proposed. At the reserved matters stage the applicant should confirm the viability of the surface water drainage system.

The applicant should complete a further site investigation to demonstrate the geology underlying the site. This investigation will need to demonstrate that infiltrating water will not affect the ground conditions beneath the site.

Features upstream of the soakaway and attenuation tanks will need to be assessed at the next stage to a suitable SuDS Management Train is implemented at this site.

Other Representations

Nine letters of objection, raising the following concerns:

• Inadequate flood risk assessment or proposals to mitigate risk to residents below the site. • Proposed access through car park will prejudice an occupant of existing affordable housing with disabilities that causes seizures/collapsing when triggered by emotional responses such as surprise, fear, laughing or anger, which may arise from the activity associated with the new access arrangements • Concerns regarding safety of access arrangements through car park and refuse collection point with regards to young children. • Proposal will result in two cul-de-sacs converging on a narrow steep road, without adequate pavements. • Junction of Mare Lane and Townsend is dangerous for pedestrians. • Outward journeys greater than suggested due to limited employment in Beer. • Existing Short Furlong parking is inadequate.

18/1957/MOUT page 214

• Residents of existing Short Furlong pay monthly for upkeep of car park while the new house would not contribute. • Noise/disturbance and safety issues during construction for existing residents, particularly when using the car park. • Potential flooding of Ashill Court and risk to retaining wall for Ashill Court • Overdeveloping this beautiful village. • AONB; rural landscape should be maintained and new building kept within the building line. • Low percentage of affordable units not acceptable with the remainder becoming second/holiday homes. • Only 28 houses shown, where are the other 2 going? • Concerned about drains taking extra sewage. • Access should be at the other end of the village i.e. Little Hemphay.

1 neutral letter: • Consider Green Infrastructure criteria: o 40% green space including parks, wildlife corridors, community orchards o Retain and plant native trees at 25% cover o Plant wildflower rich meadows, verges o Plant fruit trees for pollinators • Nest bricks for swifts, sparrows and other colony nesting birds • Hedgehog ‘highways’ through gardens • Insect bricks built into houses • Swales that allow slow drainage and enhances aquatic fauna and associated wildflower planting

POLICIES

Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 Policies Strategy 1 (Spatial Strategy for Development in East Devon)

Strategy 3 (Sustainable Development)

Strategy 4 (Balanced Communities)

Strategy 5 (Environment)

Strategy 5B (Sustainable Transport)

Strategy 6 (Development within Built-up Area Boundaries)

Strategy 27 (Development at the Small Towns and Larger Villages)

Strategy 34 (District Wide Affordable Housing Provision Targets)

Strategy 38 (Sustainable Design and Construction)

Strategy 43 (Open Space Standards)

18/1957/MOUT page 215

Strategy 46 (Landscape Conservation and Enhancement and AONBs)

Strategy 47 (Nature Conservation and Geology)

Strategy 48 (Local Distinctiveness in the Built Environment)

D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness)

D2 (Landscape Requirements)

D3 (Trees and Development Sites)

EN4 (Protection of Local Nature Reserves, County Wildlife Sites and County Geological Sites)

EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features)

EN14 (Control of Pollution)

EN19 (Adequacy of Foul Sewers and Adequacy of Sewage Treatment System)

EN22 (Surface Run-Off Implications of New Development)

H2 (Range and Mix of New Housing Development)

TC2 (Accessibility of New Development)

TC4 (Footpaths, Bridleways and Cycleways)

TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access)

TC9 (Parking Provision in New Development)

Beer Neighbourhood Plan 2013 – 2041 (made 10 January)

Policy NE1 – Development and the Natural Environment

Policy NE2 – Locally Important Wildlife Sites

Policy NE3 – Protecting Historic Natural Features

Policy NE5 - Rights of Way and Other Access (footpaths, pavements, bridleways and cycleways)

Policy HBE2 – High Quality Design

Policy H1 – Meeting the Demand for Local Needs Housing in Beer Village

Policy H2 – Community Housing

18/1957/MOUT page 216

Policy H3 – Site Allocation: Land at Short Furlong

Policy TP2 – Car Parking

Policy TP4 – Accessibility

Government Guidance NPPF – National Planning Policy Framework (2019) NPPG – National Planning Practice Guidance

Site Location and Description

The application site relates to the lower, northern section of a steeply sloping agricultural field located to the northwest of the village centre. The site extends to approximately 0.97 ha. The field is bounded by hedge planting on the western and eastern boundaries and is undemarcated from the remainder of the field to the south. The north-eastern boundary is formed by a post and wire fence. A permissive footpath runs parallel to this boundary and beyond this is a hedge line before the land drops more steeply away to the rear of properties fronting Townsend. These properties are set significantly below site level. There is an existing field gate access in the south- eastern corner of the field just to the northeast of the car park area that serves the properties of Short Furlong and from where it is intended to provide access. The properties in Short Furlong are of relatively recent construction and are elevated above the level of the car park that serves them and are subject of significant retaining works. Beyond the southern field boundary on higher land is the village primary school.

An additional area of site lies to the northwest of the main site on lower land and to the west of recent residential development fronting Quarry Lane. This part of the site is relatively level and is separated from the road to the north by hedgerow.

The site lies within the East Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). It also lies less than 500 metres from the Beer Quarry & Caves Special Area of Conservation (SAC), which is also designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Additionally, it lies within 600 metres of the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site, also designated as the Sidmouth to Beer SSSI and the Sidmouth to West Bay SAC. The eastern end of the site lies just over 30 metres from the Beer Conservation Area. The nearest listed building is Rock Farm, a grade II listed property which lies on the north side of Townsend.

Most of the site lies within the Built-Up Area Boundary for Beer, as defined by the Beer Neighbourhood Plan (BNP), however a portion of the drainage infrastructure lies to the west of this boundary.

Proposed Development

The application seeks consent for the erection of up to 30 dwellings. It is in outline form with all matters reserved save for means of access. The application proposes 43.3% of the houses (13) as affordable.

18/1957/MOUT page 217

A detailed indicative layout and site sections have been submitted to enable consideration of the potential landscape impacts of the proposal, bearing in mind the location of the site within the East Devon AONB. This shows development running parallel with the contours of the land, in two rows of built form either side of the spine road and with a visitor car parking area at the eastern end of the site. The indicative section details indicate split level housing to work with the natural slope of the site. Incidental amenity/open space is shown at the eastern end of the site, either side of the access road but no formal provision is indicated or proposed.

Access to the site is proposed off the existing car parking area serving the development at Short Furlong, this itself accesses onto the west side of Mare Lane just to the east.

At the western end of the site a narrow strip of land connects the site with a satellite area to the northwest (west of the 'Little Hemphay’ development), which would serve as a surface water drainage area for the proposed development.

Considerations and Assessment

A previous application was refused on 11 May 2016, following consideration by the Development Management Committee for the following reasons:

1. The application site forms part of the countryside that surrounds Beer and is outside of the established Built-up Area Boundary of the settlement. The residential development of the site would have a detrimental impact on: the undeveloped character of the site; its open rural appearance within a designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; the landscape setting of the town, and; where such development would erode the transition from town to countryside. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the provisions of Strategy 7 (Development in the Countryside); D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness); Strategy 27 (Development at the Small Towns and Larger Villages) and Strategy 46 (Landscape Conservation and Enhancement and AONBs) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 and the guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

2. The application site lies outside the established settlement boundary of Beer, in an area where new development is strictly controlled to safeguard encroachment into open countryside and where special justification is required for new housing, without such special justification the proposal would be contrary to the provisions of D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and Strategy 7 (Development in the Countryside) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 - 2031.

3. The application lacks an appropriate mechanism to secure contributions towards Open Space and education infrastructure necessary to mitigate its impact, as such the application is contrary to Strategies 43 (Open Space Standards) and 50 (Infrastructure Delivery) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 - 2031.

18/1957/MOUT page 218

4. The proposed development makes insufficient provision of and lacks a suitable mechanism for securing affordable housing. As such the proposal would be contrary to Policy 34 (District Wide Affordable Housing Provision Targets) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.

5. The proposed development indicates drainage works within the Root Protection Area (RPA) of a tree group of recognised amenity value and where such works would have a harmful impact on the trees, likely to lead to their loss or damage and with a resulting detrimental impact on character and appearance of the area and landscape setting of the site, as such the proposal would be contrary to policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness), D3 (Trees on Development Sites) and Strategy 46 (Landscape Conservation and Enhancement and AONBs) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 - 2031.

The current application has been advanced again following the development and recent adoption of the Beer Neighbourhood Plan (BNP) as part of the development plan for the District. The proposal was screened at the time of the last planning application for the purposes of whether or not an Environmental Impact Assessment was required and it was found not be.

It is considered that the main issues in the determination of the application relate to: - The principle of the proposed development - Provision of affordable housing - The effect on the character and appearance of the area and wider landscape and AONB - The effect on residential amenity - The Public Sector Equality Duty - The effect on Biodiversity (including an appropriate assessment) - Highways Issues - Surface Water Drainage and Floor Risk - S.106 Requirements and other issues

The Principle of the proposed development

The Beer Neighbourhood Plan 2013 - 2014 (BNP) was made on 10 January 2018 and forms part of the development plan for the area and therefore forms the policy framework for the purposes of determining the application in addition to the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031. The BNP defines the Built-Up Area Boundary (BUAB) for the village which encompasses the majority of the site. Part of the proposed development falls outside of the BUAB, namely a drainage system which runs westwards along the back of Little Hemphay and down to Quarry Lane. In this respect the proposal is not fully in accordance with BNP Policy H3 nor Strategies 6 and 7 of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031.

In addition to lying mostly within the BUAB, the site is allocated for housing by BNP Policy H3. This provides for development for up to 31 dwellings with a minimum

18/1957/MOUT page 219

amount of affordable housing of at least 40% to be provide on-site in accordance with BNP Policy H1.

Policy H3 contains other requirements related to landscape, biodiversity, drainage and heritage matters, which are addressed in the relevant sections of the report below.

Although the drainage scheme takes the development outside of the BUAB, these works will be subterranean and are necessary to make the development work. Therefore the principle of the development is considered to be acceptable, subject to the consideration of other material matters as described below.

Provision of affordable housing

The allocation of the site under Policy H3 of the BNP sets a requirement of a minimum of 40% affordable housing. As noted above however this is subject to provisions of Policy H1 which requires 50% affordable housing, unless viability demonstrates otherwise. Taken together, the site must achieve 50% or whatever can be justified on viability grounds, subject to an absolute minimum of 40%.

Policy H1 of the BNP sets a requirement for there to be an identified need for affordable housing and that development should be tailored specifically to meet the identified need in terms of type and tenure.

The Housing Enabling Officer advises that a housing needs from July 2018 identified a need for 21 affordable houses for rent and shared ownership. The identified bedroom need was predominately for smaller units comprising 1 or 2 bedrooms (need of 13) together with 2 bedroom houses (need of 6) and 3 bedroom houses (need of 2). A development of ‘up to’ 30 dwellings which can afford affordable housing provision at 43.3% would in theory provide 12.99 affordable dwellings. The illustrative layout shows a provision of only 28 dwellings and if that were the number provided on site it would be expected that 12.12 affordable dwellings should be provided. Any requirement for less than a whole dwelling will be taken as a proportional commuted sum to be used towards affordable housing provision off-site (for example a 30 dwelling development would require and offsite commuted sum of 0.9 dwellings x £46,496 (Sidmouth /Coastal rate) = £41,846.40)

The tenure of the affordable dwellings should be as per policy with 70% for rent and 30% for shared ownership or similar route to home ownership. The housing needs survey supports this although the identified need is more heavily weighted to rented accommodation with 17 requiring rented properties and 4 being able to afford shard ownership. The tenure and mix will be secured via a S.106 agreement.

The application in 2016 was accompanied by a viability assessment from the developer which was independently assessed by the District Valuer. It was agreed that the site could afford a provision of 43.3% affordable housing and remain viable. The current application is not supported by a new viability assessment from the developer but instead an update from the original consultants and expressing a view that when costs and value changes since that time are taken into account, the position remains largely unchanged.

18/1957/MOUT page 220

Upon request, the applicant has provided further information on what underpinned this view and that information has been shared with the Council’s viability consultant for review. While not a full viability review the Council’s consultant has advised that there has been no significant improvement in the key viability indicators between the assessment in 2016 and now which would be likely give rise to a greater level of affordable housing should the assessment be re-run. Furthermore we consider the approach taken by the District Valuer in 2016 is broadly compliant with updated Planning Practice Guidance and is in line with the East Devon District Council Whole Plan Viability study. It is therefore considered appropriate to rely on the viability assessment undertaken in 2016 when determining the current application, assuming the scale and nature of the development remains largely unchanged.

Strategy 34 states that an overage clause will be sought in respect of future profits and affordable housing provision, where levels of affordable housing fall below policy targets. Provided that 43.3% affordable housing is secured along with the necessary overage clause, the development is acceptable in terms of delivering affordable housing.

Impact on the character and appearance of the area, wider landscape and AONB

Paragraph 172 of the NPPF states that planning permission for major development in the AONB should be refused other than in exceptional circumstances, and where it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest. The National Planning Practice Guidance advises that what constitutes major development in this context is a matter for the decision taker, taking into account the proposal in questions and the context.

An Inspector determined an appeal in an AONB in south Devon in 2018 for 28 houses adjacent to Frogmore (South Hams), ruling that it amounted to major development (APP/K1128/W/17/3185418). The appellants in that appeal referred to earlier appeal decisions including 32 dwellings near Kingsbridge (South Hams) and a proposal for a 39 home development at Tetbury in Gloucestershire where in each case Inspectors ruled that the proposals were not major development. However in the Frogmore decision the Inspector reasoned that the other settlements were far larger so the context for considering new development was materially different.

The villages of Frogmore and Beer are materially different in physical size. In addition, Beer Parish is considerably larger than Frogmore and Sherford Parish, Beer Parish having a population of around 1500 while Frogmore and Sherford has only 440 (2011 Census). The BNP reports that there are around 800 dwellings in the Parish and as it is a very rural parish it can be assumed that the majority of these will be located in the village itself. While consideration of what constitutes major development for the purposes of paragraph 172 of the NPPF is not necessarily limited to considerations of relative scale alone, in this particular case, on a site which has been allocated through the Neighbourhood Planning process, including examination, it is considered the proposal is not major development and the restrictions or tests this part of the framework do not apply in this instance. There is therefore no objection in principle to the application due to the location of the site in the AONB, although whether the effect of the development on the landscape is acceptable remains to be considered as a detailed matter.

18/1957/MOUT page 221

The designation of the landscape in which the site lies an AONB confers the highest landscape protection, affording the same status as a National Park in this respect. Paragraph 172 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in AONBs. Strategy 46 of the Local Plan reinforces this emphasis and specifies the need for all development to conserve and enhance the landscape character of the area.

Under Policy H3 of the BNP proposals must be supported by a detailed landscape and visual impact assessment (LVIA). It must also deliver high quality design reflecting local building styles and materials and retain existing vegetation surrounding the site with new tree and hedgerow planting incorporated into the scheme, in the interests of minimising impacts on the AONB.

The BNP acknowledges (as noted in its Strategic Environmental Assessment) that the allocation under Policy H3 would likely result in the whole of the BNP being graded as having minor negative effects against the Landscape, Townscape and Natural Environment Sustainability Appraisal theme. The Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group, in formulating the BNP, has considered a range of different sites for a development which would help deliver much needed affordable housing for the local community. Of four sites considered, a public consultation exercise in 2016 revealed that 51% of respondents preferred the Short Furlong site and while other sites were suggested, none of these alternatives were available. Therefore despite concerns over the landscape effect of the allocation this site was selected and is now adopted in policy.

A revised Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment has been provided which addressed concerns regarding the methodology used in the version originally submitted with the current planning application. The revisions to the LVIA address these concerns and the assessment shows that the proposals will have a high adverse landscape effect and visual effects for principal receptors ranging from high to low adverse, with views from Long Hill Road and New Road, the youth hostel and properties at Short Furlong being particularly affected. However, the landscape and visual effects are geographically limited to within 300-700m from the site and will be mitigated to some degree by site planning and appropriate native tree and hedgerow planting. The application suggests suitable vernacular materials to help mitigate visual effects although such matters will need to be agreed via any reserved matters application. Other factors such as street lighting and internal light-spill will also need careful consideration.

The landscape officer reports that the application (based on 30 dwellings) generates a requirement for the provision of 200m2 of amenity open space which should be provided on-site. However the Council’s S106 Officer has stated that the 2012 Open Spaces Study indicates that Beer has sufficient provision of amenity open space and that unless some is required for other reasons (landscaping or habitat mitigation) it is not required.

In summary, the proposals will likely have adverse landscape and visual effects. This will be limited to a relatively localised area. Appropriate landscaping, design and

18/1957/MOUT page 222

planting may be able to soften some of these effects but overall, the development will be harmful in relation to the AONB.

Effect on residential amenity

As the application is for outline permission only, the effect on the amenity of neighbouring dwellings is not certain. The site sits high above the existing properties on Townsend. Despite a reasonable amount of existing boundary vegetation it is presently possible to view the rear of some of those properties from the permissive footpath that runs along this boundary. It is considered likely therefore that proposed dwellings which will be built higher up the slope, particularly as they are likely to present at least a two-storey element to the rear due to the steep nature of the site (perhaps lending itself to split-level dwellings), will likely lead to overlooking of some of these properties and their rear windows. The nature of most of the village however is like this due to the steep slopes on which it sits, and such overlooking is therefore not uncommon. Measures to mitigate the worst effects should be secured through the reserved matters applications, by careful window design and placement, suitable boundary treatments and so forth. It does seem likely however that some loss of privacy to existing dwellings along Townsend will occur.

Public Sector Equality Duty

One objector considers that the proposed access will prejudice her daughter who lives in one of the existing affordable homes at Short Furlong and has severe narcolepsy and cataplexy. It is suggested that the development will prevent her from leaving her house and that this amounts to indirect discrimination.

Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 places a statutory duty on public authorities in the exercise of their functions to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination and advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it (the Public Sector Equality Duty or "PSED"). Disability is one of the protected characteristics and the Council therefore has a duty to consider how the development will affect the person in this case with the protected characteristic.

‘Due regard’ is the regard which is appropriate in consideration of the circumstances of the particular case. The level of regard appropriate will depend on the importance of the decision for the lives of persons with the protected characteristic, the extent of the inequality and any countervailing factors. Where negative impacts are identified, potential ways to mitigate these should be considered. The principle of proportionality applies: the more serious the negative impact, the greater the requirement on the decision maker to consider the negative impact, justify the decision and consider mitigation.

Due regard requires the gathering of information to ensure that an informed decision as regards any negative impact of a decision is made. The duty is on the decision maker to obtain the necessary information and the amount of evidence required will depend on the level of regard needed. The case of LDRA Ltd v SSCLG [2016] EWHC 950 (Admin) confirms that a decision maker is under an obligation to seek out the relevant information required where it has not been provided by the parties. To take

18/1957/MOUT page 223

a decision in accordance with the duty the Council must, having taken reasonable steps to inquire into the issues, understand the likely impact of the decision on the equality needs which are potentially affected by the decision.

In this particular instance it is considered that the written representation explains the issue sufficiently so that the potential effect of the development on the affected individual is understood. The objector states “Narcolepsy is a rare neurological condition that affects the brain and cataplexy is a related seizure-like condition that causes the patient to collapse when triggered by emotional responses such as surprise, fear, laughing or anger”. The affected individual “…does not answer the phone or the door because doing so will cause cataplexy. She can only go out with supervision and with people who understand how to cope when she collapses. She will probably not be able to submit her own response to the proposed application because her narcolepsy causes her to fall asleep while trying to perform such activities or she will write total nonsense not being able to get her thoughts on paper.”

The objector goes on - “The residents' car park is at the moment quite accessible for her. Friends can park there and go up to her house to help her down the steps and into their car mostly without incident as she usually knows the people she will encounter on the way. If the access is allowed it will mean that any visitor to the property will find parking near the steps difficult and having brought my daughter down to the car park she will not know how many vehicles will be going through and this will already have increased her anxiety level to the extent that she may collapse into the road while trying to get into the car. At the moment, when she collapses, most of the drivers know of her condition and will proceed accordingly. Thirty extra houses will increase the traffic flow through this quiet, safe place to an unacceptable amount.”

The development will undoubtedly lead to a flow of additional traffic through the car park and into the proposed estate. As a result it could be expected that the circumstances referred to in the objection could arise, leading to the incidents described. Whether this would lead to the affected individual becoming housebound is not certain however. In her current accommodation there is not a total absence of risk of such incidents and nor could there ever be. For instance, if something unexpected occurred such as an increase in deliveries to neighbours by various different service providers or if neighbours have social events or move house, this has the potential to trigger an incident.

Over time as her environment and community have become more familiar this would logically lead to a reduced frequency of such risks. While the development would lead to a period of change, eventually that change will become more familiar. That is not to play down the seriousness of having to cope with such a change but the needs of affected individual have to also be balanced against the needs of the wider community in meeting its identified housing needs. The objection states that the affected individual …"can only go out with supervision and people who understand how to cope when she collapses.” There appears therefore to be a mechanism in place already to provide assistance and there is no suggestion that this would stop as a result of the development.

Concern is raised that visitors who call on her will have difficulty in parking near the steps difficult due to the new access arrangements. She lives at number 4 Short

18/1957/MOUT page 224

Furlong and the nearest steps to her house lead down to at turning head in the car park immediately opposite the proposed new access. If her own allocated car parking space were unavailable, which itself lies near the bottom of these steps, visitors could therefore conceivably park here while picking up and dropping her off. There is evidence from ‘google streetview’ that this space is used for picking up and dropping off already (though not necessarily her). This area would not be in direct conflict with traffic entering the new estate which would turn right.

The Council has had due regard to the PSED contained in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, which sets out the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation, and to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it. Since an objector has raised concerns over how the development could affect a person with a disability, she is a person with a protected characteristic for the purposes of the PSED.

It does not follow from the PSED that the application should be refused. There would likely be a negative impact during construction and potentially for a period of time thereafter (which could be a substantial period considering the size of the development). However, from the evidence available it is apparent that support is already available for the affected individual. Furthermore, while considering where the affected person lives, where her allocated car parking space is located and the location of a potential area for use when visitors pick up/drop off, it is not considered likely that the proposed new access will lead to the harmful effects to the extent suggested. It is considered that in these circumstances the pressing housing needs of the wider community weigh more heavily in favour of granting permission.

The effect on biodiversity

The site sits in close proximity to a number of protected sites as identified earlier in the report. In addition to the assessment of the effects on on-site biodiversity it is also necessary to consider effects on these designated habitats.

Natural England advises that without appropriate mitigation the application would have an adverse effect on the integrity of Beer Quarry and Caves SAC and that a Bat Mitigation Strategy must be submitted and secured at outline stage. No concerns regarding any of the other designated sites were raised (i.e. the Sidmouth to West Bay and Lyme Bay and Torbay SACs).

The Local Planning Authority has a duty under Regulation 9 (5) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (“2017 Regulations”). This duty is for all “competent authorities” (including Local Planning Authorities and other public bodies) to “have regard to the Habitats Directive in the exercise of its functions”. Regulation 61 (1) of the Habitats Regulations states the following:

“A competent Authority, before deciding to undertake, give any consent, permission or other authorisation for, a plan or project which:

a) is likely to have a significant effect on a European site or a European offshore marine site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects), and

18/1957/MOUT page 225

b) is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of that site, must make an appropriate assessment of the implications for that site in view of that site’s conservation objectives”.

The Council has carried out an Appropriate Assessment (appended to this report) as required, using the information supplied by the applicant’s ecologist, and has identified a number of mitigation measures that are necessary. These will need to be secured, using both planning conditions and a S.106 agreement, in order for the integrity of the protected site to be maintained. These mitigation measures are detailed in the Appropriate Assessment but are summarised in the recommendation and conditions pertaining to this planning application report. Broadly speaking they involve a great deal of compensatory planting and improvements to bat foraging and commuting connectivity off the site (on land controlled by the applicant) and also planting, approval of a lighting scheme for the development and also 2m high fencing along the northern and western boundaries (to maintain dark corridors). This fencing is subject to ongoing discussions between the applicant, Natural England and the Council as a more visually appropriate means of mitigation would be preferred. The Appropriate Assessment has been sent to Natural England for consideration.

In terms of site specific ecological effects, given the history of the site, there is a good level of survey data underpinning the Ecological Appraisal with surveys dating from 2012, 2014, 2016 and now 2017.

The development would result in the loss of approximately 1ha of poor semi- improved/improved grassland. Poor semi-improved and improved grassland are considered widespread and common habitats of local value. It is therefore considered that this habitat loss would have a minor ecological impact at local level. Landscaping of the site with a mix of native trees and shrubs, together with more formal areas planted with a mix of native and non-native flowering nectar-rich species to encourage invertebrates will assist in maintaining and improving biodiversity. It is also recommended in the Ecological Appraisal that 10 bat tubes are incorporated into the buildings.

Other fauna (reptiles, dormice, nesting birds, badgers) may be affected by the proposals. Mitigations measures such as translocation, enhancement to existing hedgerows, nesting provision and timing of works, site walkovers and prevention of entrapment (of badgers) is recommended. All on-site mitigation will need to be secured with an appropriate condition.

With the mitigation secured as described above the proposals will meet the requirements of policy H3 of the BNP and Strategy 47 and Policy EN5 of the Local Plan.

Highways

The application seeks approval for the means of access as the only reserved matter to be considered at this stage. While an illustrative layout is provided, matters relating to the provision of parking within the estate, the layout of the roads, pathways and so forth will be considered at the reserved matters stage.

18/1957/MOUT page 226

Access to the site will be via the existing car park that serves the existing houses at Short Furlong.

While the Highway Authority expresses concern over the pedestrian access being primarily via Mare Lane (with the permissive path also enabling access to Townsend), in reality there is little other option due to the shape and position of the site. It would be possible to provide greater connectivity between the estate illustrated on the plans and the permissive footpath that runs along the northern boundary of the site. This would still lead to Mare Lane however and this path would need surfacing properly to become a reliable alternative pedestrian route.

Concerns is also expressed at the gradient for pedestrians at the access point, being 1 in 10 where 1 in 12 would be preferred.

No concern is expressed by the Highway Authority with regards to the suitability of the existing access from Mare Lane into the car park, nor in respect of the additional traffic that would be generated as a result of the proposed development

Concern is expressed by some objectors with regard to the loss of existing parking spaces to make room for the proposed new estate road. While the plans are illustrative in nature, additional off-street parking provision is indicated in close proximity to the entrance to the new estate. The exact numbers will be a matter for consideration at reserved matters stage.

The existing car park and its access are not part of the adopted highway at present (it is understood because the drainage arrangements were not sufficient) but the new development would seek to create an adopted highway and include this existing section within the adopted area.

The Highway Authority recommends a condition requiring details of the layout and construction of the access be submitted for approval. This is unusual and not normally necessary where the access already exists and where approval is being sought for the means of access as part of the application for outline planning permission. While no access details are provided, other than the site location plan, and although the proposed drainage strategy appears to indicate routing of drainage infrastructure in the area proposed for access, it is considered unnecessary to apply this condition. The Highway Authority has stated the access is suitable and so it is not necessary to have to agree further details.

Surface Water Drainage and Flood Risk

BNP Policy H3 has a requirement that proposals should use adequate drainage promoting the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) and not increase flood risk elsewhere. Some of the objections raised by the public relate to the adequacy of the drainage system and the consequent related risks to neighbouring properties.

DCC’s Flood Risk Management Team has been in discussions with the applicant and the County Highway Engineers during the application to discuss the potential for a suitable sustainable drainage system for the development, noting that all matters other than access are reserved at this stage.

18/1957/MOUT page 227

While DCC has not objected to the proposals there is still much information to be gathered from site investigations which must be presented to demonstrate how the site can be adequately drained and to that end it has suggested a considerable number of pre-commencement conditions, all of which are considered necessary to make the development acceptable in principle.

Much data and several plans including a Drainage Strategy has been submitted for consideration. As the application is in outline form however and the location and amount of impermeable surfacing is therefore not known, these details will possibly need to be revised and re-submitted as part of any reserved matters application.

Conclusion

The development is located mostly within a recently allocated site for housing. It will provide 43.3% of the housing as affordable housing on the site, with the potential for a small off-site commuted sum where that results in a non-whole number of affordable units. This will be secured via a S.106 agreement. This figure is the most the scheme can afford while remaining viable and falls within the acceptable range of provision under the BNP and Local Plan. The delivery of affordable housing in Beer is considered to weigh heavily in favour of approval, where there is a need for 21 affordable houses and where delivering such development is challenging due to the special qualities of the land in which it is located.

The development is located in a sensitive area, being in an AONB and in proximity to the Beer Quarry Caves SAC. The site has been allocated for the proposed development through the neighbourhood planning process after consideration of a number of alternative sites that were available. At the time of allocation no Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment or Habitat Regulations Assessment were carried out, these instead being deferred until application stage.

The LVIA submitted with the application demonstrates (as expected in the BNP) that there would be harmful landscape effects, but that these would be experienced in a relatively localised area. A high quality landscaping scheme (and design and appearance of buildings) will be required at reserved matters stage to limit the harm that will be caused although it will not be possible to remove all harmful effects altogether.

The HRA demonstrates that the development can take place without adversely affecting the integrity of the SAC but only if an extensive set of mitigation measures are secured and delivered. These mitigation measure are to be secured through planning conditions and a S.106 agreement.

The development of the site could lead to some harmful effects to the amenity of nearby dwellings but not to the extent that permission should be refused, once appropriate design and landscaping are taken into account. The development has the potential to cause temporary disruption to an existing resident with protected characteristics under the Equalities Act but having examine the issue under the PSED this is not considered to outweigh the benefits of the proposal.

18/1957/MOUT page 228

The application seek permission for access as the only reserved matter and the Highway Authority has not raised any objection to the scheme in this respect, not to the effect of the access being provided via the existing car park serving the existing dwellings. The development will provide an opportunity for the adoption of this existing access way through the provision of a suitable drainage scheme.

A drainage strategy has been agreed in principle with the Lead Local Flood Authority. Further evidence is required to demonstrate that this will perform as suggested and this in part depends of the final design of the development. If evidence points towards a different solution being required, this will have to be agreed first under the conditions suggested.

On balance, while the development will be harmful to the AONB, these effects can be softened and this harm is not considered to outweigh the very great benefits in the provision of meeting a high need for affordable housing in the village, which has benefits in terms of the social and economic dimensions of meeting sustainable development objectives as described in the NPPF.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That the Habitat Regulations Appropriate Assessment within this Committee report be adopted; 2. That the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions and the completion of a Section 106 agreement to secure: a. The provision of 43.3% affordable housing (including the provision of an overage clause and also a commuted sum towards the delivery of affordable housing off-site for any non-whole units as a result of the final number of dwellings on site); and b. The provision of the off-site habitat mitigation measures identified in section 4 of the 'Statement to Inform an Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017' (Richard Green Ecology January 2019).

1. Approval of the details of the layout, scale and appearance of the buildings and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced. (Reason - The application is in outline with one or more matters reserved.)

3. Plans and particulars of the reserved matters referred to in condition 1 above shall be submitted in writing to the Local Planning Authority and shall be carried out as approved. (Reason - The application is in outline with one or more matters reserved.)

18/1957/MOUT page 229

4. The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later. (Reason - In accordance with the requirements of Section 92 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990.)

5. Prior to commencement of any part of the site the Planning Authority shall have received and approved in writing 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; and (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. (Reason: A pre-commencement condition is required to ensure that adequate facilities are available for construction and other traffic attracted to the site in accordance with Policy TC7 - Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

6. 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

18/1957/MOUT page 230

indicating, as appropriate, the design, layout, levels, gradients, materials and method of construction shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. (Reasons: To ensure that adequate information is available for the proper consideration of the detailed proposals in accordance with Policy TC7 - Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

7. No development shall take place until a surface water drainage scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. Unless it is demonstrated that it is unfeasible to do so, the scheme shall use appropriate Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems. The drainage scheme shall be designed so that there is no increase in the rate of surface water runoff from the site resulting from the development and so that storm water flows are attenuated. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme. (Reason: The details are required prior to commencement to ensure that they fit efficiently within the site layout, protect water quality and minimise flood risk in accordance with Policy EN22 - Surface Run-Off Implications of New Development of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 and the guidance contained with the National Planning Policy Framework.)

8. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until a programme of percolation tests has been carried out in accordance with BRE Digest 365 Soakaway Design (2016), and the results approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with Devon County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority. A representative number of tests should be conducted to provide adequate coverage of the site, with particular focus placed on the locations of the proposed infiltration devices/permeable surfaces. (Reason: To ensure that surface water from the development is discharged as high up the drainage hierarchy as is feasible. Reason for being a pre- commencement condition: This data is required prior to the commencement of any works as it will affect the permanent surface water drainage management plan, which needs to be confirmed before development takes place.)

9. 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 informed by the programme of approved BRE Digest 365 Soakaway Design (2016) percolation tests and in accordance with the principles set out in the Drainage Strategy (Ref. Short Furlong, Beer; Drainage Strategy; Rev. V9; dated 23rd January 2019). (Reason: To ensure that surface water runoff from the development is discharged as high up the drainage hierarchy as is feasible, and is managed in accordance with the principles of sustainable drainage systems. Reason for being a pre- commencement condition: A detailed permanent surface water drainage management plan is required prior to commencement of any works to demonstrate that the plan fits within the site layout, manages surface water safely and does not increase flood risk downstream. Advice: Refer to Devon County Council's Sustainable Drainage Guidance.)

18/1957/MOUT page 231

10. 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 informed by the programme of approved BRE Digest 365 Soakaway Design (2016) percolation tests and in accordance with the principles set out in the Drainage Strategy (Ref. Short Furlong, Beer; Drainage Strategy; Rev. V9; dated 23rd January 2019). (Reason: To ensure that surface water runoff from the development is discharged as high up the drainage hierarchy as is feasible, and is managed in accordance with the principles of sustainable drainage systems. Reason for being a pre- commencement condition: A detailed permanent surface water drainage management plan is required prior to commencement of any works to demonstrate that the plan fits within the site layout, manages surface water safely and does not increase flood risk downstream. Advice: Refer to Devon County Council's Sustainable Drainage Guidance.)

11. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until details of the exceedance pathways and overland flow routes across the site in the event of rainfall in excess of the design standard of the proposed 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 surface water runoff generated from rainfall events in excess of the design standard of the proposed surface water drainage management system is safely managed. Reason for being a pre- commencement condition: This data is required prior to the commencement of any works as it could affect the permanent surface water drainage management plan, which needs to be confirmed before development takes place.)

12. 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. Reason for being a pre-commencement condition: A plan needs to be demonstrated prior to the commencement of any works to ensure that surface water can be managed suitably without increasing flood risk downstream, negatively affecting water quality downstream or negatively impacting on surrounding areas and infrastructure. Advice: Refer to Devon County Council's Sustainable Drainage Guidance.)

18/1957/MOUT page 232

13. No development above foundation level shall take place until a landscaping scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; such a scheme to include the planting of trees, hedges, shrubs, herbaceous plants and areas to be grassed. The scheme shall also give details of any proposed walls, fences and other boundary treatment. The landscaping scheme shall be carried out in the first planting season after commencement of the development unless any alternative phasing of the landscaping is agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the landscaping shall be maintained for a period of 5 years. Any trees or other plants which die during this period shall be replaced during the next planting season with specimens of the same size and species unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Reason - To ensure that the details are planned and considered at an early stage in the interests of amenity and to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policies D1 - Design and Local Distinctiveness and D2 - Landscape Requirements of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

14. No development shall take place until details of proposed groundworks have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall include the following: o Plans showing the proposed grading and mounding of land areas including the levels and contours to be formed, showing the relationship of proposed mounding to existing vegetation and surrounding landform. o Sections showing the proposed grading and mounding of land areas including the levels to be formed, showing the relationship of proposed mounding to existing vegetation and surrounding landform. Each section shall include the existing site levels as a red dashed line. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of the development. (Reason - In the interests of amenity and to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and Policy D2 (Landscape Requirements) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031. These details are required prior to the beginning of construction as groundworks will take place at the start.)

15. No construction of any building above foundation level shall commence until details of fencing, walling or any other hard or soft landscape boundary treatments have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any walls and/or fences shall be erected in accordance with the approved details within the curtilage of the dwelling house before it is first occupied. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re- enacting that Order with or without modification), these walls and/or fences shall not thereafter be altered, removed or replaced without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. (Reason - In the interests of amenity and to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policy D1 (Design and Local

18/1957/MOUT page 233

Distinctiveness) and Policy D2 (Landscape Requirements) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

16. A landscape management plan, including long term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscape areas other than privately owned domestic gardens, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to any development above foundation level. The proposals shall be carried out as approved for the full duration of the plan. (Reason - To ensure that the details are considered at an early stage in the interests of amenity and to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policies D1 - Design and Local Distinctiveness and D2 - Landscape Requirements of the Adopted New East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

17. No development shall take place until a landscaping scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; such a scheme shall include the following: o A Green infrastructure statement describing the various types of proposed planting and features, and how they tie into the local landscape character and other elements of the proposed development. o Detailed layouts providing the following information: - Planting within any public realm - On plot soft landscape proposals facing street frontage or any other public realm areas - Hard or soft plot boundary treatments - Hard surface treatment for public realm areas and areas facing the street frontage - Proposed site levels o Soft landscape proposals shall be accompanied by a specification detailing the proposed species, their planting size, the density at which they will be planted, any specific planting matrices, the number of plants of each species and notes describing how the scheme will be implemented. o Hard landscape proposals shall be accompanied by a material specification. o If the scheme has significant level changes, a section shall be provided showing how the proposed development will integrate into the existing context. o Construction details of any proposed walls, fences and other boundary treatments o The various tree pits and/or Devon bank construction details. The landscaping scheme shall be carried out in the first planting season after completion of the groundworks and the building construction works or prior to first occupation whichever is the earliest unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the landscaping shall be maintained for a period of 5 years. Any trees or other plants which die during this period shall be replaced during the next planting season with specimens of the same size and species unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Reason - In the interests of amenity and to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Strategy 3 (Sustainable Development), Strategy 4 (Balanced Communities), Strategy 5 (Environment), Strategy 43 (Open Space Standards), Policy D1 (Design and Local

18/1957/MOUT page 234

Distinctiveness) and Policy D2 (Landscape Requirements) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031. The landscaping scheme is required to be approved before development starts to ensure that it properly integrates into the development from an early stage.)

