sign in sign up
<<
Home , East Anstey, Filleigh, Instow, North Molton, Rackenford, Stibb Cross

k

North and Torridge Local Plan 2011 – 2031 Publication Draft Consultation Statement March 2015

If you have any queries or questions relating to this document please get in touch using the details shown below:

Torridge District Council Council Riverbank House Civic Centre EX39 2QG EX31 1EA

[email protected] [email protected]

01237 428748 01271 388392

All maps © Crown copyright and database rights 2015 Ordnance Survey 100021929 and 100022736 EUL. You are permitted to use this data solely to enable you to respond to, or interact with, the organisation that provided you with the data. You are not permitted to copy, sub-license, distribute or sell any of this data to third parties in any form.

Contents

1 Introduction 1

2 The Purpose of this Report 2

3 Engagement on Publication Draft Local Plan 5

4 Summary of Responses 7

Appendix 1: Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Overarching, Introduction and Spatial Planning Vision) 10 Chapter 1: Introduction 15 Chapter 2: Spatial Planning Vision 19

Appendix 2: Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Strategic Policies) 30 Chapter 3: Sustainable Development 30 Policy ST01: Principles of Sustainable Development 30 Policy ST02: Mitigating the Impact of Climate Change 34 Policy ST03: Adapting to Climate Change and Strengthening Resiliance 39 Policy ST04: Improving the Quality of Development 44 Policy ST05: Sustainable Construction and Buildings 47 Chapter 4: Spatial Strategy 55 Policy ST06: Spatial Development Strategy for Northern Devon's Strategic and Main Centres 61 Policy ST07: Spatial Development Strategy for Northerd Devon's Rural Area 69 ST08: Scale and Distribution of New Development in Northern Devon 78 Policy ST09: Coast and Estuary Strategy 126 Policy ST10: Transport Strategy 134 Chapter 5: Enabling a Vibrant Economy 143 Policy ST11: Delivering Employment and Economic Development 143 ST12: Town, District and Local Retail Centres 147 Policy ST13: Sustainable Tourism 152 Chapter 6 : A World Class Environment 154 Policy ST14: Enhancing Environmental Assets 154 Policy ST15: Conserving Heritage Assets 159 Policy ST16: Delivering Renewable Energy and Heat 163 Chapter 7: Delivering a Balanced Local Housing Market 168 Policy ST17: A Balanced Local Housing Market 172 Policy ST18: Affordable Housing on Development Sites 191 Policy ST19: Affordable Housing on Exception Sites 243 Policy ST20: Providing Homes for the Travelling Communities 254 Policy ST21: Managing the Delivery of Housing 259 Chapter 8: Strong and Inclusive Communities 262

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Contents

Policy ST22: Community Services and Facilities 262 Policy ST23: Infrastructure 265 Chapter 9: Neighbourhood Planning 269 Policy ST24: Neighbourhood Planning 269 Chapter 10: Town Strategies 271 Town Strategies: Barnstaple 271 Town Strategies: Bideford 338 Town Strategies: and Wrafton 361 Town Strategies: Fremington and 376 Town Strategies: 386 Town Strategies: 404 Town Strategies: 430 Town Strategies: Northam 450 Town Strategies: 494 Chapter 11: Monitoring Framework 513

Appendix 3: Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: Development Management Policies) 516 Chapter 12: Development Management Policies 516

Appendix 4: Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Rural Strategies) 580 Local Centres 580 580 581 594 598 601 Dolton 606 Junction 609 Hartland 610 High 614 617 622 629 629 Witheridge 636 and 639 Villages 642 642 643 Atherington 644

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Contents

Beaford 647 651 Bishop's Nympton 654 Bishop's Tawton 659 663 663 Bucks Cross 665 Burrington 666 Chilsworthy 672 672 675 / Higher Clovelly 677 and 679 687 688 689 691 / Kentisbury Ford 694 King's Nympton 696 Knowle 698 704 / Stibb Cross 711 Lower Lovacott and Newton Tracey 714 Merton 716 / Venn Green 721 722 726 729 730 Sheepwash 732 732 733 734 734 735 735 / Darracott 736 737 Woolfardisworthy (Woolsery) 744

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Contents

Appendix 5: Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Glossary and Appendicies) 746 Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Glossary and Appendicies) 746

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Introduction 1

1 Introduction

1 North Devon and Councils are required under current planning regulations(1) to prepare a Consultation Statement to accompany the submission of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan to the Secretary of State.

2 This statement relates to the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan Publication Draft - Schedule of Proposed Changes. It builds on and adds to the North Devon and Torridge Core Strategy Issues and Options Feedback Report (2009), the North Devon and Torridge Core Strategy Pre-publication Feedback Report (2011) and the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan Publication Draft Consultation Statement (2014). These studies together demonstrate North Devon and Torridge District Councils are compliant with requirements set out in their Statements of Community Involvement and local planning regulations.

1 Regulation 18 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) Regulations 2012

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 1 2 The Purpose of this Report

2 The Purpose of this Report

3 The purpose of this statement is threefold, firstly it sets out the process of community engagement; secondly it provides feedback on representations made and other issues arising during the Publication Draft Local Plan consultation in summer 2014 and thirdly it summarises the consequent outcomes and proposed changes to be made to the Publication Local Plan.

4 The process of engagement has been undertaken to achieve the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012; and to accord with the Councils' respective Statements of Community Involvement (SCI). SCI's were adopted by North Devon in August 2006 and Torridge in December 2006. Draft revisions were published for consultation with the Publication Local Plan in June 2014, which were subsequently adopted by North Devon in January 2015 and Torridge in November 2014. In particular this Statement, including the Appendix, sets out:

i. how the general and specific consultation bodies who were invited to make representations were notified of the publication of the draft Local Plan consultation document; ii. the time period within which representations had to be made; and iii. the procedure for making representations.

5 The Consultation Statement, including Appendix, is also intended to summarise the results of the consultation, including the points raised by those participating in and contributing towards the consultation. In doing this, the Councils are able to demonstrate how points raised have been considered and accounted for and hence that the consultation has been a helpful and worthwhile exercise. Finally this report, with other documents, will play an important role in supporting subsequent stages of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan.

Stages of preparing the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan

6 The production of the Local Plan typically follows a series of consultation stages punctuating the overall process. Table 2.1 below outlines these stages, including the time periods when public consultation has been undertaken and that which is planned for. Additional stages of consultation were added to those prescribed by Regulation(2) to ensure the consequences of changes to national guidance and the loss of the Regional Strategy could be appropriately subject to community wide and stakeholder engagement.

Stage Date What will this involve

Evidence From This is an ongoing process of gathering information that will help Gathering 2005 inform preparation of the Local Plan (previously known as the Core Strategy). It involves technical work and early consultation with key agencies and other stakeholders.

Issues and November- The Councils consulted widely to understand the key issues facing Options December northern Devon and the options that could be adopted to address 2007 recognised issues and accommodate growth. The Issues and Options Report (3) was produced as part of the process of ongoing engagement and public consultation took place over a twelve week period from 8 November 2007 to 21 January 2008.

2 Town and Country Planning (Local Planning)(England) Regulations (2012) 3 Core Strategy Issues and Options Report: http://www.torridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=4226&p=0

2 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement The Purpose of this Report 2

Stage Date What will this involve

Pre-Publication January The outcomes from the Issues and Options Report supported by -March key stakeholder engagement and a Sustainability Appraisal informed 2010 the preparation of the Pre-Publication Core Strategy. An additional stage of consultation was introduced to respond to the variation in growth requirements in the draft revised Regional Spatial Strategy.

Formal consultation took place over an eight week period: 21 January to 15 March 2010.

Draft January - A further early stage consultation was undertaken early in 2013 as March a consequence of the Government's revocation of Regional 2013 Strategies, which required both Councils to establish locally determined housing targets based on local evidence and address policy gaps arising from the revocation.

It was further agreed by the two councils to prepare a full Local Plan which included Development Management Policies and rural village plans, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, published in March 2012. Previously these were to be separate Development Plan Documents which were to complement the Core Strategy.

Formal consultation took place over an eight week period: 31 January to 15 March 2012.

Publication June - The Publication stage will set out the preferred approach for how (Pre-Submission) August the plan area should develop. It was a comprehensive Plan that 2014 included Strategic Polices, Development Management Polices, Town and Rural Strategies and reflected the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) and National Planning Policy Guidance (2014).

Formal consultation took place over a six week period from 26th June to 8th August 2014.

Proposed Main March - Consultation will take place on the Main Changes the Council's Changes May 2015 propose to make to the Publication Draft plan as a result of public consultation on that stage, up to date evidence and changes to national guidance. There will be a six week period of public consultation on the proposed Main Changes to the Publication Draft Local Plan.

Submission Summer The Local Plan will be submitted to the Secretary of State alongside 2015 representations received in response to Publication Draft consultation and consultation on the Main Changes.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 3 2 The Purpose of this Report

Stage Date What will this involve

Public Winter The examination will allow a Planning Inspector to consider how Examination “sound” the Local Plan is. Those who commented on the Publication 2015 version and proposed Main Changes may be invited to appear at the Examination.

Adoption of the Spring The Councils' will adopt the Local Plan as their development plan Local Plan 2016 following receipt of the Inspector's Report of Public Examination.

Table 2.1 Stages of preparing the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan

4 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Engagement on Publication Draft Local Plan 3

3 Engagement on Publication Draft Local Plan

7 Following the revocation of the South West Regional Strategy, through the Localism Act 2011, and changes to national planning guidance through the National Planning Policy Framework in March 2012, both Councils agreed to incorporate the following proposed development plan documents (DPD) - Core Strategy DPD, Development Management Policies DPD and Site Allocations (including village plans) DPD - into one document called the 'Local Plan'. A 'Draft Local Plan' was subsequently published in early 2013.

8 Following engagement with parish councils to identify local growth aspirations for each Village and Local Centre, their responses were used to draft village plans, which were circulated to respective parish councils in December 2013 and January 2014 for comment. Their responses were considered before the village plans were finalised to form Part three of the Publication North Devon and Torridge Local Plan.

9 The purpose of consultation on the Publication Draft Local Plan was to seek views from the local community and stakeholders on how the Councils' propose to deal with future growth and development across northern Devon, including how to meet housing and employment requirements identified by new locally determined evidence.

10 The formal consultation documents comprised -

- North Devon and Torridge Local Plan 2011 - 2031 Publication Draft Part One and Two (June 2014),

- North Devon and Torridge Local Plan 2011 - 2031 Publication Draft Part Three (June 2014), and,

- North Devon and Torridge Local Plan Publication Draft Sustainability Appraisal (June 2014).

Also published for separate consultation at the same time were Draft Statements of Community Involvement for each Council and Community Infrastructure Levy Draft Charging Schedules for each Council.

Publication Draft Local Plan consultation

11 Ongoing ad-hoc liaison and consultation continued with town and parish councils, and with other bodies in response to specific issues, prior to the finalisation of the Publication Draft for public consultation. This included contact with parish councils to enable drafting of the Rural Strategies which were not included in the 'Draft Local Plan (January 2013)' (the detailed consultation arrangements for which were described in the 'Consultation Statement' June 2014).

12 Formal consultation on the Publication Draft Local Plan and the other documents was undertaken over six week period, between 26th June and 8th August 2014. Engagement in the consultation process was encouraged as follows:

in advance of the formal consultation exercise a press briefing was held with local media and press releases were provided and utilised by the local press, which highlighted the importance of the Local Plan, the dates within which comment could be made, how to do so and where the document could be accessed;

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 5 3 Engagement on Publication Draft Local Plan

The Torridge and North Devon websites provided publicity following approval of the Publication Draft Local Plan at the joint Council meeting on 30th April 2014. The websites provided contact details for further information.

a suite of Local Plan leaflets were provided to public libraries and made available at District Council offices across North Devon and Torridge. The leaflets provided details of the Local Plan's provision for the Sub Regional Centre, Strategic and Main Centres and how to get further information and be involved in the consultation process. The leaflets were utilised by the local press in multiple page articles.

at the commencement of consultation all known Local Plan interests were formally notified of the start of the consultation exercise and the time period for receipt of comment and how the documents could be accessed as well as general information relating to the consultation process. About 2,300 statutory and non-statutory organisations, representative groups and individuals were informed in this manner, including those having made representations at previous stages of plan preparation;

during the week consultation commenced further coverage was provided in the local press and a formal notice was placed in the North Devon Journal, which again invited participation in the consultation process, contact with the local authorities and indicated where the document could be viewed and how to make comment;

the Local Plan and its supporting Sustainability Assessment were made available for inspection in all public libraries across North Devon and Torridge and in all the Councils' main and area offices;

officers attended town and parish council meetings, on request, for the duration of the consultation period;

news items on the Councils' websites provided links to a dedicated webpage on the Local Plan which provided information necessary to support interests in accessing the consultation documents and supporting materials, and how to make comment on the document(s), which could be in writing or on-line;

a dedicated online planning portal allowed people to submit representations 24 hours a day during the six week consultation period; . The Councils published guidance on how to use the Consultation Portal to assist respondents;

meetings with specialist stakeholders during and following consultation including the Environment Agency, Fire and Rescue Service, NEW Devon Clinical Commissioning Group, Tarka Forum, South West Water, English Heritage, Primary Academies Trust and the Marine Management Organisation and adjoining local planning authorities as part of the Councils' compliance with duty to cooperate requirements.

6 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Summary of Responses 4

4 Summary of Responses

Publication Draft Local Plan consultation responses

13 Consultation undertaken on the Publication Draft Local Plan generated 2,652 representations from 542 distinct individuals and organisations. The consultation requested responses on three issues - Is the Plan legally compliant? Is the Plan sound? and Does the Plan comply with the Duty to Co-operate? The responses are shown in Table 4.1 below.

Issue Number of responses

Is the Plan legally compliant

Yes 463 (17.5%)

No 404 (15.2%)

No response 1782 (67.3%)

Is the Plan sound?

Yes 196 (7.4%)

No 1009 (38.1)%

No response 1444 (54.5%)

Does the Plan comply with the duty to Co-operate?

Yes 526 (19.9)%

No 387 (14.6%)

No response 1736 (65.5%)

Table 4.1 Consultee Responses

14 The 542 unique respondents were statutory consultees, organisations, representative groups, individuals and agents acting on behalf of others. The level of response represented a decrease of about 35% on responses from the previous Draft Plan Stage. In providing responses, an increasing number of respondents also utilised the Council’s online consultation portal.

15 The level of response suggests that the consultation process continues to provide an appropriate opportunity to take part in the plan making process and that some of the issues raised at the previous consultation stage have been addressed to the satisfaction of interested parties.

16 All responses have been read, summarised and where necessary input by officers on the Councils' electronic consultation data base, which can be viewed with the full consultation responses at: http://consult.torridge.gov.uk. The following subsections provide an overview of the process of considering the representations made and of the Main that were agreed by the Councils' for inclusion in the Submission version of the Local Plan.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 7 4 Summary of Responses

Consideration of Representations

17 All representations have been considered by officers and Councillors. Representations have been grouped by individual policies of the Plan and specific settlements. A report on each Policy/settlement has been prepared by officers and considered by the Councils' Joint Local Development Plan Working Group (JWG). Having considered the reports, the JWG made recommendations for changes to the Local Plan. Changes were classified as either 'Main' (where the Policy or its interpretation would change) or 'Minor' (including grammatical changes and corrections).

18 The recommended changes were suggested to address representations received, respond to updated evidence or guidance, for consistency or for correction for example. The aim was to ensure the Local Plan is 'sound' and in conformity with the National Planning Policy Framework.

19 The JWG comprises 4 elected councillors from each of North Devon and Torridge Councils. The JWG met on seven occasions between 1st October 2014 and 30th January 2015 inclusive to consider representations and other changes to the publication Draft Plan.

20 The reports considered, including the changes agreed, by the JWG are included in the appendices. They are presented in the order in which the topics appear in the Local Plan. Where more than one report has been considered on a single topic by the JWG, the reports have been amalgamated for ease of use. The changes agreed by the JWG were recommendations to the District Councils and considered (in the form of a 'Schedule of Main Changes') at the following meetings -

- Special Executive Committee meeting of held on 10th February 2015;

- Meeting of the Torridge District Council held on 23rd February 2015, and,

- Meeting of the North Devon Council held on 25th February 2015.

21 The recommendations of the JWG were agreed by the two District Councils with a limited number of further changes. These further changes are included in the 'Other Matters' section of the appended reports where applicable.

22 Changes to the Publication Draft of the Local Plan identified in Appendix 1-5 follow the convention of underlining (underlining) for additions and strike through (strike through) for deletions.

Changes to the Publication Draft Local Plan

23 Agreed changes to the Local Plan are published in two documents -

Publication Draft - Schedule of Proposed Main Changes (published for consultation), and, Publication Draft - Schedule of Minor Changes (published for information).

An updated Draft Sustainability Appraisal is also published.

24 The most significant Main Changes can be summarised as (in Plan order)

Sustainable Design and Construction. Reference to several Codes and Standards has been removed in response to the Government's Housing Standards Review (September 2014). Major developments are encouraged to build to a standard higher than Building Regulations to reduce carbon dioxide, and duplication between strategic and site specific policies is removed.

8 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Summary of Responses 4

Scale of Housing Provision and Housing Allocations. The overall target for housing provision has increased to 17,220 to reflect housing need as objectively assessed by the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) Update (January 2015), and the need to balance the level of housing with the proposed economic growth. Clarification is included that the housing target is for the Plan area and is a joint target for the two Districts.

One additional housing site is included in response to local representation at Buckland Brewer and a number have been amended due to changed circumstances. Sites at Ilfracombe and Combe Martin have been deleted. The plan is clarified to indicate that settlement housing provisions are a minimum not a target.

Scale of Employment Land Provision and Employment Allocations. The overall level of employment land has been reduced from 110 to 85.1 hectares in accordance with up to date evidence from the Employment Land Review. This amount will provide the level of jobs required for the anticipated growth in working population. A number of employment allocations have been reduced but provision retained in all settlements where previously provided.

Retail Centres. The retail centres policy and the role of District Centres is clarified. Roundswell (Barnstaple) is added as a District Centre. Reference to Local Retail Centres is deleted in favour of support for protection of locally important services and facilities in defined settlements and Rural Settlements.

Balanced Local Housing Market. Policy guidance redrafted for clarity in response to representations and to reflect changes in national guidance.

Affordable Housing. Policies amended for clarification and changed to respond to revised national guidance limiting the ability to seek affordable housing from small scale housing proposals.

Rural Settlements. The Plan clarifies the definition for 'Rural Settlements'. Within qualifying settlements changes enable affordable housing schemes and single dwellings for local occupancy, together with appropriate retail development.

Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation. Following completion of a draft Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment Report for a partnership of Devon authorities, amendment has been made to reflect the anticipated need for permanent gypsy and traveller accommodation over the Plan period.

New and Deleted Policies. One new Development Management Policy has been added to guide development for telecommunications development. Policies relating to Managing the Delivery of Housing (ST21) and Neighbourhood Planning (ST24) are deleted as both relate primarily to process and procedure not directly to land use.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 9 Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters 1: (Overarching, Introduction and Spatial Planning Vision)

Appendix 1: Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Overarching, Introduction and Spatial Planning Vision)

Draft North Devon and Torridge Local Plan Overarching Representations

Comments made in response to Draft North Devon and Torridge Local Plan

Total Number of Responses 24

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 6 7

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 3 13

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 10 4

Table 1.1

Summary of Issues

Comments on Draft North Devon and Torridge Local Plan plp number

No objection to the plan and proposed growth levels will be used in forthcoming 12 (SWW) SWW business plan submission.

General principles of plan are sound. 1501

Generally supportive of plan and welcomes references to CDA’s. Plan could 867 (EA) be strengthened demonstrating impacts of development on the Water Framework Directive.

The Plan is strongly supported due to its robust and holistic approach. In 82 particular, it has identified the high quality environment not just as a constraint but as an asset to help economic growth. Duty to co-operate has been met.

Happy that plan proposes to protect natural environment, promote tourism and 295 promote and enhance green space.

The plan is meaningless jargon and a waste of public money. 20

More reference to the seaward side of the plan which is highly relevant given 82 MNR and Biosphere Reserve.

Local Plan is contradictory particularly with regard to nature conservation vs 515 industrialisation of the estuary.

Policies should be responsive to local circumstances rather than constrain the 616 development that rural communities and businesses require.

Infrastructure requirements on all proposed development not been considered. 924

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters Appendix (Overarching, Introduction and Spatial Planning Vision) 1:

Inadequate commitment to protecting North Devon from inappropriately sited 1035 industrial development e.g. PV and Wind Turbines (around Bratton Fleming specifically).

Emphasis on the North Devon area noted. 1263 (BPC)

Capacity enhancements and infrastructure are required to support strategic 1368 (HA) growth and should be identified at Local Plan stage. Future allocations should be assessed in terms of impact on SRN and whether they comply with sustainable transport policies.

Plan not consistent with national policy. 1387

Welcome publication of document. Applaud that the Local Plan sets out very 1643, 1947, 1854, clearly the allocations for all main settlements. Local Plans should be as 1861 focussed, concise and accessible as possible.

Local Plan is not an effective tool as first intended. Opportunities to rationalise 1637 and amend to prevent duplication. Note repetition of national policy and repetition of strategic and development management policies.

Significant concern is raised in relation to a number of the allocations contained 1849 within the document and the expectations associated with delivery of such allocations, particularly with regard to the delivery of affordable housing.

Important that a telecommunications policy is in Local Plan. National guidance 2165 recognises this in section 5 of the NPPF.

Existing infrastructure cannot cope with more housing growth. 2610

Plan should be more forward thinking. Concern also raised that few of Bideford 2503, 770 Town Councils comments on the Consultation Draft have been acted upon or (Bideford TC) adopted in this version of the plan.

Many local authorities have not fully addressed requirements of NPPF. Plan 2583 should be based on robust evidence base.

Plan is highly detailed, overly prescriptive and restrictive in nature and offers 1589 insufficient flexibility. Increased flexibility of the Spatial Strategy and DM policies is required to enable delivery of sustainable development.

Table 1.2

Consideration of Issues Arising

1.1 A number of respondents welcomed the publication of the document and the significant amount of work gone into preparing the Local Plan. Conversely comment also suggests there is repetition and unnecessary duplication within the document. The points with regard to duplication is accepted; in preparing the Local Plan attention has been given to ensure there is clarity with regard to each policy area, which has resulted in some duplication considered necessary. This issue is not considered to raise a soundness challenge.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters 1: (Overarching, Introduction and Spatial Planning Vision)

1.2 It is also suggested that the Local Plan is meaningless jargon and a waste of public money. The Local Plan is a requirement of the National Planning Policy Framework, which sets out the scope of matters to be covered and the means by which the delivered strategy and polices are to be justified. The Local Plan is an important document that is technical in nature, which is required to provide clarity in decision making. In preparing the Local Plan consideration has however been given to the need for the document to be accessible to a wide range of users, including those from a non-technical background. This general comment is not considered to represent a soundness challenge.

1.3 South West Water and the Environment Agency have indicated general support for the Local Plan. The Environment Agency, while welcoming the level of work that has been undertaken to ensure that Critical Drainage Area requirements have been taken into account, seek amendment to demonstrate that the impacts of development on the Water Framework Directive (WFD) have been considered, including impacts of sewerage and industrial discharges and that SWW infrastructure will be able to cope with planned levels of development. Part (f) of Policy ST03: Adapting to Climate Change and Strengthening Resilience, already seeks the adoption of effective water management including water quality improvements. Additionally, Policy DM02: Environmental Protection provides for environmental protection including safeguards around the pollution of surface and ground water. It is however considered of value to add supporting text to Policies ST03 and DM02 to reference the Water Framework Directive and the need for development to ensure that water quality is not adversely impacted and opportunities for improvements are sought. With regard to SWW infrastructure, the District Councils have worked with SWW during plan preparation to ensure the extent of development is known, and to inform SWW’s Investment Plan. As noted above, SWW has not objected to the planned levels of growth.