18. No development shall commence until a lighting scheme for the development, for both the duration of the construction of the development and following its occupation in perpetuity, has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Such a scheme shall be designed to avoid light spill over the site's boundary hedges, such that there would be no increase above background levels, or a maximum of 0.5 lux where bats fly around the application site. No external lighting shall be installed on the site other than in accordance with the agreed scheme. (Reason- In the interests of maintaining the suitability of the site for bats, to maintain the integrity of the Beer Quarry Caves Special Area of Conservation, in accordance with policy H3 (Site Allocation: Land at Short Furlong) of the Beer Neighbourhood Plan, Strategy 47 (Nature Conservation and Geology) and Policy EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2033 and paragraph 170 of the National Planning Policy Framework. This is a pre- commencement condition as it seeks to regulate how the site is to be illuminated during construction of the development.)

19. The mitigation measure identified in section 4 of the 'Ecological Appraisal' (Richard Green Ecology August 2018), section 4 of the 'Statement to Inform an Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017' (Richard Green Ecology January 2019) and in the email from Bell Cornwall dated 15.04.19 shall be implemented in full and in accordance with an Ecological Mitigation and Enhancement Strategy (EMES) (including a detailed planting scheme, an ecological management plan and a timetable for the delivery of the mitigation measures), which shall have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority prior to any development commencing. Written confirmation of the delivery of each of the mitigation measure shall be provided in writing to the Local Planning Authority by a suitably qualified ecologist within one month of each measure being delivered. (Reason- In the interests of maintaining the suitability of the site for bats and other protected species, to maintain the integrity of the Beer Quarry Caves Special Area of Conservation, in accordance with policy H3 (Site Allocation: Land at Short Furlong) of the Beer Neighbourhood Plan, Strategy 47 (Nature Conservation and Geology) and Policy EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) of the East Devon Local Plan2013-2033 and paragraph 170 of the National Planning Policy Framework. This is a pre-commencement condition as it seeks to regulate how the site is to be illuminated during construction of the development.)

20. No development shall take place until the developer has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation (WSI) which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out at all times in accordance with the approved scheme, or such other details as may be subsequently agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority.

18/1957/MOUT page 235

(Reason - To ensure, in accordance with Policy EN6 (Nationally and Locally Important Archaeological Sites) of the East Devon Local Plan and 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. This pre-commencement condition is required to ensure that the archaeological works are agreed and implemented prior to any disturbance of archaeological deposits by the commencement of preparatory and/or construction works.)

Plans relating to this application:

13707_L01_01 Location Plan 20.08.18 Rev I

List of Background Papers Application file, consultations and policy documents referred to in the report.

18/1957/MOUT page 236 Appropriate Assessment

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, Section (63)

Application 18/1957/MOUT Reference

Brief Construction of up to 30 new dwellings (including affordable housing description provision) outline application with all matters apart from access of proposal reserved

Location Land Adjacent Short Furlong, Beer, Devon

Site is: Within 500 metres of the Beer Quarry & Caves Special Area of Conservation (SAC)

Within 500 metres of the Beer Quarry & Caves Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)

Within 600 metres of the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site

Within 600 metres of the Sidmouth to Beer SSSI

Within 600 metres of the Sidmouth to West Bay SAC

(See Appendix 1 for list of interest features of the SPA/SAC) Step 1 Screening for Likely Significant Effect on Beer Quarry Caves SAC

Risk Assessment Could the N.B. This assessment is based on the information provided in the Qualifying ‘Statement to Inform and Appropriate Assessment under the Features of Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017’ prepared by the Richard Green Ecology (January 2019). All references to figures, European tables, appendices/annexes, sections are made with respect to those site be contained therein. affected by the Yes proposal? The 2014 and 2017 bat surveys of the Application Site identified greater and Consider lesser horseshoe bat and Myotis species bat activity along the northern, both north western and south western boundaries of the Application Site, and along hedges outside of the Application Site. It is likely that the horseshoe construction bats recorded may hibernate in the caves and be part of local breeding and populations. Similarly, the Myotis bats recorded may have included operational Bechstein’s bat, however it is notoriously difficult to confirm species stages. identification of Myotis bats using only echolocation calls. For the purposes of this assessment, it is assumed that Bechstein’s bats forage in the area, including around the Application Site.

18/1957/MOUT page 237

Therefore, there could be adverse population effects on the qualifying bat species using the SAC.

Impacts on bats

The development would result in the loss of 0.99 ha of poor semi- improved/improved cattle grazed pasture, a foraging habitat of greater and lesser horseshoe bats, and would introduce artificial light, which could disturb habitat features used by commuting or foraging bats, resulting in disruption of flight lines. The Application Site is approximately 600 m away from the boundary of Beer Quarry and Caves SAC and so is within the likely winter foraging range of all three qualifying species (refer to Figure 2). However, Bechstein’s bats do not tend to forage over pasture, lesser horseshoe bats are less likely to forage over pasture when livestock are not present during the winter, and greater horseshoe bats favour woodland habitats over grassland in the winter. The value of the pasture on the Application Site is therefore likely to be diminished as a winter foraging habitat, compared to its value during the spring and summer.

The Application Site lies approximately 2 km to the east of a greater horseshoe maternity roost in Branscombe and approximately 4.5 km to the south-east of a greater horseshoe maternity roost in Southleigh. It is generally accepted that greater horseshoe bats have a Core Sustenance Zone (CSZ) around maternity roots of 3 km (Collins et al., 2016); however, because of the proximity to the coast of the Branscombe roost, and the subsequent absence of suitable foraging habitat over the sea in this zone, the CSZ of the Branscombe roost is likely to be larger, i.e., up to 4 km from the roost.

The Application Site is within the CSZ of the Branscombe roost but outside of that for the Southleigh roost, although there is some connection between these roosts, with individual bats being radio-tracked using both roots on the same night by Fiona Mathews in 2010.

The existing boundaries, including hedges, would be retained apart from some individual low-growing ornamental shrubs at the Application Site entrance, where a short section (approx. 6 m) would be cleared to provide access to the Application Site. This area is also lit by street lighting in Short Furlong and so is unlikely to be used by the qualifying bat species. Therefore, there would be no severance of bat habitat connectivity.

The management of land under Higher Level Stewardship agreement (refer to section 2.2.7) is likely to have had a positive effect on bat populations using Beer Quarry and Caves SAC, particularly greater horseshoe bats, which are a target species of the agreements and management. This management is likely to have contributed to the continuing increase in the greater horseshoe population at the SAC, increasing the resilience of the population and the integrity of the SAC against other factors, such as loss of habitat elsewhere.

Impacts on Conservation Objectives

18/1957/MOUT page 238

The Favourable Conservation Status of the three qualifying species could be adversely affected, as the following aspects of the Conservation Objectives would not be maintained or restored:

• The extent and distribution of the habitats of qualifying species. The extent of foraging habitat, i.e., grazed pasture, used in particular by breeding and juvenile greater horseshoe bats, would be reduced by 0.99 ha. Using Corine land cover 2012 data for the UK (the best available habitat/land cover data set, available from data.gov.uk) this would be approx. 0.2% of available pasture habitat (469.43 ha) within the 4 km radius CSZ (core sustenance zone) of Tula Barn greater horseshoe bat maternity roost in 2012 (refer to Figure 4). However, the Corine data set is at a macro scale and does not include a lot of pasture habitat within the area, as can clearly be seen by looking at an aerial photograph of the area. Clinton Devon Estates has also since reverted some arable land to pasture, so the actual percentage will be even smaller. Therefore, using the Corine data this is likely to be a gross under-estimation of available pasture habitat within 4 km of Tula Barn and the percentage loss of available habitat is likely to be considerably smaller than 0.2%;

• The structure and function of the habitats of qualifying species. The function of boundary features around the Application Site, along which bats fly, could be affected by lighting disturbing bats and causing them to avoid the features; and

• The populations of qualifying species. Species populations could be affected by loss of foraging habitat (horseshoe bats only) and disturbance to bat foraging and commuting habitat;

The following aspects of the Conservation Objectives would be maintained or restored, i.e., not adversely affecting the Favourable Conservation Status of the three qualifying species:

• The supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely. These will not be affected, as foraging habitat will be lost over the Application Site (refer to Extent of habitats above) and the proposed development will not affect processes outside of the Application Site; and

• The distribution of qualifying species within the site. This will not be affected, as the proposal is outside of Beer Quarry and Caves SAC and will have no influence over distribution of species within the SAC.

Summary of effects without mitigation

0.99 ha of cattle grazed poor semi-improved pasture would be lost during construction; and boundary features, along which bats fly, may be disturbed by lighting both during construction and occupation of houses.

It is therefore considered that in the absence of mitigation, there could be an adverse effect on the integrity of Beer Quarry and Caves SAC, as the ability of the site to maintain the populations of qualifying bat species at their current level could be affected.

18/1957/MOUT page 239

Conclusion of Screening Is the East Devon District Council concludes that there would be Likely Significant proposal Effects ‘alone’ and/or ‘in-combination’ on features associated with the likely to proposal at Land Adjacent Short Furlong, Beer in the absence of mitigation have a significant An of the plan or proposal . effect, either Appropriate Assessment is necessary

‘alone’ or ‘in combination ’ on a European site? Local J Ebdon Date: 3 April 2019 Authority Officer

In-combination Effects Plans or East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 (adopted 2016) – not likely to result in in- projects with combination effects potential cumulative Beer Neighbourhood Plan 2014-2031 - not likely to result in in-combination in- effects combination No other projects specifically likely to affect the Beer Quarry Caves SAC. impacts. How impacts of current proposal combine with other plans or projects individually or severally. Mitigation of No in-combination effects likely. in- combination effects. Assessment of Impacts with Mitigation Measures Mitigation Pre-construction & construction phase measures

18/1957/MOUT page 240

included in (a) Habitat loss – loss of foraging habitat the Habitat loss will be largely limited to grassland only. The vast majority of proposal. existing hedges, trees and shrubs around the Application Site will be retained, apart from a very small area of ornamental shrubs around existing car parking at Short Furlong, which will be removed to create the site access (refer to Section 3.4 and Annex A); and one ash tree on the bank to the north-east of the Application Site, which will be affected by the proposed drainage and has been recommended for removal by Aspect Tree Consultancy (refer to Aspect Tree Consultancy’s Arboricultural Impact Assessment Report (AIA) dated 08/08/2018).

To mitigate for this loss of bat foraging habitat a number of mitigation measures are proposed, which ideally would be implemented before construction work starts, so that new habitats become established and provide value for bats before the grassland habitat on the Application Site is destroyed. Refer to Figures 5 & 6 for locations, Table 4.1 for total lengths/areas and Annex C for mitigation planting species mixes.

i. New species-rich native hedges, with standard trees approx. every 15 m, to be planted around the Application Site, including filling in gaps in the hedge to the west of the Application Site (Figure 6 includes the number of standard trees to be planted in each hedge). These will provide additional bat foraging habitat, reinforced commuting routes and screening from light spill once the hedges have become established, benefitting all of the qualifying bat species. ii. New species-rich native hedges, with standard trees approx. every 15 m, to be planted in the following locations off the Application Site, to provide additional bat foraging habitat and new commuting routes between Beer Quarry and Caves SAC and surrounding areas of bat foraging habitat (Figure 5 includes the number of standard trees to be planted in each hedge): a) Along an existing stock fence line, approx. 90 m in length, approx. 260 m to the south-west of the Application Site, to the west of Pecorama overspill car park. This will provide a connection between good bat foraging habitat to the north, made up of a series of small fields with tall, thick hedges and blocks of trees, to a ‘green lane’ to the south, lined on both sides with hedges, that provides sheltered foraging along it and connection with other habitats to the west and south. b) Along an existing post and rail fence line, approx. 30 m in length approx. 200 m to the south-west of the Application Site, between Pecorama coach park and overspill car park. This will provide another connection similar to a. above; c) Along an existing stock fence line, approx. 110 m in length, approximately 1 km to the west of the Application Site, to the west of Beer Quarry and Caves SAC. This will provide a connection between to a lane to the west, lined on both sides with hedges, that provides sheltered foraging along it and connection with other habitats to the north and south. The existing hedge at the west end of the fence line will also have standard trees planted within it to the north to increase its foraging and commuting value (refer to iv. below). d) In three gaps in hedges to the east of Beer Quarry and Caves SAC. This will provide a connection from Beer Quarry and Caves SAC to hedges to the east, which in turn connect with foraging habitats to the north and east.

iii. New native woodland planting in a field of poor semi-improved grazed pasture to the north-west of the Application Site, approx. 1,180 m2 in area,

18/1957/MOUT page 241

and in part of another field of improved grazed pasture approx. 330 m to the west of the Application Site, approx. 4,790 m2 in area7. This will increase the value of foraging habitat close to Beer Quarry and Caves SAC for all qualifying bat species, as woodland habitat is considered to be a more valuable habitat overall, particularly during winter for greater horseshoe bats, when they will be present at the SAC (refer to Sections 2.2.3, 2.2.4, 2.2.5, 3.5, 3.6 & 3.7).

iv. Planting of standard trees, at approx. 15 m spacing, in eighteen existing hedges radiating out from Beer Quarry and Caves SAC that have no or few trees within them (Figure 5 includes the number of standard trees to be planted in each hedge). This will enhance the bat foraging value of these hedges by providing additional structure and shelter from prevailing winds, increasing invertebrate abundance and diversity along the hedges, as well as providing feeding perches for greater horseshoe bats and more effective bat corridors for all qualifying bat species linking to good foraging habitats, including wooded valleys around Beer Quarry and Caves SAC.

7 These two areas are currently in Higher Level Stewardship agreements until November 2023 and Clinton Devon Estates currently receive payment from Natural England for management, including ‘supplement for small fields’; ‘grazing supplement’; ‘permanent grassland with low inputs’; ‘maintenance of grassland for target species’ (greater horseshoe bat); and ‘permanent grassland for Article 13’ (non-payment option) for the 1,180 m2 site, and ‘management of hedges of very high environmental value’ (one side only); and ‘creation of grassland for target species’ (greater horseshoe bat) for the 4,790 m2 site. If the mitigation planting is required before the end of November 2023, when the agreement ends, these two areas would have to be re-assessed under the HLS agreement and Clinton Devon Estates may have to return payments received to Natural England, which is something they are willing to do if required.

(b) Disturbance to bat foraging and commuting habitat

Boundary features around the Application Site, along which bats fly, may be disturbed by lighting both during construction and occupation of houses.

18/1957/MOUT page 242

The final design and layout of houses and any street lighting would be detailed as reserved matters. The design (including internal and external lighting and window size and placement) and layout would incorporate measures to avoid light spill over boundary hedges, such that there would be no increase above background levels or a maximum of 0.5 lux where bats might fly around the Application Site. A detailed lighting scheme and assessment, including design and assessment for bats, should be requested as a reserved matter.

A condition should also be applied to any permission stating that there should be no night-time working and no lighting of bat foraging and commuting habitats around the site during construction, e.g., by security flood lighting.

In addition to the proposed hedge planting in Section (a)i, a minimum 2m high close-boarded timber fence would be installed on the inside of planted and existing hedges on the north and west sides of the Application Site (refer to Figure 6). The fence should be installed before any external lighting on the site becomes operational and before houses are occupied. The fence would prevent light spill behind the fence, retaining a dark corridor for bats to fly around the Application Site. The fence would also prevent householders from interfering with the planted hedge, e.g., by removing or cutting it too short. The hedge should be managed by a management company, along with other green spaces on the Application Site that are not in private ownership. To the north of the Application Site and the adjacent footpath the land drops away steeply and is vegetated with trees and shrubs (refer to photographs in Annex A). This provides additional habitat for bats to fly around the Application Site to the north, which would also be screened from any light spill by the close-boarded fence.

Post-construction phase

(a) Habitat loss – loss of foraging habitat

There would be no further habitat loss post-construction.

Hedges, trees and the close-boarded fence around the Application Site would be maintained indefinitely by a management company. Because of the proximity to the footpath to the north of the Application Site, the northern hedge would probably have to be cut annually once it is mature. Hedges away from public access areas would be managed on a less frequent basis if possible, e.g., once every two to three years, allowing the hedges to become taller and thicker.

Hedges, trees and woodland planted outside of the Application Site would be managed indefinitely by Clinton Devon Estates, as part of their estate management. Following planting, weed control measures would be used to reduce competition with trees and shrubs. Trees in hedges and woodland would be replaced if they fail in the first three years after planting and then left to mature. Once mature, hedgerow management would be on a two to three-year rotational basis.

(b) Disturbance to bat foraging and commuting habitat

18/1957/MOUT page 243

Following sensitive design and layout of houses and street lighting, and erection of a minimum 2 m high close-boarded fence around part of the Application Site (refer to Section 4.2(b)) there would be no light spill onto adjacent bat foraging and commuting habitats. As stated in Section 4.3(a), the fence around the Application Site would be maintained indefinitely by a management company.

Assessment of residual effects

Following implementation of mitigation measures set out in Sections 4.2 and 4.3, to be secured by way of planning conditions where necessary, it is considered that there would be no net loss of foraging habitat for qualifying bat species and no significant disturbance of bat foraging and commuting habitat, and that there would be no adverse effect on the integrity of Beer Quarry and Caves SAC, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects.

Are the Yes – these will need to be secured via planning conditions and/or a proposed Section 106 agreement. mitigation measures sufficient to overcome the likely significant effects?

Conclusion List of Before construction work starts: mitigation measures i. New species-rich native hedges, with standard trees approx. every 15 m, and to be planted around the Application Site, including filling in gaps in the safeguards hedge to the west of the Application Site (Figure 6 includes the number of standard trees to be planted in each hedge). ii. New species-rich native hedges, with standard trees approx. every 15 m, to be planted in the following locations off the Application Site, to provide additional bat foraging habitat and new commuting routes between Beer Quarry and Caves SAC and surrounding areas of bat foraging habitat (Figure 5 includes the number of standard trees to be planted in each hedge): e) Along an existing stock fence line, approx. 90 m in length, approx. 260 m to the south-west of the Application Site, to the west of Pecorama overspill car park. Along an existing post and rail fence line, approx. 30 m in length approx. 200 m to the south-west of the Application Site, between Pecorama coach park and overspill car park. f) Along an existing stock fence line, approx. 110 m in length, approximately 1 km to the west of the Application Site, to the west of Beer Quarry and Caves SAC. g) In three gaps in hedges to the east of Beer Quarry and Caves SAC.

iii. New native woodland planting in a field of poor semi-improved grazed pasture to the north-west of the Application Site, approx. 1,180 m2 in area,

18/1957/MOUT page 244

and in part of another field of improved grazed pasture approx. 330 m to the west of the Application Site, approx. 4,790 m2 in area. iv. Planting of standard trees, at approx. 15 m spacing, in eighteen existing hedges radiating out from Beer Quarry and Caves SAC that have no or few trees within them (Figure 5 includes the number of standard trees to be planted in each hedge).

(b) Disturbance to bat foraging and commuting habitat

Boundary features around the Application Site, along which bats fly, may be disturbed by lighting both during construction and occupation of houses.

The design and layout of the houses (including internal and external lighting and window size and placement) would incorporate measures to avoid light spill over boundary hedges, such that there would be no increase above background levels or a maximum of 0.5 lux where bats might fly around the Application Site. A detailed lighting scheme and assessment, including design and assessment for bats, should be requested as a reserved matter.

A minimum 2m high close-boarded timber fence would be installed on the inside of planted and existing hedges on the north and west sides of the Application Site (refer to Figure 6). The fence should be installed before any external lighting on the site becomes operational and before houses are occupied. The hedge should be managed by a management company, along with other green spaces on the Application Site that are not in private ownership.

18/1957/MOUT page 245

• All the off-site mitigation areas must be shown within a blue line on application documents to allow these to be secured via a S106/unilateral undertaking or other suitable legal agreement. • Hedgerows should be double rows of species-rich native species and managed to be tall and thick (minimum height and width 3 metres by year 3). • With permanent loss of habitat, the mitigation measures will need to be secured ‘in-perpetuity’. • Monitoring of tree and hedgerow planting success, replacement of failures and ongoing management in-perpetuity is proposed.

Post-construction phase

Hedges, trees and the close-boarded fence around the Application Site would be maintained indefinitely by a management company in accordance with the final bullet point above.

The Integrity Test Whether the proposal would have an adverse effect on the integrity of Beer Quarry and Caves SAC has been determined by assessing whether, following the implementation of the mitigation measures identified in this document, it would affect the achievement of one or more conservation objectives of the European Site considered. As stated above, the proposal (with appropriate mitigation) would not affect the achievement of any of the conservation objectives set for Beer Quarry and Caves SAC, and it can be considered beyond reasonable scientific doubt that there would be no impact on the site’s integrity, assuming appropriate mitigation is provided.

Under Regulation 70(2) the competent authority may, if it considers that any adverse effects of the plan or project on the integrity of a European site would be avoided if the planning permission were subject to conditions or limitations, grant planning permission, or, as the case may be, take action which results in planning permission being granted or deemed to be granted, subject to those conditions or limitations.

Therefore, for the purposes of Regulation 63 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, it is concluded that outline planning permission can be granted with appropriate conditions so that there would not be an adverse effect on the integrity of Beer Quarry and Caves SAC.

Conclusion East Devon District Council concludes that there would be NO adverse effect on of integrity of Beer Quarry Caves SAC provided the mitigation measures are secured as above.

18/1957/MOUT page 246

Appropriate Assessment

Local Date: Authority Officer

21 day consultation to be sent to Natural England Hub on completion of this form.

18/1957/MOUT page 247 Agenda Item 13

Ward Broadclyst

Reference 18/2797/MOUT Applicant Eagle One MMlll Ltd

Location Land North And South Of Anning Road Exeter Science Park Clyst Honiton Proposal Development of 15,329sqm floorspace for Class B1b (Research and Development) uses with ancillary Class B1a and B1c uses and Science Park wide ancillary supporting uses (Retail - convenience (Class A1), cafe/restaurant (Class A3), creche (Class D1) and conference and health/fitness facilities (Class D2)) together with associated infrastructure and works to form part of the Exeter Science Park (all matters reserved) on land north and south of Anning Road, Exeter Science Park, Clyst Honiton.

RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions and subject to the completion of legal agreements

Crown Copyright and database rights 2019 Ordnance Survey 100023746

page 248

Committee Date:30th April 2019

Broadclyst Target Date: (BROADCLYST) 18/2797/MOUT 11.05.2019

Applicant: Eagle One MMlll Ltd

Location: Land North And South Of Anning Road

Proposal: Development of 15,329sqm floorspace for Class B1b (Research and Development) uses with ancillary Class B1a and B1c uses and Science Park wide ancillary supporting uses (Retail - convenience (Class A1), cafe/restaurant (Class A3), creche (Class D1) and conference and health/fitness facilities (Class D2)) together with associated infrastructure and works to form part of the Exeter Science Park (all matters reserved) on land north and south of Anning Road, Exeter Science Park, Clyst Honiton.

RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions and subject to the completion of legal agreements

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The two outline planning applications 18/2797/MOUT and 18/2799/MOUT on this agenda are linked as part of the proposed land use swap on part of the Science Park and on land immediately adjacent to the Science Park, forming part of the mixed use development known as Redhayes. The site for the proposed residential development (18/2799/MOUT) currently forms part of the allocated Science Park, a major strategic employment site, and has an extant outline planning permission for this science park use. The land proposed for the relocation of part of the Science Park is undeveloped but has an extant outline planning permission for offices as part of the wider Redhayes development.

Both planning applications are departures from the development plan as the site for the residential development is outside of any Built-up Area Boundary and is allocated for Science Park use in the Local Plan. The site for the partial relocation of the Science Park is not allocated for Science Park uses but is allocated for the mixed use Redhayes Development. Both planning applications are considered to be Environmental Impact Assessment developments and are accompanied by an Environmental Statement. Both sites are owned by the applicant.

It is a requirement of planning law that planning decisions are determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material planning considerations

18/2797/MOUT page 249

indicate otherwise. Theses planning applications are contrary to the Development Plan and therefore support should only be forthcoming if there are material planning considerations that would weigh in favour of approvals being given by the decision takers.

In this case, there are clear material considerations that within the balance of relevant issues, have led to a recommendation of approval for both applications:

1) There is no overall loss of science park floorspace as the area consented on the proposed residential site is to be relocated to a site next to the science park centre. This is a good location being well related to the core of the science park and is a visible location.

2) The residential development is located between the science park and the Redhayes development which together with the Mosshayne development forms a large mixed use scheme comprising about 1500 houses, a local centre, primary school, playing fields and other related infrastructure and facilities. Although defined as countryside, the locality is undergoing rapid and far reaching urbanisation as part of the growth area of East Devon and with GESP, is possibly going to continue. The proposed residential site could therefore form an extension of the Redhayes/Mosshayne development and be largely surrounded by consented development in the future. The impact of an additional 150 houses would not be significant as it would be about a tenth of the already consent development at Redhayes/Mosshayne.

3) The site is located close to the border with Exeter and has good cycle/pedestrian and bus routes. Mixed uses are proposed for the locality including employment, leisure, shopping, school and community facilities which would reduce the demand to travel to other areas. This overall development will in time be sustainable and reduce the need for residents to travel by private car.

4) The proposed land use swap will help with the deliverability of the science park giving more control to the science park.

Overall, there are clear benefits with these planning applications which facilitate the land use swap. It is considered that within the balance of planning considerations, the weight falls in favour of permitting the development proposals rather than the ridged application of policy. However, it is for the decision makers to decide the balance of planning considerations but it is the view that there are justifiable and material planning considerations that would weigh in favour of the proposals.

Both applications are linked and neither application is acceptable by itself. In particular, the residential proposal should not be allowed to proceed or commence without the science park relocation also proceeding, as this would result in the loss of science park land and unjustified housing on the allocated science park. The draft legal agreements aim to ensure this is the case.

The proposed developments are the subject of Environmental Impact Assessment. An Environmental Statement covering both developments has been

18/2797/MOUT page 250

submitted which deals with the environmental issues arising from the proposals. These issues have been considered in the report and appropriate mitigation where necessary is to be secured through conditions/S106. The housing element will have some impact on the East Devon Pebblebed Heaths SAC/SPA and the Exe Estuary SPA/Ramsar sites and accordingly an Appropriate Assessment has been completed. Natural England have confirmed that the mitigation contained in the Appropriate Assessment is acceptable to mitigate the likely significant effects of the housing development on the interest features of these European sites. This is through CIL with additional contributions for non-infrastructure mitigation through the S106. The report therefore also includes a recommendation on application 18/2799/MOUT to adopt the Appropriate Assessment.

Before the applications were submitted, the council undertook an interim Masterplan which was endorsed by the Strategic Planning Committee, to guide the preparation of these applications to ensure key design elements are incorporated to help integrate the developments into the wider development. The applications are considered to be consistent with this interim Masterplan. It is expected that should the proposed land use swap proceed, a wider Masterplan covering the whole Science Park will be needed.

The other planning issues are addressed in the reports for both planning applications, including the level of affordable housing and viability, together with S106 issues.

On balance, the proposed developments taken together have a number of material benefits for the improved delivery prospects for the science park. Whilst both applications are contrary to policy, they would not cause a material harm being part of the much wider development and growth area in this part of the district and being sustainable. It is therefore the view that there are material planning considerations that would weigh in favour of approving these two planning applications.

CONSULTATIONS

Local Consultations

Parish/Town Council – Broadclyst

Council supports this application and would like to add the following points: i. That the car park offers a sustainable ratio of charging points; ii. That consideration be given to utilising photovoltaic technology as covers over the parking bays to provide a sustainable energy source. iii. That there is provision and servicing of litter bins in the car parks, with an off- site contribution to the provision of litter and dog waste bins provision along access routes.

Clerk to adjoining Clyst Honiton Parish Council

Comment: Council supports this application and would like to add the following points:

18/2797/MOUT page 251

That the car park offers a sustainable ratio of charging points; That consideration be given to utilising photovoltaic technology as covers over the parking bays to provide a sustainable energy source. That there is provision and servicing of litter bins in the car parks, with an off-site contribution to the provision of litter and dog waste bins provision along access routes.

Clerk to Bishops Clyst/Sowton (Clyst St Mary) Parish Council The council would support any decision made by our neighbouring council in respect of this application

Technical Consultations

WW Utilities

Summary: WWU must be consulted prior to carrying out any excavation work within 10m of any above or below ground gas installations or pipeline. No excavation works may commence within 50m of a High Pressure or Very High Pressure Pipeline unless the pipeline has been located by tracing and its precise route identified.

In addition to the above methods of working, WWU must be contacted prior to any External Wall Installation (EWI) schemes, proposed solar farms and wind turbine installations.

No work shall be undertaken near, nor heavy plant or equipment moved over, any gas pipeline or apparatus until all of the conditions specified by WWU have been complied with.

Where WWU have apparatus in the vicinity of your work, any damage to it could have serious consequences. In view of this and in the interests of safety, a meeting should be arranged before the commencement of work on site between WWU representatives, representatives of the promoting authority, the contractors and any other interested parties. At this meeting the suggested program of site works and plant safety should be discussed. It is essential that this meeting is convened well in advance of commencement on site. Access to WWU plant and facilities for inspection by WWU staff must not be affected. Where formal consent has been given, A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS NOTICE IS REQUIRED before carrying out work in WWU easements, or the appropriate notice under the New Roads & Street Works Act (NRSWA) where existing plant is situated within the public highway.

DCC Flood Risk SuDS Consultation

Observations: It is understood that this application forms part of a wider land swap within the area. The East Devon case officer has confirmed that this forms a new application with new proposals therefore the climate change allowance and Qbar rate should be revised. We would require 40% for commerical development in line with our DCC SuDS Guidance (2017).

The applicant should submit revised attenuation calculations in light of the above.

18/2797/MOUT page 252

The applicant should confirm how long term storage will be incorporated within the surface water design.

The applicant should confirm that DCC Highways are still content with the principle of discharging surface water from this development into their network.

Exeter Airport have advised that the proposed SuDS should be designed in such a way that they are unattractive to birds, offering no food source or nesting habitats. However, this does not prevent above-ground SuDS components being incorporated into the proposed surface water drainage management system; well-designed and easily maintainable components such as permeable paving (which could be under drained), as well as swales and filter strips with short vegetation, must still be explored.

Recommendation: At this stage, we object to this planning application because we do not believe that it satisfactorily conforms to Policy EN22 (Surface Run-Off Implications of New Development) of the East Devon Local Plan (2013-2031). The applicant will therefore be required to submit additional information in order to demonstrate that all aspects of the proposed surface water drainage management system have been considered.

Additional comments received 9th April 2019:

Observations Following my previous consultation response FRM/ED/2797/2018, dated 23/01/2019, the applicant has submitted additional information in relation to the surface water drainage aspects of the above planning application, for which I am grateful.

The applicant has provided an updated Flood Risk & Drainage Assessment dated November 2018 which answers queries raised in my previous response. The calculations have an allowance for 40% for climate change, the attenuation will be facilitated in above ground basins and agreements have been sought with DCC highways concerning connecting into Tithebarn Link Road and Old Honiton Road.

The applicant has provided for long term storage requirements as well as producing an outline maintenance plan for the proposed surface water drainage network.

Recommendation: Our objection is withdrawn and we have no in-principle objections to the above planning application at this stage, assuming that the following pre-commencement planning conditions are imposed on any approved permission:

No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the detailed design of the proposed permanent surface water drainage management system has

18/2797/MOUT page 253

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 & Drainage Assessment for the Proposed Commercial Development at Land North & South of Anning Drive, Exeter, dated November 2018." Reason: To ensure that surface water runoff from the development is managed in accordance with the principles of sustainable drainage systems. Reason for being a pre-commencement condition: A detailed permanent surface water drainage management plan is required prior to commencement of any works to demonstrate that the plan fits within the site layout, manages surface water safely and does not increase flood risk downstream. Advice: Refer to Devon County Council's Sustainable Drainage Guidance.

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. Reason for being a pre-commencement condition: A plan needs to be demonstrated prior to the commencement of any works to ensure that surface water can be managed suitably without increasing flood risk downstream, negatively affecting water quality downstream or negatively impacting on surrounding areas and infrastructure. Advice: Refer to Devon County Council's Sustainable Drainage Guidance.

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. Reason for being a pre-commencement condition: These details need to be submitted prior to commencement of any works to ensure that suitable plans are in place for the maintenance of the permanent surface water drainage management plan, for the reason above.

South West Water

I refer to the above application and would advise that South West Water has no objection subject to foul flows only being connected to the public sewer network. The suggestion is that surface water will be connected to the highway drainage network although no plans appear to have been submitted to demonstrate how this is to be achieved or that the agreement of the Highway Authority has been obtained -

18/2797/MOUT page 254

this should be provided as there are no dedicated public surface water sewers available should an alternative means of surface water drainage be required.

Further comments rec'd 22.1.19: We now have no concerns comments on the basis surface water will be discharged to a Devon County Council owned highway drainage system.

Environmental Health I have considered the application for B1 and research use and the submitted ES prepared by Collier Planning dated December 2018. The report concludes that although aircraft noise will be audible at times the buildings will be designed and acoustically protected in such a way that internal spaces will not be adversely affected. We concur with this conclusion and it will be the responsibility of the developer to deliver this in order to ensure that the buildings are suitable to market.

No details of lighting have been submitted to date so this may need to be required by condition.

In due course a CEMP will be required to be submitted and agreed, but this can be required by condition.

The Air quality report concludes no unacceptable impact either of the existing environment on future occupiers, or of future uses on the prevailing air quality.

I therefore do not have any outstanding concerns regarding this application.

Contaminated Land Officer

I have considered the application and the geotechnical report submitted by Geoconsulting and dated summer 2015. The Stage 1 and intrusive survey reports conclude that there are not anticipated to be any contaminants of concern on this former agricultural land. I recommend that the applicant consults the contaminated land officer should any unforeseen contaminants be encountered during oversite works.

Exeter & Devon Airport - Airfield Operations and Safeguarding

Further to the airports previous response and conditional objection and because of the recent developments in this area a further technical safeguarding opinion has been received showing that there is a potential risk to certain Navigational Aids (NAVAIDS) which could have a detrimental impact on aircraft operations and aviation safety.

There is a limited risk to the 08 glide and 08 localiser NAVAIDS as both will illuminate the site. Because of the recent consumption of the airports Instrument Landing System (ILS) static disturbance budgets by the recent developments we would request that modelling by a suitably qualified organisation such as NATS or Cyrrus be carried out to confirm the extent of any further disturbance if any.

Accordingly, Exeter Airport object to the proposal on the grounds of aviation safety.

18/2797/MOUT page 255

This proposal has been examined from an Aerodrome Safeguarding aspect and the plans have the potential to conflict with safeguarding criteria.

In brief Aerodrome Safeguarding is a process of checking proposed developments so as to: 1 Protect blocks of air through which aircraft fly, by preventing penetration of surfaces created to identify their lower limits. 2 Protect the integrity of radar and other electronic aids to air navigation, by preventing reflections and diffraction of the radio signals involved. 3 Protect visual aids, such as Approach and Runway lighting, by preventing them from being obscured, or preventing the installation of other lights which could be confused for them. In brief lighting for the site should be designed in such a way that it is not confusing or dazzling to pilots or air traffic control. Generally all lights should be directed away from approaching aircraft and the air traffic control tower with no light spill above the horizontal. 4 Avoid any increase in the risk to aircraft of a bird strike by preventing an increase in hazardous bird species in the vicinity of the aerodrome and, whenever the opportunity arises, to reduce the level of risk.

The drainage attenuation proposals state that there is no detailed design for volumes and it is proposed that ponds will be permanently wet. These ponds could become a bird attractant and increase the risk of bird strike to aircraft. Aircraft in this location, 2.5km to the west and just north of the extended centreline of Exeter airports runway, are in a critical phase of flight either arriving or departing and a bird strike could be catastrophic. If the proposals for the Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDS) are delivered at a 1/100 year storm, 14 days to drain, annual storm 1-4 days, then mitigation (bird exclusion) measures will not be required. However, any SUDS will require monitoring to ensure that water does not persist beyond these projections and if it does, engineered drainage solutions or bird exclusion systems should be implemented. Permanent water bodies should be avoided due to the bird attraction risk.

Detailed planting proposals would need to be supplied and take into account not only the attractiveness to birds by not including any fruit or berry bearing species that could become a food and foraging source but also the type and heights of any tree planting proposed on the site. There are several critical obstacle limitation surfaces that pass over the site that are in place to protect aircraft on approach and on departure and these must not be penetrated at any time either now or in the future by growing trees. Crane use during any construction will also be limited to the heights of these obstacle limitation surfaces, and the developer must consult with the airport regarding crane use by following the airports tall equipment permit scheme.

Due to the location lighting must not present a danger to pilots by being confusing or dazzling. All lighting must be flat glass, full cut off with no light spill above the horizontal.

18/2797/MOUT page 256

These include: Airport Operators Association Advice notes: Lighting near Aerodromes. Wildlife Hazards around Aerodromes Cranes and other Construction Issues.

Accordingly, Exeter Airport object to this development unless all safeguarding criteria are met, as stipulated in the AOA Advice notes, the guidance regarding SUDS, bird attractants, cranes and lighting are followed and there are no changes made to the current application. Further comments:

This proposal has been examined from an Aerodrome Safeguarding aspect with the following findings.

The technical assessment proves that there is no impact on any of the navigational aids at Exeter airport and therefore acceptable from a technical safeguarding perspective.

Providing that the following guidance is adhered to then there will be no conflicts with physical safeguarding criteria.

Due to the location of the site in relation to the airport and the potential for the increase in the risk to aircraft of bird strike, the landscaping and SuDs plans should include measures to be as unattractive to birds as possible.

Trees with dense canopies, such as Oak (Quercus sp.) and Scots Pine (Pinus Sylvestris), must generally be excluded from the planting schemes. If introduced, dense canopied trees must be reduced through use of processes and good practice that will maintain light, open tree canopies throughout the future life of the site as determined by their location, and a fair balance between long term design aims and mitigation of elevated wildlife hazard risks for Exeter Airport. Large quantities of fruit and berry bearing species must be avoided to minimise the attractant for birds that might use this as a food source. However, such species provide an important resource for wildlife and, in places, are essential to the integrity of the proposed planting scheme; low numbers of berry bearing plants may therefore be planted provided that they are dispersed amongst other non-berry species to reduce the total food supply for birds.

Opportunities for staging, nesting and roosting by birds must be minimised on all types of SuDs using good design features that minimise the presence of open standing water.

Lighting must not present a danger to pilots by being confusing or dazzling. All lighting must be flat glass, full cut off with no light spill above the horizontal.

Crane use during any construction will be limited to the heights of the airports obstacle limitation surfaces that pass over the site at approx. 63m AMSL. The developer must consult with the airport regarding crane use by following the airports tall equipment permit scheme.

18/2797/MOUT page 257

Accordingly, Exeter Airport will have no safeguarding objections to this development provided that all safeguarding criteria are met and the guidance followed as highlighted above.

Kindly note that this reply does not automatically allow further developments in this area without prior consultation with Exeter Airport.

EDDC Landscape Architect

Comments on LVIA Change to visual receptors The LVIA does not provide a theoretical Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI) study. Given the significant increase in building height proposed on the Science Park land, an updated ZVI should be included with the assessment. The visual boundary and viewpoints plan, Appendix 7.1 is misleading in that visual boundaries extend some distance beyond the area shown on the map base, as acknowledged elsewhere in the LVIA, for example in relation to Ashclyst Forest and Woodbury Fort. Additionally the plotting of the ridgeline along Blackhorse Lane is inaccurate as the actual ridgeline as indicated on OS mapping lies some 40-100m to the south, well within the site boundaries. An updated plan should be provided if necessary at different scales in order to capture the full visual envelop and provide greater detail nearer to the site.

The assessment fails to consider views to the sites from south of the A30 despite there being clear views of the existing Science Park buildings from a number of locations in this vicinity including Bishop's Court Lane south of Drymond's Farm and Sowton footpath 1. The assessment should be extended accordingly.

However, the LVIA conclusion in respect of Science Park land that the visual significance will be minor adverse is disputed. It is considered that the increase in build height from 12 to 15 m on the site ridge line will considerably increase the prominence of the development within the surrounding area and therefore the visual sensitivity will be moderate adverse over the previous scheme proposals.

Mitigation Proposed mitigation in respect of adverse visual impact for the Science Park is stated (para 7.5.4) as comprising good design, high quality architectural detailing and provision of a new landscape setting along the ridge at Blackhorse Lane. Additionally para. 7.7.2 states that for Science Park Land 'it is important that the reserved matters landscape application shows the planting as being mainly composed of tall growing forest trees'. This statement does not account for typical Exeter Airport policy in respect of restrictions to new planting schemes in proximity to the airfield, which limits new tree planting to species under 20m high. If large tree planting is intended to be a primary means of mitigation then clarification should be sought from Exeter Airport that such planting in the proposed locations would be acceptable.

Comments on Science Park Design & Access Statement The statement that the LVIA concludes that the proposals will have a minor to moderate beneficial effect is wrong. The LVIA concludes that for the for the Science Park land the landscape effect will be neutral and the visual effect will be minor to

18/2797/MOUT page 258

moderate beneficial. However the assessment of the Science Park visual effect is disputed for the reasons given above. Design Proposals The plan fails to show the key cycle link connecting between the park & change site and science park centre as per the approved framework plan. It also fails to show north south cycle links to Blackhorse Lane and Tithebarn Lane.

Where pedestrian links are shown through building courts confirmation should be provided that these will be accessible at all times.

The parking layouts impinge on the buffer landscape areas on the boundary to Blackhorse Lane to the north and the old A30 Honiton Road to the south. A minimum 10m wide landscape buffer should be provided to these boundaries. The Blackhorse Lane boundary is of particular importance given its prominence and the stated aim in the LVIA to provide 'a substantial area of new planting along the boundary with Blackhorse Lane' as part of the primary mitigation strategy.

Layout: The proposed layout appears to be dominated by carparks. Details of the basis for calculating parking provision should be provided together with details of the provisions that will be made to encourage use of alternative modes of transport to individual car use, especially car share, public transport, cycling and walking.

Scale and massing: The scale and massing plan indicates the use of 15m high buildings across the entire Science Park site regardless of topography and surrounding buildings. On the higher (northern) area of the site in particular building heights should be limited to 12m to reduce visual impact.

Landscape and green infrastructure strategy The landscape buffer strips indicated on the landscape and green infrastructure parameter plan to the north, northeast and southern site boundaries are inadequate and do not reflect the indicative site layout. The plan should be amended to indicate minimum widths to proposed buffer strip areas along the site boundaries and other key landscape areas such as on the corner of Anning Drive and Tithebarn Link Road. It should also include a brief outline of the type of planning proposed. Outline drainage details should be provided based on SuDS principles with overland flow routes provided as a primary aim.

Movement and Access - The Access and Movement Diagram Access Plan is similarly basic and does not show the provision of cycle routes within the site and links to adjoining infrastructure beyond as per the approved framework plan.

Further comments: The LVIA has been amended in line with my previous comments and is broadly acceptable.

Design and Access Statement – Science Park

Site opportunities and constraints plan The link between the Park & Change site and Science Park Centre should be shown as a pedestrian/ cycle route.

18/2797/MOUT page 259

Landscape and GI parameters plan Landscape buffer strips to the north and south of the site have been widened to minimum 10m width. The buffer strip to the eastern boundary with Tithebarn Link Road is only shown as 5m and does not reflect the indicative masterplan layout or the key landscape feature area on the corner of Tithebarn Lane and Anning Drive as indicated on the Key Building Frontage Diagram. It is also inadequate to accommodate the proposed attenuation basins.

Presently SuDS drainage considerations appear to be limited to provision of attenuation basins around the perimeter of the site and although section 4.5 makes reference to a surface water drainage strategy this does not appear to have been provided. The Landscape and Green infrastructure parameter plan should provide clearer detail of the proposed SuDS strategy. This should adopt a site wide approach to surface water collection, re-use, filtration and attenuation in a manner that adds amenity and biodiversity value across the site. This should include water/ wetland features within courtyards and parking areas, provision of open channels/ ditches to convey water through the site and consideration of green rooves. The SuDS strategy should be developed at an early stage of the design process and inform the development and refinement of the site masterplan.

Movement and access There is no mention of measures to promote cycle and pedestrian commuting in particular secure and convenient covered cycle storage and shower facilities and further detail should be provided.

The cycle link to Tithebarn Lane shown on the Access and Movement Diagram is not reflected in the indicative masterplan which should be amended to make provision for cycle access to/ from Tithebarn Lane.

Vehicular access points indicated to north and south of Anning Drive do not reflect indicative masterplan layout.

Details should be provided of the basis for calculating car park numbers and total number of spaces proposed.

Natural England

NO OBJECTION Based on the plans submitted, Natural England considers that the proposed development will not have significant adverse impacts on statutorily protected sites or landscapes.

Natural England's advice on other natural environment issues is set out below. Sites of Special Scientific Interest Impact Risk Zones The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 requires local planning authorities to consult Natural England on "Development in or likely to affect a Site of Special Scientific Interest" (Schedule 4, w). Our SSSI Impact Risk Zones are a GIS dataset designed to be used during the planning application validation process to help local planning authorities decide when

18/2797/MOUT page 260

to consult Natural England on developments likely to affect a SSSI. The dataset and user guidance can be accessed from the data.gov.uk website.

DCC Planning

Devon County Council strategic planning does not have any comments to make regarding either of the applications referenced above.

Devon County Archaeologist

This area has been the subject of previous archaeological evaluation. This did not identify any significant archaeological features that might warrant more detailed recording. Therefore I do not think that any further archaeological mitigation will be required.

EDDC Trees

The proposed access routes do not affect any of the limited number of trees or hedgerows that are on the sites. With all other matters reserved I have no other comments to make at this stage.

Exeter City Council, Planning Department

I consider there are no additional strategic cross boundary issues arising from this proposal (over and above that already proposed as part of the adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031).

Highways England Summary: Referring to the notification of a planning application dated 20 December 2018 referenced above, in connection with the A30 and Development of 15,329sqm of B1(b) Research and Development floor space with ancillary B1 uses with associated infrastructure and works to form part of the Exeter Science Park (all matters reserved) at Land North And South Of Anning Road, Exeter Science Park, Clyst Honiton, notice is hereby given that Highways England's formal recommendation is that we offer no objection.

Police Designing Out Crime Officer – Devon and Cornwall Police

I appreciate the application is only outline and that the 'illustrative masterplan' provides only an 'indicative layout'. From a designing out crime, fear of crime and disorder perspective, there is too little detail to enable a full response at this stage. However, based on the documentation and plans submitted thus far, please find the following initial information, advice and recommendations to be considered and taken forward should a more detailed application be made, specifically in terms of environmental design and layout for the scheme. Applying the following attributes of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design has shown to reduce levels of crime, disorder and ASB.

18/2797/MOUT page 261

Access and movement: Places with well-defined and well used routes, with spaces and entrances that provide for convenient movement without compromising security. Pedestrian routes should be direct, wide, well-lit and overlooked. Planting immediately abutting the pathways should be avoided as they have potential to overgrow thus creating pinch points and reducing visibility.

Consideration will need to be given as to whether the vehicular access to the site needs to be controlled. This will be dependent on the usage and management of the site. When not in use or regularly left without guardianship, sites can become vulnerable to casual intrusion, crime and ASB.

Structure: Places that are structured so that different uses do not cause conflict. I note that the application proposes the development for use of class B1(b) and B1. This should not cause a conflict of use and is suitable for the area. Consideration needs to be given to the positioning of refuse areas, cycle storage/stands, smoking areas etc. to ensure there is no potential conflict in use.

Pedestrian, cycle and vehicular routes throughout the site should be clearly defined and supplemented with rule setting to avoid conflict of use.

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.

Obviously an appropriate lighting strategy will need to be implemented to enhance surveillance opportunities and reduce the potential fear of crime for legitimate users of the site.

CCTV should be considered throughout the development with a clear Passport for Compliance document, previously known as an Operational Requirement, in place.

Access controlled areas, entry and exit points and secure areas are particularly important. Obviously specific details and needs will be dependent on the occupiers of the development and the associated risk. However, the infrastructure for CCTV should be considered from the outset.

The layout of office blocks should enable informal surveillance of pedestrian routes, car parking, public spaces etc. and entrances should be positioned in locations that are well overlooked and not concealed or recessed.

Ownership: Places that promote a sense of ownership, respect, territorial responsibility and community.

Effective and appropriate boundary treatments should be utilised to ensure that private and public space is clearly defined. This will create a sense of ownership and avoid the creation of void spaces which can attract ASB. Clear rule setting should be in place to promote ownership.

Physical protection: Doors/windows tested/certificated to an appropriate standard.

18/2797/MOUT page 262

As well as ensuring that doors and windows are tested/certificated to an appropriate standard, the physical security of cycle storage/stands, refuse storage etc. should also be considered. Further guidance can be provided.

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. Legitimate use of communal areas should be encouraged, thus avoiding the creation of void spaces.

Management and maintenance: Places that are designed with management and maintenance in mind to discourage crime, fear of crime and ASB.

Clear responsibility for the management and maintenance of the site on completion will need to be established.

County Highway Authority Observations:

The submitted application is an outline application, with all matters reserved, for the development of 15,329sqm of B1(b) floor space with associated infrastructure and works to form part of Exeter Science Park at the Land North and South of Anning Road, Exeter. This application is related to planning application number: 18/2799/OUT and forms part of a "land swap".

Trip Generation

The applicant has submitted a Transport Statement (TS) which includes a trip analysis to forecast the net change in trips based on the land swap. The TS submitted is almost exactly akin to the one as per planning application number 18/2799/MOUT, which concludes that the additional trips as a result of the land swap is 53 two-way trips in the AM peak hour and 48 two-way trips in the PM peak hour.

Tithebarn Link Road/London Road junction

The highway authority has already expressed concerns over this junction as a result of the land swap applications. The LHA should refer to the response relating to planning application number: 18/2799/OUT for observations on this matter.

Vehicular Access

Vehicular access into the development parcel north of Anning Drive will be via a new junction on Anning Drive whereas access into the development parcel south of Anning Drive is indicated to be via Exeter Science Park. No details have been submitted and it is anticipated that this will be submitted in a forthcoming reserved matters application. Access onto adopted highway will require a S278 licence.

Pedestrian and Cycling Access The site(s)/cluster(s) are located within an urban area where foot and cycle are a realistic choice for a wide range of journeys. The site(s)/ cluster(s) has/will have access to public transport services on Tithebarn Link Road/Park and Change Site.

18/2797/MOUT page 263

Blackhorse Lane and Tithebarn Link Road forms part of Exeter's/East of Exeter's traffic free Cycle Network and maintaining the safety and attractiveness of these routes are essential. Langaton Lane (immediately to the east of the site) also presents North- South pedestrian cycling connections, with the only vehicular impact being from an existing dwelling and kennels (with very low traffic flow). Therefore, from a transport perspective, the applicant should be maximising the pedestrian and cycling connections/permeability through the employment clusters into the green infrastructure routes and residential areas surrounding the site.

The current design and access statement displays a "movement and access plan" which is very indicative and does not make it clear what pedestrian/cycling links will be provided. 3m effective width walking/cycling routes should be provided, integrating into the sustainable network. Therefore, an appropriate condition is recommended.

It is reminded that the original Design and Access statement for Tithebarn green (12/0802/01), section 5.12.1 states that: "Walking and Cycling are to be given high priority on the movement network……Provision of direct connections to the Science Park from the local centre (should be) easily accessible to residents and people who will work in the Science Park"

Notwithstanding the above, any work that adjoining the public highway will need a S278 agreement. The access points should have sufficient visibility splays and the applicant should be showing these on any submission.

Travel Planning

In accordance with paragraph 111 of the NPPF and the Sustainable Transport SPD, the development will be required to have a Travel Plan each. A Travel Plan should be introduced including details of walking and cycling routes, as well as public transport including maps, timetables, and information about ticket offers. It should also include information about car sharing schemes, car clubs, eco-driving and motorcycle safety. These measures should be encouraged to continue the promotion of non-car based travel.

The applicant should also provide suitable changing facilities/lockers for staff members on site - these should be included to encourage walking/cycling.

Construction

A condition is also recommended to ensure that appropriate facilities for all construction traffic are provided on site before the commencement of any part of the development hereby approved.

Summary

The site is located within an existing urban area and the applicant should improve pedestrian/cycling linkages promoting modal change. If achieved correctly, sustainable development with safe and suitable access for all users can be achieved. Concerns have been raised with regards to the increase in traffic associated with the

18/2797/MOUT page 264

development (the land swap) and the impact this will have on the Tithebarn Link Road/London Road junction.

Therefore, subject to appropriate contributions (as outlined in the formal response to Planning Reference: 18/2799/MOUT) and conditions being attached in the granting of any consent, no objection.

Recommendation:

THE HEAD OF PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENT, ON BEHALF OF DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL, AS LOCAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY, RECOMMENDS THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE INCORPORATED IN ANY GRANT OF PERMISSION:-

1. Prior to commencement of the development, details shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority of secure cycle parking provision for the development. Development shall not be commenced until such details have been agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and prior to occupation the cycle parking shall be provided in accordance with the submitted details.

REASON: To provide adequate facilities for sustainable transport.

2. No part of the development hereby approved shall be brought into its intended use details of pedestrian and cycle linkages from the site/through the site have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No part of the development shall be occupied until the links have been provided, surfaced and marked out in accordance with the approved plans retained for those purposes at all times.

REASON: To provide a safe and suitable access for pedestrians and cyclists in accordance with Paragraph 108 and 110 of the NPPF

3. No part of the development hereby approved shall be brought into its intended use details of vehicular access points have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No part of the development shall be occupied until the access points have been provided, surfaced and marked out in accordance with the approved plans retained for those purposes at all times.

REASON: To provide a safe and suitable access for pedestrians and cyclists in accordance with Paragraph 108 and 110 of the NPPF

4. A comprehensive Framework Travel Plan for the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in advance of occupation of the development. The approved travel plan measures will be implemented to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

A review of travel patterns for the site shall be undertaken within 3 months of occupation of the development and updated on a basis as agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority thereafter.

18/2797/MOUT page 265

REASON: To ensure that the development promotes all travel modes to reduce reliance on the private car, in accordance with paragraph 111 of the NPPF

5. No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The statement should include details of access arrangements and timings and management of arrivals and departures of vehicles. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period.

REASON: In the interests of highway safety and public amenity

Further comments received 12th April 2019 in response to amended parameter plans:

Vehicular Access Points The revised parameter plan shows a two vehicular access points to enter both the Northern and Southern parcels. It is acknowledged that all matters are reserved, however, the highway authority does not see the need for multiple access points. A singular access point on either side of Anning Drive should suffice – such an arrangement would minimise the conflict with vehicles on Anning Drive and reduce the amount of points severing the footway/cycleway on Anning Drive (which is to be discussed later on in this response). It is also noticed that a vehicular crossroads is being promoted – this should be avoided in the interests of safety (in line with paragraph 109 of the NPPF). Crossroads have a poor accident record and a staggered vehicular arrangement should be implemented instead, reducing the amount of vehicular conflict, something that could be easily achieved if a singular point of access for both the northern and southern parcel were to be delivered. A condition is imposed to secure more details of the vehicular access points.

Pedestrian and Cycling Access Points The parameter plan does not provide clarity on the pedestrian/cycling facilities being provided. In order to make this application acceptable, the applicant needs to provide a footway/cycleway on both sides of Anning Drive, something that is not indicated on the revised parameter plan, despite the “Site Opportunities and Constraints Plan” indicating that Anning Drive will become a proposed pedestrian route together with crossing points on Anning Drive. There is no provision of any footway/cycleway on Anning Drive bordering the application parcels at present – without such provision pedestrians and cyclists will be forced onto the carriageway, something that does promote safe and suitable access (contrary to paragraphs 108 and 110 of the NPPF); therefore the applicant should be providing a shared use path on both sides of Anning Drive fronting each parcel. The width of this path should be of 3m effective width (3.5m wide) which is consistent to the DfT’s guidance on shared use paths. The applicant should enter into a S38/278 or appropriate agreement with the Highway Authority and hence the shared use path should be secured by condition. It is recommended that when further details are submitted at reserved matters stage, that pedestrians and cyclists should have priority over motor vehicles at the vehicular access points. This approach is consistent to the approach taken on the Tithebarn Link Road where raised crossings (humps) have been provided, promoting walking and cycling.

18/2797/MOUT page 266

It is noted that the illustrative masterplan and the parameter plan shows crossing points on Anning Drive to accommodate for North – South movements, however, there is a lack of clarity as to what type of crossing facilities are being promoted i.e. it is unknown if these crossing points are to be raised or if simple tactile crossing points are to be installed. Any Reserved Matter proposal will have to clearly indicate these facilities and how it ties into the shared use path that shall be provided on both sides of Anning Drive.

The parameter plan shows an indicative pedestrian/cycle link from Blackhorse Lane, running through the northern parcel and into the southern parcel. Whilst welcomed, it is recommended that the pedestrian/cycling link should extend through to Honiton Road creating a North – South Link, enhancing permeability; akin to the Park and Change parcel, allowing access to sustainable transport hubs located on Honiton Road. There is also the opportunity for this link to connect into the proposed Hotel location directly to the west. The connection point to Blackhorse Lane is welcomed however in the spirit of the NPPF, the applicant should be providing more direct links onto the strategic cycle route. The more pedestrian/cycling points that are provided, the greater the chance of modal change, especially with a vast amount of residential properties being constructed in the area. Equally there should be more pedestrian/cycling connections to Anning Drive accompanying the shared use path that will be provided. Once again, as Anning Drive and Blackhorse Lane are adopted, an appropriate agreement will need to be entered into.

It is pleasing to see that there is a direct East-West linking the Park and Change Site to the Science Park centre. It is also pleasing to see a pedestrian/cycling connection to the Tithebarn Link Road as shown on the “Site Opportunities and Constraints Plan” and should be secured by condition. However, as with all of the pedestrian/cycling links there is a lack of clarity of how wide these points will be (everything seems to be indicative) and hence more details are required at reserved matters stage (3.0m effective width links are recommended).

Suggested conditions • No part of the development of an approved phase shall be brought into its intended use until the relevant vehicular access point(s) has/have been provided in accordance with details and specifications that shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To provide a safe and suitable access for pedestrians and cyclists in accordance with Paragraph 108 and 110 of the NPPF

• No part of the development hereby approved shall be brought into its intended use until the relevant pedestrian/cycling access point(s) (of appropriate width) has/have been provided in accordance with details and specifications that shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To provide a safe and suitable access for pedestrians and cyclists in accordance with Paragraph 108 and 110 of the NPPF

• No part of the development hereby approved shall be brought into its intended use until a shared use path of at least 3m effective width on both sides of Anning Drive (fronting the parcels) and crossing points of Anning Drive have

18/2797/MOUT page 267

been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No part of the development shall be occupied until the shared use path(s) have been provided, surfaced and marked out in accordance with the approved plans retained for those purposes at all times. REASON: To provide a safe and suitable access for pedestrians and cyclists in accordance with Paragraph 108 and 110 of the NPPF

Cycle Parking, Travel Planning and Construction Management Statement were conditioned on the highway response dated 13th February

National Planning Casework Unit

I confirm that we have no comments to make on either of the environmental statements referred to. (18/2797/MOUT & 18/2799/MOUT)

Other Representations One letter has been received by the Exeter Cycling Campaign with concerns at the lack of information and inadequate thought given to the safety of people walking and cycling. 1) The new NPPF requires high quality, safe and easy pedestrians and cycle connections and give them priority. 2) The development should build in safety and priority for cyclists to Blackhorse Lane. Little detail given on how the road and cycle infrastructure will cross/meet/join 3) The Access and Movement Parameter Plan does not have road names and is difficult to understand. 4) The Environmental Statement says the routes for cyclists will be encouraged and relies on the travel plan. Travel plans do not achieve a modal shift to active travel. 5) Likely school routes and segregated cycle infrastructure should be investigated to ensure that it is given priority.

POLICIES

Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 Policies Strategy 1 (Spatial Strategy for Development in East Devon)

Strategy 3 (Sustainable Development)

Strategy 4 (Balanced Communities)

Strategy 5 (Environment)

Strategy 5B (Sustainable Transport)

Strategy 9 (Major Development at East Devon's West End)

Strategy 10 (Green Infrastructure in East Devon's West End)

Strategy 11 (Integrated Transport and Infrastructure Provision at East Devon's West End)

18/2797/MOUT page 268

Strategy 13 (Development North of Blackhorse/Redhayes)

Strategy 31 (Future Job and Employment Land Provision)

Strategy 37 (Community Safety)

Strategy 38 (Sustainable Design and Construction)

Strategy 40 (Decentralised Energy Networks)

Strategy 46 (Landscape Conservation and Enhancement and AONBs)

Strategy 47 (Nature Conservation and Geology)

D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness)

D2 (Landscape Requirements)

D3 (Trees and Development Sites)

EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features)

EN7 (Proposals Affecting Sites which may potentially be of Archaeological Importance)

EN13 (Development on High Quality Agricultural Land)

EN14 (Control of Pollution)

EN18 (Maintenance of Water Quality and Quantity)

EN22 (Surface Run-Off Implications of New Development)

TC2 (Accessibility of New Development)

TC4 (Footpaths, Bridleways and Cycleways)

TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access)

TC9 (Parking Provision in New Development)

TC12 (Aerodrome Safeguarded Areas and Public Safety Zones)

Government Planning Documents National Planning Practice Guidance National Planning Policy Framework 2019

18/2797/MOUT page 269

History

12/1291/MOUT - Outline planning permission approved on 29th November 2013 for the construction of up to 930 dwellings, a new link road, employment area, park and ride, local centre, health and fitness centre, open space and associated servicing. This application was shared with Exeter City Council with 580 dwellings being located in EDDC area. This application was accompanied by an Environmental Statement (ES) under the EIA Regulations.

15/1515/MRES - Approval of reserved matters approved on the 28th August 2015 for the construction of the northern phase of the link road with associated infrastructure and landscaping. This RMA has now been implemented.

16/0902/MRES - Approval of reserved matters on 8th June 2016 for the revised drainage scheme for the approved section of the link road, including the construction of a drainage pond and associated works.

16/1354/MRES - Approval of reserved matters on 5th October 2016 for the construction of the southern phase of the link road with associated infrastructure and landscaping. This section of the link road has just been completed.

16/1934/MRES - Approval of reserved matters on 25th July 2017 for the country park, SUDS and associated infrastructure.

16/1935/MRES - Approval of reserved matters on 14th February 2017 for the erection of 248 dwellings, public open space, landscaping, cycle, pedestrian and vehicular links. This development by BDWH has recently commenced.

17/0644/MRES - Approval of reserved matters on 29th August 2017 for the construction of the southern Mosshayne link road.

17/1825/MRES - Approval of reserved matters on 22nd November 2017 for creation of the central green corridor.

18/0382/MRES Approval of Reserved Matters on the 23rd May 2018 for the construction of 79 dwellings, including affordable housing, landscaping and associated infrastructure together with the partial discharge of certain conditions on the outline planning permission.

18/1365/MRES - Approval of reserved matters (access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) application in relation to phase 18, pursuant to outline planning permission 12/1291/MOUT for the provision of a Park & Change facility with associated infrastructure and landscaping. The partial discharge of conditions 1, 4, 5, 8, 10, 19 of application 12/1291/MOUT relating to phase 18.

It should also be noted that the site is adjacent to the current Exeter Science Park with relevant planning history:

Outline planning permission was granted on 11th March 2010 under ref: 09/1107/MOUT for the creation of a Science Park comprising 76,450 sqm of

18/2797/MOUT page 270

essentially R & D uses with a hotel and associated infrastructure. To date, a number of reserved matters applications have been approved on phase 1(the phase next to the current site) for Eagle House, the Science Centre and two grow on buildings, all of which are either complete or under construction. There is also the Met Office development on a site close to the M5 and some infrastructure such as roads and car parks have been constructed. With the outline pp was a S106 to control various aspects of the development.

Site location and Description

The site has an area of about 3.52 ha and is located just to the north of the old A30 Honiton Road, with the new Tithebarn Link Road to the east and Anning Road splitting the site. The site is currently open agricultural land which has outline planning permission for office use under 12/1291/MOUT and to the west is the science park.

The site for the proposed development is reasonably level with a slight fall down to the south particularly within the southern section of the site. To the south east corner of the site there is a new pylon compound for the termination of the overhead line coming in from the south from where it is undergrounded. The land to the east of the southern section of the site has detailed consent for a park and change site. To the north of the northern section of the site is Blackhorse Lane which is now used as a pedestrian and cycle route.

The site is located within the wider Redhayes development, a mixed use scheme which includes residential and commercial uses. Within this development, the planning permission is for office use of this particular part of the site. The wider Science Park is to the west of the site and has a planning permission for about 76,000 sqm of Research and Development. The Science Park is part completed with the Science Park Centre being located next to the southern part of the application site.

The Proposed Development

Outline planning permission is sought to construct 15,329 sqm of Research and Development (Class B1 (b)) floor space with ancillary B1 Uses with associated infrastructure and works. In addition, it is proposed to have the ability to incorporate some of the supporting uses (e.g. café, restaurant, conference, health facilities) from the overall science park planning permission. All matters are reserved.

The application is accompanied by several parameter plans covering: access and movement, green infrastructure, land use and scale together with an illustrative masterplan to show how the site could be laid out.

The application is also accompanied by an Environmental Statement considering the significant environmental effects of the development together with the related planning application for residential development as part of the proposed land use swap. The main subjects are transport, landscape and visual impact, ecology, water resources, air quality, waste, soil and agriculture, noise and vibration, cultural heritage and socio- economic.

18/2797/MOUT page 271

The planning application is also accompanied by a draft Deed of Release S106 to, at the point of commencement, release the land from the Tithebarn Green development.

Background

This application is closely related to a second application for residential development on land a short distance to the north (18/2799/MOUT) and also on this agenda.

These two applications are part of a proposed land use swap as follows:

1) The site for the proposed residential development is approved and allocated in the Local Plan as part of the Science Park - phase 2B.This part of the consented Science Park comprises two clusters of development: Langaton Lane and the Anning Road clusters, split into two halves by Langaton Lane. The area of these clusters east of Langaton Lane forms the proposed land use swap with the calculated area of floor space at 15,329 sqm moving to the site the subject of planning application 18/2797/MOUT.

2) The site for the proposed relocation of part of the science park has an outline planning permission for 8,850 sqm of offices as part of the larger mixed use development at Redhayes. The office development is approved on phases 13, 16 and 19. The current application 18/2797/MOUT affects phases 16 and 19 with phase 13 (located to the east side of the Tithebarn Link Road) remaining and suitable for office use, although the 8,850 sqm is very unlikely to be fully realised on this remaining phase.

To help coordinate and integrate these two proposals within the wider Science Park and Redhayes developments, an interim Masterplan was prepared. This was endorsed by the Strategic Planning Committee at their meeting on 4th September 2018. The purpose of the Masterplan is to set out the main contextual changes and key design principles that these two applications should consider and respond to. This is to ensure that the two applications are not considered in isolation as it is essential that they integrate well into the wider development in the locality.

ANALYSIS

Main policy implications

It is a requirement in planning law that all planning applications should be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case, the Development Plan is the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031 (EDLP). The forthcoming Greater Exeter Strategic Plan (GESP) is in an early stage of preparation and therefore carries very little weight in decision taking.

The site is located in the West End of East Devon where most of the large, strategic developments in the district are planned. Strategy 9 of the EDLP identifies the main strategic development sites in the West End which includes the Science Park and the north of Blackhorse/Redhayes sites. The proposed site for the relocation of part of the Science Park is contained on the site allocated under Strategy 13 for a mixed use development centred on housing but including a neighbourhood centre, social and

18/2797/MOUT page 272

community facilities, infrastructure and employment provision. Indeed the outline planning permission for Redhayes provides for office accommodation on the site the subject of the current application as part of this mixed use development principally to provide employment opportunities for the future population in the near locality. It is likely that should this proposal be approved, that office development will still come forward on the remaining parcel albeit at a smaller amount.

As the current site is just outside the allocated Science Park and located on the mixed use development site at Redhayes, it is technically a departure from the development plan and has been advertised as such. The issue is therefore whether there are other material considerations which would weigh more heavily in favour of the planning application. The following considerations are relevant:

1) The proposed site is immediately adjacent to the main science park centre and will be seen in context with this main centre rather than on the outlying clusters. This should give the Science Park more of a presence and help integrate and reinforce this flagship development.

2) The floor area being relocated is approximately the same as would be lost if the residential scheme goes ahead. Therefore, there would be no detriment to the amount of Science Park, it would just be relocated.

Therefore whilst a technical departure, there is no detriment to the Science Park as a strategic allocation, indeed there would be advantages for the Science Park moving forward to deliver a high value employment site. This are considered to be persuasive material considerations that would weigh in favour of the principle of the development proposal provided the S106 clearly ensures that the residential development only takes place once there is confirmation that the Science Park relocation has been secured.

Compliance with the Interim Masterplan, August 2018.

During 2018, an interim Masterplan (IM) was prepared and endorsed by the Strategic Planning Committee to set a high level conceptual framework for how the land use swap proposals should be considered in planning. This was to set a commonly understood basis for the preparation and determination of these two planning applications. It was not to specify the scope or content of technical matters or detail. It concentrated on the important placemaking elements to ensure that the land use swap developments were well integrated and to support the delivery of the Science Park and the surrounding development. It is envisaged that should the land use swap take place, a further Masterplan would be prepared to consider the wider Science park development. The IM considered the changing context in relation to government policy and the local changes since the original masterplan and the shift in work place environments and expectations. It also considered the opportunities that the changes to the context can bring by up-dating the strategic vision for the emerging overall development.

The IM consists of a series of diagrams and high level design principles under the following headings: 1) Strategic connectivity and Green Infrastructure

18/2797/MOUT page 273

2) Primary Land uses 3) Local connectivity 4) Development Character and edges.

It is not the purpose of this report to identify all the key components of the IM but below is the key issues with the planning application in relation to compliance.

Strategic connectivity and GI - the IM shows a strategic pedestrian route going north- south through the site linking into the main Science Park on the southern boundary and onto Blackhorse Lane/Link Road on the northern boundary plus a link to the adjacent park and change. The original Access and Movement Parameter Plan only had the link into the park and change and consequently the applicant was requested that this plan also show the north-south link - this issue is also picked up in the section on highways and movement. A subsequent amended parameter plan has been submitted which shows the pedestrian/cycle link to Blackhorse Lane but not through the southern half to the old a30 boundary. The applicant has been asked to consider this again and any up-date will be reported to the DM Committeee.

Primary Land Uses - the IM shows the site as for Science Park led uses with the main centre in the area of the existing centre extending into the western section of the southern parcel. This is largely reflected in the masterplan but again the key linkages were missing. It also recognises the key strategic green links and green corridor link. This is referred to later in the report but essentially the key linkages and strategic GI were minimal and the applicant was requested to address this concern and any further up-date will be reported to the DM Committee.

Local connectivity - the IM again emphasised the key pedestrian/cycle links north- south and east-west through the site with primary and secondary connection nodes which were missing from the original Access and Movement Parameter Plan. Again the applicant was asked to address this – see above comments.

Development character and edges - the IM identifies a key Science Park street edge along both sides of Anning Road, key strategic edges along part of the east boundary and the south boundary together with a soft edge to the link road and an important green edge to Blackhorse Lane. The IM sets some design principles which will need to be transferred to the detailed design and can be controlled through the requirement for design coding as a condition on any permission granted. The other issues on the green edges has been picked up later in this report.

Consideration of other planning issues

The planning application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement, various other documents and a series of parameter plans: Access and Movement, Green Infrastructure, Scale and Land Use. These are intended to address the various planning issues the development raises and will be assessed as follows.

18/2797/MOUT page 274

Highways and Movement

The application has been supported by a Transport Statement and Design and Access Statement (DAS). Consultation has taken place with Highways England (Strategic Road Network) and DCC Highway Authority (local road network).

Highways England have assessed both applications in terms of the possible impact on the strategic road network and whilst there would be some impact on junction 29 of the M5 and the A30/Moor Lane junction, nevertheless this would not be severe, and in particular the Moor Lane improvements are due to commence in spring 2019. As such, Highways England are satisfied that the number of vehicles generated by the development are not likely to have a material impact on the safe and efficient operation of the strategic road network and have no objection.

The DCC Highway Authority identify that the development proposes a new vehicular access for the northern parcel from Anning Road and will use the existing access next to the Science park Centre to serve the southern parcel. The Transport Statement includes a trip analysis to forecast the net change in trips overall based on the land use swap. This indicates overall (including the reduction in the office land) an additional trip generation of 53 two-way trips in the AM peak hour and 48 two-way trips in the PM peak hour. Access is a reserved matter but the parameter plan for movement and access shows these vehicular access points and any reserved matters application will need to adhere to this plan. A condition is recommended to secure details and construction of the vehicular access point(s).

The site is located in an area with good access to the foot and cycle network and there is a bus service along the Tithebarn Link Road and a consented park and change site. There are therefore good opportunities to maximise the pedestrian and cycle connections and permeability through the site. The interim Masterplan recognised this and indicated a number of connections that should be made.

The initial Movement and Access parameter plan that was submitted showed only a few cycle/pedestrian connections and routes through the site and did not have the key pedestrian/cycle links shown in the interim Masterplan. This interim Masterplan has east-west and north-south connections through the southern parcel together with a link into the northern parcel from Anning Road and through to the Blackhorse lane/Tithebarn Link Road areas.

Following further negotiations on the pedestrian/cycle links, an amended Movement and Access Parameter Plan has been submitted which shows better connections but still with concerns expressed by the County Highway Authority – see consultee section. This relates to the vehicular access points as they would not want to see a cross road formed with the junctions onto Anning Road and would only want one access to each phase from Anning Road.

In terms of pedestrian and cycle movements, this still does not reflect the Interim Masterplan. The footpath/cycle connections should provide a link north-south through the whole site to link into the connection on the old A30. Anning Road does not have a footway/cycleway where it fronts the site which could push pedestrians onto the carriageway. As such, this should be provided on the northern side as part of the

18/2797/MOUT page 275

development of the northern phase. The park and change permission includes a 3m wide cycle/footway along the southern side of Anning Road. A condition is recommended to provide for this cycle/footway on the northern side of Anning Road with details of a crossing point.

The comments have been passed back to the applicant and any up-date will be reported to the DM Committee.

In terms of sustainability, a Travel Plan is essential to promote the use of non-car based travel as well as how car usage could be reduced through such initiatives as car sharing and car clubs. The Highway Authority recommend a condition on any permission issued to secure a Travel Plan but the intention is to transfer the travel plan requirement from the existing Science Park S106 to the new site.