1.4 Comment is made (plps 1387, 515, 2583 and 2165) that the Local Plan has not fully addressed the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework and is also contradictory with National Planning Practice Guidance in some places. The Local Plan has been prepared to be in general conformity with the National Planning Policy Framework, on which basis it will be tested through Examination. With regard to the suggested internal inconsistency, such is not considered to be evident. The comments are not regarded to represent a soundness challenge.

1.5 It is suggested that policies should be responsive to local circumstances rather than constrain development that rural communities and businesses require. One specific comment describes the plan in its current form as overly detailed and prescriptive. However, it is considered the Local Plan has been prepared in a way that allows a degree of flexibility and responsiveness to changing local requirements and needs. Local communities have been fully consulted on all elements of the Local Plan and local aspirations and preferences have been taken into account when developing town and rural strategies. The Local Plan also contains flexibility to address future housing and economic needs that are supported by evidence of needs where such cannot be accommodated though planned provision.

1.6 Additional reference to the seaward side of the Local Plan is sought. Full regard to the area’s maritime location is provided, significantly by Policy ST09: Coast and Estuary Strategy. The comment is noted but change to the Local Plan is not considered necessary with regard to soundness.

1.7 The Highways Agency state that capacity enhancements and infrastructure are required to support strategic growth and should be identified at the Local Plan stage. The point is noted; however the impact of the majority of development on the Strategic Road Network (SRN) will be limited by the distance of allocated sites and the areas that will be the focus for growth, from the SRN. Policy ST10: Transport Strategy, does however seek to secure good strategic connectedly, including ensuring the operational effectiveness of the SRN. The Highways Agency also considers that future allocations should be assessed in terms of impact on strategic road network and whether they comply with

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters Appendix (Overarching, Introduction and Spatial Planning Vision) 1:

sustainable transport policies. The point is noted; however the Highways Agency has not identified the need for improvement to SRN as a result of individual allocation on the basis of their distance from the SRN. It is worth noting that, working with , strategic highway improvements have been identified to accommodate growth within local highway network to address the impacts of growth, most significantly at junction points on A39 and A361. These are identified through the Infrastructure Delivery Plan. The comments provided by the Highways Agency are not regarded to represent a soundness challenge.

1.8 Comment suggests the Local Plan provides an inadequate commitment to protecting North Devon from inappropriately sited industrial development e.g. PV and Wind Turbines and would like the Local Plan to be more proactive and specific in protecting the area’s greatest asset –the unspoilt countryside. It is suggested that the frequent mention of ‘mitigation measures’ is a symptom of the inadequate commitment of the Local Plan to ensure the landscape is adequately protected. Reference is provided to a Written Ministerial Statement April 2014, which states that the need for renewable energy does not automatically override environmental protections and the planning concerns of local communities, which is sought as a reference within the Local Plan. Policy ST16: Delivering Renewable Energy and Heat (4) states that renewable and low carbon energy and heat generating development will be supported in landscape character types where: (a) landscape sensitivity is best able to accommodate them, (b) there is no significant impact on local amenities and (c) the special qualities of the nationally important landscape, biodiversity and heritage designations are conserved or enhanced. It is not accepted that the Local Plan gives inadequate protection to the natural environment, which is also provided through Policy ST14: Enhancing Environmental Assets. With regard to the quoted Ministerial Statement it is considered appropriate to provide a reference, as minor change, within the supporting text of Policy ST16 (specifically paragraph 6.27) for added clarity.

1.9 Respondents suggest that infrastructure requirements have not been fully considered during the plan preparation. All allocations have been considered with regard to delivery and the requirements that such might generate in respect of new or expanded infrastructure. Where significant site specific requirements have been identified, locationally defined requirements are included with in the allocation policies or spatial strategies. Where there is no need to prescribe the detail or location of infrastructure to be provided with the intended development, the general polices of the Local Plan will apply. The Local Plan recognises that the provision of housing is only one element of creating sustainable communities. It seeks to ensure a balance between the provision of new housing, affordable housing and the services, facilities and infrastructure required to accommodate its residents whilst ensuring that appropriate employment opportunities are delivered for the new residents. Residential development proposals will be expected to contribute to the timely provision of physical, social and green infrastructure made necessary by the specific and/or cumulative impact of those developments in line with the requirements of Policy ST23: Infrastructure.

1.10 A concern was raised that by allocating housing sites, affordable housing delivery would be limited to 30%, with no prospect of increased rates being secured. National planning policy supports the approach of requiring an element of affordable housing as part of proposals that seek to deliver open market housing. The application of Policy ST18: Affordable Housing on Development Sites will contribute to widening housing choice in northern Devon through the provision of affordable housing at a level of 30%. The threshold is an evidenced based position with regard to viability, which the Councils have sought to maximise having regard to the scale of affordable housing needs across northern Devon and infrastructure requirements funded by CIL. It should be noted that the affordable housing requirement of 30% would be applicable to all market housing developments, in addition to allocated sites, the requirement will be applicable to non- allocated deliverable sites and windfalls. Policy ST19: Affordable Housing on Exception will additionally provide for the delivery of affordable housing focused schemes where a local need has been demonstrated. The Councils will work positively

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters 1: (Overarching, Introduction and Spatial Planning Vision)

with partners such as Registered Providers to secure delivery of affordable housing on development sites. The comment is not considered to represent a soundness risk, no change to the Local Plan is recommended.

1.11 Bideford Town Council feel the Local Plan in respect of timescale is not long enough, to anticipate the long term growth needs of the town. The Local Plan time period is consistent with the NPPF (paragraph 157), which identifies 15 years as an appropriate timescale. The plan period additionally relates to the evidence prepared to support the Local Plan, to extend the period would impact on accuracy and delivery timescale. Comment is also provided that the representations submitted on the consultation Draft Local Plan (2013) have not adequately been taken into account, significantly that future growth should be located to provide a concentration of activity, based on a new allocation to the south of Clovelly Road with the deletion of the site subject to Policy BID01 and that employment opportunities should be a first priority with associated infrastructure improvements. All comments received in response to the Consultation Draft Local Plan were appropriately assessed and considered. In respect of the comments from the Town Council relating the location of growth and phasing of new housing and employment development, no change was made. The North Devon and Torridge Local Plan Consultation Statement sets out the analysis and consideration of all comments received to the consultation Local Plan. The Town Council has resubmitted all previously made comments, which are addressed at the appropriate consultation points in the Local Plan. The comment made as a general point to the Local Plan is not considered to represent a soundness risk, no change to the Local Plan is recommended.

1.12 Parish Council comments that there is an emphasis on the North Devon area in the Local Plan. This comment is noted but is considered inaccurate; the Local Plan deals comprehensively with both North Devon and Torridge. The issue raised is not considered to represent a soundness challenge.

Other Matters

1.13 It has been identified that a number of policies within the Publication Draft of the Plan currently contain provisions that indicated that proposals will be ‘permitted’ subject to meeting the criteria contained within the policy.

1.14 It is recognised that the wider policies of the Plan may also be applicable to individual proposals, in line with the intention that the Plan should be read as a whole. It is recognised that the use of the word ‘permitted’ within individual policies could infer that proposals should only look to respond to the provisions of that individual policy and not be considered in light of the wider policies contained within the Plan. This was never the intention and it is considered that the current wording could lead to practical implementation issues with the Plan.

1.15 The wording of many policies contained within the Plan already make use of ‘support’ / ‘supported’ in lieu of ‘permit’ / ‘permitted’. The use of ‘supported’ is considered to infer that the wider policies of the Plan may also be considered when determining the acceptability of a proposal. To this end, it is suggested that all policies are reviewed and amended to refer to ‘support’ / ‘supported’ rather than ‘permit’ / ‘permitted’.

Conclusion

1.16 The comments raised in response to the draft Local Plan are considered not to raise any major issues that would challenge the soundness of the Local Plan.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters Appendix (Overarching, Introduction and Spatial Planning Vision) 1:

Agreed Actions

1. It is agreed that, as a series of Main Changes to the Plan, the wording is amended from ‘permitted’ / ‘permit’ to ‘supported’ / ‘support’ in the following policies: 2. Policy ST09: Coast and Estuary Strategy;

a. Policy ST19: Affordable Housing on Exception Sites; b. Policy NOR05: Westward Ho! - Core Tourist Area; c. Policy DM09: Safeguarding Green Infrastructure; d. Policy DM12: Employment Development at Towns and Villages; e. Policy DM13: Safeguarding Employment Land; f. Policy DM14: Rural Economy; g. Policy DM16: Equine Development; h. Policy DM19: Town Centres; i. Policy DM21: Local and Rural Shops; j. Policy DM28: Rural Worker Accommodation; k. Policy DOL02: Land South of Village Hall; and l. any other Policy where similar wording is identified

2. The following are agreed as Minor Changes to the Local Plan in response to issues raised through consultation: a. reference Water Framework Directive within Policies ST03 and DM02; and b. reference to Ministerial Statement 9th April 2014 within paragraph 6.27 (Policy ST16). Chapter 1: Introduction

Introduction

Comments made in response to Introduction

Total Number of Responses 19

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 6 2

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 1 9

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 6 3

Table 1.3

Summary of Issues

Comments on Introduction plp number

Supports recognition of cross boundary issues through Duty to Co-operate. 2326 (ENPA)

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters 1: (Overarching, Introduction and Spatial Planning Vision)

Support for the identification of the evidence base comprising of Local Strategies 1267 (HA) and a number of technical studies relating to the area which have been used to assist in the drafting of the Plan to date. Important that evidence base is kept up to date.

The plan should have a monitoring and evaluating function to measure progress 2216 (para 1.1)

The plan describes the area of northern Devon comprising North Devon and 2611 Torridge. There is no lawfully created local government area as northern Devon

8 weeks is not long enough to read the plan and provide comments 177

Whilst much of the area is under the Biosphere Reserve the environmental quality 2217 of all the area should be protected and enhanced reflecting the NPPF (para 109)

Add ‘and estuaries’ after coastline 1102

The focus on challenges does not give enough credence to opportunities 2218

SHLAA comments should carry less weight than appeals, inspector and independent 229 wildlife and habitat surveys.

Sport England concerned at this stage of the Local Plan that the Council has yet 631 (SE) to establish a robust and up to date sport and recreation evidence base for sports facilities that will support the development of the Local Plan and CIL.

Include Devon Local Flood Risk Management Strategy 2014-2020 in list of Local 1251 (DCC) Strategies.

No reference to natural character assessments by Natural England. 2219

Explain what is meant by sustainable development. 367

Council has failed to consider reasonable alternatives and as such SA is flawed. 2069

Unable to locate Consultation Statement. 112

LEP needs to bear in mind risks of climate change. 230

Coastal and marine issues have not been explicitly mentioned. 2220

Site difficult to navigate and comments cannot be viewed once submitted. 478

Table 1.4

Consideration of Issues Arising

1.17 Supporting comments are provided including from National Park Authority, which are noted and welcomed.

1.18 Comments were made on the consultation process in relation to the navigability of the website and the point at which comments made were viewable through the website. Every effort was made to make the website easy to use and assistance was provided on request and in respect of uploading comments on to the website such was achieved as quickly as resources allowed. It was further

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters Appendix (Overarching, Introduction and Spatial Planning Vision) 1:

suggested that 8 weeks was not a long enough time to read the document and make comments. The consultation period was 6 weeks, as prescribed by Regulations. The Local Plan was made available through the website and at consultation points, the publication of and availability of which was advertised in the local press and all known interests were notified of the document’s availability and how to participate in the consultation process. Overall the number and range of representations received indicates the adequacy for accessibility and opportunities to comment on the Local Plan. The consultation process was undertaken in accordance with The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning)(England) Regulations 2012, no soundness or legal challenge is considered to result for the comments that are critical of the consultation process.

1.19 A concern was raised that “northern Devon” is not a lawfully created local government area and that North Devon Council is not authorised to prepare a Local Plan. The northern Devon area is defined in paragraph 1.2 of the Local Plan as comprising the districts of North Devon and Torridge but excluding parts of Exmoor National Park within North Devon. Both Councils have a statutory duty to prepare, monitor and review a Development Plan for their respective local planning authority areas. The Councils began work on a joint plan for northern Devon in 2006. Initially this took the form of a document called the Joint Core Strategy. However, since 2011 the planning system has undergone significant alterations to the legislative framework, including the Localism Act 2011 and its introduction of the Duty to Cooperate, the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 and the National Planning Practice Guidance 2014. This Local Plan will form the statutory development plan for both North Devon Council (the operating name of North Devon District Council) and Torridge District Council. For clarity on this matter, a minor modification is sought to move paragraph 1.7 to 1.2 and to add a footnote stating that North Devon Council is the operating name of North Devon District Council.

1.20 One respondent was unable to locate the Consultation Statement (plp 112). The consultation statement can be accessed on the Torridge website: http://www.torridge.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=10240 and is available with all the supporting documents that were published with the Local Plan on the consultation portal: http://consult.torridge.gov.uk/portal/planning/localplan/publication?tab=file. The comment is noted, but the material was available and published in a timely manner with the Local Plan when it was issued for consultation.

1.21 A respondent states the Local Plan should have a monitoring and evaluating function to allow for progress to be measured. A general overview of the Monitoring Framework for the Local Plan can be found in Chapter 11 (page 235). Monitoring is recognised as an important component of the planning system, providing an opportunity to review the success of the local planning authorities’ planning framework. The full Monitoring Framework including indicators and targets for all strategic objectives and polices can be found in Appendix 3 of the Local Plan. No change to the Local Plan is recommended in response to the comment made, no soundness challenge is considered to be raised.

1.22 The Highways Agency (plp 1267) welcome the identification of the evidence base comprising local strategies and a number of technical studies relating to the area which have been used to assist in the drafting of the Local Plan to date. They feel it is imperative that the Local Plan is evidence based in order to deliver logical and necessary development and that the evidence base is kept up to date in order to inform revisions to the Plan as necessary. The comment is noted, which raises no concerns regarding the adequacy of the Local Plan evidence base.

1.23 The omission of a definition of Sustainable Development is raised (plp 367). The term is referred to in paragraph 1.1, in Chapter 3 Sustainable Development and at numerous points throughout the Local Plan. The term is subject to a glossary definition, so it is not considered necessary to add further to the Local Plan in this respect. No change to the Local Plan is recommended in response to the comment made, no soundness challenge is considered to be raised.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters 1: (Overarching, Introduction and Spatial Planning Vision)

1.24 It is suggested that additional strategies, the Devon Local Flood Risk Management Strategy 2014-2020 (DCC) and Natural Character Assessments (Natural England) are added at Paragraph 1.12. It is made clear that the named strategies do not represent a complete list, so it is not considered necessary to add the referenced documents with regard to soundness. However, as relevant documents within the evidence base they could still be added to paragraph 1.12.

1.25 A respondent (plp 2217) comments in relation to paragraph 1.3, that whilst much of the area is in the Biosphere Reserve, the environmental quality of all the area should be protected and enhanced reflecting the NPPF. The protection and enhancement of the area’s valued environmental assets are addressed in Policy ST14. However, to provide consistency in referencing the Local Plan’s objectives a change of a minor nature is proposed. It is recommended that paragraph 1.3 is amended to read ‘The Local Plan also seeks to support the world class environment of northern Devon, particularly the Biosphere Reserve and to protect and enhance valued environmental assets, including the undeveloped coastline. The balance of the sentence “which are vital components of the area’s attractiveness to investment and prosperity’ is poorly constructed and considered unnecessary in the context of the objectives to which the paragraph relates, its deletion is recommended.

1.26 Respondent (plp 1102) would like to see the words ‘and estuaries’ added after “coastline” in paragraph 1.3. This comment is accepted having regard to the terminology used in Policy ST09: Coast and Estuary Strategy, which refers at point (7) to the “undeveloped coast and estuary…”. A minor change is sought in the interest of consistency through the addition of ‘and estuaries’ to paragraph 1.3.

1.27 Sport England are concerned that the Council has yet to establish a robust and up to date sport and recreation evidence base for sports facilities that will support the development of the Local Plan. The Councils consider that the evidence base used in preparation of the Local Plan, which principally (in relation to sport and recreation) comprises the 2010 Playing Pitch Strategy and the 2013 Green Infrastructure Strategy, is considered adequate and appropriate. The comment is noted, which is considered to raise no concerns regarding the adequacy of the Local Plan evidence base.

1.28 Comment is made that SHLAA panel observations should carry less weight than appeal decisions and independent wildlife and habitat surveys. It is suggested that the SHLAA Panel does not reflect wider community views. The Local Plan is based on a wide range of evidence, the SHLAA forms only part of the evidence base; it is a technical document which is used to guide decision making, it is not a policy document. The weight given to different evidence base documents is not specified within the plan. The SHLAA Panel comprises a range of interests and stakeholders, and necessarily representatives from the development industry. The North Devon and Torridge SHLAA is considered to be robust, based on a clear methodology which is reflective of guidance. No change to the Local Plan is recommended in response to the comment made, which is considered not to represent a soundness challenge.

1.29 Respondent seeks reassurance that the Local Enterprise Partnership (paragraph 1.16- 1.18) considers the risks of climate change and environmental damage in its role as a lead influence in the economy of the area. The LEP supports economic growth in Devon, Somerset, Plymouth and Torbay by job creation, improving productivity and increasing earnings. The LEP has produced a number of documents that form the basis for making funding decisions for the area which highlight their priority and commitment to environmental protection and particularly low carbon economies. The manner in which the LEP consider climate change is however outside the scope of the Local Plan. The views of the LEP will be taken onto account, together with other influences that will include climate change.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters Appendix (Overarching, Introduction and Spatial Planning Vision) 1:

1.30 Comment raised on how the authorities have dealt with the coastal and marine issues that impact upon the plan area as part of the Duty to Co-operate. The basis for the concern is not expressed; the Council’s consider that marine and coastal issues are adequately dealt with in Policy ST09: Coast and Estuary Strategy. With regard to the Duty to Co-operate, the Marine Management Organisation has been engaged with as part of the plan preparation process. This is referenced within the Duty to Co-operate Statement which can be found on both the North Devon and Torridge District Council websites.

1.31 Comment is made that in preparing the Local Plan there has been a failure to consider reasonable alternative strategies effectively and that the Sustainability Appraisal is flawed. The Council maintain that the strategy for northern Devon has been achieved as a result of an appropriate consideration of alternative approaches, supported by evidence, community engagement and Sustainability Appraisal. A demonstration of considered alternatives, consultation outcomes and evidence in support of the proposed strategy was set out in the draft Local Plan published in January 2013 together with rejected options for each of the main policy areas site proposals for all the main towns. Alternative strategies have been assessed (and rejected) as part of the plan preparation process.

Other Matters

1.32 A minor correction is sought with regard to the consultation date stated in paragraph 1.14 in relation to the Publication Local Plan.

Conclusion

1.33 The comments raised in response to the Introduction are considered not to raise any major issues that would challenge the soundness of the Local Plan.

Agreed Actions

1. The following are agreed as Minor Changes to the Local Plan: a. change publication date of Local Plan in paragraph 1.14 from May – June 2014 to June – August 2014; b. Devon Local Flood Risk Management Strategy 2014-2020 (DCC) and Natural Character Assessments (Natural England) are added at Paragraph 1.12; c. paragraph 1.3 is amended to read ‘The Local Plan also seeks to support the world class environment of northern Devon, particularly the Biosphere Reserve and to protect and enhance valued environmental assets, including the undeveloped coastline and estuaries; d. the balance of the sentence in paragraph 2.3 ‘vital components of the area’s attractiveness to investment and prosperity’ is poorly constructed and considered unnecessary in the context of the objectives to which the paragraph relates, its deletion is recommended; e. that the definition of the operating name for North Devon District Council be added as a footnote and to the Glossary; and f. integrate paragraph 1.7 into paragraph 1.2. Chapter 2: Spatial Planning Vision

Comments made in response to Spatial Planning Vision

Total Number of Responses 63

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters 1: (Overarching, Introduction and Spatial Planning Vision)

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 1 16

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 0 20

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 3 10

Table 1.5

Summary of Issues

Comments on Spatial Planning Vision plp number

Support for the Spatial Planning Vision. 960

Support for overarching principle underpinning the Local Plan, to contribute to 1271 (HA) the achievement of sustainable development. Agency keen to ensure delivery of infrastructure, homes and jobs is done in a sustainable manner and that impacts on SRN are minimised.

Support for the overall principles of identifying the delivery of a balanced housing 1515 market as a Strategic Aim (3). Fundamental to ensure Local Plan makes sufficient provision for housing over plan period.

Support for the Councils recognition of a need for a range of housing options 1640 to be delivered over plan period and the separate identification of affordable, specialist and rural housing need.

Support Local Plan Vision, particularly aspects relative to Bideford. 1941

Supports reference to Exmoor National Park in paragraph 2.8 of portrait. 2329 (ENP)

Unnecessary repetition – Spatial Portrait would suffice to define area without 1648, 1720 need for descriptive material elsewhere in the Local Plan.

Local Plan is considered unsound in not incorporating an overall assessment 2186 of the infrastructure required to support proposed housing numbers. Given the housing numbers planned, the sheer effect of the resulting population increase will render unachievable other aims of the plan e.g. to protect beauty and tranquillity.

Need to be more sustainable through encouraging use of public transport, 232 reopening railway, bike use etc.

Plan should address the 3 dimensions of sustainable development as set out 360 in paragraph 7 of the NPPF.

paragraph 2.21 C - infrastructure needs clarification – does it include flood 868 (EA) defences? Support for sub paragraph (j) and (g) and the objectives of Aim 2.

Deliverability of housing sites is key particularly the Instow proposal 364

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters Appendix (Overarching, Introduction and Spatial Planning Vision) 1:

Without improvement to the Link Road, intentions are not viable. HGV’s make 1690 the road a 2 speed highway, unsuitable for normal circulation.

Correct employment land publication date to April 2014 (footnote 5) 802, 1396, 803, 1398, 804, 1401

Increase in jobs to accompany housing is not substantiated. 1437

North Devon business can only compete where some natural advantage exists; 1693 otherwise higher costs result in competitive disadvantage.

Note that fishing and agriculture don’t have a high profile within economy element 1765 even though they are sustainable with high values. Consider that plan is based on delivery of housing and retail.

Tourism as a key employment generator should be mentioned. 2221

Tourism is neglected. Innovation in this sector should be encouraged. 1696

Consequences of demographic change not fully evaluated, facility requirements 1698 of the elderly and dying need to be considered.

Given the stated need for housing for older age groups, the quantity of 2/3 2185 bedroom houses planned for is queried. One beds more appropriate = less acreage of land. The plan is unsound in allocating too much development land.

Concur that there is severe shortage of affordable housing but reducing overall 2620 housing requirement will not meet this need for affordable housing. Twin aims of meeting affordable housing needs and constraining growth to politically palatable levels do not go well together.

Neither the Vision or economy section gives any indication of where those jobs 1410 will come from.

Table 2.1 is out of date – reflect sub national population projections ONS 2012. 781 Implications for type and number of dwellings required.

Table 2.1 – use of percentage figures rather than absolute can be misleading. 1789 Projected increase in population within upper 3 brackets has a direct impact on need for smaller homes.

Table 2.1 – source of figures should be highlighted. 2608

The need to provide for changing patterns of housing formation is acknowledged. 362 Sites are required to be made available within or adjoining sustainable locations e.g. Instow (para 2.15).

Affordability will not be a problem for the over 65 bands which will be 958 predominantly bungalows for people downsizing. (para 2.15)

Welcome para 2.15 but does not translate into policy. (para 2.15 1649

Situation outlined in para 2.15 will remain unchanged and Local Plan already 2437 proven to be ineffective due to NPPF constraints.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters 1: (Overarching, Introduction and Spatial Planning Vision)

Simplify text. 2623

Second home ownership can have a negative impact on villages where there 287 is a high percentage of them. Solution needs to be found.

Consider a consequence of the housing position set out in 2.16 should be 1723 provision of purpose built holiday/second home accommodation but do not see this supported through the plan which is considered to be a shortcoming.

Devon should be energy self sufficient to reduce costs. Should also have better 292 public transport facilities to enable better mobility.

Clarification is needed over the term ‘difficult to overcome’ 289

Flexibility is required in identifying additional housing sites, better to have a 363 greater number of sustainably located smaller sites. Failure to deliver full objectively assessed housing need will result in the plan not meeting one of its primary objectives.

Point C of Aim 3 does not accord with Government policy with regard to making 907 the best use of existing structures in the countryside to meet housing need. If LPA want to impose a sustainability test on a location then it should specify what the test is or remove this from the Local Plan.

Support (i) and (j) 1104

Welcome Aim 2 but it appears to be an afterthought. Aim for historic environment 1137 should be a separate objective.

Region lagging behind in superfast broadband 1411

2.21 could apply almost anywhere. Lack sharpness with regard to particular 1652, 1724, issues pertinent to the Torridge and North Devon areas. 1963, 1869

Support for the analysis which summarises key challenges facing Northern 1942, 2200, 2197 Devon and how they will be addressed (listed).

In relation to Aim 1 c there needs to be adverse social or community impacts 2222 inserted.

In relation to Aim 1 g add more explicit recognition of the value of agriculture 2222 for local, national and international food production.

Amend Aim 2 as follows ‘A world class environment – where important assets 2224 are valued, conserved and enhanced to deliver multiple economic and social benefits for present and future generations’

In relation to Aim 3 it is unclear if all rural housing need will be met in sustainable 2225 locations which would be hostage to fortune.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters Appendix (Overarching, Introduction and Spatial Planning Vision) 1:

Allowing housing that is predominantly 3 and 4 bed will stifle the economy and 2438 put more strain on the health and care sectors because it attracts an ageing population. Good agricultural land should not be used for building as it conflicts with Governments environmental and food sustainability policies. Larkbear proposal contradicts aims.

Questions the focus on ‘challenges’ and feels that not enough credence is given 2218 to opportunities within the Local Plan

Re-assess the population forecast based on census data and historical trend 718 (PC) and present a viable, costed infrastructure plan upon which a development strategy can then be based rather than merely identifying possible development sites with no plausible means of infrastructure support.

Table 1.6

Additional Information

1.34 The 2012 Population Projections have been released by the Office for National Statistics. It is considered appropriate to update Table 2.1 which currently provides population information for northern Devon based on 2010 population projections.

Consideration of Issues Arising

1.35 General support was received for the Spatial Vision with regard to: Bideford, the underpinning principle of sustainable development and the approach towards housing delivery to meet a range of needs. The Highways Agency in offering support for the overarching strategy, commented that the Local Plan should adopt an approach that would minimise the impact on the Strategic Road Network (SRN). The point is noted; however the impact of the majority of development on the SRN will be limited by the distance of allocated sites and the areas that will be the focus for growth from the SRN (M5 and A30). Furthermore, Policy ST10: Transport Strategy seeks to secure good strategic connectedly, including ensuring the operational effectiveness of the SRN. The comment provided by the Highway Agency is not considered to represent a soundness challenge.

1.36 In seeking to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, it is suggested that the Local Plan should address the three dimensions of sustainable development as set out in Paragraph 7 of the NPPF. In particular, the Local Plan should support strong, vibrant and healthy communities by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations. Chapter 3 of the Local Plan clearly sets out these principles and roles, directly reflecting the NPPF. To achieve sustainable development, economic, social and environmental gains will be sought jointly and concurrently wherever possible. The Local Plan seeks to guide development to achieve sustainable solutions, supported by the Spatial Planning Vision and Strategic Aims that are set out in Chapter 2.

1.37 Further comment suggests the Local Plan should encourage public transport use, car sharing, re-opening of local railway lines and bike use. The use and delivery of sustainable transport modes is addressed through Policy ST10: Transport Strategy, which also provides for exploring opportunities for the reuse of and reinstatement of former railway lines. The sustainability credentials of the Local Plan are questioned on the basis that the planned scale of development will result in an increase in traffic and consequently congestion, pollution, a rise in greenhouse gases and destruction of green spaces and wildlife. The level of housing and employment is determined on the basis of evidence, which must be provided to meet assessed needs and demands. The consequences of development

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters 1: (Overarching, Introduction and Spatial Planning Vision)

will be addressed by the strategic and development management policies of the Local Plan. Policies ST01: Principles of Sustainable Development, ST02: Mitigating the impact on Climate Change as well as ST03: Adapting to Climate Change and Strengthening Resilience provide strategic guidance to help deliver sustainable development within northern Devon whilst Policy ST10: Transport Strategy (3) aims to reduce the environmental and social impacts of transport specifically by: improving transport connectivity between rural communities and the main towns, developing traffic management schemes and reducing the need to travel by car by enabling alternative sustainable travel options. No further amendments are required.

SPATIAL PORTRAIT

1.38 Exmoor National Park Authority supports the reference to the National Park within the Spatial Portrait. The Spatial Portrait is considered succinct and to the point (plp 1648 and 1720) but there is repetition of descriptive facts elsewhere in the document which is considered unnecessary. The comments are noted, however it is considered necessary to provide some background to each policy area which has resulted in some duplication of key facts. Simplification of the Local Plan to make it more accessible to the general public (plp 2623) is suggested. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) guides the content of the Local Plan and this inevitably results in a technically based document. The Councils have endeavoured to prepare the Local Plan that is fit for purpose and accessible to all intended users.

1.39 In paragraph 2.7 of the Spatial Portrait, northern Devon’s current road network is set out with particular reference to the North Devon Link Road. A respondent (plp 1690) feels that without significant improvement to the Link Road, the aims set out in the Local Plan will not be achievable. Policy ST10: Transport Strategy seeks to provide good strategic connectivity by ensuring the operational effectiveness of the A361 (Link Road) and A30, as well as other main routes such as the A39. The Local Plan also makes it clear that Junction 27 of the M5 is important to the economy of northern Devon and junction improvements will be supported to deliver proposed growth. In order to address transport and accessibility issues, the Local Plan aims to reduce the need to travel in northern Devon and to promote sustainable transport choices to ensure good accessibility to services. North Devon and Torridge will continue to work with Devon County Council as the Local Highway Authority and the Highways Agency as necessary to ensure highway improvements to the local and strategic network can be delivered to address the consequences of growth. With regard to public transport in the rural area, there must be realism as to the prospect for improvement; limited public transport services, low population density and a dispersed settlement pattern will mean that car dependency will continue.

1.40 The Spatial Portrait describes the economy of the area. Comment (plp 1693) has been made to suggest that North Devon businesses can only compete in those sectors where some natural advantage exists and that the economic profile of the area is indicative of its economic weakness. The comment is noted; the contribution that the area’s natural assets can make to economic growth and prosperity is recognised. The Local Plan does however provide a framework for economic growth reflecting the Northern Devon Economic Strategy, which seeks improvement of economic opportunities across existing and new employment sectors.

1.41 Comment is made (plp 1696 and 2221) that little regard has been given to the value of tourism. The importance of supporting and developing sustainable tourism is recognised. The Spatial Portrait states (paragraph 2.12) that leisure and tourism related sectors are important parts of the economy. The comment is noted but is not considered to represent a soundness challenge.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters Appendix (Overarching, Introduction and Spatial Planning Vision) 1:

1.42 A respondent feels there is an admission within the Spatial Portrait that tourism and retirement will continue to be the area’s principal economic drivers for the lifetime of the Plan; with no vision of how the economy might be developed in other ways. Strategic Aim 1- A Vibrant Northern Devon Economy clearly states how the economy is envisaged to grow which is supported at a strategic level by Policy ST11: Delivering Employment and Development. Development Management policies that specifically cover the economy (DM12, DM13 and DM14) will enable employment development where it is considered appropriate and sustainable and also diversification of the rural economy. The comment is noted but is not considered to represent a soundness challenge.

1.43 Affordable housing is discussed in paragraph 2.16 and it is acknowledged that there is severe shortage of affordable housing in the plan area. National planning policy supports the approach of requiring an element of affordable housing as part of proposals that seek to deliver open market housing, with the recognition of maintaining scheme viability. Policy ST18: Affordable Housing on Development Sites required all new residential development that provides a net gain in open market housing will contribute towards the provision of affordable housing either through physical provision or financial contributions at a level of 30%. Policy ST19: Affordable Housing on Exception Sites also enables the exceptional release of land that would not normally be allowed for open market housing to provide affordable housing.

1.44 A solution to the housing situation set out in paragraph 2.16 is suggested to be purpose built holiday/second home accommodation; the absence of development being enabled on such a basis is suggested to be a shortcoming within the Local Plan. A contrary comment is however provided that suggests second home ownership negatively impacts the local housing market. Policy DM18: Tourism Accommodation allows for the expansion and development of tourism accommodation. With regard to second homes, it is recognised that such has an impact on housing need and thus it is an identified consideration in evaluating objectively assessed housing need and demands. The 2014 SHMA includes an estimated demand adjusted for second homes within the overall objectively assessed need for housing. The Local Plan does not contain policy on second home ownership; such is a matter outside the scope of the Plan. The comments made in response to the Spatial Portrait are not considered to raise a soundness challenge.

KEY CHALLENGES

1.45 A respondent (plp 2218) questions the focus on ‘challenges’ and feels that not enough weight is given to opportunities within the Local Plan. It is appropriate that the challenges which face the area are highlighted, as such provide the context for the Vision, strategic aims and objectives of the Local Plan. No change to the Local Plan is recommended in response to the comment made, no soundness challenge is considered to be raised.

1.46 Support was received for the summary of key challenges facing northern Devon and how they will be addressed in the Local Plan (plp 1942, 2197 and 1104). The supporting comments relate to the need to: retain and enhance the service centre role of northern Devon’s main towns; make existing settlements more sustainable; increase the availability of affordable housing; manage existing infrastructure and the timely provision of new infrastructure; and protect the high quality natural environment. The comments are noted and welcomed.

1.47 The Environment Agency suggests “infrastructure” in paragraph 2.21 needs clarification; does it include flood defences? The term infrastructure is defined in the glossary as ‘a collective term for services such as roads, electricity, sewerage, water, schools, health facilities and types of green infrastructure’. It is considered justified to include flood defences within this description; an amendment to the Glossary is therefore recommended.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters 1: (Overarching, Introduction and Spatial Planning Vision)

1.48 Comment is made that flexibility is required in identifying additional housing sites on that basis that it would be better to have a greater number of sustainably located smaller sites. A range of housing sites are allocated and defined across the Local Plan and many further small sites will come forward on the basis of current commitments and future windfall sites. It is accepted that small sustainably located sites will make an important contribution to the housing supply to meet assessed needs and demands. Comment is made that failure to deliver full objectively assessed housing need will result in the plan not meeting one of its primary objectives. This point is accepted, but the Local Plan does provide for the evidenced level of housing needs. Overall housing needs will be reviewed on the basis of the latest evidence of housing need. The comment is noted but is not regarded to raise a soundness challenge.

1.49 Clarification of the consequences of the term ‘difficult to overcome' in paragraph 2.20 is sought (plp 289). The paragraph states that both Councils are working together to create a vibrant partnership providing a strong voice in the county. The Councils are raising the profile of the area, building on the investment to open up sites and helping to remove barriers to growth that in the past have been difficult to overcome. The respondent is concerned that such an approach would provide developers with freedom to build; this is not the intent of the reference. The perceived barriers relate to attracting investment to northern Devon and delivering key infrastructure. The Councils through the Local Plan provide a positive development framework, which includes clear guidance as to the location and form of development that will be acceptable. This comment is not regarded to raise a soundness challenge.

1.50 A comment (plp 1411) suggests that the region is still lagging behind in the provision of the current ‘super-fast’ broadband technology. The provision of superfast broadband in the area is beyond the scope of the Local Plan with regard to delivery although the Connecting Devon and Somerset project funded by BDUK and BT is already being delivered and proposes 100% broadband coverage and 90% superfast broadband coverage by 2017. It is recognised however that superfast broadband is key to achieving economic growth particularly in the rural areas and its timely delivery is encouraged, as set out in paragraph 5.17. The comment is noted, no soundness challenge is considered to be raised.

1.51 A respondent seeks an amendment from ‘well paid’ in relation to jobs, to ‘appropriately paid’ at point (e) having regard to the nature of the area’s rural economy with a dependence on generally lower skilled jobs. It is recognised that northern Devon has poor earnings levels, much of which is reflective of the nature of local businesses with regard to the scale and sector of operation. The aspiration for improvement is however clearly set out in the Northern Devon Economic Strategy (2014-2020), with the included priorities of: investment in activity to ensure an appropriately skilled workforce, stimulating business growth through support for enterprise, innovation and investment and maximising opportunities in growth sectors relating to advanced manufacturing, marine and business services. Having regard to this aspiration it is considered appropriate to maintain the reference to well paid jobs. No soundness challenge is considered to be raised by this comment.

MATTERS OF CORRECTION

1.52 A matter of correction is raised (plp 802, 1396, 803, 1398, 804, and 1401) with regard to the publication date of the Employment Land Review. Comments are noted and a minor amendment is sought to correct the publication date to April 2014 in footnote 5.

1.53 It is suggested that Table 2.1 should reflect the updated 2012 sub national population projections from the Office of National Statistics, providing an update to the current use of 2010 projections as stated in the document. It is considered appropriate update the population information to that which is the most recent available. It is further suggested that absolute figures rather than percentages

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters Appendix (Overarching, Introduction and Spatial Planning Vision) 1:

should be used within the Table 2.1; both absolute figures and percentages are used, with absolute figure provided to indicate the projected change across age cohorts over the plan period. No change is considered necessary in response to this comment.

LOCAL PLAN AIMS

1.54 General support for the Local Plan Aims was provided from a number of respondents. Further comments however suggested the aims were of a generic nature and could apply almost anywhere and that they lack specific focus on the northern Devon area (plp 1652, 1653, 1724 and 1869). The comment in criticism of the aims is not accepted; the stated aims are reflective of and relevant to northern Devon, but by their nature will also relate to other areas where of a more general nature. The comments raised are not regarded to represent a soundness challenge.

Aim 1

1.55 In relation to Aim 1 (c), a respondent (plp 2222) suggests ‘social’ is inserted into the objective. The comment is considered justified having regard to the scope of considerations to achieve sustainable development. Amendment is recommended to read ‘economic development in urban and rural areas shall regenerate and diversify the local economy without adverse environmental and social impacts to create high quality employment environments’.

1.56 In relation to Aim 1 (g) a more explicit recognition of the value of agriculture for local, national and international food production is sought. Whilst the comment is noted, it is not considered a necessary amendment; the objective recognises the value of the agriculture sector and provides support for its enhancement.

1.57 It is suggested that fishing and agriculture don’t have a high profile within Aim 1 even though they are sustainable with high values and that the Local Plan is based on housing and retail. The Local Plan must provide for objectively assessed needs relating to housing and the economy (including retail) on which basis it is accepted there is a focus on addressing this requirement, but such is provided within a wider context of delivering sustainable development. Agriculture is explicitly mentioned in criterion (g) of Aim 1 and the comment does not raise any issues of soundness.

1.58 In allowing predominantly 3 and 4 bed housing, it is suggested (plp 2438) that the economy will be stifled and that health and care sectors will be subject to increased demands, as such housing will attract inward migration from the more elderly age groups. The Local Plan seeks to deliver housing to meet all housing needs and plans for growth from both existing and new residents. In providing to meet objectively assessed needs and demands, a range of accommodation will be sought, as in Aim 3. Policy ST17 aims to ensure a balanced local housing market is achieved by delivering an appropriate mix of dwelling sizes, types and tenures to reflect identified housing needs of the community.

Aim 2

1.59 Support is provided with regard to Aim 2, but it is suggested that it is an afterthought and that there should be a separate Aim for the historic environment. The area’s “distinctive heritage” is referenced within Aim 2, Objective b, the value of the historic assets are considered to be adequate covered. No change to the Local Plan is considered necessary in response to this comment.

1.60 Revision to Aim 2 is proposed: ‘A world class environment – where important assets are valued, conserved and enhanced to deliver multiple economic and social benefits for present and future generations’. The suggested amendment is not considered to be necessary with regard to soundness, the overall Aim is to value and enhance important environmental assets for future generation; such an approach does not require related economic and social benefits. Economic and

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters 1: (Overarching, Introduction and Spatial Planning Vision)

social Aims are covered by Aims 1 and 4. The Aim, together with the related Policy ST14: Enhancing Environmental Assets is considered to be consistent with the NPPF (paragraph 114). No change to the Local Plan is considered necessary in response to this comment.

Aim 3

1.61 In relation to Aim 3 the Objective(c)of Aim 3 - A Balanced Local Housing Market, a question is raised whether housing needs for all localities will be met in sustainable locations? The Local Plan seeks to deliver sustainable development, as guided by the NPPF. In planning to meet future housing needs, allocated sites are provided for in defined settlements, which have been assessed to represent sustainable locations by the presence or accessibility to services and facilities. It is suggested that Point (c) of Aim 3 does not accord with Government policy with regard to making the best use of existing structures in the countryside to meet housing need. In addition to meeting housing need through extant planning permissions, allocated and defined sites, the Local Plan provides for housing to come forward through rural building conversions, but no allowance is made on such a basis with regard to a land supply contribution. Enabled development through rural building reuse will represent a windfall, which cannot be relied upon, and thus be in addition to the planned level of growth. Policy DM27: Reuse of Rural Buildings is relevant; it provides support for the reuse of redundant or disused rural buildings for a range of uses including housing. The comment is not considered to result in a soundness challenge.

1.62 Comment (plp 364) is made with regard to the deliverability of housing sites. All housing sites that contribute to meeting objectively assessed needs and demands have been assessed as suitable and available for development through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. The comment is noted, it is not considered to raise a soundness challenge.

1.63 Support is provided (plp 1640) for the aim of meeting a range of housing needs. It is recognised that in providing a supply of housing to meet assessed needs and demands, such relates to the type and tenure of housing not only the overall quantum. The comment is noted and welcomed.

OTHER GENERAL COMMENTS

1.64 Comment suggests (plp 2186) the Local Plan is unsound by not incorporating an overall assessment of the infrastructure required to support proposed housing numbers. Instead it is felt infrastructure is left to developers at the time of planning applications. The Local Plan is clear in requiring timely delivery of infrastructure to support development, as directed by Policy ST23: Infrastructure. Infrastructure requirements are set out throughout the Local Plan in respect of general requirements and identified in allocating policies where site specific requirements will be generated. The Infrastructure Delivery Plan, published in June 2014 prioritises strategic infrastructure requirements in northern Devon over the plan period, how and by whom they will be delivered. It will help to focus resources to where they are most needed and inform negotiations with developers. No change to the Local Plan is recommended in response this comment, no soundness risk is considered to be raised.

1.65 It is suggested (plp 1437) that the increase in employment to accompany housing is not substantiated. The overall scale of housing is provided to meet objectively assessed needs and demands together with a positive economic strategy, which is evidenced in the Housing and Employment Study (GL Hearn 2014). The Study is clear in that to maintain existing employment levels 11,200 dwellings are required. The level of employment provision is derived from the Housing and Employment Study, which provides for an economic land requirement of 60 hectares for B1, 2 and 8 uses plus sui-generis uses. Allocations beyond the evidenced 60 hectares are considered necessary to accommodate the extended range of economic uses not included within the Housing and Employment Study. It is however recognised that the scale of allocated employment land, provided

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters Appendix (Overarching, Introduction and Spatial Planning Vision) 1:

for by ST08: Scale and Distribution of New Development in Northern Devon, at 110.4 is excessive with regard to the level of housing provided for at about 16,800. It is recognised that to support economic development of over 110 hectares would require a significant additional quantum of housing to be allocated. Further advice from GL Hearn based on the work undertaken to produce the referenced Housing and Employment Study suggests the maximum employment land allocation to meet the full range of economic uses would be in the range of 70-75 hectares. It must be acknowledged that the Local Plan currently has an imbalance of housing and employment land provisions; it is recommended that employment allocations are critically reviewed to achieve an improved relationship between planned housing and employment growth. Maintaining the scale of employment without increasing housing levels would result in a significant soundness risk.

Other Matters

1.66 The current population of northern Devon is given as 157,000 people in paragraph 2.3 (2011 census) which is inconsistent with total of 158,300 in Table 2.11 (sub-national population projections, ONS 2010)

Conclusion

1.67 The comments raised in response to the Spatial Vision are considered not to raise any major issues that would challenge the soundness of the Local Plan.

Agreed Actions

1. Review the relationship between planned levels of housing and employment growth through the consideration of Policy ST08: Scale and Distribution of New Development. 2. The following are agreed as Minor Changes in response to the issues raised through consultation: a. to include flood defences within the glossary description of infrastructure; b. amend paragraph 2.21 (c) to reference increasingly the supply of housing supply of accommodation for an increasingly aging population; c. correct the publication date to April 2014 in footnote 5; d. update Table 2.1 to reflect updated population projections (2012); e. update population in paragraph 2.3 to reflect updated population projections (2012); and f. amend Aim 1c to read ‘economic development in urban and rural areas shall regenerate and diversify the local economy without adverse environmental and social impacts to create high quality employment environments’.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Appendix 2: Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Strategic Policies)

Chapter 3: Sustainable Development Policy ST01: Principles of Sustainable Development

Comments made in response to Policy ST01 Principles of Sustainable Development

Total Number of Responses 30

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 5 5

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 4 5

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 4 2

Table 2.1

Summary of Issues

Policy is considered to adequately reflect the presumption in favour of sustainable 875, 374, 518, development as set out in NPPF and is fully supported. 1403,2301,

2460,1002

Support for reference to NPPF. Within the NPPF it is clear that flood risk is one 869 (EA) policy issue that may restrict development.

Highways Agency supports the principles set out in policy ST01 in line with the 1272 (HA) NPPF. As part of development being considered sustainable, there should be no adverse impacts on SRN and development proposals should provide an evidence base to illustrate this in the form of a robust TA/TP.

Support principles of sustainable Development as set out in 3.1 in particular need 365 to provide a supply of housing required to meet needs of present and future generations.

Policy unnecessary as repeats NPPF. 1653, 1725, 1964, 1870

Part 2 should be amended from ‘this local plan’ to ‘the local plan and accompanying 1641 documents’ to ensure the policy reflects future local plan documents and SPD’s.

Support but clarification and a clearer alignment with the NPPF is sought. Criterion 1944 1 supported.

Criterion 2 repeats aspects of planning law. It does not relate to policy and is 1945, 2241 considered superfluous.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Concerns regarding criterion 3 which modifies the NPPF paragraph 14 and the 1946, expression of the presumption in favour of sustainable development as it applies to decision making instances.

Criterion 3 misinterprets NPPF Paragraph 14 by referring to material considerations 2243 and planning practice guidance. Clarification is sought. The policy needs to be recast to reflect clearly and properly the aims of the NPPF paragraph 14 and its presumption in favour of sustainable development.

Amend 3.1 (ii) an economic role to ‘ensuring that where developed land cannot 1706 be put back into use, sufficient land’ of the appropriate type is available in suitable locations and at the right time to support growth and innovation.

Growth previously restricted to land in development boundaries. Presumption in 1903 favour of development is in conflict with past policies. Integration of SA and general sustainability should be clearly specified.

Local Plan is non compliant with respect to NPPF. There has been little evidence 670 or none at all, of any consideration – or rejection- of brownfield sites.

Policy is not inclusive. It excludes villages and rural settlements that require growth 525, 865,1481 to make the area sustainable. Non compliant with para 28 pf NPPF.

Evidence indicates mitigating climate change will not be effective, the emphasis 113 must be on adaption. Delete mitigating and delete ‘moving towards a low carbon economy’.

Local Plan will not be able to fulfil its economic, social and environmental role when 191 it is developing greenfield sites around Northam and Westward Ho!’

Under environmental role include the protection of wildlife habitats including mature 239 tree’s, hedging, marshes and woodland and mitigation of any loss including extra native planning, bird and bat boxes on site or somewhere else so there is no net loss. These need to be mentioned or it won’t be sustainable.

Add the following point to An environmental role iv. The identification of how 2226 environmental assets can support economic development and quality of life.