Ecology

The site is located within 10km of the East Devon Pebblebed Heaths SAC and SPA together with the Exe Estuary SPA and Ramsar sites. The Environmental Statement anticipates that the development is unlikely to impact on these sites. Natural England confirm this conclusion that the proposed development will not have a significant adverse impact on these statutorily protected sites.

There have been several ecology appraisals done over the recent years with the latest for this site done in June 2018 and is therefore up-to-date. This generally concludes that the site has a low habitat quality and no further surveys are recommended. In terms of species, the following was identified:

1) Badgers - no current sign of activity but it is likely that they commute/forage in the area.

2) Bats - the two oak trees may provide some roosting opportunities and the site itself is of low importance to foraging bats.

3) Birds - common bird species were noted and the hedgebanks, trees and ruderal banks are likely to support nesting and foraging birds.

4) Dormice - they have been recorded in the wider Tithebarn Green area and the banks on Blackhorse Lane have a potential to support dormice although this is likely to be limited and could be used for commuting.

5) Great Crested Newts - there are no ponds on site and surveys of ponds to the north surveyed in 2012 revealed no newts.

6) Reptiles - the bank has the potential for foraging and commuting habitat. Previous surveys in the wider area indicated a low number of slow worms and common lizard in banks being used for commuting.

In terms of the construction phase, a number of recommendations are made which should be picked up through the need to prepare and implement a CEMP.

18/2797/MOUT page 276

In terms of mitigation and enhancement, the following is recommended: 1) The northern bank to be retained and enhanced through native planting and a buffer strip of meadow grassland. 2) Grassland areas to use native seed mix. 3) Bird and bat boxes. 4) Grass cuttings and brash to be left in piles.

These requirements could be secured through a Landscape and Environmental Management Plan (LEMP) via a condition on any planning permission granted. Artificial exterior lighting also needs to be controlled and it is recommended that a condition requiring the approval of exterior lighting be included which should include an ecology reason alongside amenity and airport safeguarding.

Landscape and visual impact

The application has included a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) within the Environmental Statement. The proposed development does not have any adverse impact on valued landscapes such as an AONB. There are some shortcomings with the LVIA as submitted; lack of a theoretical Zone of Visual Influence and some inadequate visual boundary and viewpoints, especially views from south of the A30. These concerns were passed to the applicant…….

It is concluded that during the construction stage, there would be a minor adverse effect compared to the previously approved office scheme. This conclusion is supported.

The LVIA concludes that during the operational stage, the visual significance would be minor adverse. However, this conclusion was not supported as the building height on the highest northern parcel was proposed to be 15m and the original office development was limited to 12m in height. In terms of proposed mitigation to this additional visual impact would be good design, high quality architectural detailing and a new landscape setting (e.g. tall growing forest trees) along the ridge at Blackhorse Lane. However, in such a prominent setting, design would not materially mitigate the scale and tree planting would take many years to approach 15m and could raise an airport safeguarding objection. As such, the applicant was asked to consider the building height on the northern parcel to a level close to the approved height (12m) and has confirmed 13m which would not be a significant increase over the approved.

However, with the submitted amendments, there is still some concern with the Gi Parameter Plan and Movement and Access parameter Plan which are considered later in this report.

Parameter Plans

Green Infrastructure Parameter Plan - as submitted, the GI parameter Plan showed a green corridor to Blackhorse Lane of about 5m to 6m in width, with a "soft edge" of about 6m in width on the southern boundary of the site and the east boundary of the northern parcel. The two trees and hedgerow on the north boundary were proposed to be retained. However, this did not reflect the illustrative masterplan and Design and Access statement where larger and more varied landscaped areas were shown for

18/2797/MOUT page 277

both parcels. GI should not only include landscaping but also ecology, SUDS, amenity, movement and recreation as an integrated multi-use green space which can connect to the wider GI network.

The design principles contained within the Design and Access Statement were not realised within the GI Parameter Plan and therefore the applicant was requested to address this issue with the submission of a new parameter plan. This shows the landscape buffer area on the north and south boundaries being increased to 10m and the buffer area on the east boundary with the link road being 5m with a wider area adjacent to the corner of the link road with Anning Road. However, this still does not reflect the illustrative masterplan and the Design and Access Statement. Furthermore, these GI areas need to accommodate the SUDS features and there is concern that this is not sufficiently shown as indicated in the Design and Access Statement. The drainage attenuation proposals indicate that about 560 sqm will be required for the basins and this needs to be shown on the GI Parameter Plan. The applicant has been requested to show this and any up-date will be reported to the DN Committee.

Access and Movement Parameter Plan - this is addressed in the Highways and Movement section above.

Scale Parameter Plan - This originally showed a simple height limit of 15m over the whole site. As explained above in the Landscape and Visual Impact section, this has now been reduced down to 13m within the northern parcel.

Land Use Parameter Plan - this just identifies that there would be 15,329 sqm of Science Park uses over the site. Whilst this is not incorrect, it doesn't recognises all the ancillary uses to support a Science park but nevertheless this can reasonably be controlled through a recommended condition and subsequent reserved matters applications.

The outline planning permission included other supporting uses for a science park including a hotel, café/restaurant, crèche, and conference and health/fitness facilities. These supporting uses were limited to specific floorspaces. Except for the hotel (which has a specific site identified), it is reasonable that these other ancillary supporting uses could be accommodated, in part, on the current application site but it is important that the overall limits on floorspace are not additional to the 15,329 sqm being applied for and are part of it. A recommended condition is to control this.

Heritage Assets

Archaeology - the site has been the subject of previous evaluation which didn't identify any significant features that might want more detailed recording. Therefore, no further archaeological mitigation is need as confirmed by DCC Archaeologist.

Built heritage - previous assessment for the Tithebarn Green planning application identified a few listed buildings within 200m of this application. The nearest listed buildings are within Sowton village (including Sowton Lodge) about half a kilometre from the site and with the A30 road in between. As such, there would be no direct or indirect effects on the significance of any built heritage assets in the locality.

18/2797/MOUT page 278

Surface Water Drainage

Submitted with the application is a Flood Risk and Drainage Assessment. The site itself is not at risk of fluvial flooding being outside of any functional flood plain and is located in Flood Zone 1. As such, there are no flood hazards that need to be considered.

Policy EN22 (Surface Run-Off Implications of New Development) of the Local Plan looks to ensure that major developments are managed by sustainable drainage systems and the surface water implications of a proposal have been fully considered and found to be acceptable. To achieve SUDS, a hierarchy of solutions should be followed from the preferred option to infiltrate to the ground to the least preferred option of connection to a sewer. The applicant has advised that infiltration rates on the site is likely to be low. As such, it is proposed to drain via a below ground network to attenuation ponds but there has been no detailed design, and then to the DCC highway drainage network on Honiton Road at the controlled and restricted Greenfield run off rate. South West Water have no objections to a discharge to the DCC highway drainage system.

Little specific detail on the surface water drainage proposals were submitted with the application and therefore the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) objected on the basis that it did not comply with policy EN22. The LLFA asked that the climate change allowance and Qbar rate should be revised to allow amended attenuation calculations to be submitted. In addition, MicroDrainage model outputs should be submitted. This has resulted in additional information being submitted which has been assessed by LLFA and any up-date will be reported to the DM Committee.

Air Quality

An Air Quality report has been submitted which concludes that there will be no concerning levels of either nitrogen oxides or particulates from motor vehicles and the additional traffic associated with the development will not lead to any deterioration in ambient air quality. Construction site issues will be controlled through the CEMP.

Waste

This development would result in the approved Science Park floorspace being relocated and the loss of some office floorspace. Additional waste therefore is negligible but any waste should be controlled and managed. During the construction phase this can be controlled through the CEMP and a condition should be imposed to require a Site Waste Management Plan during the operational stage.

Soil and Agriculture

Policy EN13 (Development on High Quality Agricultural Land) of the Local Plan aims to protect the best and most versatile agricultural land (Grades 1, 2 and 3a) from development and this is supported in the NPPF. The land is grade 2/3a although it should be noted that the site is allocated for development in the Local Plan and has an extant outline planning permission. On this basis, an alternative development proposal on the site would not prevent the loss of this agricultural land which was

18/2797/MOUT page 279

assessed previously and considered to be acceptable when balanced against all the other planning considerations.

However, the soils on the site could be recovered and handled correctly to minimise the loss of soil resource as identified in the Environmental Statement. The NPPF also requires that decisions should protect and enhance soils. It is therefore recommended that any permission forthcoming should require a scheme of soil recovery and handling to help mitigate the loss of the agricultural land.

Noise and Vibration

The noise report submitted concentrates mostly on the noise impact on the residential planning application but does recognise that the traffic associated with the site and mechanical plant could create a potential operational noise impact. It does conclude that the increase in traffic levels would be negligible but the detailed location and design of mechanical plant needs to be considered. A condition is recommended to secure details of plant and machinery. Construction noise and vibration can be controlled through the CEMP.

Socio-economic

The proposed development would provide the equivalent amount of Science Park but result in a small reduction in office space. The development would result in a significant amount of jobs, particularly in the knowledge-based industries. This would also have a positive impact on goods and services. The construction phase would provide temporary jobs providing a moderate benefit to the local economy.

Airport Safeguarding

Exeter Airport were consulted on the application and initially came back with an objection as the proposals potentially conflict with safeguarding criteria to protect blocks of air through which aircraft fly, the integrity of radar and navigation aids, visual aids and lighting which cause glare or confusion to pilots and ensuring that there is no increased risk of bird strike. Of particular note is the concern to navigational aids as recent developments in the vicinity of the airport have consumed the Instrument Landing System (ILS) static disturbance budgets. The airport therefore requested that the development be modelled to determine the extent if any of any further disturbance. This was completed and the report concluded that there would be no impact on the navigational aids.

There still remains the concerns about attracting more birds (particularly flocking birds) to the area and light spill. In terms of birds, this means ensuring the landscaping avoids trees with dense canopies, and large quantities of fruit and berry bearing plants together with limiting open standing water on the surface water drainage schemes. There is a balance to be achieved between airport safeguarding and ensuring that schemes are sustainable, attractive and encourage wildlife. The airport recognise this and it will need to be considered as part of the details of landscaping and drainage for later submissions.

18/2797/MOUT page 280

Lighting is also important to protect pilots from glare or confusion so it is recommended that a condition is imposed to require details of exterior lighting to be agreed by the Local Planning Authority which would entail consultation with the airport.

Proposed legal agreements under S106

The council is now in a CIL regime which requires that the infrastructure identified in the Regulation 123 list cannot be secured through a S106 agreement.

The draft Deed of Release and Planning Obligations has provisions to prevent the commencement of the residential development unless and until one of the following events occurs (whichever is the earlier): 1) The owner enters into an unconditional contract/agreement to secure the acquisition of the land the subject of planning application 18/2797/MOUT by Exeter Science Park (ESP). 2) The owner and ESP have entered into a conditional contract, option or agreement for sale for the land the subject of planning application 18/2797/MOUT and that contract, option or agreement for sale has become unconditional. 3) The development permitted by 18/2797/MOUT has begun. 4) EDDC confirms in writing that the residential development may commence, notwithstanding that the above events may not have occurred.

There would be a fundamental policy objection if the residential development (18/2799/MOUT) took place without the accompanying relocated science park development (the subject of this current application) taking place as this would result in the overall loss of site area and floorspace of a strategic employment site and would mean there would be very little justification for permitting the residential development which relies principally on the relocation of part of the science park land

For the purposes of the legal agreements, names have been given to the two areas of land comprised in the land use swap. This is to ensure that the terms used for the land are consistent across the suite of documents. The areas of land are called:

- “Phase 2b Residential Land” means the land which is currently called Phase 2b but will become residential

- “New ESP Land” – this is the land which was part of Tithebarn but will become ESP and was previously called “Relocated Phase 2b” in the ESP Deeds

Draft Deed of Release relating to the New ESP Land This document: 1. Releases the New ESP Land from the pre-existing Tithebarn Green s.106 provisions 2. Effectively revokes the pre-existing Tithebarn Green planning permission in relation to the New ESP Land

The Deed is conditional upon the Commencement of Development on the New ESP Land or the Phase 2 Residential Land (whichever happens first)

18/2797/MOUT page 281

The draft Deed of Variation relating to New ESP Land This document: 1. Acknowledges that some of the provisions in the ESP s.106 have now been superseded. This has been done in the recitals. The acknowledgement is just that – a recognition that things have moved on – rather than a variation of the planning obligations. 2. From the date of the Commencement of Development on the New ESP Land or the Phase 2 Residential Land (whichever happens first), the Deed releases the Phase 2b Residential Land from the ESP s.106 provisions 3. From the date of the Commencement of the New ESP Development only, the Deed amends the ESP s.106 so as to bind the new ESP Land.

This ensures that the New ESP Land will only be bound by the ESP s.106 provisions if it also has the benefit of the New ESP Permission.

If the New ESP Permission is not implemented, the ability to revert back to the Tithebarn Green planning permission will have been lost through the revocation in the Deed of Release (above). Therefore, the site would have no planning obligations and no implementable planning permission.

Environmental Statement

The Council undertook a screening opinion for both developments and concluded that they were, in conjunction with the other developments in the locality, likely to have a significant environmental effect and therefore required an Environmental Statement (ES) to be submitted. An ES has been submitted for both applications covering the environmental issues for both developments under a single ES.

Under Regulation 3 of the EIA Regulations 2017, the planning authority shall not grant planning permission for EIA development unless an EIA has been carried out.

Under Regulation 26, the planning authority must: 1) Examine the environmental information; 2) Reach a reasoned conclusion on the significant environmental effects of the proposed development; 3) Integrate that conclusion into the decision as to whether planning permission should be granted; and 4) Consider whether to impose monitoring measures.

The submitted ES has been taken into consideration and has been consulted on during the application process. The environmental issues have been addressed in this report where relevant and where required, mitigation will be secured through the approval of parameter plans, the imposition of conditions and S106 clauses. It is therefore considered that this report contains reasoned conclusions on the significant environmental effects and these have been integrated into the recommended decision. Subject to securing the relevant mitigation as specified above, it is considered that, under the EIA Regulations, that permission can be granted.

18/2797/MOUT page 282

CONCLUSION

It is a requirement of planning law that planning decisions are determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material planning considerations indicate otherwise. Theses planning applications are contrary to the Development Plan and therefore support should only be forthcoming if there are material planning considerations that would weigh in favour of approvals being given by the decision takers.

Overall, there are clear benefits/material considerations with these planning applications which facilitate the land use swap. It is considered that within the balance of planning considerations, the weight falls in favour of permitting the development proposals rather than the ridged application of policy.

Both applications are linked and neither application is acceptable by itself. The draft legal agreements aim to ensure this is the case.

The proposed developments are the subject of Environmental Impact Assessment. An Environmental Statement covering both developments has been submitted which deals with the environmental issues arising from the proposals. The housing element will have some impact on the East Devon Pebblebed Heaths SAC/SPA and the Exe Estuary SPA/Ramsar sites and accordingly an Appropriate Assessment has been completed.

18/2797/MOUT page 283

The other planning issues are addressed in the reports for both planning applications, including the level of affordable housing and viability, together with S106 issues.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE subject to the following conditions and the completion of legal agreements under S106:

1. The first application for the approval of reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission. All subsequent applications for reserved matters shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval no later than ten years from the date of this permission. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters. (Reason - To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. A longer than standard time limit has been imposed as the development is likely to come forward in stages, possibly over a long time period, and therefore this is justified.)

2. Approval of the details of the layout, scale and appearance of the building(s), the means of access thereto and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") for each approved phase or phases shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced within that phase. (Reason - The application is in outline with one or more matters reserved.)

3. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Site Location Plan 15047_L01.01 Rev B. Parameter Plan_Access and Movement 15047_L01.03 Rev D Parameter Plan_Land Use 15047_L01.04 Rev A Parameter Plan_Scale 15047_L01.05 Rev B Parameter Plan_Green Infrastructure 15047_L01.06 Rev B (Reason - For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning)

4. As part of any reserved matters application for development on an approved phase or part of an approved phase, a detailed phasing plan shall be submitted for the written approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority to specify the proposed timing for the delivery of the access and pedestrian/cycle links, open space/green infrastructure, SUDS as well as the construction programme for the buildings and other elements of the development for that approved phase.

18/2797/MOUT page 284

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved phasing plan ref: 15047_L01.02 Rev A and the approved detailed phasing plan and delivery programme, or any such amendments to these phasing plans as may be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Reason - to ensure that the development proceeds in accordance with an agreed phasing and programme of delivery in the interests of securing suitable access, drainage and landscaping on the site in a timely manner as part of the co-ordinated development of the site in the interests of the environment and ecology of the area).

5. Prior to the submission of the first reserved matters application for an approved phase or phases, a detailed Design Code for the development on that phase or phases shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Design Code shall adhere to the design principles established in the Interim Masterplan report, August 2018 (or any further Masterplan superseding the interim report) and include as a minimum the following matters: 1) Airport safeguarding requirements (if applicable). 2) Layout parameters, spaces and movement. 3) Building Design principles including building forms, types and frontages 4) Building materials. 5) External plant and equipment. 6) Boundary treatment and fencing. 7) Lighting. 8) Landscape strategy and Green Infrastructure. 9) Sustainable construction. The reserved matters application(s) shall adhere to the approved Design Code and each reserved matters application submitted shall include a compliance statement to show how the proposed development adheres to the approved Design Code. (Reason - to ensure the design of the development is appropriate for the area, minimises the visual impact on the landscape and integrates with nearby development in the interests of the environment of the area and in the interests of airport safeguarding to accord with Strategy 46 (Landscape Conservation and Enhancement and AONB's) and policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness), D2 (Landscape Requirements) and TC12 (Aerodrome Safeguarded Areas and Public Safety Zones) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031. The Design Code is required prior to commencement to enable the code to guide the production of the reserved matters application(s)).

6. The details to be submitted as part of the reserved matters application(s) shall include finished floor levels for the buildings and finished ground levels in relation to a fixed datum, including heights of all plant and equipment above the ground level. The building heights shall not exceed those shown on the approved parameter plan - scale. The development shall be constructed/installed in accordance with the approved details unless any variation is agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Reason - to ensure that adequate details are available during the determination of the reserved matters to assess the impact of the development on the area and landscape and in the interests of airport safeguarding to accord with Strategy 46 (Landscape Conservation and Enhancement and AONB's) and

18/2797/MOUT page 285

policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and TC12 (Aerodrome Safeguarding Areas and Public Safety Zones) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031).

7. Prior to the commencement of development on an approved phase or phases, a Soil Resources Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Soil Resources Plan shall set out the procedures that will be put in place to ensure that all high quality soil resources on the site that will be displaced by the development are conserved and reused elsewhere in the locality. The Plan shall detail how high quality soil resources will be identified, how they will be stored and relocated and where they will be reused. The development shall thereafter only be carried out in accordance with the approved plan. (Reason - To ensure that the high quality soil resources at the site are conserved and re-used having regard to the site being identified as 'best and most versatile' land to accord with policy EN13 (Development on High Quality Agricultural Land) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 and government policy contained in the National Planning Policy Framework. These details are required prior to the commencement of development as the soil resource will be affected from the start of operations on the site).

8. Prior to the commencement of development of an approved phase or phases, a detailed site waste management plan for the operational stage of that approved phase or phases shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The requirements of the approved site waste management plan shall be implemented in full during the operational stages of the development. (Reason- to ensure that the waste arising from the development is managed sustainably and responsibly in accordance with policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031, policy W4 of the Devon Waste Plan 2014 and policy within the National Planning Policy for Waste).

9. Prior to the commencement of development of an approved phase or phases, a Construction and Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) for that approved phase or phases shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CEMP shall include the following matters: 1) Air Quality. 2) Dust control. 3) Lighting. 4) Noise and vibration. 5) Pollution Prevention and Control, including an emergency plan. 6) Protection and maintenance of retained landscape and habitat areas. 7) Airport safeguarding 8) Construction Traffic Management, including communications. 9) Monitoring Arrangements. 10) Waste management. Notwithstanding the above, construction working shall not take place outside the hours of 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 1pm on Saturdays, with

18/2797/MOUT page 286

no working on Sundays or Bank Holidays. There shall be no burning on site. There shall at no time be high frequency audible reversing alarms used on the site. The measures in the approved CEMP shall be implemented and remain in place throughout the construction period of the approved phase or phases. (Reason - To protect the amenities of nearby occupiers, airport safeguarding and to protect the ecology/protected species in the locality to accord with policies EN14 (Control of Pollution), TC12 (Aerodrome Safeguarded Areas and Public Safety Zones) and EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031. The CEMP needs to be approved and implemented at the start of development operations as risks to the environment, airport safeguarding and ecology will be present from this point).

10. The landscaping proposals to be submitted as part of the reserved matters for an approved phase or phases shall clearly show the planting for that phase or phases, the type and colour of all hard surfacing materials for that phase or phases, boundary treatment (to accord with the approved Design Code), all the hedgerows to be retained, removed and created within that phase or phases and how these hedgerows link to the hedgerow network together with future management arrangements of the hedgerows and how they will be protected during construction. The landscaping details to be submitted shall be in accordance with the approved parameter plans and include an implementation programme and maintenance schedule. The landscaping for that relevant phase shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details, including the timetable for implementation and be maintained in accordance with the approved maintenance schedule. (Reason- In the interests of the long term visual amenity of the site and the landscape setting, airport safeguarding together with the need to conserve and enhance biodiversity on and around the site in accordance with Strategy 7 (Development in the Countryside), policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness), D2 (Landscape Requirements), TC12 (Aerodrome Safeguarded Areas and Public Safety Zones) and EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031 and policy contained within the NPPF.)

11. Prior to the commencement of development of an approved phase or phases, a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall be based on the proposed mitigation and enhancement measures outlined in chapter 7 - Landscape and Visual Impact and chapter 8 - Ecology, and the associated Ecological Appraisal report 15/2856.03b (appendix 8.3) of the Environmental Statement together with future monitoring arrangements. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details or such other details as may be subsequently approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Reason - to ensure that the impacts of the development on ecology/protected species and the landscape is suitably mitigated for and enhanced to comply with policies EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) and D2 (Landscape Requirements) and Strategy 46 (Landscape Conservation and Enhancement of AONB's) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031. The LEMP is required prior

18/2797/MOUT page 287

to commencement as some mitigation/enhancement will be needed at the start of development.)

12. All applications for the approval of reserved matters which include the requirement to provide exterior lighting shall be accompanied by details of exterior lighting and its management for the operational stage of the development and shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before that relevant development is brought into use. The details to be provided shall accord with the details approved within the Design Code. The exterior lighting shall be provided and managed in accordance with the approved details and maintained thereafter unless any changes are agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Reason - to safeguard the amenities of the area, to protect nearby occupiers and protected species from excessive light levels, and in the interests of airport safeguarding in accordance with policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness), EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features), EN14 (Control of Pollution) and TC12 (Aerodrome Safeguarded Areas and Public Safety Zones) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031).

13. Should any contamination of soil and/or ground or surface water be discovered during excavation of the site or development, the Local Planning Authority shall be contacted immediately. Site activities in the area affected shall be temporarily suspended until such time as a method and procedure for addressing the contamination is agreed upon in writing with the Local Planning Authority. (Reason: To ensure that any contamination existing and exposed during the development is identified and remediated in accordance with policy EN16 (Contaminated Land) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031).

14. The details to be submitted as part of any reserved matters application which includes a building or buildings shall include details of secure cycle parking provision for that part of the development. Development shall not be commenced until such details have been agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and prior to occupation, the cycle parking shall be provided in accordance with the submitted details and thereafter maintained. (Reason: To provide adequate facilities for sustainable transport to accord with policies TC4 (Footpaths, Bridleways and Cycleways) and TC9 (Parking Provision in New Development) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 - 2031).

15. The details to be submitted as part of any reserved matters application which includes a pedestrian and cycle link as shown on the approved Access and Movement Parameter Plan shall include details of pedestrian and cycle linkages from the site/through the site and how it links into the wider network. No part of the relevant development the subject of the reserved matters approval shall be occupied until the links have been provided, surfaced and marked out in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be retained for those purposes at all times. (Reason - To provide a safe and suitable access for pedestrians and cyclists in accordance with policy TC4 (Footpaths, Bridleways and Cycleways) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 - 2031 and paragraphs 108 and 110 of the NPPF).

18/2797/MOUT page 288

16. No part of the development of an approved phase or phases shall be brought into its intended use until the relevant vehicular access point(s) has/have been provided in accordance with details and specifications that shall have been submitted as a reserved matter and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Reason - to ensure suitable and safe vehicular access is provided to accord with policy TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 - 2031).

17. The details to be submitted as part of any reserved matters application which includes the construction of a building or buildings on the phase north of Anning Road (phase 2), shall include details for the provision of a shared use foot/cycle way of at least 3 metres effective width along the phase 2 frontage with Anning Road, together with details of a crossing point(s). The details shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and provided in accordance with the approved details before any building is occupied on phase 2 and retained thereafter for the approved purpose. (Reason - To provide a safe and suitable access for pedestrians and cyclists in accordance with policy TC4 (Footpaths, Bridleways and Cycleways) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 - 2031 and paragraphs 108 and 110 of the NPPF).

18. The use hereby permitted shall comply with the Gateway Policy (the current form of which is appended), or any variation as may be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Notwithstanding the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) the use of the development hereby permitted shall be restricted to no more than 15,329 sqm of gross internal floorspace uses within Class B1(b) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) with the only other permitted uses being ancillary uses (Classes B1a and B1c) to the principal Class B1(b) use and for the following, as part of the overall permitted 15,329 sqm, for supporting ancillary uses to the main principal Science park use: • Class D1 (crèche) • Class A3 (Café/restaurant) • Class A1 (Retail-convenience) • Class D2 (Conference, health and fitness). The A1, A3, D1 and D2 uses, described above, shall be limited to the floor areas given in condition 7 of the outline planning permission ref: 09/1107/MOUT and they are site wide limitations covering the whole of the science park and not as additional floorspace to the development hereby permitted. (Reason - as a relocation of part of the Science Park, this development should be limited to a Science Park with ancillary/supporting uses to ensure that there is no overall loss or gain of allocated and consented Science Park floorspace to maintain the strategic employment site to comply with Strategy 9 (Major Development at East Devon's West End) of the East Devon local Plan 2013 to 2031).

18/2797/MOUT page 289

19. The details to be submitted as part of any reserved matters application submitted on a particular approved phase, shall include details of the walls and/or fences to be erected in that phase for the approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any walls and/or fences shall be erected in accordance with the approved details within that phase before it is first occupied. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), these walls and/or fences shall not thereafter be altered, removed or replaced without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. (Reason - in the interests of preserving and enhancing the appearance of the area, in accordance with Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

20. Prior to the commencement of a particular approved phase or part of a phase, details of materials to be used externally in that phase or part of that phase shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be built in the materials approved. (Reason - to ensure that the materials are sympathetic to the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

21. No oils, fuels or chemicals shall be stored on site unless details of the storage facility, including measures for containing accidental releases to the environment, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The storage facility shall be implemented and operated in accordance with the approved details and thereafter it shall be maintained during the whole period that oils, fuels or chemicals are stored. (Reason - to prevent pollution of the environment and to safeguard health in accordance with policies EN14 (Control of Pollution) and En18 (Maintenance of Water Quality and Quantity) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031).

22. The details to be submitted as part of any reserved matters application submitted that includes plant or machinery, shall be accompanied by a noise assessment to demonstrate that the noise from the plant or machinery shall not cause an unreasonable loss of amenity for nearby residents or employees. The noise assessment shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and any measures for noise mitigation shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details before the first operation of the relevant plant or machinery and it shall thereafter be maintained. (Reason - to protect nearby residents and employees from noise that may be produced from plant or machinery in accordance with policy EN14 (Control of Pollution) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031).

23. The layout and appearance proposals to be submitted as part of the reserved matters for an approved phase or part of a phase, shall show the location and appearance of any electricity sub-station(s) required for that part of the relevant development. The details submitted shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any commencement is made on that part of the relevant development and the electricity sub-station(s) shall be sited and

18/2797/MOUT page 290

constructed in accordance with the approved details. Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 15, Class B of the Town and Country Planning (General permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re- enacting that Order with or without modification), no further electricity sub- station shall be provided or the approved electricity sub-station(s) shall not be re-located or modified without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. (Reason - In the interests of the appearance of the development to secure a sensitive design and location for any electricity sub-station and protect areas of open space from an inappropriate location and/or design to accord with strategy 9 (Major Development at East Devon's West End) and policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031).

24. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced within an approved phase or phases until the detailed design of the proposed permanent surface water drainage management system for that phase or phases has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The design of this permanent surface water drainage management system shall be in accordance with the principles of sustainable drainage systems, and those set out in the Flood Risk & Drainage Assessment (Rev 03) for the Proposed Commercial Development at Land North & South of Anning Drive, Exeter, dated November 2018. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. (Reason: To ensure that surface water runoff from the development is managed in accordance with the principles of sustainable drainage systems to accord with policy EN22 (Surface Run-Off Implications of New Development) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031. A detailed permanent surface water drainage management plan is required prior to commencement of any works to demonstrate that the plan fits within the site layout, manages surface water safely and does not increase flood risk downstream).

25. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced within an approved phase or phases until the detailed design of the proposed surface water drainage management system which will serve the development site for that phase or phases for the full period of its construction has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This temporary surface water drainage management system shall satisfactorily address both the rates and volumes, and quality, of the surface water runoff from the construction site. The construction works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. (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 to accord with policy EN22 (Surface Run-Off Implications of New Development) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031. A plan needs to be demonstrated prior to the commencement of any works to ensure that surface water can be managed suitably without increasing flood risk downstream, negatively affecting water quality downstream or negatively impacting on surrounding areas and infrastructure).

18/2797/MOUT page 291

26. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced within an approved phase or phases 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. The surface water drainage management system shall be managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details. (Reason: To ensure that the development's permanent surface water drainage management systems will remain fully operational throughout the lifetime of the development to accord with policy EN22 (Surface Run-Off Implications of New Development) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031. These details need to be submitted prior to commencement of any works to ensure that suitable plans are in place for the maintenance of the permanent surface water drainage management plan, for the reason above).

NOTE FOR APPLICANT

In accordance with the requirements of Article 35 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 in determining this application, East Devon District Council has worked positively with the applicant to ensure that all relevant planning concerns have been appropriately resolved.

This outline planning permission is accompanied by a S106 Planning Obligation which must be read in conjunction with the decision notice.

The planning application was accompanied by an Environmental Statement under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017. In accordance with Regulation 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017, the Local Planning Authority confirms that they have examined the environmental information, reached a reasoned conclusion on the significant environmental effects of the proposed development and integrated that into the decision, together whether any monitoring measures that are appropriate.

Plans relating to this application:

L01.01 B Location Plan 20.12.18

L01.03 D Other Plans 25.03.19

L01.04 A Other Plans 25.03.19

L01.05 B Other Plans 25.03.19

L01.06 B Other Plans 25.03.19

List of Background Papers

18/2797/MOUT page 292

Application file, consultations and policy documents referred to in the report.

18/2797/MOUT page 293 Agenda Item 14

Ward Broadclyst

Reference 18/2799/MOUT

Applicant Eagle One MMlll Ltd

Location Exeter Science Park Clyst Honiton (East Of Langaton Lane)

Proposal Erection of up to 150 dwellings with associated infrastructure and public open spaces including allotments/community gardens (all matters reserved except access)

RECOMMENDATION: 1. That the attached Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 be adopted. 2. That the application be APPROVED with conditions and subject to completion of planning obligations.

page 294

Committee Date: 30th April 2019

Broadclyst Target Date: (BROADCLYST) 18/2799/MOUT 11.05.2019

Applicant: Eagle One MMlll Ltd

Location: Exeter Science Park Clyst Honiton (East Of Langaton Lane)

Proposal: Erection of up to 150 dwellings with associated infrastructure and public open spaces including allotments/community gardens (all matters reserved except access)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The site for the proposed residential development (18/2799/MOUT) currently forms part of the allocated Science Park, a major strategic employment site, and has an extant outline planning permission for this science park use. The land proposed for the relocation of part of the Science Park is undeveloped but has an extant outline planning permission for offices as part of the wider Redhayes development.

It is a requirement of planning law that planning decisions are determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material planning considerations

18/2799/MOUT page 295

In this case, there are clear material considerations that within the balance of relevant issues, have led to a recommendation of approval for both applications:

2) The residential development is located between the science park and the Redhayes development which together with the Mosshayne development, forms a large mixed use scheme comprising about 1500 houses, a local centre, primary school, playing fields and other related infrastructure and facilities. Although defined as countryside, the locality is undergoing rapid and far reaching urbanisation as part of the growth area of East Devon and with GESP, is possibly going to continue. The proposed residential site could therefore form an extension of the Redhayes/Mosshayne development and be largely surrounded by consented development in the future. The impact of an additional 150 houses would not be significant as it would be about a tenth of the already consent development at Redhayes/Mosshayne.

4) The proposed land use swap will help with the deliverability of the science park giving more control to the science park.

Overall, there are clear benefits with these planning applications which facilitate the land use swap. It is considered that within the balance of planning considerations, the weight falls in favour of permitting the development proposals rather than the ridged application of policy. However, it is for the decision takers to decide the balance of planning considerations but it is the view that there are justifiable and material planning considerations that would weigh in favour of the proposals.

The proposed developments are the subject of Environmental Impact Assessment. An Environmental Statement covering both developments has been

18/2799/MOUT page 296

The other planning issues are addressed in the reports for both planning applications, including the level of affordable housing and viability, together with S106 issues. It is material to not that no overage is proposed but there are considered to be special circumstances in this instance to support this.

CONSULTATIONS

Local Consultations

Parish/Town Council – Broadclyst. The Council would like to make the following requests: i. A contribution for off-site provision of No.2 Bus shelters on the Tithebarn Link Road be secured through the S.106 agreement ii. Litter bins be provided in the community garden and at reasonable intervals throughout the development, their servicing being added to the management company's contract iii. That a dog waste bin be provided (bought and installed) for the community garden; the PC offers to add its servicing to the Parish Council existing SLA. iv. That the allotments be transferred to the Parish Council for management.

Clerk to the adjoining Clyst Honiton Parish Council

18/2799/MOUT page 297

Concurs with that of Broadclyst PC as follows: A contribution for off-site provision of No.2 Bus shelters on the Tithebarn Link Road be secured through the S.106 agreement Litter bins be provided in the community garden and at reasonable intervals throughout the development, their servicing being added to the management company's contract That a dog waste bin be provided (bought and installed) for the community garden; the PC offers to add its servicing to the Parish Council existing SLA. That the allotments be transferred to the Parish Council for management.

Adjoining Parish- Bishops Clyst. The council would support any decision made by our neighbouring council in respect of this application.

Technical Consultations

Environmental Health

I have considered both noise reports and the air quality report in detail and have the following comments to make.

1. Noise report regarding potential dog kennels noise. The kennels are long established and compliant with licence requirements. To some extent the occasional short lived noise of dogs barking will therefore have characterised the area and it is inevitable that at times residents living close to the kennels will hear the dogs barking. The report prepared by Clark Saunders during the summer of 2018 was done in consultation with Environmental Health and concludes that neither the maximum noise level nor hourly average will unreasonably impact on residents in their homes. This is on the proviso that the intervening buffer of the open space is maintained and that the houses are orientated as per the submitted masterplan, with amenity spaces and most bedroom and living areas facing away from the kennels. The report predicts that in this way the internal noise climate will meet current relevant standards. We would like to see a condition incorporated which will ensure that this mitigation will be incorporated and maintained for as long as the kennels are in operation. 2. A second noise report addresses the more general noise impacts on the development, notably the nearby motorway and over flying aircraft. The noise data indicates that aircraft can be quite noisy at times but produces short lived spikes which would be expected and recognised by residents. The conclusion is that within internal living spaces and fenced private amenity areas residual noise from either source will not exceed current standards, particularly during the critical night time period, and we agree with this conclusion. A condition should be included on any approval requiring that the noise mitigation measures set out in the Environmental Statement should be implemented and maintained in perpetuity to ensure that future generations of residents are similarly protected. 3. There is a comprehensive Air Quality report and this concludes that there will be no concerning levels of either nitrogen oxides or particulates from motor vehicles with potential to impact on residents. Neither will additional road traffic contributed by this site lead to any deterioration in ambient air quality. Construction site issues will be controlled within a Construction and Environment Management Plan which will apply during site works.

18/2799/MOUT page 298

In conclusion we agree with the findings of all 3 reports and would recommend that conditions are included which require the implementation of the suggested noise mitigation measures.

South West Water

I refer to the above application and would advise that South West Water has no objection.

For information the surface water sewer system in the Tithebarn Link Road as referred to in the Flood Risk Assessment has yet to be adopted as a public system.

DCC Flood Risk SuDS Consultation

Observations: It is understood that this application forms part of a wider land swap in the area. However the East Devon case officer has confirmed that this is a new planning application with different proposals to what was originally consented therefore we would require climate change guidance for today's standards to be incorporated within the design of the surface water drainage system. Also, the previously agreed Qbar rate of 5.5 l/s per ha no longer stands, so the applicant should provide a revised value for Qbar.

The attenuation calculation should be updated in light of current climate change allowances and revised discharge rate.

The applicant should submit agreement in principle from South West Water to confirm that discharge of surface water from this development into the sewer at Tithebarne Link Road is acceptable.

18/2799/MOUT page 299

Further observations received 9th April 2019:

Following my previous consultation response FRM/ED/2799/2018, dated 23/01/2019, the applicant has submitted additional information in relation to the surface water drainage aspects of the above planning application, for which I am grateful.

The applicant has answered the queries raised in my previous response. The applicant has proposed a feasible surface water drainage strategy which proposes an above ground basin to attenuate the runoff to restricted Greenfield rates. It is noted no on site infiltration testing has been undertaken to date, although we recommend that this is carried out as part of any future application, as per the first recommended condition below.