Local Plan is not sustainable as it will cause more cars on the road which in turn 258 will cause pollution. There will also be the destruction of greenfields and creation of more hard surfaces. New housing estates need to be built around community centres, allotments and shops. New houses need to be built on brownfield land within cities which have a better infrastructure.

The plan is unsound because it doesn’t offer a coherent strategy for protecting the 2187 biosphere through the planning system.

Table 2.2

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.1 Several respondents including the Highways Agency and Environment Agency gave their support for the principles of sustainable development as set out in the Local Plan and provided for in the NPPF (plps 365, 374, 1518, 1403, 875, 2301, 869, 1002, 2460, and 1272). Two further

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

respondents gave support to the policy but sought clearer alignment to the NPPF (plps 1944 and 2241). Comment also suggested the policy is unnecessary based on duplication with the NPPF (plps 1653, 1725, 1964, and 1870). The latter comments are noted but the inclusion Policy ST01 is based on advice from the Planning Inspectorate which provided the model policy for inclusion in Local Plans to reflect the presumption in favour of Sustainable Development.

2.2 A number of comments (plp 1944, 1946, and 2243) also suggest the Policy does not adequately reflect the NPPF with regard to the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Policy ST01 is the Planning Inspectorate’s model policy, which Councils are guided to include within Local Plans to establish the approach towards sustainable development, it is not considered to vary from the objectives of the NPPF. The comments are not considered to raise any challenge to the Local Plan in respect of soundness.

2.3 Comment (plp 1706) requests a wording change at paragraph 3.1 An Economic Role (ii). New wording to read ‘ensuring that where developed land cannot be put back into use sufficient land of the appropriate type is available in suitable locations and at the right time to support growth and innovation’. The suggested wording does not relate well to the balance of the sentence, it is assumed the intent of the sought change is to seek development on previously used sites in advance of new site release and the avoidance of the loss of employment sites. The Local Plan seeks to safeguard employment sites for the maintenance of such uses and will only enable an alternative use where justified. By the nature of the development opportunities that are available and suitable in northern Devon there is a limited supply of previously used land that will be appropriately located and attractive to the market. Though the Local Plan economic assets will be safeguarded and sufficient employment land additionally allocated to meet needs generated from a positive approach to economic development. The comment is not considered to raise any challenge to the Local Plan in respect of soundness.

2.4 It is suggested (plp 670) that the Local Plan is not compliant with the NPPF as a result of the absence of consideration of the use of previously developed sites. The use of previously developed sites presented as available for development have been considered through the allocation of sites for future development, for housing such is provided through the Strategic Housing Land Availably Assessment. Previously developed sites have been allocated for development and taken into account as commitments where subject to extant consents. Redevelopment opportunities are additionally allocated such as the Holsworthy livestock market site and regeneration sites in Bideford where there is a reasonable prospect of development occurring during the lifetime of the Local Plan. Additionally windfall sites can come forward subject to the general policies of the Local Plan that would allow for the unforeseen use of previously developed sites. It is worth noting that there is a significant quantum of housing and employment land required to meet assessed needs and demands, which can only be achieved through the release of greenfield sites in addition to any contribution achieved from appropriately located and developable previously developed sites.

2.5 It is suggested (plp 1903) that the presumption in favour of development is in conflict with past policies, which restricted development to within development boundaries. Past policies provided for historic needs established through past plan production. The approach provided for in the draft Local Plan takes the development plan forward to 2031 to meet future needs. Policy ST01 provides a positive approach to deliver sustainable development, as required by the NPPF. The use of development boundaries and site allocations have in the main been maintained to guide development and established how the areas assessed needs and demands will be met. A number of defined settlements do not have development boundaries as a result of local preference. In defined settlement without development boundaries the scope of development is determined by the use of allocations and general policy which will limit the scope of development beyond the built form of the settlement

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

to that which is justified in responding to local needs. It is suggested that Sustainability Appraisal and general sustainability should be specified; all aspects of the Local Plan have been subject to Sustainability Appraisal, as established by accompanying documentation.

2.6 Respondents (plp 258 and 191) suggest that the Local Plan is not sustainable due to the large amounts of new housing proposed and subsequent loss of greenfield land. In response, the Local Plan does align clearly to the principles of sustainable development as provided for in the Local Plan, while meeting the further requirement of meeting objectively assessed needs and demands. Growth in both urban and rural areas is required to meet the increasing and changing needs of the area’s population. Development, particularly affordable housing, the provision of jobs, social and community facilities is required to help sustain, enhance and make the area’s towns and villages more self supporting and sustainable places to live and work. The development of greenfield land is an inevitable consequence of such needs. The comments are not considered to raise any challenge to the Local Plan in respect of soundness.

2.7 The policy appears to one respondent inadequate in respect of protecting the Biosphere Reserve. This comment is not upheld. Paragraph 1.3 states the Local Plan seeks to support the world class environment of the Biosphere Reserve, a vital component of the area’s attractiveness to investment and prosperity. The Spatial Planning Vision and Portrait go further by listing the spatial implications and opportunities arising from such a designation. The component elements of the Biosphere reserve in respect of the environment will be protected and enhanced through Policy ST14: Enhancing Environmental Assets, and in respect of historic assets preserved and enhanced through Policy ST15: Conserving Heritage Assets.

2.8 The exclusion of villages and rural settlements and subsequent non compliance with paragraph 28 of the NPPF was raised as an issue by several respondents (plps 525, 865,and 1481). Firstly, it is worth noting that Policy ST01 is not a location specific policy and is a broad based spatial policy reflecting the aims of sustainable development as set out in the NPPF. It makes no direct reference to towns, villages or open countryside. Paragraph 28 of the NPPF states ‘planning policies should support economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable new development’. The Local Plan clearly supports the sustainable growth and expansion rural based business as required by the NPPF through Policies DM12: Employment Development in Towns and Villages and DM14: Rural Economy. The Local Plan through Policy ST07: Spatial Development Strategy for Northern Devon’s Rural Area, provides basis for how growth will be enabled in a range of rural settlement and within the wider countryside. The comments are not considered to raise a soundness challenge and no modifications are sought.

2.9 Comment (plp 1641) was made that criterion (2) should be amended from ‘this local plan’ to ‘the local plan and accompanying documents’ to ensure the policy reflects future local plan documents and SPD’s. The point is noted, however future documents prepared as Supplementary Planning Documents will be required to accord with the policies of the Local Plan, and such documents provide only additional guidance and detail to aid policy implementation. No change to the Local Plan is considered necessary in the interest of a soundness challenge.

2.10 With reference to paragraph 3.1 An Environmental Role – a respondent (plp 113) questions the effectiveness of mitigating climate change. Reference is provided to an IPCC report (AR5) which states that mitigating climate change will not be effective and that adaption is necessary. It is suggested that mitigating against climate change is a waste of resource, in preference there should be an emphasis on adaption, it is further advocated that there is no justification to move towards a low carbon economy. The NPPF paragraph 94) provides that local authorities should adopt proactive strategies to mitigate and adapt to climates change and to support the move to a low carbon future. No change to the Local Plan is considered necessary with regard to a potential soundness challenge.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

2.11 A respondent (plp 239) would like to see the protection of wildlife added under ‘An Environmental Role’ and another (plp 2226) would like to add (iv): ‘The identification of how environmental assets can support economic development and quality of life’. The comments are noted, however the listed elements following paragraph 3.1 are taken from NPPF paragraph 7, an extension of the scope of the Local Plan’s role is not considered necessary with regard to addressing a soundness challenge.

Conclusion

2.12 The comments raised in response to the draft Local Plan are considered not to raise any major issues that would challenge the soundness of the Local Plan.

Agreed Actions

1. No Main or Minor Change are proposed to Policy ST01: Principles of Sustainable Development. Policy ST02: Mitigating the Impact of Climate Change

Comments made in response to ST02 Mitigating the Impact on Climate Change

Total Number of Responses 27

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 4 3

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 6 12

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 6 5

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy ST02 Mitigating the impact on Climate Change plp number

Support given to the aims of the policy in particular (a), (b) and (f). Supporting text 870 (EA) could be strengthened by including reference to how policy sub paragraphs (b) and (f) could complement WFD objectives.

Welcomes policy ST02 which seeks to both mitigate against and provide adaption 1845 (NE) for the effects of climate change.

Delete policy ST02 it is futile and expensive. Latest IPCC report states that mitigating 114, 115 climate change will not be effective and that adaption will be necessary.

Policy lacks clarity and too much emphasis on the environment rather than economic 527, 1428 growth. (a) delete, (b) remove ‘and enhancing’, (c) add ‘cycling and public transport where viable’, (d) Delete ‘whilst protecting the natural and built and environment’, ( e) Delete ‘..and enhanced recycling facilities’.

Settlements with strong community cohesion should not be left to stagnate. 375 Development should minimise the environmental footprint. Small sites preferable to bolt on estate like developments.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Articulate how the need to travel by car will be reduced and how this step change 783 towards the use of other forms of transport will occur.

Delete the wording ‘and construction’ in part (a) as planning should be about locational 861 land use not construction which is governed by building regulations and the Code For Sustainable Homes.

Delete ’especially by car’ in part (c) as this is unrealistic in rural areas and can hold 861 back social and economic development.

Delete part (d as (a): planning is or should be about locational land use, construction 861 is and should be governed and controlled by Building Regulations & The Code for Sustainable Homes etc. This is inappropriate and often a subjective complication.

Amend wording to be more realistic. Delete (d) as this is dealt with in building 805 regulations.

Recommend following amendments to the draft policy. 1. Clause (a) amended to read 1113 ‘reducing greenhouse gas emissions by locating development appropriately and where practical and feasible achieving high environmental standards of design and construction’. 2. Additional wording is added following clause (b) which reads ‘The contribution made by development to achieving these measures will be informed, where necessary, by viability assessment’.

Should be more flexibility in the wording of policy ST02. This should include recognition 1521 that the ability to conserve, protect or enhance should be considered as part of the overall balance of the scheme benefits and on a site by site basis. Wording amended to read’ Development will be expected to make a positive contribution towards the social, economic and environmental sustainability of northern Devon and its communities while minimising its environmental footprint, where possible, by…’

Amend clause e to remove ‘and’ at the end of e. 1521

No evidence to support a policy that extends beyond national housing standards, as 1399 provided in Ministerial Statement March 2013. Policies should not burden development that will render it unachievable. Delete(d) as this is covered in Building Regulations Part L.

Consider the policy to be over complicated and capable of misinterpretation. Lack of 1727, locational guidance could enable environmentally sustainable buildings to meet policy 1654, requirements but be out of conformity with wider spatial strategy. 1872, 1968

Tick box compliance, which adds to development costs and inhibits innovation, should 1707 be avoided. Distinctive but better solutions to house design and construction should be encouraged, particularly smaller builders delivering a more individual, higher quality product.

Developments need to comply with Local Plan policies. If they do not comply they 267 should be refused.

The aim of 80% carbon reduction by 2050 is seriously compromised by the degree 2189 of housing development planned for, given the impact of associated population increase on the environment.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Amount of housing planned and associated population increase, car usage, resource 2190 usage will increase not reduce carbon emissions.

Explain what carbon emissions are. If it means carbon dioxide emissions then it should 116, 117 say so.

Support use of local materials but consider how they will be sourced and the 1709 consequences of extraction on the landscape.

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.13 Natural England welcomes Policy ST02 which seeks to both mitigate and provide adaption for the effects of climate change. The Environment Agency gives support to the aims of the policy in particular (a), (b) and (f). The Environment Agency also suggests strengthening the supporting text with regard to the how policy’s sub paragraphs (b) and (f) could complement the Water Framework Directive objectives. Part (f) of Policy ST03 already seeks the adoption of effective water management including water quality improvements; it is proposed that additional supporting text is added to Policy ST03 as a minor amendment to accommodate the comment from the Environment Agency.

2.14 It is suggested (plp 114 and 115) that the policy should be deleted on the basis that mitigation is not effective. The Local Plan seeks to mitigate the impacts of climate change and adapt to climate change, an approach which is legitimised by NPPF paragraph 7. Further guidance is provided by the NPPG which confirms that local planning authorities should look to mitigate against and adapt to climate change. No change to the Local Plan is considered necessary with regard to a potential soundness challenge.

2.15 It is suggested (plp 527) that there is an overemphasis on the environment at the expense of the economy. This point is not accepted, the focus of the policy is to reduce the local contribution to climate change through guiding the location and form of development. As provided through Policy ST01 achieving sustainable development will be delivered through a balance of social, economic and environmental considerations. Policy ST02 is appropriately focused with regard to climate change; other elements of the Local Plan provide the sought encouragement to economic development. A number of detailed revisions proposed by the respondent:

(a) deletion is proposed – no change to the need for development to be appropriately located or to achieve high standards of design. It is however considered prudent to remove the reference to ”environmental” with regard to standards of design – Policy DM04: Design Principles will guide development to achieve high design standards, and to remove the reference to construction on the basis that such matters will be addressed through Building Regulations, as advanced through the Housing Standards Review Technical Consultation. The later point is also sought as a change by plps 861 and 1707. (b) remove - “enhancing” with regard to the natural built and historic environment, the reference is consistent with NPPF terminology, no change is recommended. (c) add ‘cycling and public transport where viable’, no change is recommended, the approach is established through the NPPF, which requires plans to protect and exploit opportunities for the use of sustainable transport modes. The comment with regard to viability is noted and such will be taken account of through the application of the general policies of the Local Plan. (d) delete ‘whilst protecting the natural and built and environment’, the approach established through the NPPF is to conserve and enhance the natural environment, including to protect valued assets and to conserve and enhance the historic environment. For consistently with the NPPF it is suggested that protecting is replaced with conserving and enhancing.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

(e) delete ‘..and enhanced recycling facilities’, refers to enhancing opportunities for recycling within new developments so the wording should be amended accordingly for clarification.

2.16 Policy amendment is also sought (plp 1399 and 805) at ST02(d) which includes a requirement for energy efficiency across a range of developments from construction to use, on the basis that it adds an unnecessary and unjustified burden on development which additionally duplicates provisions that are covered by Building Regulations. The point is noted and it is recognised that the Local Plan should not seek to duplicate legislative requirements established through Building Regulations. Amendment is recommended to remove the policy reference to “energy efficiency ….. in construction and throughout their lifetime”.

2.17 It is suggested (plp 861) that to seek to reduce the need to travel ”especially by car” is unrealistic, particularly in the rural area. It is recognised that much of northern Devon is rural in nature with a varying range of opportunities to use or secure sustainable transport modes. In accordance with the NPPF (paragraphs 29-30) the Local Plan seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through providing for a pattern of development which will facilitate the use of sustainable modes of transport. The significant majority of development is planned to take place in settlements (ST06 defined settlements) where alternatives to travel by car can be achieved and development can contribute to providing residents with a choice of transport mode through linking to and extending sustainable transport opportunities. In the rural areas, it is recognised that the opportunity to reduced car travel in respect of work and social activities is limited. The Local Plan does however focus development in rural settlements (ST07 defined settlements) with services or public transport access to services, which will allow some travel choice. No change to the Local Plan is recommended in response to comment plp 861.

2.18 The need for an explanation of how car travel will be reduced is sought (plp 783). The Local Plan provides a framework to minimise increases in levels of car travel, by locating new development in locations where opportunities for sustainable transport modes can be exploited. The approach is set out in the NPPF (paragraphs 29-41). No change to the Local Plan is considered necessary in the interest of a soundness challenge.

2.19 It is suggested (1521) that “and” is removed from ST02 (e); the criteria in Policy ST02 are listed, it is therefore appropriate to maintain “and” to conclude the policy components.

2.20 The policy is considered (plp 1727, 1654, 1872 and 1968) to be overcomplicated and capable of misinterpretation. It is suggested that a lack of locational guidance could result in opportunities to use sustainable building being resisted as a result of the spatial strategy. The scope of the policy is guided by the NPPF with regard to the factors that are considered relevant in respect of mitigating the impacts of climate change. The comment is noted, the Local Plan must be read as a whole, from which guidance is given as to the locational acceptance of development, significantly in respect of the comment provided, though Policy ST06: Spatial Development Strategy for Northern Devon’s Strategic and Main Centres, Policy ST07: Spatial Development Strategy for Northern Devon’s Rural Area and Policy DM27: Re-use of Rural Buildings. No change to the Local Plan is considered necessary with regard to a potential soundness challenge.

2.21 It is suggested (plp375) that settlements with strong social cohesion should not be allowed to stagnate and that small site are preferable to “bolt on estates”. Policy ST02 does not provide settlement specific guidance in respect of locational acceptance of development. The Local Plan through Policy ST07: Spatial Development Strategy for Northern Devon’s Rural Area provides for development in a range of rural settlements. The Local Plan seeks to assist rural communities to become more sustainable by enabling a range of uses directed at meeting local needs. In preparing the Publication Local Plan the scale and location of development in defined rural settlements has been strongly

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

influenced by direct engagement with parish councils. The starting point, to avoid the suggested stagnation, was to at least maintain population levels in Villages and achieve growth at Local Centres by seeking 5/10% housing growth as a minimum. Part 3 of the Local Plan provides a development strategy for all ST07 Settlements. The point with regard to small sites is noted, however the scale of allocated sites in ST07 defined settlements is generally of a modest nature and further sites within development boundaries and the built form of non-boundaried will be enable to come forward on a windfall basis . No change to the Local Plan is considered necessary in the interest of a soundness challenge.

2.22 More flexibility to Policy ST02 is sought (plp 1521) to recognise that the ability to conserve, protect and enhance should be considered within the context of the scheme benefits. The elements listed in Policy ST02 are considerations that are legitimised by the NPPF, to be taken into account when assessing the relative merits of development proposals. Any development proposal will of course be considered taking account of all relevant Local Plan policies. No change to the Local Plan is considered necessary in the interest of a soundness challenge.

2.23 Comment (plp 2189) suggests that the aim of an 80% carbon reduction by 2050 (as provided by the Climate Change Act 2008) is seriously compromised by the degree of housing development planned for in northern Devon. It is recognised that a significant quantum of growth in housing and employment is planned for through the Local Plan; the level is required to meet assessed needs and demands and to support an economic growth strategy. In accommodating such growth the general policies of the Local Plan will seek to deliver sustainable development, which will include measures to mitigate climate change. No change to the Local Plan is considered necessary in the interest of a soundness challenge.

2.24 There is also a call (plps 116 and 117) for clarification of the term ‘carbon emissions’ – does it mean carbon dioxide? Carbon emissions refer to carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide in emissions. A minor modification is sought to provide a definition of carbon emissions in the glossary of the Local Plan.

2.25 There is support (plp 1709) for the use of local materials as stated in paragraph 3.10 but a respondent would like consideration of how they will be sourced and the consequences of extraction on the landscape. Paragraph 3.10 states that where they represent a viable option, the use of locally sourced materials will be encouraged. Use of local materials will reduce the need to transport them over long distances, support the local economy and provide opportunities to enhance local distinctiveness as set out in Policy ST04: Improving the Quality of Design. Whilst the comment is noted, a consideration of how local materials will be sourced is beyond the scope of this plan and with regard to minerals extraction, such will be a matter for the Minerals Local Plan, which must provide environmental criteria to ensure permitted operations do not have unacceptable adverse impacts, including on the natural and historic environment. No change is considered necessary with regard to a soundness challenge.

2.26 A general comment is provided which relates to development proposals that do not comply with Local Plan policies (plp 267). No change is considered necessary with regard to a soundness challenge.

Other Matters

2.27 In the interests of clarity, the Policy title is recommended to be amended to: Mitigating Climate Change.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Conclusion

2.28 The comments raised in response to Policy ST02 raise a number of issues which are considered to justify a recommended change to the Local Plan with regard to consistency with national planning policy and the need to avoid duplication of legislative requirements with regard to Building Regulations.

Agreed Actions

The following are agreed as Main Changes to Policy ST02: Mitigating the impact on Climate Change, with related revisions to the supporting text.

1. Amend the tile of Policy ST02 to Mitigating the Climate of Change. 2. Development will be expected to make a positive contribution towards the social, economic and environmental sustainability of northern Devon and its communities while minimising its environmental footprint by:

(a) reducing greenhouse gas emissions by locating development appropriately and achieving high environmental standards of design and construction;

(b) conserving and enhancing the natural, built and historic environment through the prudent use of key resources including land, buildings and energy, whilst protecting and enhancing the area’s biodiversity, geodiversity, landscape, coastline, air, water, archaeology and culture;

(c) ensuring a balanced mix of uses where development takes place in environmentally, socially and economically sustainable locations by reducing the need to travel, especially by car, and facilitating a step-change toward the use of sustainable modes of transport including walking, cycling and public transport;

(d) achieving energy efficiency of homes, business premises, services and infrastructure in construction and throughout their lifetime and promoting opportunities for renewable and low-carbon energy generation whilst protecting conserving and enhancing the natural and built environment;

(e) redeveloping previously developed land and reducing, reusing and recycling resources, including construction materials, providing for more efficient use and enhanced recycling of facilities and enhanced opportunities for recycling; and

(f) reducing pressure on water resources and increasing their reuse through sustainable water management. Policy ST03: Adapting to Climate Change and Strengthening Resiliance

Comments made in response to ST03 Adapting to Climate Change and Strengthening Resilience

Total Number of Responses 31

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 7 5

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 1 12

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 9 7

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy ST03 Adapting to Climate Change and Strengthening Resilience plp number

Support ST03 2330 (ENPA)

Supports parts (i) and (j) 2451 (DWT)

Support is given for the amendments to this policy relating to (b), (c), (e), (f) and 3.15 871, 873 and 3.16. (EA)

Supports amendment to clause (i) to reference cross boundary green infrastructure 2331 links. (ENPA)

Policy unsound. Provides no positive policy for historic environment in the context 1138 (EH) of climate change. Local Plan is therefore not achieving sustainable development.

Reference in supporting text that demonstrating criteria a-f can be assisted by using 1252 (DCC) the latest flood mapping and data available through the EA and DCC.

Support for the recognition that in some instances it is appropriate to manage and 1523 reduce flood risk for development where it has wider sustainability or regeneration benefits, or where there is no reasonable alternative site. Rather than refer to new development being planned to reduce existing rates of surface water runoff within CDA, it would be more appropriate to refer to avoiding any increase in existing rates. This would reflect guidance in the NPPF, which states that new development should be planned to avoid increased vulnerability to the range of impacts arising from climate change. Policy ST03 (b) should read ‘avoiding and increase to existing rates of surface water runoff within Critical Drainage Areas’.

Non compliant with paragraph 98 of NPPF a proactive strategy to mitigate and adapt 1485 to climate change has not been adopted. Careful wording required following Met Office statement that no global warming in the last 14 years. Amend in response to: re-establishment of functional flood plains should not be a policy objective, avoid building specifications controlled by building regulations. Policy also flawed as the main growth points are at the basin of Bideford and Barnstaple. Modifications = (1) Delete ‘…to take account of impacts of climate change’ to read ‘Development should be designed and constructed to minimise the risk to vulnerability of people, land, infrastructure and property by..’. Also delete criteria (d), (g) , (h), (j) and (k).

Met office recently stated that there has been no global warming for the last 14 years. 529 Policy should be worded very carefully. Suggested changes; (1) Delete ‘…to take account of impacts of climate change’ to read ‘Development should be designed and constructed to minimise the risk and vulnerability of people, land, infrastructure and property by’. Delete (d), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k).

Policy ST02 and ST03 should be combined and rationalised to provide clearer 1730, 1655, guidance regarding climate change. 1873, 1969

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Seeks revision to ST03 relating to functionality and location of sustainable drainage 1847 (NE) systems. Amend to read (f) Sustainable Drainage Systems should be designed to maximise their multi functionality and located away from the catchments of sensitive designated features.

In the absence of evidence on significant climate change consequences, delete the 118 reference in 3.12 ‘Over the coming decades…’

A number of things can be introduced to help with climate change/flooding – 268 reintroduction of flood plains, passive housing and renewable energy, protection of hedges on residential developments, include woodland next to housing to encourage less car use for recreation, use only permeable surfaces in new development.

Plan draws attention to the risk of increased flooding and a managed realignment 1412 of the coastline in the Taw Torridge estuary. This makes it absolutely clear that any suggestion to build residential property on the edge of the estuary is out of the question.