The application includes an allowance of 40% for climate change as well as incorporating long term storage into the design of the attenuation.

No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until a programme of percolation tests has been carried out in accordance with BRE Digest 365 Soakaway Design (2016), and the results approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with Devon County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority. A representative number of tests should be conducted to provide adequate coverage of the site, with particular focus placed on the locations of the proposed infiltration devices/permeable surfaces. Reason: To ensure that surface water from the development is discharged as high up the drainage hierarchy as is feasible. Reason for being a pre-commencement condition: This data is required prior to the commencement of any works as it will affect the permanent surface water drainage management plan, which needs to be confirmed before development takes place.

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 & Drainage Assessment for the Proposed Residential Development At Tithebarn/Science Park, Land East of Langaton Lane, Exeter dated November 2019 Rev 03". Reason: To ensure that surface water runoff from the development is managed in accordance with the principles of sustainable drainage systems. Reason for being a pre-commencement condition: A detailed permanent surface water drainage management plan is required prior to commencement of any works to demonstrate that the plan fits within the site layout, manages surface water safely and does not increase flood risk downstream. Advice: Refer to Devon County Council's Sustainable Drainage Guidance.

18/2799/MOUT page 300

WW Utilities

Summary: Wales & West Utilities have no objections to these proposals, however our apparatus may be at risk during construction works and should the planning application be approved then we require the promoter of these works to contact us directly to discuss our requirements in detail. Should diversion works be required these will be fully chargeable.

Contaminated Land Officer

I have considered the application and the former use of the site as agricultural land. I do not anticipate that any contaminants of concern are likely to be present, but the applicant should consult the Contaminated Land Officer for advice should any unforeseen materials of concern be encountered during oversite works.

Exeter & Devon Airport - Airfield Operations and Safeguarding

Summary.

18/2799/MOUT page 301

This proposal has been examined from an Aerodrome Safeguarding aspect and has the potential to conflict with safeguarding criteria from the Sustainable Urban Drainage Scheme (SUDS) becoming a bird attractant increasing the risk of bird strike to aircraft.

In terms of the Air Navigation Order, it is an offence to endanger an aircraft or its occupants by any means. In view of this I have included, as attachments, some safeguarding notes which all developers and contractors must abide by during construction and commissioning. These include: Airport Operators Advice notes: Wildlife Hazards around Aerodromes Cranes and other Construction Issues.

If the proposals for the SUDS are delivered with a 1/100 year storm, 14 days to drain, annual storm 1-4 days to drain, then mitigation (bird exclusion) measures will not be required. However, the SUDS will require monitoring to ensure that water does not persist beyond these projections and if it does, engineered drainage solutions or bird exclusion systems should be implemented.

Accordingly, Exeter Airport will have no safeguarding objections to this development provided that all safeguarding criteria are met, as stipulated in the AoA Advice Notes, the SUDS scheme is delivered to ensure no additional bird strike risk to aircraft and there are no changes made to the current application.

EDDC Landscape Architect

The visual boundary and viewpoints plan, Appendix 7.1 is misleading in that visual boundaries extend some distance beyond the area shown on the map base, as acknowledged elsewhere in the LVIA, for example in relation to Ashclyst Forest and Woodbury Fort. Additionally the plotting of the ridgeline along Blackhorse Lane is inaccurate as the actual ridgeline as indicated on OS mapping lies some 40-100m to the south, well within the site boundaries. An updated plan should be provided if necessary at different scales in order to capture the full visual envelop and provide greater detail nearer to the site.

Construction phase impact It is agreed the amended proposals will have a neutral effect on construction phase in respect of residential land compared to previously approved scheme.

Operational phase impact

18/2799/MOUT page 302

For residential land it is agreed that the landscape and visual significance of the amendment will be no change/ minor adverse compared to the previously approved scheme.

Comments on Residential Area Design and Access Statement.

Ecology: Advanced planting of a small woodland plantation was undertaken at the northern end of the proposed site to provide dormouse habitat. The original intention was that this would form part of the wider Science Park landscape setting and is understood to be presently unfenced. As part of the change to residential use this area will come under pressure both during the construction phase and especially post occupancy. To help prevent access to this area it should be fenced with appropriate 1.2 m high post and wire mesh fencing, incorporating suitable maintenance access and wildlife gates prior to the commencement of construction works.

Opportunities and Constraints Plan: The Opportunities and constraints diagram key incorrectly describes the existing dormouse habitat as New Orchard. The description should be changed to existing wildlife habitat.

Concept design - Legibility: The building in the north east corner of the site is shown as Redhayes frontage rather than a pivotal building, despite being identified on the Opportunities and Constraints plan as a key building. Please clarify design intention for this building. Land use Parameters - The recent dormouse woodland planting to the northern site boundary should be included in the Land Use Parameter plan key as existing wildlife habitat.

Scale - Key active residential edge shown on the Scale Parameter Plan should extend to the northern frontage of block A1 to ensure adequate overlooking of the proposed play space.

Green and Community Infrastructure - Much is made of the value of the proposed open space to the northern end of the site to provide formal play and community events space as well as SuDS drainage basin. The reality is that this is a relatively small space, particularly when the existing wildlife and SuDS area is excluded. Clarification should be provided of whether the proposed SuDS basin is intended to permanently hold water or as a minimum provide wet meadow habitat.

Further comments: The LVIA has been amended in line with my previous comments and is broadly acceptable.

The DAS for the residential area has been updated in line with previously submitted comments and is generally acceptable.

Natural England

DESIGNATED SITES [EUROPEAN] - FURTHER INFORMATION REQUIRED Habitats Regulations Assessment - Recreational Impacts on European Sites

18/2799/MOUT page 303

This development falls within the 'zone of influence' for the Exe Estuary SPA, East Devon Pebblebed Heaths SAC and East Devon Heaths SPA, as set out in the Local Plan and the South East Devon European Sites Mitigation Strategy (SEDEMS). It is anticipated that new housing development in this area is 'likely to have a significant effect', when considered either alone or in combination, upon the interest features of the SAC/SPA due to the risk of increased recreational pressure caused by that development.

In line with the SEDEMS and the Joint Approach of Exeter City Council, Teignbridge District Council and East Devon District Council, we advise that mitigation will be required to prevent such harmful effects from occurring as a result of this development. Permission should not be granted until such time as the implementation of these measures has been secured.

Natural England's advice is that this proposed development, and the application of these measures to avoid or reduce the likely harmful effects from it, may need to be formally checked and confirmed by your Authority, as the competent authority, via an appropriate assessment in view of the European Site's conservation objectives and in accordance with the Conservation of Habitats & Species Regulations 2017. This is because Natural England notes that the recent People Over Wind Ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union concluded that, when interpreting article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, it is not appropriate when determining whether or not a plan or project is likely to have a significant effect on a site and requires an appropriate assessment, to take account of measures intended to avoid or reduce the harmful effects of the plan or project on that site. The ruling also concluded that such measures can, however, be considered during an appropriate assessment to determine whether a plan or project will have an adverse effect on the integrity of the European site. Your Authority should have regard to this and may wish to seek its own legal advice to fully understand the implications of this ruling in this context.

Further general advice on the consideration of protected species and other natural environment issues is provided at Annex A.

Further comments received following preparation of an Appropriate Assessment:

18/2799/MOUT page 304

Thank you for your email consulting Natural England on the Appropriate Assessment for the above development in accordance with Paragraph 63 (3) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. Please be advised that, on the basis of the appropriate financial contributions being secured to the South-east Devon European Sites Mitigation Strategy (SEDESMS), Natural England concurs with your authority's conclusion that the proposed development will not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Exe Estuary SPA, Exe Estuary Ramsar Site, East Devon Pebblebed Heaths SAC and East Devon Heaths SPA.

Devon County Council, Minerals & Waste

Devon County Council strategic planning does not have any comments to make regarding either of the applications referenced above.

Devon County Archaeologist

This area has been the subject of previous archaeological evaluation and targeted archaeological excavation of identified features. Therefore I do not think that any further archaeological mitigation will be required.

Housing Strategy Officer – EDDC.

This application follows the agreed land-use swap endorsed by Committee in the Masterplan report. This area was originally identified for employment but is now to provide housing. As such under the local plan designation this area is for employment and not recognised as a West End site under strategy 34. However we understand that discussion have been held and it has been agreed that as per other West End sites we will be seeking 25% affordable housing (37.5 units, rounded to 38 or a commuted sum for part dwelling). A tenure mix of 70% rented accommodation and 30% shared ownership or other form of discounted housing to buy will be sought. However if viability evidence shows that this is a problem we will look at a tenure mix that helps support viability. Consideration should be given to providing social rented units. A viability assessment is being prepared but I am unclear as to whether this is to support the 25% requirement rather than 50% due to allocation in the plan or whether there are viability concerns with this site.

The indicative plans do not go into detail on the mix and type of houses to be provided and will be covered at reserved matter stage. Housing need for rented accommodation is for smaller units and a mix of 1 and 2 bedroom flats and houses for rent together with 3 bedroom family homes will meet this need. For shared ownership 2 and 3 bedroom houses are preferable. Although we do not have any adopted space standards, the size of the affordable units should be well considered and registered providers approached at an early stage. Two bedroom properties should be capable of housing 4 persons and for this there is a size requirement. HQI are still useful in informing dwelling sizes.

The affordable units should be tenure blind and dispersed throughout the site in small clusters. They should be constructed to meet Building regulations M4 part (2), accessible and adaptable dwellings. A Section 106 agreement has been submitted and this is will be considered to ensure that these points are secured.

18/2799/MOUT page 305

EDDC Trees

The proposed access routes do not affect any of the limited number of trees or hedgerows that are on the sites. With all other matters reserved I have no other comments to make at this stage.

Exeter City Council, Planning Department

I refer to your consultation dated 20 December 2018 in respect of the above. I consider there are no additional strategic cross boundary issues arising from this proposal (over and above that already proposed as part of the adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031).

Highways England

Summary: Referring to the notification of a planning application dated 20 December 2018 referenced above, in connection with the A30 and Erection of up to 150 dwellings with associated infrastructure and public open spaces including allotments/community gardens (all matters reserved except access) at Exeter Science Park Clyst Honiton (East Of Langaton Lane), notice is hereby given that Highways England's formal recommendation is that we offer no objection.

Police Designing Out Crime Officer, Devon and Cornwall Police.

I appreciate the application is only outline and that the 'Indicative Masterplan' is not a fixed part of the outline planning application. However, based on the plan and other information supplied I would make the following comments for consideration. I note and welcome that the principles of 'Secured by Design' have been referenced in the Design and Access Statement and incorporated into the design to some extent.

On the whole the layout will provide overlooking and active frontages to the new internal streets, with clearly defined public and private spaces. Good surveillance opportunities of public space such as the allotments/community gardens, the play space and pedestrian/cycle routes have been created.

The majority of gardens are aligned back to back and in the main, access to the rear of plots is restricted as long as appropriate, robust boundary treatments are installed. Parking has been allocated effectively with the majority being allocated on or close to plot with good surveillance provided. The exception to this are a number of rear parking courts (5) which are afforded little surveillance and provide access to the rear of a number of plots. This increases the potential risk to vehicles and dwellings as well as ASB. These areas are also often left unlit which can increase the opportunity and fear of crime.

Ideally the rear parking courts should be redesigned and the number of them reduced. Any that cannot be avoided, should serve no more than 6 homes. Where they abut gardens, appropriate boundary treatments should be utilised i.e. 1.5m fencing supplemented by trellis to 1.8m to aid surveillance.

18/2799/MOUT page 306

I note that in some areas existing and new hedges and trees will form part of the rear garden boundaries to plots. This is acceptable providing the hedge is high enough, a minimum of 1.8m, and robust enough to act as an effective deterrent to prevent unauthorised access. Importantly any hedge must not be susceptible to wide seasonal variation which may affect this function and clearly must also be fairly uniform in depth and height to be effective.

The level of permeability of the site is not excessive and pedestrian/cycle routes appear to be straight, clearly defined, well overlooked and don't provide access to the rear of properties. Planting immediately abutting such paths should generally be avoided as shrubs and trees have a tendency to grow over the path creating pinch points, places of concealment and unnecessary maintenance.

If apartment blocks are to be incorporated into the design as suggested by plots 118- 125, 59-71 etc. assess to the rear of such blocks should be restricted and appropriate boundary treatments used in order to reduce the risk of casual intrusion and to clearly define semi private space for the residents of the apartments and public space.

Apartment blocks should not have trades button access for mail delivery or utility readings. A 'through-the-wall' mail delivery into a secure internal letterboxes, or boxes located within an 'airlock' access controlled entrance hall, whereby access can be gained by a postal worker through the outer door only would negate casual intrusion. If utility readings cannot be carried out remotely it would be preferable that they were located externally near the main entrance, thus again negating the need of a trades button and potential for casual intrusion.

The boundary treatment of the allotments/community gardens needs to be carefully considered. Allotments are regularly targeted for acquisitive crime and ASB and thus the boundary treatment needs to prevent unauthorised access. Presumably the community gardens section of the area will be a public space for the community to use and therefore any boundary treatment would not need to be as robust. A demarcation boundary treatment may be suitable.

Presumably the site be adopted and lit as per normal guidelines (BS 5489). As mentioned above, appropriate lighting for any potential parking courts and for pathways needs to be considered.

County Highway Authority

Trip Generation

The applicant has submitted a Transport Statement which includes a trip analysis to forecast the net change in trips based on the land swap. The analysis takes into account the increase of residential units and the decrease in commercial land. To undertake a robust approach, the same trip rates have been applied for the existing residential and commercial Redhayes scheme; which is acceptable in principle. The analysis suggests that the proposed development will generate 94 two-way trips in the AM peak hour and 84 two-way trips in the PM peak hour.

18/2799/MOUT page 307

These additional trips have been compared to the net reduction in the commercial land. The analysis suggests that there will be a reduction of 41 two-way trips in the AM peak hour and 36 two-way trips in the PM peak hour. Hence, the additional trips as a result of the land swap is 53 two-way trips in the AM peak hour and 48 two-way trips in the PM peak hour.

Tithebarn Link Road/London Road junction

Whilst the applicant has provided link flow assessments, the submitted Transport Statement has not assessed the Tithebarn Link Road/London Road junction. The Tithebarn Link Road was mostly funded by Local Pinch Point Fund, Regional Growth Fund (both grant funding) with only a proportion of S106 secured from Tithebarn Green, which enabled a great deal of the growth in the area.

DCC have concerns with this junction as it is at present; a series of give way priorities. The right turning movements are difficult with no clear directions as to who has priority; this directly has an impact on both capacity and highway safety. These observations can be made in the current scenario, where the developments (Tithebarn Green, Mosshayne, Science Park etc) have yet to be fully built out and occupied. Henceforth, with the increase of traffic on this junction as a result of both applications (or the land swap), this raises concerns over the performance of the junction.

The junction was designed for signals, however DCC exhausted all funds to deliver the link road facilitating the housing and hence the upgrade of the junction did not come forward. EDDC has advised DCC that this is “strategic infrastructure” and therefore DCC cannot ask the applicant for a S106 contribution and instead falls under CIL (hence the reason for a revised response to the one dated: 13/02/2019).

Vehicular Access

Two vehicular access points are proposed; both on the eastern boundary to the adjacent site, creating an internal loop, with the ultimate vehicular access off the Tithebarn Link Road. These primary access routes connecting into the adjacent site are acceptable in principle. No vehicular access will be formed off Langaton Lane.

Pedestrian and Cycling Access

The site is located within an urban area where foot and cycle are a realistic choice for a wide range of journeys. The site has/will have access to public transport services on Tithebarn Link Road and is nearby employment sites (at Sky Park / Science Park) etc.

Blackhorse Lane forms part of Exeter’s/East of Exeter’s traffic free Cycle Network and maintaining the safety and attractiveness of this route is essential. Langaton Lane (immediately to the west of the site) also presents North-South pedestrian cycling connections, with the only vehicular impact being from an existing dwelling and kennels (with very low traffic flow). Therefore, from a transport perspective, the applicant should be maximising the pedestrian and cycling connections/permeability through the entire site and into the green infrastructure routes and employment areas surrounding the site.

18/2799/MOUT page 308

The current plans (Access and Movement Parameter plan and Masterplan) indicate that there will be two east-west pedestrian/cycling links from the adjacent site to Langaton Lane. These routes should be 3m in effective width as per DfT guidance (which has been sent to EDDC). In addition to this, a 3m effective width walking/cycling route from Parcel C2 to Blackhorse Lane should be made, integrating into Parcel D of the Science Park. It is noted there is no footway being proposed on the southern vehicular link either.

In addition to this, the plans show potential footpath links from Parcel A1 to the adjoining site, which is welcomed, but there should be more pedestrian/cycle links to the western boundary through to Exeter Science park – for instance there is an opportunity to provide a direct link to the Langaton Lane cluster (B), which again should be 3m in effective width.

The plans provided do not provide enough detail as to the widths and required links and therefore an appropriate condition is recommended. It is reminded that the original Design and Access statement for Tithebarn green (12/0802/01), section 5.12.1 states that: “Walking and Cycling are to be given high priority on the movement network……Provision of direct connections to the Science Park from the local centre (should be) easily accessible to residents and people who will work in the Science Park”

Notwithstanding the above, any work that adjoining Langaton Lane and Blackhorse Lane (which are both adopted) will need a S278 agreement. The access points onto should have sufficient visibility splays and the applicant should be showing these on any submission - upon site visit, the banks that surrounding the site does hinder visibility.

Internal Roads and layout

Well-designed residential streets are central to sustainable development and therefore the design of the internal road layout must accord with the principles of Manual for Streets and appropriate sustainable design guidance i.e. pedestrians/cyclists should have priority over motor vehicles.

The applicant is advised that car parking standards are set out in accordance with EDDC standards and that secure sheltered cycle parking facilities are provided. As an outline application these details are reserved for approval at a later stage. However, to ensure a suitable layout it is recommended that the applicant liaises with the highway authority prior to any application for reserved matters approval.

Travel Planning

In accordance with paragraph 111 of the NPPF the development will be required to have a Travel Plan. DCC is currently adopting an approach for residential Travel Planning in the Exeter area with contributions paid directly to the Council for them to implement the Travel Plan and its measures. Consequently, a contribution of £500 per dwelling should be secured as part of any S106 agreement.

Construction

18/2799/MOUT page 309

A condition is also recommended to ensure that appropriate facilities for all construction traffic are provided on site before the commencement of any part of the development hereby approved.

Summary

Therefore, subject to appropriate contributions (Travel Plan contributions) and conditions being attached in the granting of any consent, no objection.

Recommendation:

1. Financial contributions and as set out in the informative to be secured by an appropriate agreement (Travel Planning Contributions).

2. Prior to commencement of the development, details shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority of secure cycle parking provision for the development. Development shall not be commenced until such details have been agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and prior to occupation the cycle parking shall be provided in accordance with the submitted details.

REASON: To provide adequate facilities for sustainable transport.

3. No part of the development hereby approved shall be brought into its intended use details of pedestrian and cycle linkages from the site/through the site have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No part of the development shall be occupied until the links have been provided, surfaced and marked out in accordance with the approved plans retained for those purposes at all times.

REASON: To provide a safe and suitable access for pedestrians and cyclists in accordance with Paragraph 108 and 110 of the NPPF

4. No part of the development hereby approved shall be brought into its intended use until the vehicular access points as indicated on the Illustrative Masterplan (drawing number 1120 Rev C) have been provided in accordance

18/2799/MOUT page 310

with details and specifications that shall previously have been submitted to, agreed and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: To provide a safe and suitable access for pedestrians and cyclists in accordance with Paragraph 108 and 110 of the NPPF

REASON: In the interests of highway safety and public amenity.

Additional comments received 12th April 2019:

The revised parameter plan does not show much change to the previous submission. The previous highway consultation response made it clear that there should be multiple links from the residential development of at least 3m effective width to Langaton Lane and in particular into the Langaton Lane Cluster. In addition to this, a shared footway/cycleway should be provided (of at least 3m effective width) to Blackhorse Lane should be made. This is in aid to enhance pedestrian and cycling permeability through the site, promoting modal change. As Langaton Lane and Blackhorse Lane are adopted, a S278 agreement is required. The above comments are consistent with the previous highway consultation.

Suggested conditions • No part of the development hereby approved shall be brought into its intended use details of pedestrian and cycle linkages from the site to Langaton Lane (of at least 3m effective width) have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No part of the development shall be occupied until the links have been provided, surfaced and marked out in accordance with the approved plans retained for those purposes at all times. REASON: To provide a safe and suitable access for pedestrians and cyclists in accordance with Paragraph 108 and 110 of the NPPF

• No part of the development hereby approved shall be brought into its intended use details of pedestrian and cycle linkages from the site to Blackhorse Lane (of at least 3m effective width) have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No part of the development shall be occupied until the links have been provided, surfaced and marked out in accordance with the approved plans retained for those purposes at all times. REASON: To provide a safe and suitable access for pedestrians and cyclists in accordance with Paragraph 108 and 110 of the NPPF

Financial contributions, Cycle Parking, Vehicular Access and Construction Management Statement were conditioned on the highway response dated 13th February

18/2799/MOUT page 311

National Planning Casework Unit I confirm that we have no comments to make on either of the environmental statements referred to. (18/2799/MOUT & 18/2797/MOUT)

NHS Local

Summary: Therefore the contribution required for this proposed development of 150 dwellings is £250,973.00. This contribution will be used directly to provide additional health care services to meet patient demand as detailed in Appendix 5.

Other Representations Two letters have been received relating to green infrastructure and biodiversity: 1) Ideally such development should have at least 40% green space. 2) The provision of bird/bat boxes needs to be considered in detail to be most effective. 3) Tree cover can be enhanced. 4) SUDS is vital for habitat creation. 5) Hedgehog passes need through garden fences

In addition, a letter has been received from the Exeter Cycling Campaign, objecting on the following grounds: 1) There is a lack of detail to ensure proper provision; shared cycle/footpaths need to be 3m wide. 2) No detail regarding connections to the road network, the design of roads and where roads intersect with cycle paths, together with improvements to Langaton Lane and Blackhorse Lane. 3) The development does not meet the requirements of the local plan to cut down commuting by car, facilitating the move to a low carbon economy, respond to the need for more balanced communities without damaging environmental qualities, that no resident is disadvantaged relative to another and to help reduce carbon emissions.

POLICIES

Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 Policies Strategy 1 (Spatial Strategy for Development in East Devon)

Strategy 2 (Scale and Distribution of Residential Development)

Strategy 3 (Sustainable Development)

Strategy 4 (Balanced Communities)

Strategy 5 (Environment)

Strategy 5B (Sustainable Transport)

Strategy 9 (Major Development at East Devon's West End)

Strategy 10 (Green Infrastructure in East Devon's West End)

18/2799/MOUT page 312

Strategy 11 (Integrated Transport and Infrastructure Provision at East Devon's West End)

Strategy 13 (Development North of Blackhorse/Redhayes)

Strategy 31 (Future Job and Employment Land Provision)

Strategy 34 (District Wide Affordable Housing Provision Targets)

Strategy 37 (Community Safety)

Strategy 38 (Sustainable Design and Construction)

Strategy 40 (Decentralised Energy Networks)

Strategy 43 (Open Space Standards)

Strategy 46 (Landscape Conservation and Enhancement and AONBs)

Strategy 47 (Nature Conservation and Geology)

D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness)

D2 (Landscape Requirements)

D3 (Trees and Development Sites)

EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features)

EN7 (Proposals Affecting Sites which may potentially be of Archaeological Importance)

EN13 (Development on High Quality Agricultural Land)

EN14 (Control of Pollution)

EN18 (Maintenance of Water Quality and Quantity)

EN22 (Surface Run-Off Implications of New Development)

H2 (Range and Mix of New Housing Development)

TC2 (Accessibility of New Development)

TC4 (Footpaths, Bridleways and Cycleways)

TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access)

TC9 (Parking Provision in New Development)

18/2799/MOUT page 313

TC12 (Aerodrome Safeguarded Areas and Public Safety Zones)

Government Planning Documents National Planning Practice Guidance National Planning Policy Framework 2019

Relevant Planning History

Approved:

09/1107/MOUT - Outline approval for the Science Park for 76,450 sqm of B1, including a 150 bed hotel, ancillary uses with associated infrastructure and access - approved on 11th March 2010 with a S106. 12/1420/MRES - Management Suite (Eagle House) 12/1427/MRES - Science Centre 14/2063/MRES - Met Office 16/0991/FUL - Visitor Carpark 16/0746/MRES - Grow on building 1 16/0747/MRES - Grow on building 2.

Approved Tithebarn Green:

12/1291/MOUT - Up to 930 dwellings, employment area, park and ride, local centre, etc - 29th November 2013. 18/0382/MRES - reserved matters approval for the site immediately to the east for 79 dwellings, landscaping and associated infrastructure - phase 6.

Several other reserved matters have been approved, phases 2 and 17 for housing, including phase 3 current application, the Tithbarn link Road, phases 1 and 14, the southern Mosshayne Link road, phase 15, the park and ride, phase 18, the country park, phase 4 and the green corridor, phase 5.

Site location

The application site forms part of the phase 2B within the Science Park, a site of approximately 25.8 hectares immediately to the north east of Junction 29 of the M5 motorway and the A30 Trunk Road, to the west of Blackhorse village, and 7 km to the east of Exeter City Centre.

Since the outline approval, part of Phase 1 has been developed with a central access road, a single office building (Eagle House), phase 1 of the Science Centre, associated car parking to the rear, the construction of two grow on buildings, strategic and on plot landscaping, and a small public square.

Other development further into the Science Park site on phase 2A comprises access roads, the Met Office super computer site, and additional car parking.

The site itself is agricultural land, with a relatively shallow fall down to the north. To the south is Blackhorse Lane, a cycle/pedestrian route, with the boundary marked by a

18/2799/MOUT page 314

hedgebank with some smaller trees. To the west of the site is Langaton Lane, a traditional Devon sunken lane marked by a hedgebank interspersed with small trees, predominantly at the junction with Blackhorse Lane and less so as you move north. Directly to the south west of the site is a bungalow with an associated Kennels. To the north is the new Tithebarn Link Road. Along much of the east boundary is phase 6 of the Redhayes residential development which is near to commencement.

Proposal Description

Outline planning permission is sought to erect up to 150 dwellings on the site with associated infrastructure and open space including allotments/community garden. All matters are reserved except access. Several parameter plans have been submitted; density, land use, access and movement, scale and green infrastructure together with an illustrative masterplan showing how 150 units could be accommodated on the site.

There are proposed to be two vehicular access points into the site from the Tithebarn Link Road: the northern one is through the phase 6 utilising the approved access and the second is just to the south of phase 6 using an existing junction on the Tithebarn Link Road. These two access points would serve the primary route into the site, linking together close to the west boundary. From the primary route would be several secondary routes to serve the rest of the site.

The application is also accompanied by an Environmental Statement considering the significant environmental effects of the development together with the related planning application for science park floor space as part of the proposed land use swap. the main subjects are transport, landscape and visual impact, ecology, water resources, air quality, waste, soil and agriculture, noise and vibration, cultural heritage and socio- economic.

Background

This application is closely related to a second application for Science Park development on land a short distance to the south (18/2797/MOUT) and also on this agenda. These two applications are part of a proposed land use swap as follows:

18/2799/MOUT page 315

ANALYSIS

Main policy implications

The site is located in the West End of East Devon where most of the large, strategic developments in the district are planned. Strategy 9 of the EDLP identifies the main strategic development sites in the West End which includes the Science Park and land to the north of Blackhorse/Redhayes sites. The proposed site for the residential is contained on the site allocated under Strategy 9 for a research and technology employment site. Immediately to the east of the site is the Redhayes site, a mixed use development allocated under Strategy 13 and centred on housing but including a neighbourhood centre, social and community facilities, infrastructure and employment provision.

The site is also located outside of the defined Built Up Area Boundaries (BUAB) within the Local Plan where Strategy 7 (Development in the Countryside) will only permit new development within the BUAB and on site specific allocations unless the proposed development is in accordance with a specific local plan policy that explicitly allows such development and it does not harm the distinctive landscape, amenity and environmental qualities within which it is located. Whilst the site is allocated, it is not allocated for residential and the proposed use is not therefore specific to the allocation.

As the current site is on the allocated Science Park it is a departure from the development plan and has been advertised as such. The issue is therefore whether there are other material considerations which would weigh more heavily in favour of the planning application. The following considerations are relevant:

1) The proposed site is immediately adjacent to approved housing to the east which forms part of a wider mixed use community which will eventually reach about 1500 houses. The proposed housing will not therefore be seen in isolation and would be part of a sustainably community with nearby facilities and transport links.

2) The science park floor area being relocated is approximately the same as would be lost if the residential scheme goes ahead. Therefore, there would be no detriment to the amount of Science Park, it would just be relocated.

18/2799/MOUT page 316

3) The proposed site for the relocation of the science park is immediately adjacent to the main science park centre and will be seen in context with this main centre rather than on the outlying clusters. This should give the Science Park more of a presence and help integrate and reinforce this flagship development. There are therefore positive advantages for the science park and its future development.

4) The proposed additional housing is in a sustainable location close to Exeter and with good bus, pedestrian and cycle links. It would help in the delivery of much needed new housing.

Therefore whilst a technical departure, there is no detriment to the Science Park as a strategic allocation, indeed there would be advantages for the Science Park moving forward to deliver a high value employment site. Furthermore, the development would be well related to existing and planned development with good connections and would help in the delivery of new houses for the community. These are considered to be persuasive material considerations that would weigh in favour of the principle of the development proposal provided the S106 clearly ensures that the residential development only takes place once there is confirmation that the Science Park relocation has been secured.

Compliance with the Interim Masterplan, August 2018.

The IM consists of a series of diagrams and high level design principles under the following headings: 1) Strategic connectivity and Green Infrastructure 2) Primary Land uses 3) Local connectivity 4) Development Character and edges.

It is not the purpose of this report to identify all the key components of the IM but below is the key issues with the planning application in relation to compliance.

1) Strategic connectivity and Green Infrastructure - the IM shows strategic linkages along Langaton Lane (adj. west boundary) and through the site to the link road in the north east corner to help linkages to the main areas of GI to the north. The Access

18/2799/MOUT page 317

and Movement Parameter Plan shows Langaton Lane as a cycle route with two links from this into the site and out the east side through the adjacent housing development. Potential footpaths to the north east are shown.

2) Primary Land Use - shown as residential led uses which is consistent with the planning application with two key linkages west-east through the site. This is also consistent with the Access and Movement Parameter Plan.

3) Local Connectivity - The IM shows two key pedestrian/cycle links from Langaton Lane through the development in a west-east direction to the housing development further to the east. The northern link at Langaton Lane also leads across to the Science Park and the southern link just to Langaton Lane. This is consistent with the Access and Movement parameter Plan.

4) Development Character and Edges - the IM shows a key active residential edge to the western and northern edges of the proposed development, an edge to the eastern hedgerow and identifies the important green lane edges to Langaton Lane and Blackhorse Lane. The parameter plans indicate the key active edge onto Langaton Lane to be formed by retaining the hedgerow on this lane, provide a landscaping buffer, the access roads/footpaths with houses fronting onto this. The northern boundary is marked by a wildlife habitat area and open space/drainage basins. Few houses are indicated to have their gardens onto the eastern hedgerow. Blackhorse Lane would be fronted by a community garden, a pedestrian/cycle link and a small amount of housing indicated to be fronted onto this lane.

Consideration of other planning issues

The planning application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement, various other documents and a series of parameter plans: Access and Movement, Density, Green Infrastructure, Scale and Land Use. These are intended to address the various planning issues the development raises and will be assessed as follows.

Highways and Movement

The DCC Highway Authority identify that the development will use the approved accesses through and next to the adjacent residential development which link to the Tithebarn Link Road. Access is not a reserved matter. The Transport Statement includes a trip analysis to forecast the net change in trips overall based on the land

18/2799/MOUT page 318

use swap. This indicates overall (including the reduction in the office land) an additional trip generation of 53 two-way trips in the AM peak hour and 48 two-way trips in the PM peak hour. Access is not a reserved matter but the parameter plan for movement and access shows these vehicular access points and any reserved matters application will need to adhere to this plan. A condition is recommended to secure details and construction of the vehicular access point(s).

Travel by foot and cycle are a realistic choice and there is a bus service nearby. The Access and Movement Parameter Plan show the intended routes with two links to Langaton Lane, one to Blackhorse Lane, and three to the east and one to the link road to the north. The highways authority request that pedestrian/cycle links should have an effective 3m width and this will be controlled at the detailed stage.

DCC Highways have suggested that there should be multiple links to Langaton Lane of at least 3m width. The parameter plan has been amended to show the links agreed in the interim Masterplan which is considered sufficient. The recommended condition for the footpath/cycleway links also provides that these should be at least 3m wide. The previous footpath link to Blackhorse Lane has also been amended to a pedestrian and cycle link.

The highways authority are requesting that £500 per dwelling is sought for Travel Planning. This is included in the draft S106.

Ecology

The site is located within 10km of the East Devon Pebblebed Heaths SAC and SPA together with the Exe Estuary SPA and Ramsar sites. The Environmental Statement anticipates that the development is unlikely to impact on these sites during construction. However, during the operational phase, the development is likely to increase recreational pressures on these European sites which will likely have both direct and indirect significant effects when considered alone or in combination. This therefore requires the authority to undertake an Appropriate Assessment (AA) in accordance with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. This has been undertaken which also concludes that the proposed development, as it is within 10km, is likely to have significant effects on the interest features of these European sites. The joint approach for mitigation by the relevant local authorities relies on a mechanism by which developers can make contributions to mitigation measures delivered by the South East Devon Habitat Regulations Partnership. This is a CIL liable development so part of the CIL will be spent on mitigation with an additional mitigation contribution for non-infrastructure mitigation to be secured through a S106. The draft S106 provides for this contribution, currently at £201.61 per dwelling.

Natural England was consulted on the AA (attached) and have advised that on the basis of the appropriate financial contributions being secured to the South-east Devon European Sites Mitigation Strategy, they would concur with this authorities conclusion in the AA that the proposed development will not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the European Sites. It is for the Development Management Committee to adopt the AA and accordingly there is a further recommendation on this at the end of the report.

18/2799/MOUT page 319

There have been several ecology appraisals done over the recent years with the latest for this site done in October 2018 and is therefore up-to-date. This generally advises the site is dominated by managed arable land with ruderal banks and species-poor hedgebanks. However, these hedgebanks have dormouse records which would classify them as important. In terms of species, the following was identified:

1) Badgers - the recorded outlier sett is no longer active. There are signs of commuting activity in the central hedge and it is likely that badgers still commute/forage within the survey area. However, wider connectivity may have been affected by the link road to the east.

2) Bats - one ash tree on the eastern extent of the central hedge boundary has a high roosting potential but this falls in the adjacent land. The remaining trees have negligible roosting potential.

3) Birds - common bird species were noted and the hedgebanks, trees and ruderal banks are likely to support nesting and foraging birds.

4) Dormice - they have been recorded in the wider Tithebarn Green area and the hedgebanks have a potential to support dormice although this is likely to be limited and could be used for commuting. The mitigation planting at the northern end of the site is expected to mature into suitable dense species rich habitat.

5) Great Crested Newts - there are no ponds on site and surveys of ponds to the north surveyed in 2012 revealed no newts.

6) Reptiles - the ruderal banks have the potential for foraging and commuting habitat. Previous surveys in the wider area indicated a low number of slow worms and common lizard in banks being used for commuting.

Due to the low habitat quality of the site, no further surveys are recommended. In terms of mitigation and enhancement, there a number of recommendations:

1) The retention of ruderal banks and hedgebanks and enhancement with native planting.

2) Grassland areas to be seeded with a native seed mix or turf with a margin of longer native grass next to the planting on the northern and western boundaries. Native wet grassland seed mixes can be used to enhance the biodiversity of the SUDS pond.

3) Installation of bird and bat boxes across the site.

4) Grass cuttings and brash from the habitat management to be left in piles beneath the mitigation planting on the northern boundary for small mammals and invertebrates. These requirements could be secured through a Landscape and Environmental Management Plan (LEMP) via a condition on any planning permission granted. Artificial exterior lighting also needs to be controlled and it is recommended that a condition requiring the approval of exterior lighting be included which should include an ecology reason alongside amenity and airport safeguarding.

18/2799/MOUT page 320

Landscape and visual impact

There are some shortcomings with the LVIA as submitted; lack of a theoretical Zone of Visual Influence and some inadequate visual boundary and viewpoints, especially views from south of the A30. These concerns were passed to the applicant to address and an amended LVIA has been submitted. This relates primarily to the Science Park relocation application

The main changes relate primarily to the accompanying science park relocation application and there are no material changes to the assessment of the residential application. The appearance of the site during construction can be gauged from development happening on the Redhayes site. Compared to the development of the approved science park on this site, the change will at worse be moderate and short term. For the operational stage, the residential use will be different to the science park being denser over the site as compared to cluster development, but it will be seen in context with neighbouring residential development and therefore the impact will not be significant. Additional mitigation, compensation and enhancement relies on landscaping to form a reserved matter for subsequent approval.

On the basis of amended details, the Landscape Architect has no overall objections to this application.

Parameter Plans

Green Infrastructure Parameter Plans - this indicates the key GI to be retained or incorporated into the development including areas of public open space, allotments/community gardens, and buffer areas, together with existing trees/hedges to be removed or retained. This maintains the existing banks/hedges on the site except for small areas to be removed to allow for access, be it road or footpaths/cycleways.

The habitat area to the north of the site would be retained and next to it would be an area of public open space which also incorporates the attenuation basin and play space. There would be a landscaped buffer area to the hedge on the west boundary and the north boundary of the neighbouring house at Sunnymead.There would be other landscape strips to the eastern and southern hedge.

The GI Parameter Plan indicates that nearly all the banks/hedges are to be retained. However, a condition is recommended to ensure that the landscaping reserved matters includes relevant details for the banks/hedges and how they will be protected.

It is important to protect and enhance the western hedgebank and provide a sufficient landscape buffer area to the lane and the science park to provide a suitable transition between different developments and protect the character of the lane. The eastern hedge/bank would be a separation between similar developments but nevertheless, landscaping is important to protect and give a setting to this hedge. Private rear

18/2799/MOUT page 321

gardens onto hedgerows should be avoided to give future protection and this is largely maintained with the illustrative masterplan.

Access and Movement Parameter Plan - this shows two primary routes into the site from the neighbouring development to the east, linked together near to the western boundary. A number of secondary routes would then link to the rest of the development. There are a number of pedestrian/cycle routes proposed through to Langaton Lane, Blackhorse Lane and through to the development to the east. A footpath link is proposed to the Tithebarn Link road to the north. There is one pedestrian/cycle link straight through to the science park and indirect links from Langaton Lane and Blackhorse Lane.

The primary and secondary roads are appropriate. It is important, in terms of reducing car usage, to have sufficient, well planned cycle and pedestrian routes and, in principle, the routes shown achieve this and the detail of the provision would be considered at the reserved matters stage.

Scale Parameter Plan - this shows a range of building heights with up to 12.5m (2-3 storey) at the northern end, along the western side and in the southern corner. The central part of the development would be limited to no more than 9.5m (2-2.5 storey). The lower heights are generally closer to the approved development to the east and reflect the scale of this development closer to the boundary. The potential for taller development is generally towards the lower parts of the site or adjacent to the science park where taller development is normal. Subject to the details (as part of the reserved matters application), the scale of development is acceptable in terms of the topography of the site and/or the approved adjacent development.

Land Use Parameter Plan - this shows the areas for housing, public open space/landscaping, roads and allotments/ community garden. It maintains the open area to the north of the site and shows the location for the allotments/community garden. The allotments were originally approved on the Redhayes site, a short distance to the east, but have been relocated to this site, partly as this part of the site is too close to the kennels for housing and for commercial reasons as the approved site occupied prime frontage to the Tithebarn Link road. In terms of serving the Redhayes community, it is located towards the western extremity but is still in walking distance to Redhayes.

The land use plan is consistent with the other parameter plans and represents the appropriate land uses for a residential development of this size and located close to a larger housing development.

Heritage Assets

Archaeology - the site has been the subject of previous evaluation and targeted excavation of identified features. Therefore, no further archaeological mitigation is need as confirmed by DCC Archaeologist. Built heritage - There are no nearby listed buildings close to the site on the east side of the motorway. There are some listed buildings on the west side of the motorway, notably Monkerton House, Monkerton Farmhouse and associated buildings but due to the separation and the intervening motorway, the proposed development would not

18/2799/MOUT page 322

have an adverse impact on their significance or setting. As such, there would be no direct or indirect effects on the significance of any built heritage assets in the locality.

Surface Water Drainage

Policy EN22 (Surface Run-Off Implications of New Development) of the Local Plan looks to ensure that major developments are managed by sustainable drainage systems and the surface water implications of a proposal have been fully considered and found to be acceptable. To achieve SUDS, a hierarchy of solutions should be followed from the preferred option to infiltrate to the ground to the least preferred option of connection to a sewer. The applicant has advised that infiltration rates on the site is likely to be low and therefore a positive drainage network and attenuation is proposed with the offsite discharge restricted.

A detention basin towards the north end of the site would discharge to the storm water sewer network. Surface water from the development would be conveyed to the detention basin by below ground drainage network.

The DCC Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) initially required further information to be submitted. Following receipt of this, the further comments from the LLFA will be updated in this report.

Air Quality

Waste

Waste will be generated during the construction phase which needs to be controlled through the CEMP. Clearly waste will be generated during the operational phase and a condition should be imposed to require a Site Waste Management Plan during the operational stage.

Soil and Agriculture

18/2799/MOUT page 323

assessed previously and considered to be acceptable when balanced against all the other planning considerations.

Noise and Vibration

Noise reports have been submitted to assess the impact of the adjacent kennels, together with road, rail and airport noise on the amenity and health of potential occupiers.

There is clearly the potential for noise during construction but this would be controlled through the requirement for a CEMP, secured by a condition.

In terms of the kennels, the noise report identifies that particularly dogs barking could be a source of noise that could impact on health and quality of life. The recommendation are that there be a minimum 40m spatial separation between the kennels and the proposed houses, that the layout of the houses aims to situate the houses between the kennels and the private amenity spaces and where possible noise sensitive rooms should be located on facades facing away from the kennels. The various parameter plans indicate this 40m separation distance and the indicative masterplan also shows the front of the houses orientated towards the kennels. It is recommended that a condition is included to ensure that the reserved matters incorporate these requirements.

In terms of other noise sources considered (such as traffic, aircraft), it is recommended in the noise report that suitable mitigation would be in the form of the orientation of houses and their sensitive rooms/private amenity areas, together with enhancements to certain bedroom windows to provide noise reduction. These details can be secured through a condition requiring the mitigation details to be approved and implemented.

The Environmental Health officer has been consulted on the application and agrees the noise reports and the imposition of appropriate conditions to secure the mitigation.

Socio-Economic

The construction phase will require construction workers which will give a boost to the local economy and indirectly to local building supplies, plant hire and the use of local retails facilities.

The increased supply of houses would help the housing needs of the area but place some demand on local services/infrastructure. The Mosshayne development does provide for a primary school and there is a proposed health care facility in the nearby local centre with CIL contributions helping to mitigate the impact of the development.

Airport safeguarding.

18/2799/MOUT page 324

The airport have been consulted on the application and have no safeguarding objections provided that all safeguarding criteria are met and the SUDS scheme is delivered to ensure that there is no additional bird strike risk to aircraft. In terms of the SUDS, this is to ensure that there is no large areas of long term standing water in the detention basin. This will need to be considered as part of the detailed consideration of the surface water drainage details

Affordable Housing and viability

Strategy 34 of the Local Plan applies a 25% affordable housing target for the major strategic West End development sites which includes the adjacent Redhayes and Mosshayne sites which are allocated as shown on the relevant inset map in the proposals plan. However, this site is allocated for the science park and is not therefore a housing site and accordingly, the higher target of 50% affordable housing applies subject to viability considerations. The adjacent Redhayes and Mosshayne sites have an affordable housing level at 25% as required through the s106.

Therefore, in strict compliance with Strategy 34, this development should be providing 50% affordable housing unless there are viability reasons for a lower percentage figure. The applicant has submitted a Viability Assessment (VA) with the application that has been independently reviewed for the council.

The viability report submitted by the applicant considers the proposed transaction at 25% affordable with the relevant CIL payment and whether the residential development generates sufficient uplift to allow the transfer of the land either side of Anning Road for science park uses as any landowner is very unlikely to undertake a transaction that reduced the value of their landholdings below the existing position. The applicants own all the land covered by the two applications and both sites have extant planning permissions (Class D1a offices and B1b R&D) and are partly served by road access.

There is therefore an existing land value and part of the assessment is to consider this realistic value. Our independent review suggests that the applicant's valuation does overstate the value of the land with the current planning permissions resulting in a different overall assessment of the existing value.

The proposed transaction with DCC for the transfer of the land would result in a reduction in the value of the land either side of Anning Road for the applicant. The balance is to determine whether with the reduction in value for the applicants on the land either side of Anning Road set against the increase value of land with residential planning permission would, with policy compliant levels of affordable housing and other contributions, be sufficient to allow the land use swap to proceed.

The applicant's viability assessment concludes that at 25% affordable housing there would be a benefit to the applicant compared to the existing land value but that at a policy compliant 50% affordable housing, there would be a negative uplift from the existing land value and consequently, the land swap would not be in the interest of the applicant.

18/2799/MOUT page 325

It further concludes that at 25% affordable housing, the benefit for the Science Park is greater than that for the applicant.

The applicant's viability report has been independently reviewed for the council and concludes that at 25% affordable housing plus S106 contributions, the development is viable but only just indicating that an affordable housing level above 25% would not be viable.

The independent review takes into account the proposed transaction for the science park land together with the costs of the CIL liability and S106 contributions towards the non-infrastructure habitat mitigation, travel planning and the requested NHS contribution. The requested NHS contribution is discussed below and it is not certain at this stage whether this request will be supported as reasonable or proportionate. Further discussions are to be held with the NHS to clarify the request which probably won’t be completed before the committee meeting but any up-date will be reported to the committee.

The normal requirement of policy is to require an overage clause where a development is not viable at the policy compliant level of affordable housing. In this case, the applicant is not prepared to accept overage. There are special circumstances with these applications that are considered to outweigh the need for overage. These are the fact that the land swap proposals enable land to be transferred to the Science Park at a reduced rate to the benefit of the delivery of a strategic employment site, and fact that the majority of housing development in the area is only required by policy to provide 25% affordable housing, the level being secured in this instance.

Whilst the review concludes that the residential element could support 25% affordable and still cover the lost value of the proposed transfer, it is for the council as the decision taker, to weigh the positives and negatives of the proposed land use swap. It could not be guaranteed that the residential development could deliver more than 25% affordable housing and the conclusion is that the proposed transaction is within reasonable market allowances and would provide significant benefits to the deliverability of a major strategic employment site. If the site came forward without the proposed transaction for the land transfer, the development could support a higher level of affordable housing. The offer of 25% affordable, whilst a departure from policy, is consistent with the level approved for the other 1500 houses on Redhayes/Mosshayne which this site would form a part of. On balance, the advantages to secure the land use swap are considered to outweigh the disadvantages.

Proposed S106

The council is now in a CIL regime which requires that the infrastructure identified in the Regulation 123 list cannot be secured through a S106 agreement.

Submitted with the application is a draft Deed of Variation and a Deed of Release with planning obligations. The draft DoV effectively releases the land from the Science Park S106. The DoR has provisions to prevent the commencement of the residential development unless and until one of the following events occurs (whichever is the earlier):

18/2799/MOUT page 326

1) The owner enters into an unconditional contract/agreement to secure the acquisition of the land the subject of planning application 18/2797/MOUT by Exeter Science Park.

2) The owner and ESP have entered into a conditional contract, option or agreement for sale for the land the subject of planning application 18/2797/MOUT and that contract, option or agreement for sale has become unconditional.

3) The development permitted by 18/2797/MOUT has begun. 4) EDDC confirms in writing that the residential development may commence, notwithstanding that the above events may not have occurred.

There would be a fundamental policy objection if the residential development took place without the accompanying relocated science park development (18/2797/MOUT) taking place as this would result in the overall loss of site area and floorspace of a strategic employment site and would mean there would be very little justification for permitting the residential development which relies principally on the relocation of part of the science park land.

The draft Planning obligations relate to on-site measures to reasonably mitigate the impact of the development. This relates to: 1) Affordable Housing. • 25% • Tenure mix - 70% rented, 30% shared ownership or other form of discounted housing to buy. • Rented - mix of 1 and 2 bed flats/houses with some 3 bed family houses. Shared ownership - 2 and 3 bed houses. • Tenure blind in small clusters. • Constructed to meet Building regulations M4 part (2), accessible and adaptable dwellings. • Details of affordable houses to be submitted as part of the relevant RM application - location, type. 2) Open Space. • To include allotments/community gardens, informal open space, play areas, wildlife habitat area and SUDS. • Need for a management company to manage open space in accordance with a management company plan. • Open space specification needs to be submitted for approval. Timing for provision, maintenance period, process for transfer to man co • Process for agreeing the play space - consultation, etc. • Allotments specification and management plan. • Access to open space. 3) Sustainability. • Connection to DHN unless not viable • If no connection, details of additional details to show at least 10% of the energy supply of the development to come from decentralised and/or renewable/low- carbon energy sources. 4) Monitoring 5) Ecology.

18/2799/MOUT page 327

• Habitats Mitigation Contribution towards non-infrastructure measures based on a contribution per dwelling - £201.61. 6) Travel Plan • Contribution per dwelling - £500. 7) Suitable contribution to the NHS (if appropriate).

Requested NHS contribution – the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust is requesting that the council secure a sum of £250,973 developer contribution towards the cost of providing capacity for the Trust to maintain service delivery during the first year of occupation of the residential units. The Trust would require all the contribution before the development is commenced and without it they would object to the application as being contrary to the NPPF (paragraph 8) and the local plan. It would appear that the services identified are related to appointments and admissions rather than infrastructure provision through the legal definition and therefore would not necessarily be funded through CIL.

However, there are a number of issues to be considered before a decision can be made as to whether this requested contribution is reasonable and acceptable. It would appear that this approach is based on some successful appeal decisions in Warwickshire. The outcome of this consideration will be reported to the committee.

Environmental Statement

Under Regulation 3 of the EIA Regulations 2017, the planning authority shall not grant planning permission for EIA development unless an EIA has been carried out. Under Regulation 26, the planning authority must:

1) Examine the environmental information; 2) Reach a reasoned conclusion on the significant environmental effects of the proposed development; 3) Integrate that conclusion into the decision as to whether planning permission should be granted; and 4) Consider whether to impose monitoring measures.

18/2799/MOUT page 328

CONCLUSION

It is a requirement of planning law that planning decisions are determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material planning considerations indicate otherwise.

Overall, there are clear material considerations/benefits with these planning applications which facilitate the land use swap.

Both applications are linked and neither application is acceptable by itself. The draft legal agreements aim to ensure this is the case.

The proposed developments are the subject of Environmental Impact Assessment and Appropriate Assessment. The report therefore also includes a recommendation on application 18/2799/MOUT to adopt the Appropriate Assessment.

The other planning issues are addressed in the reports for both planning applications, including the level of affordable housing and viability, together with S106 issues. It should be noted that an overage provision is not being offered or secured but there are considered to be special circumstances in this instance to support this.

On balance, the proposed developments taken together have a number of material benefits for the improved delivery prospects for the science park. Whilst both

18/2799/MOUT page 329

applications are contrary to policy, they would not cause a material harm being part of the much wider development and growth area in this part of the district and being sustainable. It is therefore the view that there are material planning considerations that would weigh in favour of approving these two planning applications.

RECOMMENDATION

1. That the Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 is adopted; and

2. That the application be APPROVED subject to the completion of the legal agreements and the following conditions:

1. The first application for the approval of reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. All subsequent applications for reserved matters shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval no later than five years from the date of this permission. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters (Reason - To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. A longer than standard time limit has been imposed as the development is likely to come forward in stages and therefore this is justified.)

2. Approval of the details of the layout, scale and appearance of the building(s), and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") for each approved phase or phases shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced within that phase. (Reason - The application is in outline with one or more matters reserved.)

3. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Site Location Plan 1128 Rev B Parameter Plan Access and Movement 1125 Rev I Parameter Plan Land Use 1127 Rev H Parameter Plan Scale 1124 Rev D Parameter Plan Green Infrastructure 1126 Rev G Parameter Plan Density 1123 Rev D. (Reason - For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning)

4. A phasing plan for the development hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the submission of the first reserved matters application. The phasing plan shall specify the proposed timing for the delivery of the access and pedestrian/cycle links, open space/green infrastructure, SUDS as well as the construction programme for the buildings and other elements of the development. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved phasing plan and delivery programme or any such

18/2799/MOUT page 330

amendments to the phasing plan as may be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Reason - to ensure that the development proceeds in accordance with an agreed phasing and programme of delivery in the interests of securing suitable access, drainage and landscaping on the site in a timely manner as part of the co- ordinated development of the site in the interests of the environment and ecology of the area).

5. The outline planning permission hereby approves the following parameter plans together with the design principles and parameters established in the approved Design and Access Statement: Land use - drwg no. 1127 Rev H Density - drwg no. 1123 Rev D Scale - drwg no. 1124 Rev D Access and movement- drwg no. 1125 Rev I Green Infrastructure - drwg no. 1126 Rev G Prior to the submission of any reserved matters application(s) for an agreed phase or phases of the development, a framework plan and statement on the appearance palette for the agreed relevant phase or phases of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The framework plan(s) (1:1000) shall follow the principles established in the indicative masterplan and shall be in accordance with the approved parameter plans. The framework plan(s) shall show the indicative location of buildings and their type, public and private open spaces and parking (including cycle parking) typologies, together with how the design principles in the approved Design and Access Statement will be applied at the more detailed level. The appearance palette shall be provided in the form of a statement providing information and guidance on building design and character, constructional materials and detailing, surface materials and their finishes, street furniture and street tree species. The reserved matters application or applications shall adhere to the approved framework plan(s) and accompanying appearance palette relevant to that part of the site. (Reason - to ensure the design of the development is appropriate for the area, minimises the visual impact on the landscape and integrates with nearby development in the interests of the environment of the area and in the interests of airport safeguarding to accord with Strategy 46 (Landscape Conservation and Enhancement and AONB's) and policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness), D2 (Landscape Requirements) and TC12 (Aerodrome Safeguarded Areas and Public Safety Zones) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031. The Design Code is required prior to commencement to enable the code to guide the production of the reserved matters application(s)).

6. The details to be submitted as part of the reserved matters application(s) shall include finished floor levels for the buildings and finished ground levels in relation to a fixed datum. The building heights shall not exceed those shown on the approved parameter plan - scale, unless any variation is agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details. (Reason - to ensure that adequate details are available during the determination of the reserved matters to assess the impact of the development on the area and

18/2799/MOUT page 331

landscape and in the interests of airport safeguarding to accord with Strategy 46 (Landscape Conservation and Enhancement and AONB's) and policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and TC12 (Aerodrome Safeguarding Areas and Public Safety Zones) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031).

7. The buildings comprised in the development hereby approved shall be constructed so that their internal systems for space and water heating are capable of being connected to the proposed decentralised energy network. Prior to the occupation of an approved phase the necessary on site infrastructure for that phase shall be put in place for connection of those systems to the network at points on the site boundary. (Reason - In the interests of sustainable development and to support the opportunities for decentralised energy supply systems to accord with Strategy 40 (Decentralised Energy Networks) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031 and policy contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.)

8. Prior to the commencement of development on an approved phase or phases, a Soil Resources Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Soil Resources Plan shall set out the procedures that will be put in place to ensure that all high quality soil resources on the site that will be displaced by the development are conserved and reused elsewhere in the locality. The Plan shall detail how high quality soil resources will be identified, how they will be stored and relocated and where they will be reused. The development shall thereafter only be carried out in accordance with the approved plan. (Reason - To ensure that the high quality soil resources at the site are conserved and re-used having regard to the site being identified as 'best and most versatile' land to accord with policy EN13 (Development on High Quality Agricultural Land) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 and government policy contained in the National Planning Policy Framework. These details are required prior to the commencement of development as the soil resource will be affected from the start of operations on the site).

9. Prior to the commencement of development of an approved phase or phases, a detailed site waste management plan for the operational stage of that approved phase or phases shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The requirements of the approved site waste management plan shall be implemented in full during the operational stages of the development. (Reason- to ensure that the waste arising from the development is managed sustainably and responsibly in accordance with policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031, policy W4 of the Devon Waste Plan 2014 and policy within the National Planning Policy for Waste).

10. Prior to the commencement of development of an approved phase or phases, a Construction and Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) for that approved phase or phases shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CEMP shall include the following matters: 1) Air Quality.

18/2799/MOUT page 332

2) Dust control. 3) Lighting. 4) Noise and vibration. 5) Pollution Prevention and Control, including an emergency plan. 6) Protection and maintenance of retained landscape and habitat areas. 7) Airport safeguarding 8) Construction Traffic Management, including communications. 9) Monitoring Arrangements. 10) Waste management. Notwithstanding the above, construction working shall not take place outside the hours of 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 1pm on Saturdays, with no working on Sundays or Bank Holidays. There shall be no burning on site. There shall at no time be high frequency audible reversing alarms used on the site. The measures in the approved CEMP shall be implemented and remain in place throughout the construction period of the approved phase or phases. (Reason - To protect the amenities of nearby occupiers, airport safeguarding and to protect the ecology/protected species in the locality to accord with policies EN14 (Control of Pollution), TC12 (Aerodrome Safeguarded Areas and Public Safety Zones) and EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031. The CEMP needs to be approved and implemented at the start of development operations as risks to the environment, airport safeguarding and ecology will be present from this point).

11. The landscaping proposals to be submitted as part of the reserved matters for an approved phase or phases, shall clearly show the planting for that phase or phases, the type and colour of all hard surfacing materials for that phase or phases, all the hedgerows to be retained, removed and created within that phase or phases and how these hedgerows link to the hedgerow network together with future management arrangements of the hedgerows and how they will be protected during construction. The landscaping details to be submitted shall be in accordance with the approved parameter plans and include an implementation programme and maintenance schedule. The landscaping for that relevant phase shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details, including the timetable for implementation and be maintained in accordance with the approved maintenance schedule. (Reason- In the interests of the long term visual amenity of the site and the landscape setting, airport safeguarding together with the need to conserve and enhance biodiversity on and around the site in accordance with Strategy 7 (Development in the Countryside), policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness), D2 (Landscape Requirements), TC12 (Aerodrome Safeguarded Areas and Public Safety Zones) and EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031 and policy contained within the NPPF).

12. Prior to the commencement of development of an approved phase or phases, a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall be based on the proposed mitigation and enhancement measures outlined in chapter 7 - Landscape and Visual Impact and chapter 8 - Ecology, and the associated Ecological Appraisal report 15/2856.03a (appendix 8.4) of the Environmental Statement together with future monitoring arrangements. The development shall

18/2799/MOUT page 333

be carried out in accordance with the approved details or such other details as may be subsequently approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Reason - to ensure that the impacts of the development on ecology/protected species and the landscape is suitably mitigated for and enhanced to comply with policies EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) and D2 (Landscape Requirements) and Strategy 46 (Landscape Conservation and Enhancement of AONB's) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031. The LEMP is required prior to commencement as some mitigation/enhancement will be needed at the start of development.)

13. All applications for the approval of reserved matters which include the requirement to provide exterior lighting shall be accompanied by details of exterior lighting and its management for the operational stage of the development and shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before that relevant development is brought into use. The details to be provided shall accord with the details approved within the Design Code. The exterior lighting shall be provided and managed in accordance with the approved details and maintained thereafter unless any changes are agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Reason - to safeguard the amenities of the area, to protect nearby occupiers and protected species from excessive light levels, and in the interests of airport safeguarding in accordance with policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness), EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features), EN14 (Control of Pollution) and TC12 (Aerodrome Safeguarded

14. Should any contamination of soil and/or ground or surface water be discovered during excavation of the site or development, the Local Planning Authority shall be contacted immediately. Site activities in the area affected shall be temporarily suspended until such time as a method and procedure for addressing the contamination is agreed upon in writing with the Local Planning Authority. (Reason: To ensure that any contamination existing and exposed during the development is identified and remediated in accordance with policy EN16 (Contaminated Land) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031).

15. The details to be submitted as part of any reserved matters application which includes a dwelling shall include details of secure cycle parking provision for that part of the development. Development shall not be commenced on that part of the development until such details have been agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and prior to the occupation of any dwellings on that part of the development, the cycle parking shall be provided in accordance with the submitted details and thereafter maintained. (Reason: To provide adequate facilities for sustainable transport to accord with policies TC4 (Footpaths, Bridleways and Cycleways) and TC9 (Parking Provision in New Development) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 - 2031).

16. The details to be submitted as part of any reserved matters application which includes a pedestrian and cycle link as shown on the approved Access and Movement Parameter Plan shall include details of pedestrian and cycle linkages from the site/through the site and how it links into the wider network. No part of the relevant development the subject of the reserved matters approval shall be

18/2799/MOUT page 334

occupied until the links have been provided, surfaced and marked out in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be retained for those purposes at all times. (Reason - To provide a safe and suitable access for pedestrians and cyclists in accordance with policy TC4 (Footpaths, Bridleways and Cycleways) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 - 2031 and paragraphs 108 and 110 of the NPPF).

17. No part of the development of an approved phase or phases shall be brought into its intended use until the relevant vehicular access point(s) has/have been provided in accordance with details and specifications that shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Reason - to ensure suitable and safe vehicular access is provided to accord with policy TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 - 2031).

18. Any reserved matters application that includes a dwelling or dwellings shall be accompanied by details for the written approval by the Local Planning Authority to show the location and appearance of walls and/or fences to be erected within the curtilage of the dwellings. Any walls and/or fences shall be erected in accordance with the approved details within the curtilage of each dwelling before it is first occupied. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), these walls and/or fences shall not thereafter be altered, removed or replaced without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. (Reason - in the interests of preserving and enhancing the appearance of the area and/or protecting the privacy of residents, in accordance with Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031.

19. Any reserved matters application that includes a dwelling or dwellings within area D or the south side of area C, as shown on the approved Land Use Parameter Plan no: 1127 Rev H, shall include layout and appearance details for the written approval by the Local Planning Authority to show the front of the dwellings orientated towards the nearby kennels with the private amenity space to the rear and to minimise noise sensitive rooms facing the kennels. (Reason - to ensure that noise from the kennels is minimised to prevent an unreasonable adverse effect on the health and quality of life for potential residents and to accord with policy EN14 (Control of Pollution) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031).

20. Any reserved matters application that includes a dwelling or dwellings shall be accompanied by details for the written approval by the Local Planning Authority to show the how the noise mitigation strategies outlined in the Noise and Vibration chapter of the Environmental Statement shall be implemented in the development. The noise mitigation details shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be retained. (Reason - To protect the amenities of future residents from noise, in accordance with policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and EN14 (Control of Pollution) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031).

18/2799/MOUT page 335

21. The layout and appearance proposals to be submitted as part of the reserved matters for an approved phase or phases, shall show the location and appearance of any electricity sub-station(s) required for the development hereby approved. The details submitted shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any commencement is made on the development hereby permitted and the electricity sub-station(s) shall be sited and constructed in accordance with the approved details. Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 15, Class B of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no further electricity sub-station shall be provided or the approved electricity sub-station(s) shall not be re-located or modified without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. (Reason - In the interests of the appearance of the development to secure a sensitive design and location for any electricity sub-station and protect areas of open space from an inappropriate location and/or design to accord with strategy 9 (Major Development at East Devon's West End) and policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031).

22. Prior to the commencement of a particular approved phase, details of materials to be used externally in that phase shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be built in the materials approved. (Reason - to ensure that the materials are sympathetic to the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the East Devon Local Plan).

23. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until a programme of percolation tests has been carried out in accordance with BRE Digest 365 Soakaway Design (2016), and the results approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. A representative number of tests shall be conducted to provide adequate coverage of the site, with particular focus placed on the locations of the proposed infiltration devices/permeable surfaces. Reason: To ensure that surface water from the development is discharged as high up the drainage hierarchy as is feasible to accord with policy EN22 (Surface Run-Off Implications of New Development) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031. This data is required prior to the commencement of any works as it will affect the permanent surface water drainage management plan, which needs to be confirmed before development takes place).

18/2799/MOUT page 336

(Reason: To ensure that surface water runoff from the development is managed in accordance with the principles of sustainable drainage systems to accord with policy EN22 (Surface Run-Off Implications of New Development) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031. A detailed permanent surface water drainage management plan is required prior to commencement of any works to demonstrate that the plan fits within the site layout, manages surface water safely and does not increase flood risk downstream).

26. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced within an approved phase or phases until the full details of the adoption and maintenance arrangements for the proposed permanent surface water drainage management system for that phase or phases have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The surface water drainage management system shall be managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details. (Reason: To ensure that the development's permanent surface water drainage management systems will remain fully operational throughout the lifetime of the development to accord with policy EN22 (Surface Run-Off Implications of New Development) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031. These details need to be submitted prior to commencement of any works to ensure that suitable plans are in place for the maintenance of the permanent surface water drainage management plan, for the reason above).

NOTE FOR APPLICANT

This outline planning permission is accompanied by a S106 Planning Obligation which must be read in conjunction with the decision notice.

18/2799/MOUT page 337

Plans relating to this application:

1123 D Other Plans 07.12.18

1124 D Other Plans 07.12.18

1125 I Other Plans 25.03.19

1126 G Other Plans 25.03.19

1127 H Other Plans 25.03.19

1128 B Location Plan 20.12.18

List of Background Papers Application file, consultations and policy documents referred to in the report.

18/2799/MOUT page 338

Appropriate Assessment

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, Section (63)

Application Reference 18/2799/MOUT

Brief description of proposal Erection of up to 150 dwellings with associated infrastructure and public open space including allotments/community gardens. Location Land east of Langaton lane, Exeter Science park, Clyst Honiton.

Site is: Within 10km of the Exe Estuary SPA site alone (UK9010081)

Within 10km of the East Devon Heaths SPA (UK9010121)

Within 10km of the East Devon Pebblebed Heaths SAC (UK0012602)

Within 10km of the Exe Estuary Ramsar (UK 542)

(See Appendix 1 for list of interest features of the SPA/SAC) Step 1 Screening for Likely Significant Effect on the proposed development on land to the east of Langaton Lane, Exeter Science park, Clyst Honiton Risk Assessment Could the Qualifying Features of the European site be Yes - additional housing within 10km of the SPA/SAC will increase affected by the proposal? recreation impacts on the interest features.

Consider both construction and operational stages.

Conclusion of Screening Is the proposal likely to have East Devon District Council concludes that there would be Likely a significant effect, either Significant Effects ‘alone’ and/or ‘in-combination’ on features associated ‘alone’ or ‘in combination’ on with the Exe Estuary SPA, Exe Estuary Ramsar Site, East Devon a European site? Pebblebed Heaths SAC and the East Devon Heaths SPA.

See evidence documents on impact of development on SPA/SAC at: East Devon District Council - http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/369997/exe- overarching-report-9th-june-2014.pdf

An Appropriate Assessment of the plan or proposal is necessary.

Local Authority Officer Andy Carmichael Date: 14th February 2019

18/2799/MOUT page 339

In-combination Effects Plans or projects with Additional housing or tourist accommodation within 10km of the potential cumulative in- SPA/SAC add to the existing issues of damage and disturbance combination impacts. arising from recreational use. How impacts of current proposal combine with other In –combination plans/projects include around 29,000 new dwellings plans or projects individually allocated around the estuary in Teignbridge, Exeter and East Devon or severally. Local Plans. This many houses equates to around 65,000 additional people contributing to recreational impacts.

Mitigation of in-combination The Joint Approach sets out a mechanism by which developers can effects. make a standard contribution to mitigation measures delivered by the South East Devon Habitat Regulations Partnership.

Assessment of Impacts with Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures included Joint approach standard mitigation contribution required for non- in the proposal. infrastructure • Residential units £201.61 x 150 dwellings = £30,241.50 • Total.

Are the proposed mitigation Yes - the Joint Approach contribution offered is considered to be measures sufficient to sufficient in conjunction with CIL contributions. overcome the likely significant effects?

Conclusion List of mitigation measures and safeguards Total Joint Approach contribution of £30,241.50 will be secured through the S106 to be completed before planning permission is granted.

The Integrity Test Adverse impacts on features necessary to maintain the integrity of the Exe Estuary SPA, Exe Estuary Ramsar Site, East Devon Pebblebed Heaths SAC and the East Devon Heaths SPA can be ruled out.

Conclusion of Appropriate East Devon District Council concludes that there would be NO Assessment adverse effect on the integrity of the Exe Estuary SPA/Ramsar site and the East Devon Pebblebed Heaths SPA and SAC provided the mitigation measures are secured as above.

18/2799/MOUT page 340

Local Authority Officer Andy Carmichael Date: 14th February 2019

21 day consultation to be sent to Natural England Hub on completion of this form.

Appendix 1. List of interest features:

Dawlish Warren SAC Annex I habitats that are a primary reason for selection of this site (under the Habitats Directive): Annex I habitat: Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria (‘white dunes’). (Strandline, embryo and mobile dunes.) SD1 Rumex crispus-Glaucium flavum shingle community SD2 Cakile maritima-Honkenya peploides strandline community SD6 Ammophila arenaria mobile dune community SD7 Ammophila arenaria-Festuca rubra semi-fixed dune community Annex I habitat: Fixed dunes with herbaceous vegetation (‘grey dunes’). SD8 Festuca rubra-Galium verum fixed dune grassland SD12 Carex arenaria-Festuca ovina-Agrostis capillaris dune grassland SD19 Phleum arenarium-Arenaria serpyllifolia dune annual community Annex I habitat: Humid dune slacks.

18/2799/MOUT page 341

SD15 Salix repens-Calliergon cuspidatum dune-slack community SD16 Salix repens-Holcus lanatus dune slack community SD17 Potentilla anserina-Carex nigra dune-slack community

Habitats Directive Annex II species that are a primary reason for selection of this site: Petalwort (Petalophyllum ralfsii )

East Devon Heaths SPA:

A224 Caprimulgus europaeus; European nightjar (Breeding) 83 pairs (2.4% of GB population 1992) A302 Sylvia undata; Dartford warbler (Breeding) 128 pairs (6.8% of GB Population in 1994)

Objectives:

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths SAC:

This is the largest block of lowland heathland in Devon. The site includes extensive areas of dry heath and wet heath associated with various other mire communities. The wet element occupies the lower-lying areas and includes good examples of cross- leaved heath – bog-moss (Erica tetralix – Sphagnum compactum) wet heath. The dry heaths are characterised by the presence of heather Calluna vulgaris, bell heather Erica cinerea, western gorse Ulex gallii, bristle bent Agrostis curtisii, purple moor-grass Molinia caerulea, cross-leaved heath E. tetralix and tormentil Potentilla erecta. The presence of plants such as cross-leaved heath illustrates the more oceanic nature of these heathlands, as this species is typical of wet heath in the more continental parts

18/2799/MOUT page 342

of the UK. Populations of southern damselfly Coenagrion mercuriale occur in wet flushes within the site.

Qualifying habitats: The site is designated under article 4(4) of the Directive (92/43/EEC) as it hosts the following habitats listed in Annex I:

H4010. Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica tetralix; Wet heathland with cross-leaved heath H4030. European dry heaths

Qualifying species: The site is designated under article 4(4) of the Directive (92/43/EEC) as it hosts the following species listed in Annex II:

S1044. Coenagrion mercuriale; Southern damselfly

Objectives:

Exe Estuary SPA

Objectives:

Exe Estuary Ramsar

18/2799/MOUT page 343

Principal Features (updated 1999)

18/2799/MOUT page 344 Agenda Item 15

Ward Ottery St Mary Town

Reference 18/1585/FUL & 18/1586/LBC

Applicant Belfield Developments Ltd (Mr Justin Denno)

Location The Priory Paternoster Row Ottery St Mary EX11 1DP

Proposal Conversion of former elderly care home into 8no. apartments incorporating modifications to rear section of building

RECOMMENDATION: 18/1585/FUL 1. That the Habitat Regulations Appropriate Assessment within the Committee Report be adopted; 2. That the application be APPROVED subject to conditions 18/1586/LBC That the application be APPROVED subject to conditions

page 345

Committee Date: 30th April 2019

Ottery St Mary Target Date: Town 18/1585/FUL 13.09.2018 (OTTERY ST MARY)

Applicant: Belfield Developments Ltd (Mr Justin Denno)

Location: The Priory Paternoster Row

Proposal: Conversion of former elderly care home into 8no. apartments incorporating modifications to rear section of building

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That the Habitat Regulations Appropriate Assessment within the Committee Report be adopted;

2. That the application be APPROVED subject to conditions

Committee Date: 30th April 2019

Ottery St Mary Target Date: Town 18/1586/LBC 13.09.2018 (OTTERY ST MARY)

Applicant: Belfield Developments Ltd (Mr Justin Denno)

Location: The Priory Paternoster Row

Proposal: Conversion of former elderly care home into 8no. apartments incorporating modifications to rear section of building

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That the application be APPROVED subject to conditions

18/1585/FUL page 346

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

These applications seeking planning permission and listed building consent are before Members as the officer recommendation differs from the view of a Ward Member.

The applications seek permission to convert The Priory, a Grade II* listed building, to 8 apartments. The applications propose a schedule of works, most notably including demolition of part of the rear extension, the construction of a first floor extension and lowering of internal floor levels. The Grade II*listed property has historic significance and considered a prominent feature in the street scene of Paternoster Row sitting opposite St Mary's Church. The building is particularly visible from the Church and plays an important role of the historic setting of the cluster of 18th century buildings in this part of Paternoster Road and the Ottery St Mary Conservation Area.

The application at submission stage was considered to amount to substantial harm to the significance of the heritage asset. Objection comments from the Conservation Officer and Historic England primarily related to the proposed alteration and extension to the rear wings. The proposed scale and fenestration of the extension and remodelling was considered to have an unacceptable impact upon the scale and historic legibility of the rear elevation. Two sets of revision were made during the timeline of the application to address these concerns.

Revisions were also made to reduce the scale and bulk of the rear extension and alter materials to break the elevation up to provide relief upon the rear amenity space of 8 Paternoster Row.

The proposed alterations are now considered to result in less than substantial harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset. The National Planning Policy Framework states that where development proposals lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use. In this case it is considered that the residential use and proposed works have sought to make minimal changes to the external appearance of the original building and therefore retaining the heritage assets social importance, aesthetic merit and contribution to the group value of St Marys Church and adjoining terrace of Paternoster Row. Therefore it is considered that the optimum use is residential and that the proposed development would facilitate the long term conservation of a Grade II* listed building and its active role within the townscape.

Various third party objections have been raised with concerns over highway safety. Whilst it is appreciated that visibility north east of the site is limited upon exiting the site, the safety record of the access suggest that the access is not dangerous. The application proposes 8 parking spaces, one for each unit. Taking into consideration the sites proximity to local public transport links and Ottery St Mary Town Centre the proposed level of parking is acceptable.