The Local Plan should be founded on evidence; there is no clear evidence on climate 119 change and the anticipated consequences. Delete paragraph 3.13

Should be noted that SFRA’s are now live documents and checks need to be made 872(EA) that the latest flood risk maps are being used.

Local Plan should be founded on evidence, no evidence to support claim for 120 ‘increased flood risks from climate change’. The words ‘in recognition of the increased flood risks from climate change and’ should be deleted in paragraph 3.18.

Strongly support ‘inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding’ but 1105 inappropriate needs defining (paragraph 3.18).

Support given to reference to CDA’s. Reference to benefits of SUDS would be helpful 874(EA) in 3.20 and would assist in showing how WFD objectives have been taken into account in the plan.

Local Plan should be founded on evidence, no evidence that temperatures will 121, 122, increase/rainfall patterns will change, destruction of habitats. Predictions are based 123 on invalidated computer models.

Comments on the HRA by the EA are applicable at 3.22 876(EA)

Resist development which erodes green gaps, particularly around Fremington and 1414 Northam.

Blue infrastructure is an integral but often forgotten part of the GI strategy. 2227

The contention in 3.26 that ‘climate change will provide some new opportunities, 1417 especially prospective economic and tourism potential, which will be embraced, is intriguing and would bear close scrutiny.

The Local Plan should include for the funding and construction of a flood relief gate 925 to be located at the Council depot. The plan should also invite commercial interests to submit for a river barrage scheme providing leisure, energy and flooding solutions.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.29 There are a range of general (plps 268, 1412, 1414, 2227 and 1417) and supporting comments (plps 871, 873 2330 and 2451), including from Exmoor National Park Authority, the Environment Agency (who note that SFRA’s are now live documents and checks need to be made that the latest flood risk maps are being used) and Devon Wildlife Trust to Policy ST03 and the supporting text.

2.30 The Environment Agency (plp 874) gave support to the reference to Critical Drainage Areas. The EA also suggest that the benefits of SUDS could usefully be added in paragraph 3.20, which would assist in showing how Water Framework Directive objectives have been taken into account. The point is accepted with regard to the Water Framework Directive and the need for development to ensure that water quality is not adversely impacted and opportunities for improvements sought.

2.31 English Heritage considers the Policy to be unsound as it provides no positive policy for the historic environment in the context of climate change. It is their view that the Local Plan is therefore not achieving sustainable development. The local plan as a whole provides a positive strategy for the historic environment, especially Policies ST15 and DM07 which set out opportunities for renewable energy proposals on heritage assets which will contribute to adapting to climate change. Policy ST02: Mitigating the Impacts on Climate Change provides a positive positon with regard to conserving and enhancing the historic environment, as is provided through Policy ST15: Conserving Heritage Assets. In support of Policy ST03, at paragraph 3.19 there is recognition that there are limited opportunities for the historic environment to adapt to the changing climate.

2.32 Natural England seeks revision to ST03 relating to functionality and location of sustainable drainage systems. They suggest amending (f) to read ‘Sustainable Drainage Systems should be designed to maximise their multi functionality and located away from the catchments of sensitive designated features’, which is taken to be valued environmental assets. The comment is noted; however the policy provides for the adoption of effective water management and details the scope of such. The additional detail sought is considered to be a matter for the supporting text not for policy specification. An addition to paragraph 3.20 is recommended as sought by Natural England with the use of common terminology in respect of “sensitive designated features”.

2.33 Devon County Council (plp 1252) suggests the inclusion of a reference in the supporting text to signpost the availability of the latest flood mapping and data from the Environment Agency and the County Council. It is not a function of the Local Plan to detail how such materials might be sourced. No change to the Local Plan is recommended.

2.34 A number of respondents (plp 1730, 1655, 1873 and 1969) suggest that ST02 and ST03 should be combined and rationalised. NPPF (paragraph 94) provides that local planning authorities should adopt proactive strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate change and the distinction between each is highlighted through NPPG. It is not considered necessary or advisable in the interest of policy clarity to combine Policies ST02 and ST03.

2.35 Amendment to ST03 (b) is proposed (plp1523) from “reducing existing rates of surface water runoff within Critical Drainage Areas” to ‘'avoiding any increase to existing rates of surface water runoff within Critical Drainage Areas”. It is suggesting that it would be more appropriate to refer to avoiding any increase in existing rates, as provided for in NPPF paragraph 99 which states that new development should be planned to avoid increased vulnerability to the range of impacts arising from climate change. The Framework at this point also states that advice should be taken from the Environment Agency (and others) with regard to policy development. The Environment Agency have, in proving guidance an approach to development in Critical Drainage Areas have stated that “All new development will have to play a part in reducing current rainfall runoff rates. All off site surface water

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

discharges from development should mimic “Greenfield” performance up to a maximum 1 in 10 year discharge. On-site all surface water should be safely managed up to the “1 in 100+climate change” conditions. To satisfy the above will require additional water storage areas to be created within the site compared to the normal SUDS design thereby contributing to a reduction in flooding downstream. ” Taking account of the advice from the Environment Agency, which would result in a betterment of the drainage position on sites subject to development within CDA’s no change to the Local Plan is recommended.

2.36 Comments were received that state the Local Plan should be founded on evidence and currently there is no evidence that temperatures will increase/rainfall patterns will change or habitats will be destroyed (plp 119, 120 121,122 and 123). A respondent also reference a Met Office statement which stated that there has been no global warming for the last 14 years (plp 529 and1485). Irrespective of the questions raised with regard to the legitimacy of climate change, the Local Plan is required to meet the challenge of climate change, as guided by the NPPF (paragraphs 93-108). The need to address climate change is established in the Climate Change Act 2008, with local planning authorities required to include policies in their Local Plan to contribute to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change by Section 19 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. No change to the Local Plan is recommended with regard to an acceptance that climate change is not a proven position.

2.37 With regard to the questioned impact of climate change, it is suggested(plp 118) that the following sentence in paragraph 3.12 is deleted “over the coming decades there will be significant climate change consequences arising from green house gases already released, as well as those from planned growth to meet identified needs”. While not accepting the suggested absence of climate change it is recommended that the first sentence of paragraph 3.12 is deleted both on the basis that it is superfluous to the policy and that it implies that development planned though the Local Plan will contribute to significant climate change consequences. An adjustment to the current sentence in para 3.12 would be consequently required to remove “therefore an”. The proposed amendment is considered to be a minor change.

2.38 It is also suggested (plp 120) that the first sentence in paragraph 3.18 is amended to remove “in recognition of the increased flood risks from climate change “.The reference is considered appropriate having regard to NPPF paragraph 99 which states that “Local Plans should take account of climate change over the longer term. Including factors such as flood risk…”. No change to the Local Plan is recommended, on the basis that there is considered to be no soundness challenge.

2.39 Comment (plp 1105) gives support to paragraph 3.18 ‘inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding’ but suggests that inappropriate should be defined. The reference is taken form the NPPF paragraph 100, which is supported by a footnote to technical guidance on flood risk published alongside the NPPF: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6000/2115548.pdf a similar footnote could be provided linked to flooding in paragraph 3.18.

2.40 It is suggested (plp 925) that the Local Plan should provide for the funding and construction of a flood relief gate to at the Council depot in Barnstaple and invite commercial interests to submit for a river barrage scheme providing leisure, energy and flooding solutions. The proposal with regard to financial arrangements falls outside the scope of Local Plan and in the absence of delivery certainly there is no basis to include the suggested river barrage scheme.

Conclusion

2.41 The comments raised in response to Policy ST03 raise a number of issues which are considered to justify a recommended change to the Local Plan. The proposals are considered to be minor changes.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Agreed Actions

The following are agreed as Minor Changes to the Local Plan:

1. Amend paragraph 3.12: Amend: over the coming decades there will be significant climate change consequences arising from green house gases already released, as well as those from planned growth to meet identified needs. Adaptation to climate change, alongside mitigation measures, is therefore an essential part of addressing the challenges … 2. The addition of supporting text at paragraph 3.20 to reference the Water Framework Directive and the need for development to ensure that water quality is not adversely impacted and opportunities for improvements sought 3. Add within paragraph 3.20: Sustainable Drainage Systems should be designed to maximise their multi functionality and located away from the catchments of sensitive designated features’. Policy ST04: Improving the Quality of Development

Comments made in response to ST04 Improving the Quality of Development

Total Number of Responses 27

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 3 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 2 7

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 4 0

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy ST04 Improving the Quality of Development plp number

Needs to be reference to minimum space standards for new dwellings. Either a 858 specific reference within one of the design policy statements needs to be inserted or insert a new policy statement specifically related to space standards.

Housing sites should fit into their surroundings and designs should reflect the 288, 290 characteristics of the site. Policies need to clearly state what building and roofing materials will be used, the use/restriction of cars and contribution to public transport, cycleways and how building roads can fit into these sites in a less intrusive way.

Development in the Biosphere Reserve Transition Zone should not be so restrictive. 530, 1489 Policy does not comply with NPPF paragraphs 173 and 174.

Policy is consistent to national policy as the council has removed criterion 3 897, 1405

Historic environment a key component of this and should be explicitly mentioned. 1140 (EH) Policy currently unsound.

Clause 2 of the policy should be amended as follows ‘within the biosphere reserve 1114 transition zone, development will be encouraged where it demonstrates innovative approaches and solutions to sustainable development.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Policy flawed - it refers to Code for Sustainable Homes. 1486

Whilst recognising the importance of good design, do not consider the first part of 1732, 1657, the policy adds any value to the guidance offered by the NPPF. Concern over the 1875, 1970 scale of the Biosphere Transition Zone identified in second part of policy and consider such an extent is unnecessary. Consider requirement for innovative approaches within the zone is unnecessary, unachievable and likely to be a development burden.

General support for policy ST04 and the aspirations for high quality and sustainable 1948, 2245 development as set out within first part of policy. These aims accord with principles of good planning.

In relation to criterion 2 it is important that the emphasis should be on encouraged 1949, 2246 rather than required, as many factors are involved in securing successful development. It is suggested that elements of 3.30 be elevated to policy, as they make clear that development within the Biosphere Reserve Transition Zone must, in the first instance be viable.

Innovative design within the Biosphere – such an aim will be swamped by the sheer 2192 size of housing development planned in the Biosphere.

Diversity and originality is more important than good design. Small builders should 1710, 1712 contribute to delivering significant housing requirement as it brings local economic benefit.

Standards above building regulations are sought, planning should not seek to control 1492, 1490 matters covered by building regulations.

Home Zones need to be incorporated into new housing developments. 291

Encourage restaurants to use sidewalks increasing town centre vibrancy. 1711

It is not clear what is being proposed including any plans for street management. 2228

Improving quality of design: the words ‘high quality’ is ambiguous: this could mean 2727 expensive and environmentally damaging materials are used. So the words ‘environmentally highly sustainable’ should be used instead.

Additional Information

2.42 The Housing Standards Review states that the Government proposes that the nationally described space standard has a single set of figures for new dwellings (flats and houses) suitable for application across all tenures of housing. These are set out in the proposed nationally described space standard, and the methodology used to develop the Gross Internal Areas is set out in as annex to that standard.

2.43 The Housing Standards Review states that “many of the requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes will be consolidated into the Building Regulations; the Code will be wound down from the time the statement is made. From the date of the statement, therefore, new plan policies should not refer to the Code”.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.44 Specific reference to locally defined minimum space standards and bed spaces are considered overly prescriptive and not supported by Government. Density standards are not defined in respect of residential development and existing Building Research Establishment guidance remains fit for purpose. It is recognised that a flexible approach to density is required to achieve quality residential environments. Good design will result in variable densities that appropriately take account of the principles set out in Policy DM04: Design Principles.

2.45 General support is provided for Policy ST04(1) although it is suggested that it may not add to the guidance offered by the NPPF and could be more prescriptive although the term “high quality” may be considered ambiguous and result in environmentally damaging construction. Policy ST04 ensures that design will be based on a clear process that responds to the characteristics of the site and the principles of design found in Policy DM04 in terms of scale, density, massing, height, layout appearance, fenestration, materials and relationship to buildings and landscape features in the local neighbourhood. Policy ST05 sets out specific standards. The Government has used the Housing Standards Review to ensure local design policies are not overly prescriptive.

2.46 Support is provided for increasing restrictions on car usage and the better integration of public transport. Policy ST04 seeks to reduce the impact of vehicles on residential streets and give a high priority to the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and users of public transport. Policy DM04 seeks to provide safe and appropriate highway access and pedestrian and cycle routes through an appropriate mix of local facilities and transport networks.

2.47 Several responses consider that requiring innovative design throughout the Biosphere Transition Zone is overly restrictive, ambitious, may jeopardise viability and seeks removal of “show northern Devon as a world-class exemplar”. Consideration should be given to moving ST04 (2) to the supporting text as actions are not mandatory and are encouraged only when viability allows.

2.48 Policy ST04 seeks high quality inclusive and sustainable design that takes full account of the principles of design found in Policy DM04. Policy DM04 (d) has been amended to specifically refer to the historic environment. , as detailed in the discussion of comments on this policy area.

2.49 Several comments object to exceeding Building Regulations and including any reference to the Code for Sustainable Homes. Supporting text of Policy ST04 and Policy ST05 refers to the Code for Sustainable Homes. Reference to the Code for Sustainable Homes should therefore be removed although local standards relating to the energy efficiency (and water efficiency) aspects of the Code can still be applied.

2.50 Support for Home Zones is noted but not considered a strategic requirement. Implementation will be considered on a site by site basis.

2.51 Support for increased town vibrancy is noted and Policy DM19 seeks to facilitate diversification of use to maintain buoyant town centres through a mix of leisure, tourism, cultural, community and residential development.

Conclusion

2.52 Numerous issues were raised through representations received, but none are considered to threaten the soundness of the Local Plan, although proposed change would ensure that this policy is fully complaint with the NPPF. Main changes are required to clarify wording and intentions of this policy.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Agreed Action

1. The following is agreed as a Main Change to Policy ST04 and the associated supporting text:

a. Move criterion (2) to supporting text.

Policy ST05: Sustainable Construction and Buildings

Comments made in response to ST05 Sustainable Construction and Buildings

Total Number of Responses 56

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 9 7

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 5 20

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 10 5

Summary of Issues

Comments on ST05 Sustainable Construction and Buildings plp number

Provide a better definition of low carbon not all forms of renewable energy generation 124 are low carbon. Amend 5 (c) ‘maximising opportunities for the micro generation of renewable, low carbon and decentralised energy in all development ‘ to ‘maximising opportunities for the micro-generation of renewable, low carbon and decentralised energy in all development where it is conclusively demonstrated that the renewable energy actually reduces carbon dioxide emissions, is not harmful to the stability of the local electricity network and is economically viable’

BREEAM standard already dropped in some countries. Building Relations will always 531 change more responsively than planning policy. Delete ST05

On the basis that this policy (2) is unlikely to be adopted until close to the end of 755 parliament it is advisable to require new homes to be built to current energy efficiency standards rather than the Code for Sustainable Homes which is likely to be wound down shortly following adoption of policy

Policy and supporting text is duplication of Government work through Building 864 Regulations. Cost of providing viability appraisals discourages applicants.

Support ST05, which will be used to minimise carbon emissions resulting from the 903 construction and operation of new buildings. Appreciates recognition in point 1 that in certain circumstances it may not be technically feasible or viable to achieve all of these standards.

Policy needs to be removed as it is not compliant with Ministerial Statement 13 March 866, 1402 2014 on housing standards and building regulations. Not compliant with paragraph 173 and 174 of the NPPF.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Delete policy and refer to national standards and Building Regulations. 807

The Governments Codes of Sustainable Homes will be winding down and 941, 940 consolidated into Building Regulations. If the Council wants to include reference to the code then this should be done in supporting text and state that such standards will be encouraged rather than required as this scheme is not mandatory and therefore its inclusion in policy ST05 cannot be justified.

Accords with Government objectives outlined in the NPPF paragraph 95. Support 1003 is given to this policy as it will help to minimise carbon emissions resulting from the construction and operation of new buildings.

ST05 should be redrafted to ensure consistency with the NPPF and with the 1117 Governments approach to sustainable development and the mechanisms used to deliver that (such as Building Regulations). Specifically, this means that the policy should be amended to; 1. Not seek to apply an accelerated timetable for implementation of the Code for Sustainable Homes, 2. Not seek to apply an accelerated timetable for the application of standards above those provided for in Building Regulations. Following changes should therefore be made to the policy: Clause (1) should be worded ‘All new development proposals should seek to incorporate sustainable…’, Clause 2 delete, Clause (3) should be worded ‘All major development will seek to achieve…’, Clause (4) should be worded ‘All new development will be built to a standard, which should seek to minimise consumption.

Supports inclusion of ‘unless it can be demonstrated that it is not technically feasible 1533 or financially viable’ in relation to Policy ST05 (1) and (3). However, similar wording should also be included in ST05 (2) and (5). With reference to policy ST05 (2), the NPPF makes clear that when setting any local requirement for a buildings sustainability, LPA’s should do so in a way consistent with the Governments zero carbon buildings policy and adapt nationally prescribed standards. There is no timetable to introduce mandatory compliance with the Code for Sustainable Homes, therefore there are concerns with the Council introducing specific minimum standards without evidence to support it. The wording of Policy ST05 (5) should be amended to remove ‘and’ at the end of d.

Policy ST05 appears to propose sustainable construction requirements above and 1440 beyond that currently sought by Building Regulations. In particular, criteria (5) (b) requires that all new development incorporates "passive design measures to reduce overall energy demand and improve energy efficiency beyond Building Regulations"

The approach proposed is, inappropriate, unnecessary and inconsistent with the Government Response to the Housing Standards Review. This proposed policy requirement will also place a further policy burden on development proposals, contrary to paragraph 95 of the NPPF, which requires that "when setting any local requirement for a building's sustainability, do so in a way consistent with the Government's zero carbon buildings policy and adopt nationally described standards".

It is recommended that the Councils reconsider this approach and ensure that any energy efficiency improvements are in accordance with current building regulations.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Policy is unnecessary. Overlaps with the purpose of Building Regulations which are 1658 likely to be more up to date and in keeping with modern practise than this plan over a 20 year period.

It is noted that the BfL criteria are simplistic and as such flexibility is required. The 1646 policy indicates departures where it is not technically feasible or financially viable, and it is important that this flexibility is retained.

Concern expressed about the requirement for Level 6 by 2016. The Councils need 1642 to check the Government’s webpage on CSH, which clearly identifies that the “code is voluntary, and we do not intend to make it mandatory. It is not a set of regulations and should not be confused with zero carbon policy or the 2016 zero carbon target”. Evidently, the imposition of CSH Level 6 would require viability testing, given the likely adoption date of the draft Local Plan and the likely review of that Plan, it would be necessary to consider viability now.

Without an evidence-based justification of need for the additional standards in light 1629 of the Government's stated direction of travel to secure efficiency of new homes, or a viability review of the in-combination effect of other policy approaches set out within the Local Plan, the application of point '(2)' of Policy ST05 is not considered to be justified or consistent with the NPPF or NPPG.

Building Regulations is more responsive than planning policy; the requirements of 1639 Policy ST05 are addressed by other legislation. The Policy is outdated in seeking the delivery of renewable not low energy homes and flawed in being based upon the existing stock and in referencing codes which have been replaced by universal building standards.

It is noted that the BfL criteria are simplistic and as such flexibility is required. The 1733 policy indicates departures where it is not technically feasible or financially viable, and it is important that this flexibility is retained.

Criterion (5) of Policy ST05 states that all new development will be built to a standard, 1956 which minimises the consumption of resources during construction and thereafter in its occupation through bullet points (a) – (d). The policy should not enforce these requirements, but merely encourage them.

Objects to criterion (4) of Policy ST05. The requirements of BREEAM like the CSH 1954, 2250 will form part of Building Regulations, Part L. Accordingly, the policy requirement to achieve a BREEAM rating of ‘Very Good’ will need to be removed.

Objects to criterion (3) of Policy ST05 and the accompanying analysis in Paragraph 1952, 2249 3.45. This criterion should be removed as BfL 12 is a voluntary standard. It should not be made mandatory under planning policy.

Objects to criterion (2) of Policy ST05. A Written Ministerial Statement on Building 1950, 2247 Regulations with a supporting note was published on 13 March 2014 setting out the outcome of the housing standards review. The Statement highlights that many of the requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH) will be consolidated into Building Regulations and that the CSH will be ‘wound down’. The policy requirement

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

to achieve greater than Code Level 3 (currently incorporated into Building Regulations) will need to be removed. Accordingly, it is considered that both Paragraphs 3.38 and 3.42 of the supporting text should be removed.

This policy is unnecessary as it repeats elements in earlier policies and also overlaps 1971, 1875 with Building Regulations. Attention should be drawn to paragraph 173 of the NPPF which advises the need to pay careful attention to viability and costs in plan making. Seeking codes higher than currently sought by building regulations will add a further cost burden to developments.

The construction standards recommended here to achieve energy efficiency may 2194 not be high enough. There are higher standards used in the rest of Europe.

The policy in criterion (5) should not enforce these requirements, but merely 2251 encourage them. Moreover, there are fundamental flaws in interpretation such as part (b), which seeks a requirement beyond Building Regulations standards and will not be lawful once the Deregulation Bill is enacted.

The reference to Building for Life 12 in Bullet Point (3) of Policy ST05: Sustainable 2536 (HBF), Construction & Buildings is inappropriate. Building for Life 12 is a best practice 2416 guidance which developers, LPAs and local communities can use on a voluntary basis to facilitate a dialogue on assessing design. By referring to this best practice guidance in the Joint Local Plan policy a greater weighting of significance is implied to a document which has not been through a statutory process and therefore is of lesser status. This reference should be removed to supporting text.

In Policy ST05 refers to standards beyond Building Regulations and allowable solutions whilst in Policy ST17 the Councils also specify Lifetime Homes standards. On 13th March 2014 the Government announced the outcome of its Housing Standards Review and issued a Ministerial Statement on Building Regulations. In the future energy efficiency standards will be set through national Building Regulations. The Government also indicated that the Code for Sustainable Homes (CfSH) will be wound down. There is no longer any justification for inserting the above mentioned Bullet Points in the Joint Local Plan policies therefore the Councils should review and re-word such policies to future proof them.

Support for the policy, which will be used to minimise carbon emissions resulting 2302, 2461 from the construction and operation of new buildings. The FRBS also appreciates the recognition in point (1) that in certain circumstances it may not be technically feasible or financially viable to achieve all of these standards.

In the context of the uncertainties regarding the future Code for Sustainable 2690 Homes and BREEAM, this policy is considered unsound and is not supported by the NPPF. It should therefore be deleted.

A number of the Local Plan’s seek developer contributions or set policy obligations, 2591 which should be considered with regard NPPF paragraph 173, which states that “Plans should be deliverable. Development identified in the Plan should not be subject to such a scale of policy burdens that their ability to be developed viably is threatened. Developer contributions can only be sought where they are necessary to address

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

the unacceptable impact of a proposal and so directly related to a proposal that it ought not to be permitted without them. Planning obligations cannot be sought to fund unrelated or desirable items of infrastructure.

A ‘fabric first’ approach is often for more cost effective means of achieving policy 2631 aims than measures such as the use of on-site renewables. The comment above regarding lifetime homes is also relevant to CSH requirements. There will be a tipping point where the market will fail to deliver under the weight of policy expectation directed towards it. Delivery of homes, jobs and growth should be the key aspiration of the Local Plan. Every effort should be made objectively to identify and then meet the housing, business and other development needs of an area.

Support the Councils’ intentions and note the recognition that changing national 2699 standards will impact upon the future application of this policy. Note with some concern that the Councils are requiring Level 6 by 2016, which should be regarded as voluntary. It is not a set of regulations and should not be confused with zero carbon policy or the 2016 zero carbon target”. Evidently, the imposition CSH Level 6 would require viability testing. The BfL criteria are simplistic and as such flexibility is required. It is noted that the policy indicates departures where it is not technically feasible or financially viable, and it is important that this flexibility is retained.