18/1585/FUL page 347

In the planning balance the application is concluded to propose a viable use of the building whilst largely retaining the heritage assets aesthetic and group value. Whilst alterations to the north elevation and some of those internally would result in less than substantial harm to The Priory’s significance, this is balanced against the wider benefits from securing the longer term conservation and future of the building in viable use.

The application is therefore considered to comply with policy set out within the National Planning Policy Framework, The East Devon Local Plan and The Ottery St Mary and West Hill Neighbourhood Plan.

CONSULTATION RESPONSES FOR 18/1585/FUL

Local Consultations

Ottery St Mary Town - Cllr P Faithfull

26.07.2018

Dear Planning Central Team.

I am writing regarding the proposed development of The Priory. This development is in my ward and my view, based on the information presently available to me, is that this proposal should be refused.

First and foremost is that this development does not work. On the second floor plan the proposal shows a link corridor joining the original attic rooms to the proposed new attic apartments. The north elevation fails to show this link, maintaining the original profile. Also, the second floor plan shows the corridor running around the the face of the courtyard. The plan shows the higher side of the corridor as having a height of 1.8m and dropping to approximately 1.2m at its lower side. This is totally unacceptable in particularly as this is the main fire exit for the two rear top floor flats. The proposed link corridor and raised roof also remove two of the dormer windows which form a set of character features of the roof of the older part of the property. There is also inadequate headroom at the top of the proposed stairs between first and second floor. In conclusion, due to the inaccurate information presented in the plans and the failure of the plans to work, substantially more alterations would be needed to the listed building to make this proposal work.

Fire Safety At present there are five flights of stairs, one down to the main basement and two between each of the floors. In the proposed development only two staircases provide access to the first floor at the rear and all of the second floor. Due to the proposed layout the two upper flats in the south wing need to travel past the north wing to reach the stairs, which are restricted in height. The south wing flat can be easily isolated by a fire in the north wing leaving no alternative route.

Outbuildings and parking

18/1585/FUL page 348

On page 4 of the application form, question 13 Vehicle Parking the number of parking spaces given is 3. This is incorrect. There is presently garaging for five cars with a further at least three parking spaces. However, if the four car garage is not included there are five marked parking spaces and the single garage. On page 6 of the Design and access statement in paragraph 4.2, the applicant describes the four car garage as an 'outhouse added during the time The Priory was an Elderly Care Home'. This is incorrect. In the lower map on page 5 of the Heritage Statement the four car garage is clearly visible, with the earlier map of 1880 showing a glass house. The garage was originally built with two double sliding doors, the wooden section now long since rotted out and most of the runners missing. The garage was possibly built for the Police Station soon after moving in. The garage was therefore in place before the building was listed in 1952. A number of surrounding neighbours have a right of access through the land included in the site. The proposed layout of the parking arrangements will cause an obstruction for the neighbour to the south of the site, who has a pedestrian right of way across the site.

Neighbourhood Plan The neighbourhood plan for Ottery St Mary and West Hill demonstrates the lack of need for any further housing. At present there is a large number of sites with planning permission in and and around the centre of Ottery St Mary. Of the houses completed and on the open market, there are quite a number that are standing unsold.

From the Ottery St Mary and West Hill neighbourhood Plan.

HOUSING REQUIREMENT 7.1 The period 2012 - 2015 saw many new homes consented in the Neighbourhood Plan Area, with around 600 dwellings concentrated in Ottery St Mary town and 70 dwellings in West Hill. This is well in excess of the level of development that was supported by the Town Council (up to 350 at Ottery). The consultation underpinning this Plan has identified widespread concern from residents that this represents overdevelopment of the town, placing significant pressure on the infrastructure of the Neighbourhood Plan Area.

7.2 In planning for the next 15 years, the Neighbourhood Plan is required to comply with the strategic policies of the adopted district Local Plan and that means reflecting and supporting the identified development strategy when planning for housing. In summary, the East Devon Local Plan (2013 - 2031) requires development of 17,100 homes in locations which reflect local needs, with particular focus on Cranbrook, Axminster and Exmouth. Villages in the district have been assessed and only those considered 'sustainable' having regard to accessibility and a good supply of services are proposed to accommodate new housing to meet local needs.

7.3 In the Parish of Ottery St Mary, the East Devon Local Plan does not include any further specific housing allocations for the town or villages for the period to 2031.

7.4 There is no requirement for the Neighbourhood Plan to identify specific sites for the delivery of housing. Allocations should only be made where there is a clear and justifiable need and community demand for this. Given the large numbers of consented homes in recent years, the consensus from the community is that no allocations should be made at Ottery St Mary Town, West Hill or Tipton St John. One

18/1585/FUL page 349

small housing allocation for the Neighbourhood Plan Area has been identified at Alfington and this is addressed in Chapter 11.

Over development of the site This proposal is overbearing, oppresive and excessive. The planned increase in height will have a direct impact on the surrounding properties, in particular properties in the Lamb Court/Paxford House Square area.

Access and Viability The only entrance to the rear of the site has a usable width of 2.3m or less. This will make it impossible for any larger commercial vehicles to enter the site. As the site will need scaffolding, this will reduce the entrance even further. Although a bridge can be built with the scaffolding it is still likely to leave a gap of 2m or less. A Ford transit type tipper truck has a width of 2.14m with wing mirrors folded in. This will increase the overall cost of construction. No viability report has been given to prove that the work will be completed, placing the whole listed building at risk. Any deliveries will need to be from an alternative location due to the narrow and dangerous location of the property, on a sharp corner on a B road.

Due to the above comments I recommend this application be refused.

The above comments are my views based on the information presently available to me. I reserve my right to change my view in the event that further information becomes available to me.

Further comments 01.02.2019:

Dear Planning Central team

This application is in my ward and my view, based on the information presently available to me is that it should be refused.

I am very concerned about the false and misleading statements within this application.

In the original application the total present floor area is stated as being 788 square metres, which after alterations would change to 958 square metres. In the Design Development Summary at paragraph 2.2 Comment: Affordable Housing Contributions the total floor area is stated as presently being 864.2 square metres to be reduced to 820 square metres. Either one or both sets of numbers are clearly wrong. My own approximate calculations, based on an earlier application by Devon County Council, give a floor area of 758.375 square metres. There is a clear increase in the floor area in both the first and second set of plans. In both the north and south wings of the present building there are only two floors with a single floor section at the far east end of the south wing. On both floors of the north wing there is an approximately 90cm void between the newer ceiling and the old classroom ceiling. This should not be considered a floor area.

To my mind, the presented Heritage Statement, Heritage Impact Assessment and Design Development Summary are wholly inadequate in assessing the significance

18/1585/FUL page 350

of the property. I would therefore like to highlight features I feel should be considered and recognised for their importance.

On the front and rear elevations of the older part of the property there are brick banding of four courses high between the ground floor and first floor. My understanding is that they are not simply for artistic show but form a space to incorporate the internal floor joists so that the load bearing walls are the front and rear walls, as is the central wall incorporating the two main chimneys, the central fan light and the double width doorway between the two north ground floor room. This assumption is supported by architects drawings supplied for Devon County Council in 1953 showing floorboards running from north to south at this part of the property. On the north elevation is a further short section of brick banding of three courses of bricks set in line with the central wall and at a lower level to that of the front and rear banding. This banding appears to match the height of the double doorway linking the two north ground floor rooms, suggesting that it is to allow for support for that part of the wall above the doorway. This would suggest to me that the double doorway is likely to be an original feature and should be protected.

Similarly the central fan light appears to me to be an original feature designed to allow light into an otherwise rather dark front corridor while acting as decoration to the arch incorporated into the central load bearing wall. Based on these observations I suggest that the ground floor layout is likely to be the original layout with only minor alterations being made such as the fitting of the lift. This is not to say that the function of the rooms has not changed over time, only that the structural layout does not appear to have changed.

Based on the sale particulars of October 1894, the ground floor layout is described as having the north front room as being the dining room [17ft 6in x 18' with marble mantel]. The room now has a wooden fire surround with the fire place relined with brick. The southern front rooms is described as [drawing room, 14ft x 17ft with marble mantel and solid panelling]. The marble mantel is still in place with a painting of a hunting scene set into the moulding above the fireplace. In the painting there are seven riders with long red coats, white trousers and tall military style black hats, apart from the lead rider, who has a white hat. The style and appearance of the painting suggest that it is original, from the period 1719, although this should be checked with an art expert. This would therefore suggest that the marble mantel is also original and should be given the appropriate level of protection. This room is fitted with Georgian period plain cornice which appears to be correct for the period. This feature may need to be checked for its age. The small doorway through to the kitchen is a new feature.

The south back room, presently fitted out a commercial kitchen, in the 1894 particulars is described as the library [14ft x 10ft 6in with partly panelled walls]. This room leads in the particulars to the school dining hall [28ft x 11ft] which occupied the main part of the ground floor of the two story section of the south wing. From the dining hall there was a [glazed way] lead from the dining hall to the kitchen and is presumed to have been located where what is now described as the lean to in the courtyard. What is not clear is whether the lean-to is an adaptation of the glazed way or is a complete replacement.

18/1585/FUL page 351

The north-east room on the ground floor in 1894 is described as the kitchen. It was fitted out with a Garton and King patent range with [coal cellar to hold 20 tons]. The fireplace is presently boxed in and may have been damaged to incorporate the lift, with the section containing the fireplace and lift being deeper than on previous plans. At ground level on the outside north elevation there is a low level blanked off archway. this is presumed to be the opening for the coal cellar.

In 1894 the basement was described as having an [arched, binned wine cellar and beer ditto]. Any arched features in the basement have been removed, with the whole floor over the basement ares having been replaced with a cast concrete floor. This would explain the new style skirting boards in the ground floor rooms.

To the south of the dining hall and clearly shown on the 1880 map on page 5 of the Heritage Statement are the police cells. These cells have a history and heritage independent of the main part of the building, the Police Station or Police house having been originally located in what is now numbers 6 and 8 Paternoster Row (the Priory being number 10). The present steps and lower level linking doorway are a more recent alteration to the building, allowing the selling off of the remainder of the old Police station.

Also on the ground floor the 1894 sale particulars describe a rear kitchen, dairy and pantry with a paved passageway. These would appear to have been within the ground floor of the north wing. In the tithe map, drawn up between 1836 and 1842, the Priory is shown to have a run of outbuildings in the location of the north wing, suggesting that they were located in that part of the property. On the first floor there is a description of a 44ft x 12 ft dormitory with staircase linking it to the dining hall on the south wing. this suggests that the link section between the north and south wings is possibly older that the present north wing.

The present north wing appears to be located on the footprint of the older buildings. This appears to be the newest part of the property and is formed of two large classrooms, one on each floor. The majority of the present windows are original with a small number of changes. The present internal layout was purpose made for the care home.

The first floor in the original house has had considerable amounts of changes. Of the rooms presently laid out bedroom 6 appears to fit with the details in the 1894 sale particulars. This implies that the south attic staircase has been in place before this time. Similarly, windows set into the north wall suggest that the north attic staircase has been in place for a considerable amount of time. Of the attic rooms, they appear to have been little changed apart from the removal of a staircase that lead up to the skylight to give access onto the flat lead roof.

Proposed alterations to the building.

Unit 1.

Within this unit a substantial amount of central wall which includes the chimneys is planned to be removed. Parts of the internal fan light and decoration are planned to based in. The north east room is planned to be divided into smaller rooms. Bedroom

18/1585/FUL page 352

2 appears substandard with no clear view out due to the high set windows. In the north west room the fitting out of kitchen units seems out of keeping with the room. The proposed blocking off of the doorways in the rear hallway remove much of the character of the space.

Unit 2.

For this unit the proposal is to remove the original windows and replace them with much smaller windows. this will also require alterations to the brick work. this will alter the outward appearance of this part of the building.

Unit 3.

An important element of this unit is the cells. I have only recently become aware of their history and significance and am very much concerned about the major alterations to this part of the complex. The plan is to remove major sections of this block and will need further removal of the dividing wall between the cells and the main part of the building to allow for headroom in the planned access. The cells have a history in their own right and are originally part of numbers 6 and 8, which are also listed buildings.

Unit 4.

This unit includes the removal of the two attic staircases and the fitting of a new staircase in the north east corner of the building. This change will affect on the floor between the first and second floors which I would suggest are likely to include early or original floor structure. Within this unit the proposal is to fit kitchen units around windows wf8 and wf9. Window wf8 is a low level window located bellow the north attic staircase. This is an inappropriate location to have the units. To make this work would need the repositioning of the window, changing the structural brickwork of the wall. the proposed new lift includes the removal of a section of wall. this is possibly old, original wall and should be checked before removal.

Unit 5.

This unit is proposed to have the original windows removed, the replacement windows being positioned at a lower position than the present windows. This would have a substantial change to the appearance of the building. The replacement windows do not fit with the design of the building and look out of place within this building.

Unit 6.

This unit requires the extension of the first floor above the single story end room. Although the reduction in height has had an impact on the overbearing nature of the proposal, the proposal continues to be overbearing towards the surrounding properties. Between the kitchen and dining area this proposal is to remove a substantial section of the back wall of the original part of the property.

Unit 7.

18/1585/FUL page 353

This unit requires the removal of the two attic flights of stairs and a break in the floor to allow for the new stairs in the north east corner. At the point at which the proposed staircase ends the floor level is shown to be 38cm lower than the remainder of the floor. This will mean that the possibly original joists would need to be removed. The entire partition walls of the attic floor is proposed to be removed, including part of the south chimney. What is not clear is the true age of the walls and features to be removed. All the rooms have sloping ceilings that finish at a very low height. The ceilings drop to a lower height than standard kitchen units. This would make the proposed kitchen virtually unusable.

Unit 8.

This unit is set in an extra space created by the removal of the original ground and first floor classroom ceilings. The plans show the void above the first floor ceiling to be 'storage space'. I would suggest that this is misleading and, to the best of my knowledge, storage for the care home was mostly contained in the garages, with the basement, cells and the voids between the old and newer ceilings used to a limited degree. The upper attic is much more restricted for access. The proposal is for high level roof lights with the bottom of the glass at approximately 1.8m height. Only one window gives a proper view. This would seem to me to make the flat a substandard accommodation due to lack of any real view for the majority of this unit.

The plans show the total removal of the rear staircase, between the north and south wings. What has not been established is the true age of this part of the present building, with suggestions that it may be quite a lot older than has been suggested.

Over all this new proposal fails to properly respect the history and heritage of the building. This proposal seems to aim for maximum profit without recognising the varied history and heritage of the property. While I do not argue with the comment by our conservation officer not to object to the basic principal of residential use, it does not mean that it has to be used for that. This proposal appears to cause substantial harm to the heritage and history of this building. Simply because parts of the history have been harmed does not justify continued removal of historic parts of the building. I therefore recumbent that this proposal be refused.

These are my views based on the information presently available to me. I reserve my right to change my views in the event that further information becomes available to me.

Further comments 21.02.2019

Dear Planning Central team

Further to my earlier comments and based on the information presently available to me, I continue to recommend this application be refused.

I am somewhat surprised that we have only now had the Heritage Appraisal and Impact Assessment delivered. On the back page is stated Date last edited: Aug 22 2018 12:06pm. We have had to make two request for this to be presented.

18/1585/FUL page 354

Having read this report I do not feel it is particularly accurate or reliable with regard to the information included in this document. I therefore consider that this document should be rejected.

In paragraph 2.3 the tithe maps are stated as showing two wings to the rear of the building. This is completely wrong. The two copies of the tithe map are from two separate maps which are held at the Devon Records Office, recorded as Ottery St Mary 1 and Ottery St Mary 2. Ottery St Mary 1 is a complete copy with features coloured in and plots all numbered. Ottery St Mary 2 is an incomplete copy which only covers the southern half of the parish. Many of the plots are not numbered with none of the features coloured in. Both Ottery St Mary 1 and 2 (as I am confident the author is fully aware) have the town centre added as a separate enlarged map at the bottom right corner of the map. Of the two maps presented in the Heritage assessment the top copy is from the main part of OSM1 while the second map is from the town centre enlargement in OSM2. The town centre enlargement of OSM1 (which has not been included) clearly shows the Priory numbered 273 with a north wing and no south wing. The map also shows numbers 6 and 8 Paternoster Row as plot 274 with 275 and 276 running east from 274 well clear of the priory and no buildings where the cells now exist.

Paragraph 2.4 states 'The 1888 First Edition OS map shows much the same arrangement as that appearing on the Tithe Map...'. This is incorrect. In the 1888 OS map the south wing has been added with further outbuildings added to the rear. A building appearing to be attached to the stone steps looks to be the same as in the tithe map. To the south of the Priory land the Police cells appear to have been built in the grounds of what is now 6 and 8 Paternoster Row. In the 1903 edition of the OS map much of the building detail has been omitted so that changes in roof height are not clear. From my own experience of using Ordnance Survey services in the provision of private maps their recommendation was that maps of the scale used in this Heritage appraisal should not be used for accuracy, only for the existence of the buildings and their approximate shape. In the 1903 copy the south wing is shown to be wider than the north wing. In the architects drawings for this application the north wing is clearly wider than the south. I therefore suggest that the the details given in the 1903 map should not be used as a historical account of the parts of the building in question.

A pair of prints, described in paragraph 2.7, from a 1734 copper engraving by Samuel and Nathan Buck is suggested to include details of the Priory in the distance. The earlier of the two prints is the black and white version, printed from the engraving. The colour print is, as far as I am aware, from 1769 adaptation of the original. First I would like to point out that this is only an artists impression of a view, with the main subject being the church. Assuming that the building is an accurate interpretation of what was on view, I would suggest that the building highlighted in the image is very unlikely to be the priory, partly due to the angle of view (the Priory being further up the street) and by the appearance of the building drawn. A very similar artists image set at a later date shows what is now no. 2 Paternoster Row in the image. The building drawn in the engraving shows three first floor windows facing onto Paternoster Row, where as the Prior has five. There are also only two dormer windows rather than three. The building also shows four chimneys. A set of documents held at the Devon Records Office, listed under Ottery St Mary Police Station, record the transfer of a lease for the building at 6 and 8 Paternoster Row. These documents cover the period from 1741 to

18/1585/FUL page 355

1859. The paper for 1741 describes the surrender by Stephen Gill and Hannah his wife and the admission of Robert Long. Between 1765 and 1773 the building was consumed by fire and rebuilt by Gilbert Peck. This would imply that the earlier building would most likely have been in place in 1734 ( six years before the surrender by Stephen Gill). This suggest to me that the building in the engraving is most likely to be on the corner of Paternoster Row and Lamb Court (what is now described as Paxford House Square). The original print shows a set of vertical lines suggesting a fence or railings along the east boundary of the church grounds. Along the north side, to the left of the church a random pattern suggests a stone wall as is in place today.

Paragraph 2.9 states that 'we know that the existing rear wings were built between 1888 and 1903...'. This, to my mind, is untrue. The 1888 map shows a building that matches what can be seen in Google satellite images as the two story section of the south wing. The bricks in the south wing look to be slightly more weathered that in the north wing. Both north and south wings look to be built with bricks from the old Ottery Brick works. The windows along the north side of the north wing are typical school windows of that period.

Due to the serious questions regarding the accuracy of this report I am compelled to question the accuracy and reliability of paragraph 2.10. While it is true that fire doors have been fitted I question the suggestion of a full replacement of the ceiling with fireproofing. The ceiling does not look to be replaced. I would therefore like clarification as to whether the ceiling was removed or simply had fire proofing inserted above it (which is the easier process). Although there is a brick wall in the north basement room, there are no brick piers in the basement. The normal practice for Georgian period houses is to build the first floor in brick to form the load bearing walls with upper floors in timber. This suggests that the ground floor brick walls are correct for that period. I would therefore suggest that all the ground floor walls are likely to be original.

The author of this document seems, in paragraph 2.11, to have had difficulty researching the history of Policing in Ottery despite the fact it is a well documented organisation. For a simple account of a history of a Police Station, the earliest record I have been able to find is in the Slaters Directory of 1852 - 53, which records a Police Station at Market Place (described in the tithe map as Market House under Sir John Kennaway) and is occupied by Superintendent William Davey. This is the site of the present old Town Hall, built in 1859. In the same year of 1859 the property of 6 and 8 Paternoster Row was sold and suggest that is when the Police Station was located next door to the Priory. This is the likely time when the cells were built and matches with the County and Borough Police Act 1856 and the formation of the Devon Constabulary in that same year. In the Whites Trade Directory 1878/79 Sergeant William Ford is recorded as at the Police Station, Corn Hill. In the same directory the Rev. W.C. Frost is recorded as proprietor of the Priory House School. In a local book 'Ottery St Mary Through Time' by Nigel Sadler, on page 28 there is a photograph showing the Priory and the Police station in 1905 from a collection by Peter Harris. The Police Station appears to have a sign above the porch to identify it as such. In the Devon Records Office is a plan for alterations to the cells. The plan, dated 1929 and drawn up by Percy Morris FRIBA, County Arcitect, 97 Heavitree Road, Exeter, shows the fitting of a toilet in the western most cell and beds in the other two cells. There is also the fitting of the heating pipe around the entire cell block. A further plan dated 1953 shows both the Priory and the old Police Station with the police Station still

18/1585/FUL page 356

located at nos. 6 and 8 Paternoster Row. This suggest that the Police Station moved after 1953, when the cut through the wall was made and the fitting of the steel gate in the wall. The cells appear to have been built in about 1860 with the south wing of the Priory between 1860 and 1888.

The name of 'The Priory' appears to have originated as the Priory School, identified in the Whites Directory of 1878/79. This appears to have been a parochial school run separately to the Kings School. The Priory School seems to have been run by the clergy while the Kings School was overseen by the Church governors. Due to the very poor structural state of the Kings School and lack of pupils, it joined with the Priory School to become a single school in the Priory building.

I continue to recommend refusal for this application. This report is misleading and, in places factually wrong. There are no photographs of the internal features to back up what is written. I therefore do not consider it acceptable as an accurate account for a Heritage Appraisal and Impact Assessment.

This is my view based on the information presently available to me. I reserve my right to change my views in the event that further information becomes available to me.

Further comments 18.03.2019:

Dear Planning Central Team

Regarding the issue of viability, my understanding is that planning permission should not be given simply for the financial benefit of a developer. The present owner purchased the property, fully aware of the relevant issues relating to a grade II* listed building. The long delay in the purchase of the property was not, to the best of my knowledge, due to a shortage of potential buyers, of which I have been advised were approximately 15 other parties. The time delay has been due to the high price required by the receivers acting for the previous owners and the conditions laid down with the purchase. There is no shortage of potential buyers, of which as far as I am aware at least two parties would have made little or no changes of any significance.

The Priory was originally offered for sale, as far as I am aware, through an informal tender with the asking price in the region of £500 000, with the winning bid being for £450 000. The sale then fell through due to the bidder failing to acquire the necessary funding. It was then placed back onto the market whit the asking price remaining at £500 000. The property was listed as a going concern as a care home, with much of the equipment left in place. The property finally sold for £355 000. The time period should not be considered to be due to a lack of interest, but a lack of willingness on the part of the seller to accept a substantially lower price than the original asking price. There is no shortage of interested parties around the community, many of whom did not bother to bid due to the overly high price being asked.

Further to my earlier comments regarding a fire resistant ceiling in the ground floor, there appears to be a fire resistant perspex lining in the kitchen, which is a fully equipped commercial kitchen. The lining is possibly to class 1 or class 0 fire resistance. The lining is fitted to the plaster walls and ceiling, only in the kitchen and has had little

18/1585/FUL page 357

impact on the historical structure of the building. This lining is likely to be removed in the event of any change to the internal layout of the building.

Over all I do not consider that the changes made in the latest document, dated 7 March 2019, go far enough in protecting and restoring the historic parts of the building. There are no changes to any of the proposals relating to the early part of the building. The proposal involves structural alterations to the historic section of the building. Paragraph 194 (b) of the February 19, 2019 edition National Planning Policy Framework states that 'Any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting), should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of: (b) assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, registered battlefields, grade I and grade II* listed buildings, grade I and grade II* parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites should be wholly exceptional. The proposal to convert the Priory into flats is not an essential development, but an opportunistic proposal. Any changes to the structure of the building should aim to restore and compliment the historic significance of the building. The present proposal further harms the heritage and historic significance of the building.

I continue to recommend this development be refused.

This is my view, based on the information presently available to me. I reserve my right to change my views in the event that further information becomes available to me.

Parish/Town Council Town Council Comments: The Council does not support this application because ' 1) It would have an adverse impact on a Conservation Area. 2) It would have an adverse impact on adjacent listed buildings and other properties. 3) It is in a very sensitive location - opposite the historic church of St Mary's, Ottery St Mary. The Town Council supports this application as it is happy with the changes proposed but subject to the Conservation Officer's report

Further comments: Ottery St Mary Town Council supports this application subject to the Conservation Officer's approval

Technical Consultations

Environmental Health I have considered the application and note that this site is close to nearby residents who may be impacted during the construction process. We would request the applicant to consult and follow the council's Construction Sites Code of Practice prepared by Environmental Health and adopted by the council in order to ensure that any impacts are kept to a minimum. This is available on the council's website: http://eastdevon.gov.uk/noise/noise-guidance-and-advice/guidance-and-advice-for- developers-builders-and-contractors/

A Construction and Environment Management Plan must be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to any works commencing on site, and shall be

18/1585/FUL page 358

implemented and remain in place throughout the development. The CEMP shall include at least the following matters : Air Quality, Dust, Water Quality, Lighting, Noise and Vibration, Pollution Prevention and Control, and Monitoring Arrangements. Construction working hours shall be 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 1pm on Saturdays, with no working on Sundays or Bank Holidays. There shall be no burning on site. There shall be no high frequency audible reversing alarms used on the site. Reason: To protect the amenities of existing and future residents in the vicinity of the site from noise, air, water and light pollution.

County Highway Authority Observations: The proposed development is for the conversion of the former care home into 9 number apartments.

The existing and proposed vehicular access from the B3174 Paternoster Row, which is the main through road for Ottery St Mary, is somewhat short in visibility to the northeast, however to the southwest the visibility is acceptable.

I have examined the Devon Collision Map for this area and although there are two number slight accident records in the area. One at The College - Silver Street (31/03/2014) to the south of the site, and the other at the junction of Paternoster Row and Ridgeway (30/08/2014) to the north of the site. From the records to hand I do not think that the access has a particularly bad safety record considering its lack of visibility to the northeast.

The proposed conversion is likely to create less traffic movements than would have been expected with its use as a care home. Therefore despite the poor visibility in one direction at the vehicular access, I do not raise any highway safety concerns with this application.

Recommendation: THE HEAD OF PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENT, ON BEHALF OF DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL, AS LOCAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY, HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

Conservation

ADDRESS: The Priory, Paternoster Row, Ottery St Mary

GRADE: II* APPLICATION NO: 18/1586/LBC & 18/1585/FUL

Amended plans received 9th August 2018:

This application relates to the conversion of a former elderly care home into nine apartments incorporating modifications and extensions to the rear of the building. A meeting was held on site on Friday 20th July with the applicant and Historic England (HE). Following the meeting comments have been received from Historic England which reflect the concerns raised and discussed on site. The comments set out below re-iterate those concerns and should be read in conjunction with those from HE:

18/1585/FUL page 359

Heritage Statement: a more detailed assessment is required, see comments in HE letter. Particular attention should be given to the historical development of the building, and in turn their significance. In addition, more consideration of its historic context and the relationship to the surrounding Ottery St Mary Conservation Area;

Justification: in association with the above, insufficient justification for the proposals has been provided, see HE letter;

West elevation: no changes envisaged, but note that 'existing fabric to be refurbished to match existing where practicable'. This does not provide sufficient information or detail of the repairs and refurbishment works and a full Schedule of Repairs/works is required to ensure that historic fabric is retained and works carried out in an appropriate manner;

North elevation: it is appreciated that the existing situation relating to floor levels, ceiling, windows etc is awkward. However, there is a major concern relating to lowering the first floor windows in order to accommodate the second floor and this part of the scheme needs considerable revision to work within the constraints of the existing building;

East elevation: the current arrangement shows a hierarchy of development and whilst it is appreciated that the lean-to infill is in poor condition and its removal allows access to the internal courtyard which is welcomed, the introduction of the three storey element is unacceptable and detracts from the overall character and appearance of the listed building and any sense of its former development. The more informal grouping and hierarchy of development has been replaced with a uniform and regular form of architecture with the introduction of top heavy Juliet balconies at odds with the fenestration and proportions of the existing building;

South elevation: the 'Existing' Plan is incomplete, please provide full survey of this elevation. There is considerable concern over the extent of the development and in particular the scale, massing and height of the proposed extensions. This will significantly alter the prominence of the main house and its relationship with the adjoining buildings and structures. This does not appear to accord with the assessment of the Impact of the Development as detailed in section 4.2 of the Heritage Statement;

Elevations to courtyard: there do not appear to be any internal elevations (existing & proposed) to the courtyard, please supply;

Internal Layout: there is a general concern that there are too many units overall within the scheme and that further consideration should be given to working within the existing arrangement and constraints of the original layouts. It is appreciated that many of the original features have been lost but this is an opportunity to reveal and enhance those historic features that remain and to restore the building in a sympathetic manner. There is no objection in principle to a residential use, but this must not be to the detriment of the overall character and appearance of this important Grade II* listed building:

18/1585/FUL page 360

Ground floor: Unit 1 - this comprises two of the original main rooms on the ground floor and the introduction of partitions to create a kitchen, WC and staircase in the rear room (living room) result in unacceptable division. In addition, there is no assessment of the existing floors (historic or otherwise) and whilst it is noted that there has been some previous structural intervention, there is also no justification for breaking through the floors to insert a new staircase. This needs further consideration. This also applies to Unit 2. Unit 2 - this includes the original cells to be converted to bedrooms and ensuite with some outdoor space. A revised Heritage Statement will allow better assessment and justification for the works. The flagstone floors and brick arches to the cells are a particular feature. Is additional light by sunpipe? Please clarify. Hallway to Units 1 & 2 - where doorways are to be blocked, details of how this is to be achieved whilst retaining any historic joinery will be required;

First Floor: see floors/staircase above. Concerns over the extent of new build elements, see above. Both the rear wings may need further consideration in relation to accommodation, layout and floor/ceilings, see comments relating to elevations above;

Second Floor: see floors/staircase above. Concerns over the extent of new build elements, see above. Both the rear wings may need further consideration in relation to accommodation, layout and floor/ceilings, see comments relating to elevations above. Units 8 & 9 have French doors with Juliette balconies, see East elevation above. These will look directly into dwellings to east;

Fenestration/Glazing: see comments by HE regarding the use of double glazing. As suggested a comprehensive Window Schedule is requested and this should include not only the existing age, condition etc but any necessary repairs and or proposed glazing treatment. Secondary glazing may be an alternative to double glazing where the retention of historic joinery and glass is required;

Parking: there is no objection in principle to the removal of the open fronted garage/carport at the rear of the property. However, it was noted on site that there is a set of stone steps in the rear corner of the site which must have led up to the higher ground, possibly when it was Kings School. These are shown on the historic OS map dating from 1889/1912 attached and should form part of any assessment of the site. It was also noted that there are 2no. windows, one blocked, which look out over these steps and would be revealed once the garage/carport is removed. As suggested on site it would be more appropriate to include the steps in any revisions to the scheme.

PROVISIONAL RECOMMENDATION - PROPOSAL UNACCEPTABLE

The application requires considerable additional information and amendment.

Further comments on amended plans received 2nd January 2019:

18/1585/FUL page 361

submission and has enable a better understanding and appreciation of the building itself and the current/revised proposals;

West elevation: no changes envisaged, but note that 'existing fabric to be refurbished to match existing where practicable'. This still does not provide sufficient information or detail of the repairs and refurbishment works and a full Schedule of Repairs/works is required to ensure that historic fabric is retained and works carried out in an appropriate manner. However, it is considered that this could be conditioned;

North elevation: it is still appreciated that the existing situation relating to floor levels, ceiling, windows etc is awkward and it is noted that the dormers have been removed and rooflights inserted as an alternative. However, the revised plans now include the re-positioning of both the ground and first floor windows resulting in an uncomfortable elevational treatment with a large proportion of brickwork above the first floor window. Whilst this elevation is seen mostly from oblique views, the strong line of windows, their proportions and their relationship to the solid brickwork aswell as the relationship to the more significant front part of the building is still significant. It is considered that there is a better solution to this part of the project which needs to be explored further;

East elevation: this is a far better design solution and retains the hierarchy of buildings currently experienced at the rear of the building and now allowing views into the courtyard. The Juliet balconies have been removed and a more traditional timber sash inserted at second floor;

South elevation: again, this is certainly an improvement on the previous proposal for this elevation and the hierarchy still apparent. The 'Existing' Plan is now complete;

Elevations to courtyard: internal elevations (existing & proposed) to the courtyard, now supplied. Removal of the large flue welcomed. Revisions to windows noted, but will require details, see below;

Internal Layout: as previously suggested, there is no objection in principle to a residential use, but this must not be to the detriment of the overall character and appearance of this important Grade II* listed building. The loss of 1no. unit is noted:

Basement: no change to original proposals; Ground floor: Unit 1 & 2 have been revised to accommodate Unit 1 at ground floor and Unit 2 in north block. I would re-iterate the comments by NW in the impact assessment and agree that there is a dilemma in terms of harm relating to the changes. This may need further discussion, but the loss of the internal staircases to first floor is certainly welcomed. Unit 3 now includes the cell block and the sunpipes are noted;

First Floor: now Unit 4 & part 6. Still concerns relating to north block, see above;

Second Floor: now Unit 7 and access to Unit 8 via dormer. Still concerns relating to north block, see above;

Roof plan: rooflights and sunpipes noted, but discussion still required relating to north wing;

18/1585/FUL page 362

Fenestration/Glazing: a comprehensive Window Schedule has now been provided, but whilst it includes age, condition etc and any necessary repairs, it is not clear which windows are to be replaced, but likely to be WS1, 2 & 3 and hopefully WS6 & 7 (upvc). These could be the subject of a condition requesting joinery details at 1:2/1:5. In addition, the current scheme omits the windows on the north elevation and some on the east and south elevation and if permitted any new windows will need to be conditioned as above.

As previously suggested, secondary glazing may be an alternative to double glazing where the retention of historic joinery and glass is required, but there are no details of this shown on any drawing;

Parking: the set of stone steps in the rear corner of the site which must have led up to the higher ground, possibly when it was Kings School. Is to be retained in the revisions to the scheme and this is welcomed;

Conclusion: the amended plans are certainly an improvement and have taken on board many of the concern and comments. However, there is still considerable concern relating to the north block and the reconfiguration of the floors, fenestration etc. Further discussion and amendment required.

PROVISIONAL RECOMMENDATION - PROPOSAL ACCEPTABLE in principle, but still concerns relating to north block in particular, internal layout - Unit 1, windows etc, see above

SUGGESTED CONDITIONS: to be agreed

Further comments on amended plans received 7th March 2019:

The comments below relate to the current amendments to address the concerns relating, in particular, to the north elevation:

Ground floor (PL03 Rev C): I am not entirely clear how this has changed from the previous plan PL03 Rev B. However, the layout is certainly preferable to the introduction of internal staircases and providing that the new internal access door to Unit 1 is appropriately and sensitively designed, the alteration to the layout is considered to be less than substantial harm where changes to the layout and internal spaces have already been carried out in the past;

First Floor: now Unit 4 & part 6. See comments relating to north block;

Second Floor: now Unit 7 and access to Unit 8 via dormer. See comments relating to north block;

18/1585/FUL page 363

objection to the rooflights, subject to details (condition). The main concern still relates to the first floor windows, which in conjunction with the other changes is an improvement, but still results in the awkward proportion between the head of the first floor windows and the proposed cornice;

South elevation; East elevation; Elevations to courtyard: the amendment to the cornice is noted, see above. Care will need to be taken where the cornice ends on courtyard elevation

Roof plan: no further comments.

Conclusion: the amended plans are certainly an improvement and have taken on board many of the concern and comments. In addition, the changes to the north block have made a considerable difference to how this elevation is perceived. No formal comments have been received from Historic England and it would be useful to discuss this final element of the scheme.

PROVISIONAL RECOMMENDATION - PROPOSAL ACCEPTABLE in principle, but still concerns relating to north block SUGGESTED CONDITIONS: to be agreed

Housing Strategy Officer Melissa Wall

This application is for the conversion of a former care home into 9 apartments.

Strategy 34 sets the policy target for affordable housing provision on development sites and for Ottery St Mary a target of 25% affordable housing is required. The threshold at which the policy applies will be the minimum set out in Government policy or guidance. Where there is no applicable government policy or guidance there will be no minimum size threshold at which affordable housing will be sought. Paragraph 63 of the revised NPPF sets out when affordable housing should be sought from developments stating that affordable housing should not be sought for developments that are not major developments (10 homes or more or site area of 0.5 hectares or more), other than in designated rural areas (where policies may set out a lower threshold of 5 units or fewer). Ottery St Mary is a designated rural area therefore the threshold does not apply and affordable housing can be sought on this proposal.

In this instance on-site affordable housing would not be appropriate due to the nature of the building and a commuted sum is sought. This has been calculated using the commuted sum calculator and amounts to £74,691 (£8,299 x 9).

It may be the case that vacant building credit could be applied and NPPF states that to support the re-use of brownfield land, where vacant buildings are being reused or redeveloped, any affordable housing contribution due should be reduced by a proportionate amount.

Where a proposal does not meet policy targets it will be necessary submit evidence to demonstrate why provision is not viable or otherwise appropriate. An overage clause will be sought in respect of future profits and affordable housing provision, where levels of affordable housing fall below policy targets.

18/1585/FUL page 364

Further comments 18.01.2019:

The applicant in 2.2 of the Design Development Summary states that the area of the proposed scheme is less than the area of the existing building and therefore when applying vacant building credit no affordable housing contribution can be sought as there is no increase in floor area. We will therefore not be seeking a contribution towards affordable housing.