Explain what "carbon emissions" are, if it means "carbon dioxide emissions", and 125, 126, then say so. 127, 128, 129, 130

'Not technically feasible or financially viable' could be used as opt out clauses and 293 the better sustainability and designed buildings will attract more interest and buyers. 5e - carbon savings can be delivered on site with high efficiency, solar pv, small wind turbines etc.

Delete paragraph 3.37. it is unreasonable and unenforceable 2633

Sought carbon emission reductions from development should not be so rigid as to 1713 disproportionately impact independent/one off buildings.

Objects to the analysis in Paragraph 3.39 which states that developers will be 1958, 2252 expected to commit to an extended period of Post Occupancy Evaluation and commissioning of building systems to demonstrate their intent to ensure that new development operates as effectively as possible. This paragraph in the supporting text should be removed.

This statement needs to be far more prominent and part of a relevant policy statement. 843

High quality design aspirations are difficult to achieve with volume residential 1714 development.

Volume house builders will seek to avoid the requirement to use local sourced and/or 1715 recycled materials, mitigation will be required to avoid an uncompetitive burden on small builders.

Ask developers to create wetlands to absorb water. 294

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Consider that the potential impact on viability of the requirement for lifetime homes 2626 is not fully recognised. The variable in any development proposals is usually the proportion of affordable housing, but to argue the case on viability acts against the policy aspiration to meet affordable housing need. Whilst the policy aspiration is understandable, expecting more out of development is likely to have unintended consequences.

Additional Information

1) Housing Standards Review consultation. 12 September to 07 November 2014.

2.53 Following the publication of a “statement of policy” in early 2015 and new Building Regulations coming into force in Autumn 2015 only standards on water efficiency, access and space will be allowed to be set locally. The proposed timetable for changes to energy efficiency standards is slower and renewable energy requirements (including Merton type rules) are exempt.

2.54 “130. From the date of the statement, local planning authorities should not set in their Local Plans, supplementary planning documents or their local information requirements for planning applications any additional technical requirements relating to the construction, layout and performance of new dwellings other than those set out in the Building Regulations optional requirements, the associated Approved Documents and the nationally described space standard.”

2.55 “137. From the date of the statement, local planning authorities will continue to be able to set and apply policies in their local plan requiring development in their area to comply with energy efficiency standards that exceed the energy requirements of building regulations until the zero carbon home policy has been put in place. This will happen alongside the commencement of the amendment to the Planning and Energy Act 2008, which, subject to Parliamentary approval, we anticipate would be in late 2016. The Government has stated that from that point forwards the energy efficiency requirements in Building Regulations will be set at a level equivalent to Code Level 4. Until the amendment is commenced, we would expect local planning authorities to take the statement of the Government’s intention into account in applying existing policies and not set conditions requiring energy efficiency requirements above a Code level 4 equivalent.”

2.56 The consultation does not mention onsite or near site energy requirements, such Merton type Rules or requirements on district heat networks and the amendment to the Planning & Energy Act 2008 within the Deregulation Bill does not remove planning authorities’ ability to set local policies on this issue as it currently stands. As a result, there is no barrier to local authorities continuing to set these types of requirement through their local policies. The consultation makes clear that it is intended that the Code for Sustainable Homes will be wound down early next year:

2.57 “132. As many of the requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes will be consolidated into the Building Regulations, the Code will be wound down from the time the statement is made. From the date of the statement, therefore, new plan policies should not refer to the Code.”

2.58 “94. The principal regulatory change to deliver the water efficiency element of the Housing Standards Review is to regulation 36 of the Building Regulations 2010. Regulation 36 currently requires that all new dwellings are designed so that their estimated average water consumption is no more than 125 litres per person per day. This will be amended to introduce an optional requirement of 110 litres per person per day. This will apply where planning permission is granted with a condition that the optional requirement must be complied with.”

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

2.59 The consultation states that local authorities should review their policies in the light of the planned policy statement in the spring. However, local standards relating to the energy efficiency (and water efficiency) aspects of the Code can still be applied as per above.

2) Next steps to zero carbon homes – Allowable Solutions. Government response and summary of responses to the consultation July 2014.

2.60 The Government has established its intention to set out a national design framework for allowable solutions, rather than require local authorities to set up their own local arrangements. This approach will provide for greater efficiency in delivery and total coverage of the country, better ensure consistency, and maximise the opportunities to use allowable solutions to support strategic carbon abatement schemes. The legislation will aim to provide powers to enable the framework for allowable solutions to be established through the Building Regulations.

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.61 Responses relating to the definition, justification and viability of low carbon and renewable energy are considered contrary to the NPPF which seeks to encourage the use of renewable energy. Paragraph 98 states that Local Authorities should “not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy”.

2.62 Responses relating to dropping BREEAM targets for new commercial developments are not supported by Government. BREEAM remains the recognised national standard for good design in commercial development and is not currently under review in the same way as the Code for Sustainable Homes.

2.63 Several comments object to exceeding Building Regulations and including any reference to the Code for Sustainable Homes. Supporting text of Policy ST04 and Policy ST05 refers to the Code for Sustainable Homes and is at odds with the Housing Standards Review. Reference to the Code for Sustainable Homes should therefore be removed although local standards relating to the energy efficiency (and water efficiency) aspects of the Code can still be applied in accordance with the Housing Standards Review.

2.64 General support for criterion (1) and (5) though Policy should encourage rather than require and provide flexibility according to feasibility and viability. General support is also provided for minimising carbon emissions from construction and the operation of new buildings in accordance with NPPF. The majority of responses seek to ensure that targets are encouraged rather than required, while also supporting inclusion of feasibility and viability tests. A number of general comments relate to the combined weight of Policy ST04 expectations and the likely impact on the viability of delivering homes and jobs.

2.65 Some support for BfL as a prominent policy but concerns raised in relation to the voluntary nature of BfL and the detail provided in the requirements. It is therefore important that flexibility is retained in relation to feasibility and viability.

2.66 Specific reference to the reduction of ‘carbon emissions’ should be replaced with ‘carbon dioxide emissions’ to be consistent with Building Regulations Part L. No clear justification for requesting the removal of paragraph 3.37 as likely to be linked to the wrong paragraph of the Plan.

2.67 Any carbon dioxide emission reduction targets should apply to major developments only as may have a disproportionate impact on small sites and individual buildings. A recommendation to Policy ST05 is proposed in this respect.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

2.68 Reference to Post Occupancy Evaluation at paragraph 3.39 should be wholly removed. Learning from and correcting past mistakes in design and commissioning of buildings can be extremely cost-effective, greatly improving workplace productivity but resulting in an undue burden on developers and being unenforceable.

2.69 Sustainable design and construction targets are difficult to achieve on major developments and developers will seek to avoid requirements. Policy requirements should relate specifically to major development and will be subject to viability tests.

2.70 A general approach to Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems is included in Policy ST03: Adapting to Climate Change and Strengthening Resilience and any specific requirement to create wetlands is considered overly prescriptive.

2.71 Reference to Lifetime Homes is likely to be removed. The Housing Standards Review states that Part M of Building Regulations will be expanded to include new, enhanced levels of accessibility in a three tier approach with the two more accessible tiers being subject to viability testing and assessment of local need.

Conclusion

2.72 In view of emerging Government policy, retention of references to the Code for Sustainable Homes and/or preparing a separate strategy for delivery of ‘allowable solutions’ could threaten the soundness of the plan. Main changes are required so that policy requirements apply solely for major developments, which will help to safeguard the viability of smaller developments and ensure the soundness of this policy.

Agreed Actions

1. The following are agreed as Main Changes to Policy ST05, with associated revisions to the supporting text:

a. Amend criteria (1), (3) and (5) to refer to ”all new major developments ...”

b. Delete paragraph (2) and replace with: “All new major residential development will achieve a

reduction in CO2 emissions by 15% beyond current Building Regulations until such time that the Planning and Energy Act 2008 amendment is commenced in 2016.”

c. Amend paragraph (5) to: “All new major development will be built encouraged to build to a standard, which minimises the consumption of resources during construction and thereafter in its occupation through:

(a) demonstrating high standards of energy and water efficiency targeting the optional requirement of 110 litres per person per day, and including for conversions and extensions of existing buildings;

(b) incorporating passive design measures to reduce overall energy demand and improve energy efficiency beyond Building Regulations through the design and layout of the site;

(c) maximising opportunities for the micro-generation of renewable, and low carbon technologies including and decentralised energy networks in all development; and

(d) using locally sourced and/or recycled materials in construction where they are available and represent a viable option. ; and

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

(e) supporting proposals to deliver carbon savings off-site where they are in accordance with the Councils’ strategy for delivering ‘allowable solutions’ set out within the Community Energy Fund Strategy.

2. The following are agreed as Main Changes to the listed settlement policies to avoid criteria duplication with the policy provisions of ST05:

Policy BAR: Barnstaple Spatial Vision and Development Strategy - delete criteria (q) Policy BAR01: Westacott Strategic Extension - delete criteria 2(i) and 2(j) Policy BAR02: Larkbear Strategic Extension - delete criteria 2(i) and 2(j) Policy BAR02a: Old Torrington Road, Roundswell - delete criteria 2(c) and 2(d) Policy BAR03: Tews Lane, Roundswell - delete criteria 2(f) and 2(g) Policy BAR04: Mount Sandford Green - delete criteria 2(f) and 2(g) Policy BAR05: Westaway Plain, Pilton - delete criteria 2(f) and 2(g) Policy BAR06: South of North Devon District Hospital - delete criteria 2(c) and 2(d) Policy BAR07: North Lane, Bickington - delete criteria 2(d) and 2(e) Policy BAR08: Former School Site, Roundswell - delete criteria 2(b) and 2(c) Policy BAR09: Glenwood Farm, Roundswell - delete criteria 2(f) and 2(g) Policy BRA: Braunton and Wrafton Spatial Vision and Development Strategy - delete criterion (j) Policy BRA01: Wrafton South Eastern Extension - delete criteria 2(f) and 2(g) Policy FRE: Fremington and Yelland Spatial Vision and Development Strategy - delete criterion (i) Policy FRE01: Fremington Army Camp - delete criteria 2(f) and 2(g) Policy ILF: Ilfracombe Spatial Vision and Development Strategy - delete criterion (o) Policy ILF01: Ilfracombe Strategic Southern Extension - delete criteria 2(i) and 2(j) Policy SMO: South Molton Spatial Vision and Development Strategy - delete criterion (l) Policy SM01: South Molton Strategic Western Extension - delete criteria 3(g) and 3(h).

Chapter 4: Spatial Strategy

Comments made in response to Spatial Strategy (general)

Total Number of Responses 3

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 1 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 0 3

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1 1

Summary of Issues

Comments on Spatial Strategy (General) plp number

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

The demographic profile is evolving towards substantial growth in residents of 685 pensionable age, an increase of over 70%. The trend has implications for an increased requirement in the region of smaller houses and the provision of over 2500 extra care units. Without this provision, there is the risk of a 'log jam' in the turnover and future supply of family housing'. It is unclear that developers will be encouraged to alleviate the ‘problem’; the LP allows for developments with only 25-30% social housing.

Address the issue of road access, the approval of new housing should be conditional 961 on a detailed traffic assessment and where necessary, road improvements. There should be improved access links off the A39.

An appropriate strategy should be worked out which identifies possibilities 2198 in quantitative terms, including identification of brownfield sites and empty properties. The total housing figures should also be re-assessed in the context of likely economic growth in the UK over the next ten to twenty years, given the recession.

The Plan is unsound in not incorporating an overall assessment of the infrastructure 2198 required to support growth.

Delivering the planned housing numbers will render the aims of the Local Plan 2198 unachievable e.g. to protect the beauty and tranquillity of the North Devon and Torridge environments.

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.73 Comment (plp 685) is provided with regard to the increasingly aging profile of the area’s population and the considered implications for the type of housing that will be required. The point is accepted, the housing needs of the area with regard to addressing a shortfall in smaller homes and a range of specialist accommodation is evidenced in the North Devon and Torridge Strategic Housing Market Assessment Update ( Housing Vision 2014) and the Torridge Urban Affordable Housing Needs Assessment (JG consulting 2012). The Local Plan seeks to rebalance the housing stock by improving the available range of housing. Policy ST17: A Balanced Local Housing Market seeks to ensure new housing development contributes to this re-balancing so that the housing stock better reflects existing and expected population demographics and the resultant housing needs. It is through Policy ST17 that development will be required to reflect housing needs in terms of type, size and tenure, which by the nature of established needs should result in an increase in the proportion of smaller dwelling delivery. With regard to affordable housing, Policy ST18: Affordable Housing on Development Sites, provides for qualifying sites to provide affordable housing at a level of 30%, which is based on evidence provided by the North Devon and Torridge Viability Assessment. It is through Policies ST17 and ST18 that new housing will contribute to rebalancing the housing stock.

2.74 The issue of road access and highway improvements is raised (plp 961) on the basis that new housing development should be subject to a traffic assessment and where necessary secure road improvements. The Local Plan provides that all development must ensure safe and well designed vehicular access and egress (Policy DM05: Highways) with planning applications being supported by either a Transport Statement or Transport Assessment and Travel Plan, as required by the scale of the proposed development. With regard to highway improvements, such will be sought through Policy ST23: Infrastructure, if necessitated as a result of the development.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

2.75 The need for previously developed sites and empty properties to be taken into account is proposed (plp2198). In arriving at the spatial development strategies enabled through the Local Plan, the Councils have sought to make use of previously developed land where possible. Many of the settlement specific chapters identify and allocated previously developed land for redevelopment. For example, in Bideford, a range of previously developed sites are identified redevelopment under Policy BID07 and in Barnstaple, a range of brownfield sites are allocated for comprehensive redevelopment under Policies BAR11, 12, 13 and 14. The scale of development required to meet identified needs across northern Devon is however such that it is not possible to identify sufficient previously developed land that is known to be developable to meet the scale of need. To this end, it has been necessary to identify a range of greenfield sites to accommodate the extent of development that will be required over the Plan period.

2.76 Part (e) of Policy ST02 supports the reuse of previously developed land for development with the goal of helping to minimise its environmental footprint, in line with one of the core planning principles of national planning policy that ‘encourages the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value’. With regard to empty homes, such is taken into account together with second homes in determining the objectively assessed housing needs and demands for the area.

2.77 The respondent (plp 2198) also suggests that the housing figures should take account of future economic growth on the basis of a recession position. The evidence to establish the areas objectively assessed housing needs and demands has been subject to an update: Northern Peninsula Housing Market Area Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) Update (Housing Vision December 2014) that utilised, at the time of preparation the most up to date population projections. With regard to economic growth the Local Plan adopts a positive approach in accordance with the Northern Devon Economic Strategy 2014-2020. This position is evidenced in the North Devon and Torridge Housing and Employment Study (GL Hearn April 2014) which identifies a housing requirement of 16,800 dwellings across northern Devon to support economic growth beyond historic rates.

2.78 The absence of an infrastructure assessment is suggested (plp 2198) to render the Local Plan unsound. The strategic infrastructure requirements generated as a result of the planned level of growth is set out in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan that was published with the Local Plan. The challenge to the Local Plan is not accepted. Additionally, strategic infrastructure requirements associated with development proposals are identified as requirements as part of the allocating policy, non strategic requirements, such as Green Infrastructure will be secured through the application of Development Management Policies. Policy ST23 is clear in requiring development to provide or contribute towards the timely provision of infrastructure made necessary by the impacts of development.

2.79 It is suggested that the aims of the Local Plan in respect of protecting the beauty and tranquillity of the North Devon and Torridge environment cannot be achieved if planned housing growth is delivered. To achieve compliance with the NPPF the Local Plan must demonstrate how it will meet the area’s objectively assessed housing needs and demands, within this context the aims and objectives of the Local Plan will be pursued. It is recognised that accommodating housing and employment growth will have landscape impacts both as a result of the required scale of growth and the nature and location of the sites that are available and suitable for development. However, in determining the sites to come forward as Local Plan allocations each site has been subject to assessment through a strategic housing land availably assessment and sustainability appraisal, which included a consideration of impacts against the natural and build environment. It is not accepted that the aims of the Local Plan in respect of the environment will be prejudiced as a result of planned housing growth.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Conclusion

The comments raised in response to the draft Local Plan are considered not to raise any major issues that would challenge the soundness of the Local Plan.

Agreed Actions

1. No Main or Minor Changes to the Local Plan.

Comments in response to Spatial Development Strategy (General)

Total Number of Responses 6

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - 2

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - 3

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” - 2

Summary of Issues

Comments on Spatial Development Strategy plp number

The plan does not meet the needs of rural settlements. Growth is required to make 1644 small settlements sustainable which is hindered by at least 50% affordably requirement on exceptions sites and 30% on allocated sites. No support to meet the housing needs of younger residents, affordable for purchase and self build is required. The strategy is urban focused and restrictive towards smaller rural settlements.

Add a preface to the Spatial Strategy; that sets the Strategy as providing a framework 1717 based on an evaluation of vulnerable assets prior to development and that development should be enabled only to meet the areas future needs.

The meaning of 'It is recognised that growth is required to meet the increasing and 2195 changing needs of the area's population' is unclear; adapt rather than grow, e.g. use of above-shop areas and, redundant buildings (paragraph 4.2).

Support paragraphs 4.3 and 4.6. The strong urban focus should not be at the expense 383, 384 of development in sustainable settlements. Well located developments at sustainable rural settlements can contribute to meeting housing needs. A constrained housing supply will impact on affordability. Supply pressures in the rural area, as considered by the Taylor Review, undermines the opportunities for rural communities to be economically vibrant, environmentally sustainable, socially mixed and inclusive.

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.80 It is suggested (plp 1644) that the Local Plan is urban focused, that it does not meet the needs of rural settlements having regard to the affordable housing and it provides no support for: housing for young residents, affordable housing for purchase or self build. It is accepted that the Local Plan has an urban focus. This position is considered inevitable taking account of the nature of the plan area and need to secure significant levels of housing growth. The urban areas are better placed to

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

accommodate the required growth levels through sustainable development, having regard to: the availability of developable sites, access to services, employment opportunities and infrastructure capacity and to address needs where generated and to meet market demands. Taking this position into account, it is not accepted that the needs of the rural area have not been accommodated. Part 3 of the Local Plan sets out in detail development strategies for all Policy ST07 defined settlements, which in the main reflect local growth aspirations as provided through direct engagement with the relevant parish councils. There is a wide variance of development levels proposed, including growth significantly higher than the sought minimum of 10% housing growth in Local Centres and 5% in Villages.

2.81 With regard to affordable housing the approach relating to thresholds and exception sites is considered justified with regard to the evidenced need for affordable housing (Northern Peninsula Housing Market Area Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) Update (Housing Vision December 2014)) and the delivery potential of housing sites including through affordable housing contributions (North Devon and Torridge Viability Assessment Adams Integra 2013). The Local Plan provides for development to reflect local needs including affordable housing, as required by the NPPF (paragraphs 50 and 54). The detail of this matter is further discussed in relation to Policy ST18: Affordable Housing on Development Sites and ST19: Affordable Housing on Exception Sites.

2.82 Securing affordable housing is considered necessary in the interests of meeting local needs, rebalancing the existing housing stock and as a contribution to improving the sustainability of local communities, both urban and rural. The requirement for all sites to contribute to affordable housing delivery, as contained in the Publication Local Plan (June 2014) is however subject to recommended change to take account of a Ministerial Statement (Support for small scale developers, custom and self-builders) issued on 28th November 2014. Reflecting the Ministerial Statement, it is recommended that the 30% affordable housing requirement will apply only on qualifying sites, that will result in schemes contributing towards affordable housing deliver where providing 11 dwellings or above with financial contributions being sought on schemes of 6-10 dwellings in the rural area. Not all housing schemes will be required to contribute towards the delivery of affordable housing.

2.83 With regard to exception sites; it is worth noting that such sites will only be released to address an identified need for affordable housing, which should be the focus of the development as it provides the justification for site release. Exception sites are not included within the housing supply unless subject to an extant planning consent, assessed needs and demands are provided for by the planned supply. The Publication Local Plan provides that “at least 50%” of the housing yield on an exception site should be affordable. It is considered appropriate that this position should be the standard requirement but that some flexibility having regard to viability could be introduced. The detail of this matter, which is subject to a recommended change, is discussed in relation to Policy ST19.

2.84 It is further suggested that there is no support for younger residents, for the provision for affordable housing for sale or self-build. The Local Plan aims to provide for a range of housing needs; it is not considered necessary to require housing to be provided specifically for “younger residents”. With regard to affordable housing for sale, it is recognised that such falls within the definition of intermediate housing as provided for by the NPPF. The Local Plan references the NPPF definition in respect of affordable housing. For clarity it is considered useful to include the full NPPF definition of Affordable Housing within the Local Plan Glossary. It is accepted that the Publication Local Plan is silent with regard to self-build, which is recognised to be encouraged through the Government’s planning reforms. Through discussion on this matter in the context of Policy ST18 a Local Plan amendment is recommended to refer to self-build.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

2.85 Support is provided (plps 383 and 384) for well located development at sustainable rural settlements but it is suggested that supply pressures will act to undermining the future of vibrant and inclusive rural communities. The Local Plan recognises the importance of maintaining a viable rural area and that allowing villages to grow is essential to sustain active and balanced communities. The importance of providing a responsive approach to rural housing needs is recognised and is provided for through Policy ST06. Additionally Part 3 of the Local Plan provides settlement specific development strategies, which are predominantly reflective of locally defined aspirations for growth as identified through direct engagement with relevant parish councils. Having regard to the nature of the rural area, some housing development is also provided for in small villages with limited services through Policy DM24: Rural Settlement. The Local Plan is considered to offer considerable opportunity for housing development in the rural area of northern Devon that will contribute to population growth to support sustainable communities.

2.86 A preface is sought (plp 1717) stating that the strategy provides a framework based on the evolution of vulnerable assets prior to development and that development should meet the areas needs. The suggested preface is considered unnecessary, the absence of which is not considered necessary with regard to the soundness of the Local Plan. Sites allocated for development have been subject to assessment (Strategic Housing Land Availably Assessment 2014) and Sustainability Appraisal through which regard has been given to valued environmental or heritage assets, which the policies of the Local Plan will seek to protect and enhance (ST14: Enhancing Environmental Assets) with regard to the natural environment and preserve and enhance (ST15: Conserving Heritage Assets) with regard to the historic environment.

2.87 In respect of meeting the areas needs, the Local Plan plans to meet all objectively assessed needs and demands including housing, employment and infrastructure. With regard to housing, the Local Plan plans to deliver housing at a level greater than required to meet projected demographic growth. The Local Plan provides for strong economic growth, on which basis housing growth to meet the resultant needs and demands is proposed, to do otherwise would result in an imbalance between housing and employment strategies which would jeopardise the soundness of the Local Plan. The relationship between housing and employment is discussed further in relation to Policy ST08: Scale and Distribution of New Development in Northern Devon.

2.88 The meaning of 'It is recognised that growth is required to meet the increasing and changing needs of the area's population' in paragraph 4.2 is suggested to be unclear. The referenced text is not considered to be unclear; the areas population will increase and change over the lifetime of the plan, in response to which development is required to meet the resultant needs. No change to the Local Plan is considered necessary with regard to soundness. Amendment to the quoted sentence is however recommended to remove “It is recognised that” to simplify the sentence.

Conclusion

2.89 The comments raised in response to the draft Local Plan are considered not to raise any major issues that would challenge the soundness of the Local Plan.

Agreed Actions

1. No Main to the Local Plan. 2. The following is agreed as a Minor Change:

a. Amend paragraph 4.2 to remove 'It is recognised that'.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Policy ST06: Spatial Development Strategy for Northern Devon's Strategic and Main Centres

Comments in Response to Policy ST06: Spatial Development Strategy for Northern Devon’s Strategic and Main Centres

Total Number of Responses 29

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 3 6

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 3 7

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 4 5

Summary of Issues

Comments on ST06: Spatial Development Strategy for Northern Devon’s Strategic plp number and Main Centres

Support is given to this spatial strategy. It recognises Barnstaple as a sub-regional 1924 centre and a focal point for new growth.

Support the understandable focus for growth on Barnstaple and also the clear 2635 identification of other foci for growth lower down the settlement hierarchy, Chulmleigh as a Local Centre in particular. Note the direction of the growth of Barnstaple with the Westacott Strategic Extension, which, in essence brings Landkey into the town. Accordingly just as Fremington and Yelland are identified as a Local Centre so should Landkey. Policy BAR01 makes it clear that a key policy aspiration is to provide improved public transport links for Westacott and Landkey. Landkey is, due to the direction of growth and clearly stated sustainability aspirations, a suitable settlement for more growth than identification as a ‘village’ entails. Landkey should be classed a local centre or considered as part of the sub regional centre of Barnstaple and accommodate a commensurate level of growth.

Fremington Yelland is quite rightly identified as a local centre. 595

Support the identification of South Molton as a Main Centre with employment led 2442 expansion supported by housing led growth.

Support Policy ST06 and the accompanying figure 4.1, in respect of Instow being 376 defined as a local centre where there is a need for appropriate development.

Heavily biased towards Barnstaple and NDC. More allocation of economic and leisure 534, 1496 development in Bideford is required.

Amend ‘Braunton and Wrafton’ to read ‘Braunton, Wrafton and Chivenor Cross’ as 990 the settlement should be identified as it has over 150 homes, a chapel, service station with shop and very good infrastructure and sustainable transport links.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Appledore is a large village divorced and district from Northam/Westward Ho! The 1511 present services and facilities meet only local needs and support tourism interests; employment at the shipyard is exceptional. The Councils analysis (Town Strategy Section) and Core Strategy Issues and Options makes it clear that Appledore is a large village. Maintaining Appledore as part of a Main Centre will result in pressure for peripheral development that would undermine the coalescence avoiding objective and result in unsustainable travel patterns to higher order settlements. Appledore should be classified as a Local Centre.

The scale and nature of development does indicate that Ilfracombe could in fact be 1120 considered to perform the function of a Strategic Centre.

The Agency generally supports the strategy to focus growth within the main towns, 1273 (HA) namely Barnstaple and Bideford as well as the other main centres identified in Policy ST06, provided that it comprises a balanced mix of uses in order to promote self-containment, reducing the need to travel as much as possible. Although the SRN is located some distance from the strategic and main centres the cumulative impact of development could potentially cause some issues. It is therefore imperative that a holistic approach to assessment is taken and that where appropriate development allocations are supported by a robust transport evidence base.

There is a clear discrepancy between Policies ST06, ST07 and Policy ST08 which 1487 sets out the requirements for each of the settlements. The proportion of development for Barnstaple is 3,885 dwellings. Barnstaple is the Sub-Regional Centre yet it has a lower level of development than Bideford which is the Strategic Centre which is expected to deliver 4,161 dwellings. There is a clear conflict between Policy ST06 and ST08 and we consider that Barnstaple should have a greater level of development.

The settlement hierarchy of Braunton/Wrafton/Yelland/Fremington does not reflect 1418 infrastructure constraints, particularly highways.

Supports the identification of Northam as a ‘Main Centre’ and recognition that main 1534 centres should provide appropriate levels of growth to support the towns’ capacities to meet their own needs and those of surrounding communities. It is essential that other policies in the Local Plan allow for sufficient growth in Northam to maintain its role as a main centre. Identification of Bideford as a Strategic Centre, which will provide a focus for housing and employment development is also supported.

Taylor Wimpey has no comment on this policy. Barnstaple is correctly listed as the 1493 focus for future growth in northern Devon.

The clarity of the Spatial Strategy set out in these two policies is welcomed and in 1660 particular the approach of planning for growth in rural areas.

Support for the Councils approach to the spatial hierarchy; recognising the role that 1647 individual settlements will play over the plan period will differ.

Clarity of spatial strategy is welcomed along with the approach to planning for growth 1734 in rural areas.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Support for Policy ST06, particularly the designation of Bideford as a ‘Strategic 1961 Centre’ to provide a focus for housing and employment development. Bideford’s role is seen as being critical to accommodating significant levels of development consistent with its scale and complementary role to Barnstaple.

As a Main Centre, Northam will be expected to provide significant growth, the 1850 (NE) consequences on the AONB, have not been adequately assessed to take full account of the qualities of the protected landscape. Particular care will be required at the project stage to ensure the special qualitied of the AONB are not compromised.

Whilst the identification of Northam within Policy ST06 reflects the role of the 1859 settlement, its categorisation should be more closely linked with Bideford in terms of its functionality and proximity. It is significantly different to other settlements and from a housing and employment perspective cannot be separated from Bideford, particularly in respect of the local housing market. Northam should be included alongside Bideford as a Strategic Centre with recognition in the definition section to the functional relationship they have, even if the strategy for dealing with each is marginally different.

The Spatial Strategy set out in Policies ST06 and ST07 is clear and supported, 1855, 1877, especially the approach of planning for growth in rural areas. Doubt is cast whether 1972 planning to maintain the existing population levels in the face of an ageing and declining populations is sufficient to maintain current levels of facilities in communities’ especially important centres like Braunton.

Support for Policy ST06, particularly the designation of Northam (including Appledore 2253 and Westward Ho!) as a Main Centre. The allocation of appropriate development sites in Northam will support appropriate levels of growth that will increase the town’s capacity to meet its own needs and those of surrounding communities. Maintaining Appledore’s established role as a main town in northern Devon is wholly appropriate and it is right that the Plan seeks to secure sustainable development opportunities through increased self-containment and to achieve balanced development to enable the town to meet its own needs

Support the principle the strategy of focussing significant development in urban 2096 extensions on the edge of the principal settlements within the plan area. Support the focus on enhanced self-containment of the principal centres as a part of the spatial strategy. The spatial strategy will not therefore need to be changed to support an increased scale of growth. However further allocations will need to be made within this strategy to increase the supply of housing.

The Joint Local Plan allocates sites for 11,476 dwellings (Paragraph 4.22). However 2534 Paragraph 4.23 and the housing trajectory in Appendix 2 propose a stepped approach to housing delivery. In the first quarter of the plan period an annualised housing requirement will not be met. The fundamental thrust of Government policy is the need to boost significantly the supply of housing. Under the NPPF the requirement to meet the full objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing is an absolute one. The Councils should do everything possible to achieve an annualised housing requirement sooner rather than later. There is no evidence that housing needs across the Districts are less in the first quarter of the plan period than in later quarters indeed the Council’s proposal will contribute to further worsening housing affordability.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

North Devon’s 5 Year Housing Land Supply Statement at 1st April 2014 summarises various calculations. The Council has persistently under-performed therefore the 20% buffer is applicable. In accordance with the NPPG the shortfall from under delivery should be recovered in the first 5 years and the starting point for the calculation of 5 years housing land supply is the housing requirement based on a full OAHN. In these circumstances there is only 4.1 years of housing land supply.

The Torridge District Council Statement of 5 Years Housing Land Supply (from 1st April 2012) is somewhat dated evidence, which should be up-dated. Torridge District Council should clarify if 5% or 20% buffer is applicable and the approach to any shortfalls in delivery.

Both Councils should also confirm that 5 years housing land supply is available on adoption of the Joint Local Plan. Under Paragraph 49 of the NPPF “relevant policies for the supply of housing will not be considered up to date if the LPA cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites”. Therefore if the Joint Local Plan is not to be out of date on adoption it is critical that the land supply requirement is achieved. If there was not reasonable certainty that the Councils had a 5 years supply of housing land the Joint Local Plan would not be sound as it would be neither effective not consistent with National Policy. In conclusion the Councils should confirm whether or not 5 years land supplies are available, if 5% or 20% buffers are applicable and re-consider the stepped approach to housing delivery.

Supportive of the Councils’ proposed distribution strategy. Growth should be directed 2589 to key settlements such as Barnstaple, Ilfracombe and South Molton that benefit from established facilities, services and infrastructure, in accordance with the key theme running through the Framework of promoting sustainable development. However this should not preclude development in lower order, but still sustainable Local Centres and Villages, which will help to sustain existing facilities and services and ensure their ongoing vitality. The level of growth directed to each of the district’s settlements should take account of the full range of factors that can influence their ability accommodate sustainable development, and viewed in the context of the authority’s full objectively assessed needs.

The Councils’ should distribute growth to a sufficient range of sustainable sites that will ensure housing comes forward as expected. To provide sufficient flexibility for sites that fail to deliver the level of housing originally envisaged, or come forward at a slower rate than planned, the Plan should provide for an over provision of housing sites, over and above that required by the Local Plan, to ensure a continuous supply of housing over the Plan period, and maintain a five-year housing land supply. The Plan should recognise that in some circumstances this objective will be best achieved through sustainable, deliverable sites that do not benefit from a formal Plan allocation. The Council should be realistic in its delivery assumptions for sites allocated through the Local Plan.

Support for amending of settlement boundaries at the outset (paragraph 4.8), although 1650 the need to remain flexible throughout the plan period is noted.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.90 Support is provided for the overall approach (plp 1272 1660, 1667, 1734 1855, 1877, 1972 and 2635) and the following settlement hierarchy positions defined in Policy ST06:

Barnstaple as the sub-regional centre and a focal point for growth(plps 1924 and1493); Bideford as a strategic centre providing a complementary role to Barnstaple (plp 1961); South Molton as a Main Centre, with employment led expansion (plp2442); Northam(including Appledore and Westward Ho!) as a Main Centre(plp 1534 and 2253); and Fremington/Yelland (plp 595), Instow (plp 376) and Chulmleigh (plp 2635) as Local Centres.

2.91 In addition to support for the settlement hierarchy there is some objection to the attributed position of a range of settlements, on the following basis:

Ilfracombe performs a strategic functions and should be accordingly recognised (plp 1120); Northam should be categorised with Bideford with regard to proximity and functionality (plp1859); Amend ‘Braunton and Wrafton’ to include Chivenor Cross (plp 990); The defined positions of Braunton/Wrafton (Main Centre)/Yelland/Fremington (Local Centre) with regard to infrastructure capacity (plp 1418); Landkey should be identified as a Local Centre or considered part of the Barnstaple sub-regional centre (plp2635); and Appledore should be disconnected form the Main Centre of Northam and classified as a Local Centre (plp 1511).

2.92 Ilfracombe is defined as a Main Centre which is considered appropriate with regard to: the range of available services and facilities in support of the town and wider rural community, employment opportunities, infrastructure capacity both existing and planned for, its physical scale and capacity to accommodate growth. It is recognised that Ilfracombe contains a wide range of services and facilities as set out in the Northern Devon Settlement Service Availability Assessment (December 2012) and that it performs a role that supports the surrounding rural communities. It is considered that Ilfracombe’s position within the settlements hierarchy is correct. The centres identified as having a strategic role (Barnstaple and Bideford)provide for the focus of development within North Devon and Torridge, with a greater capacity for growth and to make a significant contribution to meeting the assessed needs and demands of the area. The functionality and capacity of Ilfracombe is not comparable with Barnstaple and Bideford. No change to the settlement hierarchy is considered necessary in response to comment plp1120.

2.93 It is suggested (plp 1859) that Northam should be more closely aligned to Bideford having regard to its functionality and proximity. Through the development of the North Devon and Torridge development plan Northam has been separated from Bideford in recognition of the distinct identities, function and character of the respective settlements. It is recognised that there is a strong relationship between Bideford and Northam both physically and in respect of social and economic links with some dependencies towards Bideford. This issue was raised in the context of the Northam Town Strategy from discussion of which it was recommended that paragraph 10.324 is amended to refer to the strong functional links between the settlements. No change to the Local Plan is recommended with regard to comment plp 1859, which is not considered to raise a soundness challenge.

2.94 It is suggested (plp 990) that ‘Braunton and Wrafton’ is amended to include Chivenor Cross. The basis for the proposal is the presence of services within the settlement (chapel, service station with shop) and sustainable transport links. The suggestion is made with a background of sought development at Chivenor Cross. Chivenor Cross has very few services and facilities on which basis it did not fulfil the settlement quantification criteria as provided for though the Northern Devon

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Settlement Service Availability Assessment (December 2012). It is recognised that the proposed development at the area subject to Policy BRA01 will bring the future built form of Wrafton closer to Chivenor, but such does not provide a justification for extending the growth area of “Braunton and Wrafton’ to include Chivenor Cross. No change to the Local Plan is recommended, no soundness challenge is considered to be presented with regard to this matter.

2.95 The settlement hierarchy in respect of Braunton/Wrafton/Yelland/Fremington is questioned (plp 1418) on the basis of considered infrastructure constraints. The settlement hierarchy is derived from an assessment of services and facilities as set out in the Northern Devon Settlement Service Availability Assessment (December 2012). The Assessment provided a consideration of the relative sustainability of each settlement as the basis for determining the related hierarchy position. Issues relating to the adequacy and the need for development generated infrastructure will be addressed through the application of the general polices of the Local Plan and as necessary site specific proposals. No change to Policy ST06 is recommended in response to the issues raised; no soundness risk is considered to be raised.

2.96 It is suggested (plp2635) that Landkey should be identified as a Local Centre or considered part of the Barnstaple sub-regional centre. The basis for the comment is to provide for an increase in the scale of enabled development at Landkey. The settlement hierarchy is derived from an assessment of services and facilities as set out in the Northern Devon Settlement Service Availability Assessment (December 2012). On the basis of this assessment which identifies the qualifications for the categories of settlement within the hierarchy, Landkey qualifies only as a Village. There is no justification for adjusting the categorisation of Landkey. With regard to bringing Landkey within the scope of the Barnstaple sub-regional centre, such is not considered appropriate having regard to the distinct nature and physical separation of the settlements. It is recognised that the future development of Westacott will bring the built form of Barnstaple closer to Landkey village. It is worth noting with regard to the level of development proposed for Landkey (Part 3 of the Plan) that such has been driven through direct engagement with the parish council, in relation to which no ceiling was suggested. No change to Policy ST06 is recommended in response to the issues raised; no soundness risk is considered to be raised.

2.97 A respondent (plp 1511) suggests that Appledore should be disconnected form the Main Centre of Northam and classified as a Local Centre. This issue was previously considered in the preparation of the Publication Local Plan. It is recognised that the three settlements within Northam Parish are distinct and in respect Appledore locationally divorced. The settlements have strong linkages and dependences, particularly in the delivery of housing needs that are best addressed through their designation as a Main Centre. It is suggested that by maintaining the settlements inclusion within the Northam Main Centre, Appledore would be subject to additional development that would reduce the physical separation with Northam. This position is not accepted. In forming part of a larger planning area, the housing needs of Appledore are accommodated beyond the immediate locality to ensure the overall objectives for the Northam Main Centre can be achieved. The Torridge Urban Housing Needs Assessment (GJ Consulting 2012) identified a need for 309 dwellings (201 market and 109 affordable) over the period to 2032 in Appledore. The level of planned housing growth at Appledore of 185 dwellings (allocated and non allocated developable sites) is considered appropriate given the opportunities available to bring suitable sites forward having regard to the character and form of the settlement. If the housing needs and demands of Appledore were to be provided at Appledore, further housing allocations would be required that could jeopardise the sought avoidance of coalescence between Northam and Appledore. No change to Policy ST06 is recommended.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

2.98 Support (plp 2096) is provided for the strategy of increasing self containment and providing for growth through urban extensions at principal settlements. Concern is however raised that the proposed allocations are insufficient and will result in an undersupply with regard to the need for positive planning that will boost significantly the delivery of housing. The comment with regard to Policy ST06 is noted. The issue of the overall supply of housing land is discussed through Policy ST08, from which recommended amendments are proposed to the overall supply of housing and employment land. No change to Policy ST06 is recommended in response to the issues raised in respect of which no soundness risk is considered to be raised.

2.99 Support is provided for the distribution strategy set out in Policy ST06, in respect of growth being focused at key urban settlements, with the proviso that development should be enabled at lower order settlements. Policy ST07: Spatial Development Strategy for Northern Devon’s Rural Area provides the framework for development in the rural area, with the recognition of the importance of growth to maintain active and balanced communities. Part 3 of the Local Plan provides the detail of how growth is planned for within Policy ST07 defined settlements. Policy DM24 also provides for development at Rural Settlements, which is in addition to ST07 settlements, to address locally generated housing needs.

2.100 Some concern is additionally expressed (plp 2589) that the anticipated delivery levels may not be achieved in respect of scale and rate. It is suggested that realistic delivery assumptions should be applied to allocated sites and that the housing supply should exceed the level of assessed need and demand in the interest of ensuring a continuous supply of housing. Allocated housing sites are available and suitable for development, there is every reasonable prospect that they will come forward for development during of the lifetime of the Local Plan. With regard to site delivery levels, the housing yields attributed to allocated sites are derived from the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. The assessment established a potential development capacity based on a standard calculation of net developable area and density assumptions with additional factors taken into account such as: site characteristics, development requirements, an urban or rural location and whether or not the site falls within a Critical Drainage Area. The yields attributed to individual sites are the means by which the housing supply is calculated, they do not function as a minimum or maximum development level, it is expected that future development will result in achieved yields above and below policy attributed levels. The Local Plan plans for housing development to meet the assessed needs and demands and provides flexibility for additional sites to come forward as windfalls that will add to the housing supply. No change to Policy ST06 is recommended in response to the issues raised; no soundness risk is considered to be raised. Issues raised with regard housing land supply are discussed in detail with Policy ST08.

2.101 It is suggested (plp534 and 1496) that the Local Plan is biased towards Barnstaple and North Devon. More allocations at Bideford for leisure and employment are sought in response to this position although no sites are presented for consideration. It is not accepted that the scale of development proposed at Barnstaple and the North Devon centres is disproportionate to the level provided at Bideford. The respective provisions are supported by evidence, in respect of leisure and retail, as provided for in the North Devon and Torridge Retail and Leisure Study (pda Peter Brett 2012) and the North Devon and Torridge Employment Land Review, taking account of the sub-regional status of Barnstaple and the growth through regeneration and economic growth strategy that is planned for at Barnstaple, South Molton and Ilfracombe. With regard to employment allocations it is worth noting that the draft Publication Local Plan allocated employment land at a level not consistent with current housing levels, this matter will be subject to further discussion of Policy ST08: Scale and Distribution of New Development in Northern Devon.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

2.102 The scale of development at Barnstaple is questioned (plp 1487) from which there is suggested to be a conflict between Policies ST06 and ST08. It is suggested that additional development should be provided for at Barnstaple, having regard to its sub-regional status. The planned level of development for all uses in respect of Barnstaple is discussed further within related town strategy, which includes some recommendations that would result in an increase in planned housing growth. Planned growth at Barnstaple with regard to retail and employment levels exceeds that provided for at Bideford, reflecting the functionality of the centre. It is however acknowledged that the housing level for both settlements is comparable. The level of development proposed at Bideford is a reflection of the functionality of the settlement, its capacity to accommodate growth to meet the vision for the town within the context of the scale of growth required to meet the housing needs and demands of the locality and the wider plan area. In planning for housing growth, it is worth noting that only demographic needs are being sought to be accommodated within the Torridge element of the Local Plan and that such generated needs and demands are significantly higher in Torridge than North Devon. The level of housing growth to be provided as a minimum must therefore be greater in Torridge than North Devon. No change to Policy ST06 is recommended in response to the issues raised; no soundness risk is considered to be raised.

2.103 English Nature (plp 1850) recognises that Northam as a Main Centre will be expected to accommodate significant growth. It is suggested that the consequences of development on the AONB has not adequately been assessed, on which basis particular care will be required with regard to the special qualities of the AONB at the project management stage. It is accepted that a detailed assessment of AONB impacts has not been undertaken, it is not however accepted that the AONB has not been considered in determining the level and development detail of allocated sites. The comments are nevertheless noted and Policy ST14: Enhancing Environmental Assets will be applied to protect and enhance the areas natural environment, including through conserving the setting and special character qualities of the AONB. The comment is not considered to represent a soundness challenge to the Local Plan.

2.104 Concern is raised (1855, 1877 and 1972)that in planning to maintain existing population levels current levels of facilities in communities’ such as Braunton will be jeopardised. The Local Plan seeks to meet the needs and demands of an increasing population and at a level beyond that required to accommodate demographic change. The comment is noted, no change to the Local Plan is considered necessary with regard to a soundness challenge.

2.105 Comment (plp 2543) on the Council’s five year housing land supply position is made with reference to the latest published material that indicates that neither Council has the required supply. The respondent seeks confirmation that a five year land supply will be available at the point of Local Plan adoption and that a 5% or 20% buffer will be applied having regard to historic delivery rates. The NPPF requirement in respect of a five year land supply is recognised and the Council’s intend to provide an updated statement in this respect. With regard to recent delivery rates, which have fallen short of delivery requirements, a 20% buffer will be applied to the housing supply. No change to Policy ST06 is recommended in response to comment plp 2543; it is recognised that the issue of the five year land supply will be a soundness issue with regard to NPPF compliance. Issues relating to the five year land supply are subject to discussion through Policy ST08: Scale and Distribution of New Development in Northern Devon.

Conclusion

2.106 The comments raised in response to the draft Local Plan are considered not to raise any major issues relating to Policy ST06 that would challenge the soundness of the Local Plan.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Agreed Action

1. No Main or Minor Changes to the Local Plan. Policy ST07: Spatial Development Strategy for Northerd Devon's Rural Area

Comments in Response to Policy ST07: Spatial Development Strategy for Northern Devon’s Rural Area

Total Number of Responses 39

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 4 7

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 3 14

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 7 4

Summary of Issues

Comments on ST07: Spatial Development Strategy for Northern Devon’s Rural Area plp number

The hierarchy set out in policies ST06 and ST07 is generally consistent with the 1491 status and scale of the settlements across the plan area, which identify Barnstaple as a Sub-Regional Centre, Bideford as a Strategic Centre, and Northam / Westward Ho! as part of the Main Centre.

The key areas supported by the Authority include: the inclusion of East Anstey in 2332 the Villages category and the inclusion of an additional settlement category ‘Rural (ENPA) Settlements’ where development should meet locally generated needs.

Where possible development should be within or adjacent to the existing built up 1285 (HA) area and priority should be given to locations with the best public transport provision. Due to the scale, nature and location of the majority of rural area development potential SRN impacts are likely to be limited it is important that as appropriate a robust transport evidence base supports new development to ensure no adverse impacts.

Policy ST07 is not justified; it is not evidenced based. Developments in the setting 1951 (NE) of protected landscapes have not been subject to capacity or sensitivity studies. Of particular reference: Hartland and Woolacombe as Local Centres, it is not clear that development will be delivered without detrimental effect to the protected landscape.

The policy (para 4) does not differentiate between development in designated and 208 (AONB) undesignated countryside. The following sentence to be added at the end of para (4): “In the AONB, great weight will be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in consideration of proposals ”

Amend parts (3) and (4) of the policy to allow development within rural settlements 808 and countryside which supports a prosperous rural economy including housing.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Policy ST07 and ST08 are poorly drafted. It is not possible to correlate the 377 categorisation of settlements in ST07 with those set out in ST06. Additionally insufficient housing is directed to the areas given the length of the plan period; commitments / completions to date and the number of more rural settlements identified

The plan only supports development in some villages; no justification for not identifying 1404 all. The plan only identifies 196 units in the rural area built/committed; it does not support a prosperous rural economy as provided for by NPPF paragraph 28.

Include all villages as defined settlements and allow for modest growth, not doing 535, 1513 so will stifle the rural economy. Appropriate support is not provided for economic development including live/work units. Extant permissions account for almost 50% of the rural dwelling allocations.

There is a need in Broadwoodwidger for a village hall and affordable housing. Future 1264 planning applications for such should be looked upon fairly.

Include in the list of villages in ST07. A site has been identified to the 170 west of houses on Rectory Rise which has access, is not within a flood zone and has no ecological issues. The proposed site has sufficient support through a public consultation exercise.

Supportive of the proposed designation of Parkham as a ‘Village". 905

Policy ST07 (4) is not compliant with Paragraph 55 of the NPPF. Modify Policy ST07 928 (4) to allow development.