Historic England

THE PRIORY , PATERNOSTER ROW , OTTERY ST MARY , EX11 1DP Application No. 18/1585/FUL

Thank you for your letter of 23 July 2018 regarding the above application for planning permission. On the basis of the information available to date, we offer the following advice to assist your authority in determining the application.

Historic England Advice Noted by Pevsner as being one of the best houses in Ottery St Mary, The Priory sits on Paternoster Row facing across the churchyard to the Grade I listed church of St Mary and forms a key part of the setting of this spectacular building, which was rebuilt by Bishop Grandisson in the early 14th century. The Priory dates from the early 18th century, and despite the misleading ecclesiastical name, it is thought that it was built as a town house. The building has been in various uses over the centuries, including as a school, a branch of the Royal British Legion and a Police Station, becoming in 1978 a residential care home for the elderly.

The historic core of the house is a two storey red brick building in five bays, with slate roof and three dormers which fronts the road. An ornate, pedimented central door leads into the main hall which is flanked by the two main reception rooms. Unfortunatley, the building's long-standing institutional use has removed much of those decorative internal features which would have been expected in these rooms. The Priory has been substantially extended to the rear in two red brick wings, and whilst it is unclear exactly when this took place, historic map regression indicates that both wings were in place by the early twentieth century if not earlier.

This application seeks to convert The Priory into nine apartments, considerably increasing the height of the southern rear wing and the central link building to the east. Whilst the application is supported by a Heritage Statement which includes some historic imaging and maps, In terms of assessing the impact of the proposed development, the submitted documentation does not provide an adequate assessment of the significance of the building. This is a statutory requirement of paragraph 189 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which states that applicants are required to "describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets' importance." The Priory is a Grade II* building which therefore puts it in the top 6.5% of the nation's heritage.

18/1585/FUL page 365

The works proposed involve the enlargement of the southern rear wing, increasing the height to that of the northern wing. The current link building between the two rear wings is to be demolished and rebuilt as a two storey bridging structure, leaving the access to the central courtyard open. Internally, significant alteration to levels within the northern wing are proposed which will also entail the relocation (lowering) of all first floor windows on the north elevation. Within the most historic part of the building, it is proposed to install new staircases between the ground, first and second floors.

Historic England appreciates that the institutional use of this building has resulted in significant loss of historic fabric and considerable alteration internally and therefore we accept that conversion to residential use, which will involve further significant change is an acceptable proposition in principle. However, we are concerned about some aspects of the designs submitted which seek to substantially alter the configuration and clear hierarchy of the phases of the building. Whilst we have no objection in principle to the internal remodelling of the rear wings, the considerable increase in height of the south wing will have a significant impact on the scale and historic legibility of the rear elevation. Historic England accepts that the current low level porch arrangement is of minimal historic value, but it's replacement with a three storey infill, coupled with the scale of the new south wing will fundamentally alter the character of this part of the building and insufficient justification for the scale of this alteration has been provided. We are also very concerned about the proposal to relocate every first floor window within the northern wing and request that consideration is given to how the necessary internal arrangements could be achieved without the need for this damaging intervention.

We note that it is proposed to install double glazing in some of the windows and request therefore that a comprehensive window schedule is provided, setting out the details of the existing and proposed glazing treatment. Whilst on site, we noted that the windows to the main elevation contain some historic glass and therefore would object to replacement with any form of double glazing in this location. Historic England's stance on the acceptability of double glazing in historic buildings is clearly set out on pages 62-3 of our guidance note, Traditional Windows: their care, repair and upgrading ().

The installation of new staircases within the most historic part of the building will entail the creation of new openings within the floor. The application does not clarify whether the floors are historic, or later replacements. Until this information is provided, we cannot comment on the acceptability of this element of the proposal.

Externally it is proposed that the current shed/ garage arrangements to the rear of the site are removed to facilitate car parking. This is acceptable, however we note from historic map regression that the steps leading up to the new properties to the east were present in 1889 and are therefore of some historic value. Their significance should therefore be assessed within the revised Heritage Statement and consideration given to their retention.

Central to our consultation advice is the requirement of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 in Section 66(1) for the local authority to "have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features

18/1585/FUL page 366

of architectural or historic interest which it possesses". Section 72 of the act refers to the council's need to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area in the exercise of their duties. When considering the current proposals, in line with Para 190 of the National Planning Policy Framework, the significance of the asset's setting also requires consideration. Para 193 states that in considering the impact of proposed development on significance great weight should be given to the asset's conservation and that the more important the asset the greater the weight should be. Para 194 goes on to say that clear and convincing justification is needed if there is loss or harm.

Having considered this scheme, we believe that this proposal would result in harm to the building's special architectural qualities. Given its II* listed status this is a consideration that needs to be afforded considerable statutory weight in the determination of any planning application. Recent appeal decisions have demonstrated that even less than substantial harm does not necessarily constitute a less than substantial objection if that harm is avoidable. If the associated public benefits can be delivered by a less harmful means then a proposal is not considered to conform to paragraph 196 of the NPPF.

While Historic England does not wish to question the principle of this residential conversion, we believe a more sensitive architectural solution is required in order to preserve the character and appearance of the Grade II* listed building and the surrounding conservation area. We therefore encourage your authority to seek design modifications and additional information in line with the above comments.

Recommendation Historic England has concerns regarding the application on heritage grounds. We consider that the issues and safeguards outlined in our advice need to be addressed in order for the application to meet the requirements of paragraphs 189, 193, 194 and 196 of the NPPF.

In determining this application you should bear in mind the statutory duty of section 16(2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings or their setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess and section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas.

Further comments 29.01.19:

THE PRIORY, PATERNOSTER ROW, OTTERY ST MARY, EX11 1DP Application No. 18/1585/FUL

18/1585/FUL page 367

Thank you for your letter of 2 January 2019 regarding further information on the above application for planning permission. On the basis of this information, we offer the following advice to assist your authority in determining the application.

Historic England Advice Historic England commented on planning and listed building consent applications to convert this building into flats in August 2018. A meeting was subsequently held to discuss the concerns raised by both Historic England and the Local Planning Authority.

The revised application seeks to convert The Priory into eight apartments, one less than the previously submitted scheme. The southern rear projection has been reduced by one storey, thereby maintaining a greater understanding of the hierarchy of the building. The other major alterations relate to the fenestration on the north elevation and the internal layout.

As before, Historic England appreciates that the institutional use of this building has resulted in significant loss of historic fabric and considerable alteration internally and therefore we maintain that conversion to residential use, which will involve further significant change is an acceptable proposition.

Internally, the arrangement of new flats has been reconsidered and the revised layout appears to work with the historic layout to a greater degree, particularly in relation to the flats within the main house. In order to achieve this, a new door is to be installed in the arch between the hall and stairs. A detailed design for this has not been submitted to date. The acceptability of the installation of a door in this location will be dependent on the quality of the design and references should be taken from other doors within the building.

The north wing is thought to date from the late 19th century, when the building was used as a school, and is certainly of a more institutional character than the rest of the building. The revised application proposes the replacement of all of the windows with new timber sashes in order to facilitate the internal rearrangements. The new first floor windows are at a slightly lower level than their predecessors. We are pleased to note that dormers are no longer proposed at second floor level.

Our previous comments expressed concern about the proposal to relocate every first floor window within the northern wing and we requested that consideration is given to how the necessary internal arrangements could be achieved without the need for this damaging intervention. This revised proposal seeks to not only alter the first floor windows but also to replace those to the ground floor with sashes of a different design and size. We appreciate that this part of the building dates from the late 19th century and its contribution to the aesthetic and historic value of the property as a whole is significantly than the early 18th century elements. However, the north wing forms a major part of the development of this site for institutional use and the windows are generally of good quality and in solid condition. We therefore remain concerned about the level of intervention into this part of the site and suggest that a less intensive alteration to the façade should be sought. We appreciate that in order to utilise the second floor, the top of the first floor windows will be lost, but feel that an alternative which retains a greater amount of the 19th century fenestration is possible and should therefore be explored.

18/1585/FUL page 368

Historic England is glad to see that is now proposed to retain the historic external steps within the rear courtyard.

Recommendation In determining this application you should bear in mind the statutory duty of section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings or their setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess, section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas and section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to determine planning applications in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Further comments 03.04.2019:

Historic England commented on two earlier iterations of the proposals to convert The Priory into apartments. Our most recent letter set out our concerns about the proposed treatment of the north elevation but accepted that the remainder of the scheme was acceptable in principle, although some additional detail regarding the design of the new door in the main hall was requested.

Additional information has now been submitted which revises the proposals for the alteration of the north elevation. The earlier scheme sought to replace all of the windows whereas the current submission seeks to relocate only the first floor windows to a slightly higher position within the facade. Whilst we regret the significant intervention into the 19th century fabric of this elevation, we accept that alternatives for the remodelling of this wing have been carefully considered and that the option now proposed maintains the character of this part of the building as well as a considerably greater level of fabric. Historic England therefore have no objections to this aspect of the proposals as now submitted.

CONSULTATIONS FOR 18/1586/LBC

Local Consultations

Ottery St Mary Town - Cllr P Faithfull

As above under 18/1585/FUL.

18/1585/FUL page 369

3) It is in a very sensitive location - opposite the historic church of St Mary's, Ottery St Mary. The Town Council supports this application as it is happy with the changes proposed but subject to the Conservation Officer's report

Further comments: Ottery St Mary Town Council supports this application subject to the Conservation Officer's approval

Technical Consultations

Conservation

ADDRESS: The Priory, Paternoster Row, Ottery St Mary

GRADE: II* APPLICATION NO: 18/1586/LBC & 18/1585/FUL

Amended plans received 9th August 2018:

Justification: in association with the above, insufficient justification for the proposals has been provided, see HE letter;

18/1585/FUL page 370

the listed building and any sense of its former development. The more informal grouping and hierarchy of development has been replaced with a uniform and regular form of architecture with the introduction of top heavy Juliet balconies at odds with the fenestration and proportions of the existing building;

Elevations to courtyard: there do not appear to be any internal elevations (existing & proposed) to the courtyard, please supply;

Unit 2 - this includes the original cells to be converted to bedrooms and ensuite with some outdoor space. A revised Heritage Statement will allow better assessment and justification for the works. The flagstone floors and brick arches to the cells are a particular feature. Is additional light by sunpipe? Please clarify. Hallway to Units 1 & 2 - where doorways are to be blocked, details of how this is to be achieved whilst retaining any historic joinery will be required;

18/1585/FUL page 371

PROVISIONAL RECOMMENDATION - PROPOSAL UNACCEPTABLE

The application requires considerable additional information and amendment.

Further comments amended plans received 2nd January 2019:

Heritage Statement & Justification: a more detailed Statement has now been provided dated September 2018 by Nils White and a supplementary heritage Impact assessment dated 26th November 2018. This is a vast improvement on the original submission and has enable a better understanding and appreciation of the building itself and the current/revised proposals;

18/1585/FUL page 372

South elevation: again, this is certainly an improvement on the previous proposal for this elevation and the hierarchy still apparent. The 'Existing' Plan is now complete;

Elevations to courtyard: internal elevations (existing & proposed) to the courtyard, now supplied. Removal of the large flue welcomed. Revisions to windows noted, but will require details, see below;

First Floor: now Unit 4 & part 6. Still concerns relating to north block, see above;

Second Floor: now Unit 7 and access to Unit 8 via dormer. Still concerns relating to north block, see above;

Roof plan: rooflights and sunpipes noted, but discussion still required relating to north wing;

PROVISIONAL RECOMMENDATION - PROPOSAL ACCEPTABLE in principle, but still concerns relating to north block in particular, internal layout - Unit 1, windows etc, see above

18/1585/FUL page 373

Further comments on amended plans received 7th March 2019:

The comments below relate to the current amendments to address the concerns relating, in particular, to the north elevation:

First Floor: now Unit 4 & part 6. See comments relating to north block;

Second Floor: now Unit 7 and access to Unit 8 via dormer. See comments relating to north block;

North elevation: this is certainly an improvement and it is noted that the ground floor window positions have benne retained and this is welcomed. However, it is noted that the detailing of the window will change to conceal the floor zone, but this could form part of any joinery condition. In addition, the cornice detail certainly improves the proportions of the overall elevation and its simple design set back from the principal elevation is considered to be an acceptable solution, subject to full details. There is no objection to the rooflights, subject to details (condition). The main concern still relates to the first floor windows, which in conjunction with the other changes is an improvement, but still results in the awkward proportion between the head of the first floor windows and the proposed cornice;

South elevation; East elevation; Elevations to courtyard: the amendment to the cornice is noted, see above. Care will need to be taken where the cornice ends on courtyard elevation

Roof plan: no further comments.

Other Representations

6 objection comments have been received with concerns over the following:

• Loss of amenity through overlooking from windows and parked cars • Loss of light due to proposed extension. • Lack of parking • Danger for road users entering and exiting the site.

18/1585/FUL page 374

• The development is unsympathetic in design. Particular concerns relate to the previously proposed dormer windows. • Ecological impacts on roosting bats • Impact of noise during construction.

POLICIES

Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 Policies

D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness)

EN8 (Significance of Heritage Assets and their setting)

EN9 (Development Affecting a Designated Heritage Asset)

EN10 (Conservation Areas)

TC2 (Accessibility of New Development)

TC9 (Parking Provision in New Development)

H3 – (Conversion of Existing Dwellings and Other Buildings to Flats)

Strategy 6 (Development within Built-up Area Boundaries)

Strategy 34 (District Wide Affordable Housing Provision Targets)

Government Planning Documents

NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework 2019)

Ottery St Mary and West Hill Neighbourhood Plan

Policy NP2 (Sensitive, High Quality Design)

Policy NP22 (Ottery St Mary Conservation Area)

Site Location and Description

The Priory is a Georgian style building built in 1719. The build has a red brick facade, lead sided dormer windows and timber sash windows. More recent uses of the building include its use as an independent school towards the end of the 19th Century. Following the First World War the property was used by the Ottery St Mary branch of the Royal British Legion and then as a Police Station and Court House between the years 1949 to 1974. A planning application was then approved for the change of use of the property to a care home. Since then the build has undergone significant alterations including large rear extensions, rebuilding of the rear garage and other development catered towards the needs of residents.

18/1585/FUL page 375

The Grade II* Listed property has historic significance and considered a prominent feature in the streetscene of Paternoster Row and sits opposite St Mary's Church. The building is particularly visible from the Church and plays an important role in the historic setting of the cluster of 18th century buildings in this part of Pasternoster Road and the Ottery St Mary Conservation Area. The symmetrical facade, flemish bond brickwork and cornice are considered defining characteristics of the build. Important interior features include the staircase, fireplace, doorway, vaulted ceilings and slate flagged floors. However it has been highlighted within the heritage appraisal and from the Conservation Officer that internal historic features such as doors, panelling, skirting and cornice of the original house have all been lost.

The Proposal

The current planning and listed building consent applications seek approval to convert The Priory from its use as an elderly care home to 8 apartments. The development would include quite significant internal alterations and a schedule of external alterations to the rear wings, in particular the north elevation. Parking would be provided to the rear as existing. Main issues with the application revolve around the principle of development and the impact the physical alterations will have upon the character of the Grade II* listed building and the wider Ottery St Mary Conservation Area. Additionally the developments impact upon the local highway network and neighbouring amenity will also need to be assessed. Policy within the East Devon Local Plan (LP), National Planning Policy Framework and Ottery St Mary and West Hill Neighbourhood Plan (NP) will need to be considered.

ANALYSIS

The main issues for consideration relate to the principle of development, impact upon heritage assets, affordable housing, highway safety, residential amenity and ecology.

Principle

As the site is located within the Built-up Boundary for Ottery St. Mary, residential use is considered to be acceptable. There are no specific local plan policies that resist the loss of care homes in Ottery St. Mary.

Impact upon the Character of the Heritage Asset and Wider Conservation Area

The Priory was originally built as a house in the late 18th Century and has since undergone a succession of institutional uses over the past 120 years. Conversion of the buildings to apartments shall require sub-division and therefore alterations to the existing internal arrangement.

Policy EN9 (Development Affecting a Designated Heritage Asset) of the East Devon Local Plan outlines the Councils position in assessing harm to heritage assets within the planning balance. The council will not grant permission for development involving substantial harm or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset unless it can be demonstrated that it is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss. Alternatively where a development proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset the harm

18/1585/FUL page 376

will be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use. Physical alterations shall be considered and assessed as to whether they amount to substantial or less than substantial harm. In particular consideration will need to be given to the impact of alterations to the original building.

Internally, the most significant alterations include blocking off the hallway and landing doors at ground floor level to provide private access to Unit 1. Other alterations include the removal of internal partitions, none of which are of historical significance although give an insight into changes into the internal layout and internal spaces have already been carried out. The erection of partitions with Unit 1 are considered minor. As are the internal alterations at first and second floor as these shall only impact 20th century fabric. The Conservation Officer has reviewed the proposals and considered that these alterations amount to less than substantial harm providing that the new internal access to Unit 1 is sensitively designed. This information can be secured through a condition attached to an approval of the accompanying Listed Building Consent.

The changes would result in permanent change to the circulation within the building. Currently all existing openings have been fitted with modern fire doors, the submitted heritage appraisal states that these will be replaced with traditional six-panel doors and therefore can be considered an enhancement in terms of appearance. Again these details can be sought after through conditioning of any subsequent granting of Listed Building Consent. Less significant alterations, within the original building, include the removal of the existing first floor staircases that adjoin room 6 and 9. A new staircase would be installed at first floor to provide access to Unit 7 and Unit 8. The loss of these staircases, which are modern additions, are not considered to be of any historical importance. Alterations have also been proposed to the internal layout of the rear wings, none of which are considered significant or would have a significant impact upon the character of the listed building. However a new second floor shall be installed and lowered on the northern wing to provide sufficient roof space for Unit 8. In terms of alterations to internal fabric, the alteration is considered to result in little harm, however the adjustment to the floor level will require alterations to the fenestration on the north elevation that would have an impact upon the buildings character. The significance of this will be discussed further on in the report.

External alterations include the first floor extension on the southern rear wing to provide capacity for Unit 6. The extension would effectively see a continuation of the existing rear wing albeit being marginally 'pinched in' and the ridge stepped down. The south elevation of the first floor would be finished in vertical hanging slate. Additional openings and a dormer would be installed on the rear wing East Elevation. As a result of the floor level change at second floor, the first floor windows are required to be lowered. There are concerns regarding the relationship of the amended first floor window level with the cornice. It is considered, since the original proposal, the introduction of the cornice detailing has improved the proportions of the overall elevation and its simple design and being set back from the principle elevation is considered acceptable. The alterations to the window level and rooflights along the north elevation are located on the modern rear wing extension considered of less architectural importance when compared to the principal building. Additionally this particular part of the North Elevation is only visible to the public from oblique views along Paternoster Row. Historic England have been consulted and have stated;

18/1585/FUL page 377

‘The earlier scheme sought to replace all of the windows whereas the current submission seeks to relocate only the first floor windows to a slightly higher position within the facade. Whilst we regret the significant intervention into the 19th century fabric of this elevation, we accept that alternatives for the remodelling of this wing have been carefully considered and that the option now proposed maintains the character of this part of the building as well as a considerably greater level of fabric. Historic England therefore have no objections to this aspect of the proposals as now submitted.’

In conclusion, whilst outstanding concerns from the local ward member are acknowledged, the proposed alterations are supported by the Conservation Officer and Historic England and considered to result in less than substantial harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset.

The National Planning Policy Framework states that where development proposals lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use. In this case it is considered that the residential use and proposed works have sought to make minimal changes to the external appearance of the original building and therefore retaining the heritage assets social importance, aesthetic merit and contribution to the group value of St Marys Church and adjoining terrace of Paternoster Row. Therefore it is considered that the optimum use is residential and that the proposed development would facilitate the long term conservation of a Grade II* listed building and its active role within the townscape. The application is therefore considered to be in compliance with Policy EN9 (Development Affecting a Designated Heritage Asset) of the East Devon Local Plan and Policy NP22 (Ottery St Mary Conservation Area) and Policy NP2 (Sensitive, High Quality Design) of the Ottery St Mary and West Hill Neighbourhood Plan and guidance set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.

Affordable Housing

Strategy 34 (District Wide Affordable Housing Provision Targets) of the LP requires affordable housing to be provided on all residential development. Planning Policy Guidance and National Planning Policy Framework set minimum thresholds where affordable housing can be sought. This states that the provision of affordable housing should not be sought for residential developments that are not major, other than in designated rural areas. In designated rural areas, East Devon District Council applies the threshold of 5 units or fewer. In this case Ottery St Mary is classed as a rural area, and therefore usually a financial contribution would be sought for a development of 8 units. However the application does not propose any additional floorspace and is considered a brownfield site.

Where a vacant building is brought back into any lawful use, or is demolished to be replaced by a new building, the developer should be offered a financial credit equivalent to the existing gross floorspace of relevant vacant buildings when the local planning authority calculates any affordable housing contribution which will be sought. Affordable housing contributions may be required for any increase in floorspace. New floor space would be created by converting the roof space of the northern wing to Unit 8 and the first floor extension to provide bedroom space for Unit 6. This new floorspace

18/1585/FUL page 378

amounts (99.25m2) which would be offset by the removal of the two garages and demolition of the ground floor ‘linking element’ between the rear wings (122m2).

The PPG also states that “the policy is intended to incentivise brownfield development, including the reuse or redevelopment of empty and redundant buildings. In considering how the vacant building credit should apply to a particular development, local planning authorities should have regard to the intention of national policy. In doing so, it may be appropriate for authorities to consider:

• Whether the building has been made vacant for the sole purposes of redevelopment. • Whether the building is covered by an extant or recently expired planning permission for the same or substantially the same development.

Neither of the above are considered to apply vacant Building Credit is therefore considered to apply thus no financial contribution is required.

Parking and Highways

The proposed development would utilise the existing access off the B3174 and parking facilities to the rear of the building. Whist it is acknowledged that visibility is slightly limited to the northeast, visibility to the southwest is acceptable. The Devon County Highways have not raised any concerns with the access and feel the proposed conversion could likely result in less traffic movements to and from the site. Therefore despite the issue of visibility in one direction objections have not been raised with regards to highway safety.

The application proposed 8 parking spaces for the 8 proposed apartments. Policy TC9 (Parking Provision in New Development) states that spaces will need to be provided for Parking of cars and bicycles in new development. The policy recommends that at least 1 parking space should be provided for one bedroom homes and 2 parking spaces per home with two or more bedrooms. In town centres where there is access to public car parks and/or on street parking lower levels of parking and in exceptional cases where there is also very good public transport links, car parking spaces may not be deemed necessary. The proposed conversion includes seven units with two bedrooms and one unit with three bedrooms. Whilst comments from the Local Ward Member are acknowledged with concerns over the level of parking proposed is acknowledged. In this case the provision of one parking space is deemed acceptable taking into consideration The Priory's town centre location and Paternoster Road having a bus stop. Therefore the application is considered to comply with Policy TC9 and TC2 (Accessibility of New Development) of the LP.

Impact on Neighbouring Amenity

Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the LP and Policy NP2 (Sensitive, High Quality Design) of the NP seek to ensure the development should be of high quality design and have regard to the local context. In particular a theme reiterated in both policies is to ensure development protects the amenity of adjoining neighbours. In this case the development is situated within a dense residential area of Ottery St Mary and therefore could potentially pose a risk to residential amenity through

18/1585/FUL page 379

overlooking of new openings or through overbearing impact. Currently existing windows at first floor level along the south elevation already partially overlooks the rear amenity space of the adjoining property of 8 Paternoster Road. Concerns have been raised by third parties of overlooking and dominance of the rear first floor extension over their rear amenity space. These concerns were shared initially by the Local Planning Authority due to the impact of overlooking from a Juliet balcony and overbearing impact of the extension along the southern boundary. After these concerns were expressed to the applicant revisions were made to reducing the height, pinching in the extension, removing a Juliet balcony and incorporating hanging slate. The amendments have reduced the scale, bulk and expanse of brick along the southern boundary. These alterations are now considered to communicate a scheme that retains neighbouring amenity and therefore considered to be in compliance with Policy D1 of the LP and NP2 of the NP.

Habitats Regulation Assessment and Appropriate Assessment

The nature of this application and its location close to the Pebblebed Heaths and its European Habitat designations is such that the proposal requires a Habitat Regulations Assessment. This section of the report forms the Appropriate Assessment required as a result of the Habitat Regulations Assessment and Likely Significant Effects from the proposal. In partnership with Natural England, the council and its neighbouring authorities of Exeter City Council and Teignbridge District Council have determined that housing and tourist accommodation developments in their areas will in-combination have a detrimental impact on the Exe Estuary and Pebblebed Heaths through impacts from recreational use. The impacts are highest from developments within 10 kilometres of these designations. It is therefore essential that mitigation is secured to make such developments permissible. This mitigation is secured via a combination of funding secured via the Community Infrastructure Levy and contributions collected from residential developments within 10km of the designations. This development will be CIL liable and the financial contribution has been secured. On this basis, and as the joint authorities are working in partnership to deliver the required mitigation in accordance with the South-East Devon European Site Mitigation Strategy, this proposal will not give rise to likely significant effects.

CONCLUSION

The application has received support from the Town Council, however there is an outstanding objection from a local ward member. Concerns have been expressed with regards to awarding planning permission for the financial benefit of the developer. This is not considered a material planning issue and has not been taken into consideration within the planning balance. In this case the development has been assessed primarily with regards to the impact upon the significance of the heritage asset, the wider visual impact upon the conservation area, impact upon neighbouring amenity, affordable housing contributions, parking and highways. Therefore as discussed above, the application is considered to adequately address these issues in line with Policy of the East Devon Local Plan and Neighbourhood Plan. There are also outstanding concerns with regards to the removal of fire Perspex lining in the existing kitchen. Whilst the Councillor’s comments are acknowledged, the issue of fire safety is not deemed a planning consideration and will be an issue addressed by Building Control during the developments implementation.

18/1585/FUL page 380

Additionally the local ward member does not consider the most recent revisions to the application to go far enough in protecting or restoring the historic parts of the building. The concerns of the ward member are acknowledged. Along the timeline of the application there has been in depth discussions between Historic England and the Local Planning Authority, including the Conservation Officer with regards to the internal and external alterations. It is agreed that at submission the proposed works amounted to substantial harm to the significance of the heritage asset and therefore unacceptable. However now it is considered that the applications propose a schedule of internal and external alterations to The Priory that would amount to less than substantial harm. With reference to Policy EN9 and guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework this harm is required to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimal viable use. In this case, taking into consideration the buildings institutional past, residential use is deemed an appropriate viable use that would facilitate the long term maintenance and conservation of the heritage asset. Enabling the property to continue its active role within the immediate townscape is to the benefit of the public and wider conservation area. The planning application and Listed Building Consent has therefore received support from Historic England and the Conservation Officer, subject to conditions.

Initial concerns to the planning application were raised with regard to the rear extensions impact upon the amenity of an adjoining neighbour. Revisions were made to reduce the scale, bulk and materials of the rear extension to break the expanse of brick up providing an elevation that is less dominant upon the rear amenity space of 8 Paternoster Row. Number 8’s garden is long and narrow and whilst it is appreciated there would still be a degree of harm due to the physical presence of the extension along the southern boundary, this is not considered harmful enough to warrant refusal.

In the planning balance the application is concluded to propose a viable use of the building whilst largely retaining the heritage assets aesthetic and group value. Whilst alterations to the north elevation and some of those internally shall result in less than substantial harm to The Priory’s significance, this is considered to be outweighed by securing the building viable use and long term conservation. The application is considered to comply with policy set out within the National Planning Policy Framework, The East Devon Local Plan and The Ottery St Mary and West Hill Neighbourhood Plan.

RECOMMENDATION 1 PLANNING APPLICATION 18/1585/FUL:

1. That the Habitat Regulations Appropriate Assessment within the report be adopted;

2. That the application be APPROVED subject to conditions::

18/1585/FUL page 381

1. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed at the end of this decision notice. (Reason - For the avoidance of doubt.)

2. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission and shall be carried out as approved. (Reason - To comply with section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).

3. Before development is commenced, a schedule of materials and finishes, and, where so required by the Local Planning Authority, samples of such materials and finishes, to be used for the external walls and roofs of the proposed development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. (Reason - To ensure that the materials are considered at an early stage and are sympathetic to the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policy D1 - Design and Local Distinctiveness and Policy EN9 - Development Affecting a Designated Heritage Asset of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 and Policy NP2 - Sensitive, High Quality Design of the Ottery St Mary and West Hill Neighbourhood Plan.)

4. No development shall take place (including site clearance and ground works) until a Construction Management Plan (CMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CMP shall include details of: (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 Local 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 site preparation and construction phases; (g) areas 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;

18/1585/FUL page 382

(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; and (n) Photographic evidence of the condition of adjacent public highway prior to commencement of any work. (Reason - In the interests of amenity and highway safety in accordance with policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

NOTE FOR APPLICANT

Informative: In accordance with the requirements of Article 35 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 in determining this application, East Devon District Council has worked positively with the applicant to ensure that all relevant listed building concerns have been appropriately resolved. Informative:.

Plans relating to this application:

PL03 Rev C Combined Plans 07.03.19

PL04 Rev C Combined Plans 07.03.19

PL05 Rev C Combined Plans 07.03.19

PL06 Rev E Combined Plans 07.03.19

PL07 Rev C Combined Plans 07.03.19

PL08 Rev A Combined Plans 07.03.19

PL01 Location Plan 06.07.18

RECOMMENDATION 2 LISTED BUILDING CONSENT 18/1586/LBC:

APPROVE subject to the following conditions:

1. The works to which this consent relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this consent is granted. (Reason - To comply with Sections 18 and 74 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.)

2. The works hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed at the end of this decision notice. (Reason - For the avoidance of doubt.)

18/1585/FUL page 383

3. Before any work is undertaken to demolish any part of the building, the applicant shall take such steps and carry out such works as shall, during the process of the works permitted by this consent, secure the safety and the stability of that part of the building which is to be retained. Such steps and works shall, where necessary, include, in relation to any part of the building to be retained, measures as follows:-

a) to strengthen any wall or vertical surface; b) to support any wall, roof or horizontal surface; c) to provide protection for the building against the weather during the progress of the works, and d) in the case of cob buildings, the details of cob repairs. Details of any additional necessary repairs required as a result of the works, including methodology, specification or schedule shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before continuing with the works. (Reason - To safeguard the architectural and historic character of the building in accordance with Policy EN9 - Development Affecting a Designated Heritage Asset of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

4. All external works of alterations in the existing fabric of the building shall be carried out in matching stonework or brickwork, as appropriate. The works shall be carried out and in full in accordance with the approved sample and specification. (Reason - To safeguard the architectural and historic character of the building in accordance with Policy EN9 - Development Affecting a Designated Heritage Asset of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

5. The rooflights indicated on the approved plans shall be of a conservation design with integral bar and flush with the roof, the model specification of which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of these works. (Reason - To safeguard the architectural and historic character of the building in accordance with Policy EN9 - Development Affecting a Designated Heritage Asset of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

6. The new sash windows hereby permitted shall be traditionally constructed double hung sashes in painted timber, the colour of which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to works commencing. Details of the glazing bars at a scale of 1:2/1:5 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to work commencing. These glazing bar details shall show traditional profiles appropriate to the building and shall not be greater than 22mm in width and the glass shall be fixed using putty, not beading. (Reason - To safeguard the architectural and historic character of the building in accordance with Policy EN9 - Development Affecting a Designated Heritage Asset of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

7. Details of the new rainwater goods and cornice including profiles, materials and finishes shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning

18/1585/FUL page 384

Authority prior to the commencement of these works. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. (Reason - To safeguard the architectural and historic character of the building in accordance with Policy EN9 - Development Affecting a Designated Heritage Asset of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

8. Any damage caused by or during the course of the carrying out of the works hereby permitted shall be made good in matching materials after the works are complete. (Reason - To safeguard the architectural and historic character of the building in accordance with Policy EN9 - Development Affecting a Designated Heritage Asset of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

9. Details of the new internal access door to Unit 1, annotated on Plan 1332/PL03 Rev C, including materials, joinery details and finishes shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of these works. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. (Reason - To safeguard the architectural and historic character of the building in accordance with Policy EN9 - Development Affecting a Designated Heritage Asset of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

NOTE FOR APPLICANT

Informative: In accordance with the requirements of Article 35 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 in determining this application, East Devon District Council has worked positively with the applicant to ensure that all relevant listed building concerns have been appropriately resolved.

Plans relating to this application:

PL03 Rev C Combined Plans 07.03.19

PL04 Rev C Combined Plans 07.03.19

PL05 Rev C Combined Plans 07.03.19

PL06 Rev E Combined Plans 07.03.19

PL07 Rev C Combined Plans 07.03.19

PL08 Rev A Combined Plans 07.03.19

PL01 Location Plan 06.07.18

18/1585/FUL page 385 Agenda Item 16

Ward Raleigh

Reference 19/0545/AGR

Applicant Geoff Pook

Location Stallcombe House Sanctuary Lane Woodbury Exeter EX5 1EX

Proposal Agricultural storage building

RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions

page 386

Committee Date: 30th April 2019

Raleigh Target Date: (COLATON 19/0545/AGR 24.05.2019 RALEIGH)

Applicant: Geoff Pook

Location: Stallcombe House Sanctuary Lane

Proposal: Agricultural storage building

RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This application is before Members as the applicant is a Member of the Council.

The application has been submitted under Schedule 2 Part 6 of the 2015 General Permitted Development Order for the consideration of the siting and appearance of the building. The Council has 56 days to determine the application otherwise it is granted permission by default.

The proposal is classed as permitted development, if considered reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within the unit and subject to the submission of a determination as to whether the prior approval of the Council is required for the proposed development.

It is considered that the proposed building is reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture, is designed for agricultural purposes and, in the proposed location, would not have any significant detrimental visual impact on the character or the appearance of the area. As such, on the basis of the information available at the time of writing the report, the proposal is considered to be acceptable.

It should be noted however that as this type of application has to be determined within 56 days, the public consultation period had not expired at the time of the publishing of this report. As such, it may be necessary to provide a verbal update at the Committee meeting of any further consultee comments, and these comments could impact upon the recommendation.

19/0545/AGR page 387

CONSULTATIONS

Local Consultations

Parish Council No comments.

Ward Member No comments.

Technical Consultations No comments.

Other Representations No comments received at time of writing report.

PLANNING HISTORY

There is no recent relevant planning history on the site.

POLICIES

Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness)

D7 (Agricultural Buildings and Development)

Strategy 7 (Development in the Countryside)

Strategy 46 (Landscape Conservation and Enhancement and AONBs)

Government Planning Documents NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework 2019)

Site Location and Description

The site is located on the south side of Sanctuary Lane which runs between the A3052 Exeter to Lyme Regis Road at Nine Oaks Cross through to the B3180 Woodbury Common Road. Stallcombe House is a charity run residential care facility with an attached working farm and the agricultural unit extends to an area of 23 Hectares. The application site is in a field to the north west of the house and located close to existing agricultural buildings on the site.

The Proposed Development

Permission is sought for the construction of an agricultural building for the storage of animal bedding. The applicant states that sawdust is donated to the farm for bedding animals and chickens and the area currently used for storage causes dust contamination with feeding hay and the animals. The proposed storage shed will

19/0545/AGR page 388

eliminate dust contamination and be in a better location, closer to the point of use in the chicken sheds.

The proposed building measures 6m x 4m in plan, with a pent roof having a height of 3.2m at the front falling to 2.3m at the rear of the building. The walls are to be concrete block to a height of 1.2m with close boarded vertical natural timber boarding above, with timber doors on the front elevation. The roof is to be finished in profiled steel sheeting and although the application form does not specify a colour, the applicant has since confirmed in writing that the roof colour will be dark grey.

ANALYSIS

The issues to be considered in determination of this application relate to the design and appearance of the proposed building, the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the landscape of the area and any impact on the amenity of neighbours.

Design and appearance of the proposed building and impact on the wider landscape

The proposed agricultural building is small in size, having a footprint of 24 sq. m and a maximum height of 3.2m and the building has the appearance of a typical modern agricultural building which is designed for the purposes of agriculture.

There are mature tree lined hedgerows both on the road frontage of the site and the field boundaries to the south and west. The proposed building would not therefore be easily viewed from the wider landscape surrounding the site. There are existing agricultural buildings on the land and the site is well related to the existing building group. The proposal would be seen in the context of those buildings in any views from the surrounding landscape and it is therefore considered that the proposed development would not result in having any significant additional detrimental visual impact on the character or the appearance of the area in this location.

Impact on neighbour amenity

There are residential properties on the north side of Sanctuary Lane, opposite the site, which are within 60m of the proposed building. However, given the screening provided by the existing mature hedgerow fronting the site and the intended use of the proposed building, it is considered that the proposed development would not result in having any adverse impact on the amenities of the occupiers of these properties.

CONCLUSION

The application is seeking prior notification approval for an agricultural building. The Council has 56 days to determine the application otherwise it is granted permission by default.

19/0545/AGR page 389

appearance of the area. As such, on the basis of the information available at the time of writing the report, the proposal is considered to be acceptable.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE subject to the following conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out within a period of five years of the date of this decision. (Reason - To comply with Section 60 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.)

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed at the end of this decision notice. (Reason - For the avoidance of doubt.)

3. No development shall take place until a sample of the material to be used in the construction of the external surface of the roof of the building hereby permitted has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. (Reason - To ensure that the materials are considered at an early stage and are sympathetic to the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policy D1 - Design and Local Distinctiveness of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

NOTE FOR APPLICANT

Plans relating to this application:

1:500 Block Plan 14.03.19

1:2500 Location Plan 14.03.19

A1 Proposed Combined 29.03.19 Plans

List of Background Papers Application file, consultations and policy documents referred to in the report.

19/0545/AGR page 390