Supportive of the designation of Witheridge as a Local Centre where development 1004 will be enabled to enhance its sustainability. Local planning authorities should not rely on the concept of settlement boundaries to determine whether a development site is to be considered sustainable. A site could be outside of the boundary but still well related to existing developments and local services.

Classify Bratton Fleming as a village not a Local Centre 1116, 1127, 1465, 2597

The Christie Devon Estate is supportive of the proposed designation of Instow as a 1408 ‘Local Centre’ and support the addition of an additional tier of settlement below ‘Villages’. ‘Rural Settlements’ recognises those smaller settlements which contribute to the overall sustainability of the rural area and confirms that appropriately located development of a modest scale will be enabled to meet local needs.

The policy provides no further clarification as to what will constitute ‘demonstrable community support’ in practice. Is Parish Council support required in order for a development to gain approval? Even very small scale applications which seek to meet a defined local need will often receive strong opposition from some local residents. There is nothing in NPPF which states that planning applications should only be approved where subject to demonstrable community support.

The Estate is pleased to see that the policy enables development “to meet local economic and social needs, rural building reuse and development which is necessarily restricted to a countryside location”.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Paragraph (3) of ST07 is not appropriate. “Demonstrable community support” is not 1682 indicative of locally generated needs. It is perverse to expect that where a need is demonstrated, Parish Council support would automatically be forthcoming. This would lead to ineffective and unjustified delivery across the plan area. Active and engaging involvement of the Parish Council and local community within any development proposal is welcome, however a site which is appropriate in all other aspects, but is not supported by the Parish Council, should not be prevented from coming forward where it meets a demonstrable housing need.

The classification ‘rural settlement’ is confusing; all the villages and local centres 1680 are ‘rural settlements’. ‘Small village’ would be a more appropriate classification.

Supports the identification of the more sustainable rural settlements. Clarification of how a rural settlement may change categories over the plan period should be provided, if for example services are lost or gained.

Policy ST07 and associated supporting text should make it clear that the housing 1593 requirement is a minimum reflecting the requirement in national planning policy to significantly boost the supply of housing and ensuring that growth is planned for positively over the Plan period. Housing levels should be amended to reflect improving economic circumstances and the need arising from neighbouring authorities in the wider housing market area.

The Spatial Strategy set out in Policies ST06 and ST07 is clear and supported, 1856 especially the approach of planning for growth in rural areas. Doubt is cast whether planning to maintain the existing population levels in the face of an ageing and declining populations is sufficient to maintain current levels of facilities.

Not convinced that planning to maintain existing population levels in the face of an 1659, 1735, ageing and declining population is sufficient in itself to maintain current levels of 1974, 1878 facilities in rural communities. Whilst we welcome this commitment to rural areas, the term 'at least' should be used in respect of the 5% and 10%. In some communities this may not be sufficient to stem the decline in rural facilities.

Part 4 of policy ST07 provides no definition of a rural settlement. We note that this is provided in Development Management Policy DM24 and feel that this should be crossed referenced for consistency.

Policy ST07 establishes a hierarchy of rural settlements and the scale of development 2142 by settlement category. Merton is identified as a Village, on which basis the spatial strategy seeks to “meet local needs and growth aspirations. A sensible and flexible policy but the classification of Merton is questioned; it should be reclassified as Local Centre. The village is served by a range of facilities; it is strategically located with good transport links, allowing for it to perform an important role to its hinterland. The village is capable of performing an enhanced role in the future. Dolton is a Local Centre with a smaller range of services and a less significant location.

Support for the proposed designation of Winkleigh as a ‘Local Centre’ where 2303 development will be supported in accordance with the local spatial strategy to enable wider than local needs to be met.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Local Planning Authorities should avoid relying on the concept of settlement boundaries to determine whether or not a development is considered to be sustainable. The emphasis should not be on whether a proposed development is on the right side of an arbitrary line but rather take account of all issues of sustainability. This is particularly true when considering live/work development proposals which are inherently sustainable.

Loxhore Parish Council supports the criteria which allow more flexibility for community 2520 (PC) supported planning applications..

Define Bishops Nympton as a ‘Local Service Centre’; it has a wide range of services 2472 and facilities to serve the settlements and wider community needs, performing a Local Centre role. Upgrade to a Local Centre within the settlement hierarchy to reflect this role and to reflect its capacity for sustainable growth.

Support North Molton as a Local Centre but not convinced the plan has sought to 2383 identify other planning issues that affect development. Arbitrary 10% increase in housing applied to Local Centres apart from Fremington. Why don't all Local Centre's have a more specific locational based strategy?

Consider the policy accords with national policy and guidance. Supportive of the 2462 proposed designation of Winkleigh as a ‘Local Centre'. Advocate the avoidance of use of settlement boundaries to determine acceptability of development and consider that should rather look at sustainability of proposals, particularly in case of live/work units. Highlight the need to carefully look at sustainability in rural areas, recognising that housing development is essential to support rural services and that all settlements can have a role to play in delivering sustainable development. Consider that blanket policies that restrict housing in certain settlements should be avoided.

There is a shortfall in provision set out in this policy above [plp2635] and artificial 2637 brake to meeting the growth needs of rural communities. The text in paragraph 4.22 is acknowledged .

References in paragraph 4.13 to 10% and 5% should be removed. The selection of 1688 a growth ‘target’ by a percentage figure is arbitrary and fails to reflect local circumstances. The starting point for housing requirements is the objectively assessed need following, a review of local circumstances and development constraints to gain an understanding of the levels of development which could be delivered.

It is important that the housing numbers for rural settlements remain purely indicative rather than functioning as maxima levels of growth over the plan period. It is also important to recognise that whilst a sustainability matrix offers some indication of the anticipated and planned growth of settlements over the plan period, it is evident that some settlements will be more appropriate, or more desirable, for development than others; it is important that the Local Plan remains flexible to this. In particular, the role of affordable housing need has not been considered when assessing the housing targets for each settlement. Evidently, rural affordable housing need is assessed on a parish basis and as such there will be occasions, particularly in later parts of the plan period, when the level of affordable housing need exceeds the remaining housing targets set for a settlement.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

The aspiration of rural housing to meet local needs and demands will not be met; 1645 market housing will not support social rented homes, which is not what the area wants. A wider range of housing tenures should be enabled.

Development boundaries reduce choice and increase land values; communities in 1671 the absence of development boundaries can direct development to meet local needs and preferences.

The requirement for exceptions sites to provide more than 50% affordable homes 1672 is not viable; 25% is evidenced as viable.

The distribution strategy is based on encouraging movement from rural to urban areas, which is undesirable to local families. The strategy also lacks work on jobs and tourism, the approach to which should be linked with the LEP and employers.

Additional Information

2.107 An update to the settlement hierarchy (2012) has been undertaken. This will be published in early 2015.

2.108 It was agreed previously to amend policy STO07: “Amend Policy ST07 to the Local Plan by: a. a Main Change including part of the qualifying criterion of DM24(1) in Policy by defining rural settlements as “settlements that contain at least one service or community facility”; b. a Minor Change amending paragraph 4.15 to list the services/facilities considered to qualify these settlements as set out in clause (1)(a); c. deleting ‘children’s play area’ from the qualifying criteria for a rural settlement prior to their inclusion within paragraph 4.15.

Consideration of Issues Arising

The Strategy

2.109 The Local Plan rural strategy is based on the settlement hierarchy (updated January 2015) to ensure that a sustainable approach is taken to development in the range of settlements in northern Devon. The updated settlement hierarchy sets out five levels of categories: Main Centres, Local Centres, Villages, Rural Settlements and the countryside. Settlements are placed within the hierarchy depending on how well they meet the required criteria. An appropriate level of housing development has been identified to the local centres and villages categories in consultation with the local community through direct engagement with the relevant parish councils. This approach reflects localism and is considered to be in compliance with the NPPF and acknowledges that the majority of new housing will be focused in the defined settlements. It has not been considered necessary for the Local Plan to allocate specific employment sites in the rural areas as there is not certainty that they would be delivered during the plan period. The only rural sites identified for economic development are at Buckland Brewer (BBR01) and Bridgerule (BRI01). It should however be noted that the DM12 allows for employment sites to come forward in the Local Centres and Villages.

2.110 The introduction of the ‘rural settlements’ category provides a significant amount of flexibility for allowing people with a local connection to build a dwelling in the smallest settlements in the districts, where certain criteria are met (as set out in DM24). Representations have been made stating that not allowing housing in the open countryside is contrary to the NPPF; however the Local Plan,

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

when read as a whole, does allow for housing in the countryside where the applicant can demonstrate special circumstances (as set out in the NPPF). To list all potential villages in ST07(2) would undermine the strategy of the Local Plan and the principles of sustainable development.

2.111 A representation has been made stating that the criterion (4) of ST07 is non-compliant with paragraph 55 of the NPPF. However, the countryside level in the hierarchy only covers areas where the criteria of the revised Policy DM24 will not be met and these areas are not considered sustainable locations for new open market housing development.

2.112 For the Local Centres and Villages, where a development boundary has been drawn around a settlement, it has been done in consultation with the local community, where it is considered necessary to ensure that development does not encroach into the countryside in an unmanaged way; this is one of the purposes of having a development boundary. By its nature, a local plan will limit an individual’s preferences and so it is acknowledge that this may limit development, however this is an intentional part of the local Plan strategy. The approach in the rural area is considered to offer considerable flexibility with regard to residential development opportunities across the range of defined villages, in Rural Settlements and where appropriately justified in the Countryside.

2.113 The representation from the Highways Agency (HA) is noted. Highways issues are addressed through the Infrastructure Delivery Plan. All allocations in the Local Plan have been considered by the SHLAA Panel, to which the HA are invited.

2.114 A representation has asked that the Local Plan sets out how settlements can move between the categories. Once adopted, the Local Centres and Village categories will be set until the Local Plan is reviewed. However, the rural settlements will remain a fluid category, given that they are not identified and are most likely to move between being a rural settlement and the countryside (or vice versa) given the limited facilities and services needed to change between the two. It is not considered necessary to include a reference to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty as this is covered in Policy ST14.

Rural Settlements

2.115 A representation has raised concern that there is no definition of how to demonstrate community support as set out in criterion (3). This issue was raised for Policy DM24 and no change was agreed to the Local Plan. Rural settlements will generally be small settlements where only a small amount of development would be permitted; only where it is justified by meeting the local identified needs. This is reflected in Policy ST08 where only commitments/completions are accounted for in the table.

Housing numbers

2.116 Natural England have made a representation stating that the Local Plan is not currently sound as developments in the setting of protected landscapes have not been subject to capacity or sensitivity studies. This issue was previously raised at the working group meeting on 29 October 2014. Without completing this work, amendments have been made to the Local Plan in light of NE’s comments regarding protecting landscapes e.g. the Hartland policy and Woolacombe and Mortehoe strategy. It is also worth noting that the presence and potential impacts on protected landscapes and heritage assets were recognised through the SHLAA and Sustainability Appraisal and consequently taken account of though the process of identifying developable sites for allocation.

2.117 Representations have been made regarding the use of growth figures of 5% for villages and 10% for Local Centres, which is set out in paragraph 4.13. One representation has stated that the amount of future housing for each settlement should be based in the objectively assessed needs for

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

each individual settlement, taking into account constraints which would limit the delivery of this requirement. The objectively assessed need for the two districts has been calculated and is reflected in the updated housing requirement for the Local Plan as a whole. The purpose of the settlement hierarchy is to set out clearly where the most sustainable locations for development in the districts are and to direct a suitable level of growth for each settlement. The figures of 5% and 10% were set as an indication of the growth required to maintain population levels in villages and to encourage growth in the Local Centres to support their service roles and used as a starting point when discussing with local communities how they would like their settlement to development over the Plan period. Now that the levels of development have been agreed, whether higher or lower than these initial figures, it is recommended that the references to 5% and 10% are removed as it is background information and not relevant to the implementation of the Local Plan.

2.118 The housing numbers for each settlement are not the maximum amount required; where numbers are assigned to a settlement, the policy states ‘approximately’. The stated housing number comprises known levels of development in respect of completions and units under construction (at 31st March 2013) and anticipated growth through extant consents and allocations. Additional housing may be provided though development on windfall sites and on exception sites that would result in the housing number identified in the settlement’s spatial strategy being exceeded.

2.119 It is accepted that paragraph 4.13 (a) should be updated to refer to ‘a minimum of’ 2,000 rural dwellings and instead of ‘about’ as this is the terminology used throughout the strategic policies section of the Local Plan. Additional development on windfall sites would result in the total housing number of rural dwellings being exceeded.

2.120 Due to the nature of the settlements which come under the ‘rural settlements’ category, it is not appropriate to allocate housing sites. However, the Local Plan allows limited development in these small villages where specific conditions are met.

Settlement specific comments

2.121 Representations have been made to the categories assigned to a number of settlements, as set out below:

Bishops Nympton

2.122 Bishops Nympton is not considered a Local Centre as it only has an employment score of 3 in the settlement hierarchy; the requirement for a local centre is 5 or more. As discussed in the working group meeting on 14 November (agenda item 8), as a ‘village’, the suggested level of growth would be approximately 24 dwellings during the plan period (5% increase), although more is allowed. The outcome of the local community consultation is for a total of 39 dwellings, which equates to an 8% increase. Therefore, the village will be delivering a significant amount of new housing during the plan period. No change to the Local Plan is agreed.

Bratton Fleming

2.123 Consideration was given to whether Bratton Fleming should be changed from a Local Centre to a Village when considering comments to the Bratton Fleming chapter, when no change was agreed. Bratton Fleming meets all the requirements to quality as a Local Centre.

Broadwoodwidger

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

2.124 A statement is provided that community facilities and affordable housing are required at Broadwoodwidger. Broadwoodwidger is not a ST07 defined settlement; it does not fulfil the qualification criteria as set out in the settlement hierarchy assessment, but is likely to be a ‘rural settlement’. Provision of the sought facilities would be considered with regard to Policy ST22: Community Services and Facilities and DM24: Rural Settlement.

Merton

2.125 The classification of Merton is questioned on the basis that it should be reclassified as Local Centre, with regard to the range of available facilities; it has strategic location with good transport links that allows it to perform an important role to its hinterland. It is suggested that Merton is capable of performing an enhanced role in the future. Dolton is a Local Centre with a smaller range of services and a less significant location.

2.126 Merton was classified in the original settlement hierarchy assessment (Dec 2012) as a Village, as it met the requirements for the category; the 2014 update shows that the community facilities score has increased by an additional 2 points. However, the qualifying criteria for local centres include the need for an employment score of at least 5; Merton’s score is 3. Merton is correctly identified as a Village and no change is proposed to the position of Merton within the settlement hierarchy. With regard to the future role of Merton, such will be assessed as part of a future review of the Local Plan.

Parkham

2.127 Support is provided for the proposed designation of Parkham as a ‘Village".

Petrockstowe

2.128 It is suggested that Petrockstowe should be identified as a Village, which would allow for a proposed housing development. The settlement hierarchy assessment (December 2012) did not result in a Village classification for Petrockstowe on the basis that it did not meet the qualification criteria, in the absence of a village shop or primary/infant/junior school, and it did not achieve the required score for public transport. With regard to development opportunities, appropriate schemes would be enabled on the basis of Policy DM24: Rural Settlements. No change is agreed to the Villages defined on Policy ST07 with regard to the addition of Petrockstowe.

Winkleigh

2.129 Support is provided for designation of Winkleigh as a ‘Local Centre’. It is however, suggested that development should not be restricted by the extent of defined development boundaries that issues of sustainability should be taken account of, particularly in the consideration of live/work development. The use of development boundaries is a mechanism to define the extent of planned development which is considered appropriate in scale and location for the subject settlement. Where development boundaries are in place, there is a clear delineation of where development is in principle accepted and the countryside beyond where a more restrictive approach is applicable. It is worth noting that not all defined Local Centres and Villages have development boundaries. The application of development boundaries to ST07 defined settlements was determined on the basis of Parish Council and community preference, based on a localism approach. In settlements without development boundaries, Policy DM23: Residential Development in defined Settlements without Development Boundaries is applicable and which also establishes a policy distinction between development within and beyond the built form of the subject settlement. With regard to live/work units, such will be enabled on the basis of the general policies of the Local Plan, as provided by a reference in the supporting text to Policy ST17: A Balanced Local Housing Market.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Witheridge

2.130 There is support for the designation of Witheridge as a Local Centre where development will be enabled to enhance its sustainability. NPPG states in Paragraph 001, Reference ID: 50-001-20140306:

‘It is important to recognise the particular issues facing rural areas in terms of housing supply and affordability, and the role of housing in supporting the broader sustainability of villages and smaller settlements. This is clearly set out in the National Planning Policy Framework, in the core planning principles, the section on supporting a prosperous rural economy and the section on housing.

A thriving rural community in a living, working countryside depends, in part, on retaining local services and community facilities such as schools, local shops, cultural venues, public houses and places of worship. Rural housing is essential to ensure viable use of these local facilities.

Assessing housing need and allocating sites should be considered at a strategic level and through the Local Plan and/or neighbourhood plan process. However, all settlements can play a role in delivering sustainable development in rural areas – and so blanket policies restricting housing development in some settlements and preventing other settlements from expanding should be avoided unless their use can be supported by robust evidence.’

2.131 Local planning authorities should not rely on the concept of settlement boundaries to determine whether a development site is to be considered sustainable. A site could be outside of the boundary but still well related to existing developments and local services.

2.132 Paragraph 4.19 sets out an overview of the Local Plan policies relating to the countryside, including the use of exception sites to meet an identified local housing need for Local Centres and Villages. The details of this approach are set out in policy ST19, and issues relating to viability are considered under that policy.

Other Matters

2.133 It will be necessary to update paragraph 4.19 to reflect the changes to the proposed housing numbers.

Conclusion

2.134 The issues raised through the representations received are not considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan, apart from lack of published studies to demonstrate the capacity or sensitivity of protected landscapes to accommodate potential development. However, the SHLAA and sustainability appraisal have previously taken protected landscapes into consideration. Proceeding without separate published evidence is a potential risk, although the Inspector may not agree with Natural England’s concerns and policies have already been amended to protect the landscape character of the AONB. Apart from this, it is considered that main and minor wording changes are required to strengthen and clarify Policy ST07 and its supporting text.

Agreed Actions

1. The following is an agreed Main Change to Policy ST07: a. Amend ST07(3): “In Rural Settlements, which contain at least one service or community facility, appropriately located development of a modest scale proposals for a local occupancy single

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

dwelling will be enabled to meet locally generated needs where subject to demonstrable community support in line with provisions set out in Policy DM24.

2. The following are agreed as Main Changes:

a. Amend paragraph 4.13: “The focus for development in the rural area will be at Local Centres and Villages. Housing growth of at least 10% (at April 2011) is planned in Local Centres, to support their role as rural service centres, enabling wider than local needs to be addressed. At Villages, at least 5% (at April 2011) housing growth is planned to maintain existing population levels and to support existing service levels .” b. Update paragraph 4.13(a) to refer to ‘a minimum of’ rather than ‘about’ 2,000 rural dwellings. c. Amend paragraph 4.15: “... Appropriately scaled development limited to that necessary Proposals for a single dwelling to meet locally generated identified housing needs will be supported in qualifying Rural Settlements (requiring the settlement to have at least one service or community facility from the following:- community/village hall, post office, public house, convenience shop, place of worship, sports playing field, primary school), as enabled by Policy DM24: Rural Settlements. d. Amend paragraph 4.19 to reflect the changes made elsewhere in the Local Plan. ST08: Scale and Distribution of New Development in Northern Devon

Comments in Response to Distribution Strategy

Total Number of Responses 6

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” - 1

Summary of Issues

Comments on Distribution Strategy (General) plp number

The allocated and unallocated housing land designated in the draft Plan is the result 1177 of consultations through the SHLAA process which, contrary to Government Planning Guidance, not with representatives of local communities.

How will the councils encourage industry (110 hectares of employment land) with 2382 in adequate transport links and a congested road network? The area cannot be developed without a comprehensive strategy of infrastructure, including highways.

Paragraph 4.19 indicates that the Local Plan “identifies a supply of 16,469 dwellings”; 1703, 2687 supply is not the appropriate basis for setting the housing target. The text in this policy should be reframed accordingly. Paragraph 4.22 presents the Councils’ approach to setting their housing target. With an objectively assessed need (OAN) at 14,520, uplift is applied to “support improved economic performance and affordable housing delivery”.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

The housing and employment balance at Barnstaple and Bideford is supported. 1973

The approach to growth for the Main Centres is supported with regard to consistency 2257 with Policy ST06 in providing for appropriate growth at Appledore.

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.135 One representation has suggested the allocated and unallocated housing land designated in the draft Plan is the result of consultations through the SHLAA process which, contrary to Government Planning Guidance, did not include representatives from local communities.

2.136 It is incorrect to suggest the SHLAA Panel did not include representatives from the local community as the opportunity was open to a number of community representatives from North Devon, West Somerset and Torridge Councils as well as Exmoor National Park to attend their own appropriate meeting to sit alongside representatives from a broad cross-section of the house building industry. This is further clarified within the updated SHLAA methodology (March 2014) which makes it very clear the community representatives will be made by direct invitation. It must be noted this invite was accepted by community representatives from both North Devon and Torridge Councils.

2.137 It should be noted the proposed amendments to the Plan has reduced the level of employment development down to approximately 85ha as opposed to 110ha (publication local plan)as indicated within representation (2382). However, in response to the concerns regarding infrastructure, in particular the A361 link road in to North Devon, the policy already seeks to improve the operational effectiveness of the strategic road network in northern Devon, which could include the opportunity to dual parts of the A361 around Barnstaple. Paragraph 4.52 ensures ‘development adjoining the A361 and A39 do not prejudice opportunities for future road and junction improvements’. However, it is unlikely the entire route of the A361 would become a dual carriageway unless major capital funding was made available by central Government which is extremely unlikely considering the route is no longer recognised as a ‘Trunk Road’. It is also likely Natural England would have a major objection to further destruction of Culm Grassland candidate SAC at Hares Down, and Rackenford Moors, a site of international importance where the existing route of the A361 runs through it. The Local Plan does not propose to dual the A361 as such a proposal would be for the Local Highway Authority to pursue and would of course be subject to a detailed Habitats Regulations Assessment.

2.138 It is accepted that paragraph 4.19 should be amended as the use of ‘supply’ in the context of the paragraph may not be the appropriate basis for setting the housing target. It is therefore proposed to include additional text within the policy and supporting text to differentiate between objectively assessed housing need, housing demand, housing target and housing supply. A representation has supported the general principle for the focus of housing and employment growth being located at Barnstaple and Bideford. Support is also given to the growth strategy for the Main Centres, in particular Appledore which it is perceived can support appropriate growth in order to increase the town’s capacity to meet its own needs.

Conclusion

2.139 A number of issues have been raised through representations received, but none are considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan. However, a main change is required to clarify the intentions of a particular paragraph of the strategy.

Agreed Actions

1. The following is agreed as a Main Change:

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

a. Differentiate between objectively assessed housing need, demand, target and supply. The scope and detail of this proposed change will be set out more clearly within the recommendations for Policy ST08.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Comments in Response to Policy ST08: Scale and Distribution of New Development in Northern Devon

Total Number of Responses 89

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 3 15

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 1 40

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 7 17

Summary of Issues

Comments on ST08: Scale and Distribution of New Development in Northern Devon plp number

Support policy 1123, 2306, 2334 (ENPA)

General support for Policy ST08 to focus development at Sub-regional, Strategic 1966, 2254 and Main Centres to increase self-containment through sustainable growth.

Support in principle the strategy of focusing significant development in urban 2100 extensions on the edge of the principal settlements within the plan area. However there are concerns regarding the strategic housing requirement and the interpretation of the evidence into Policy ST08.

The Agency supports the provision of development to focus at Barnstaple, Bideford 1287 (HA) and the other main centres. As previously noted, whilst the majority of development is located away from the SRN its cumulative impact should be recognised and development allocations supported as necessary by a robust transport evidence base. Development in the rural area, particularly that closer to the SRN, should similarly be scrutinised to ensure that no adverse impacts on the SRN are likely.

Welcomes plans approach to housing supply and ability to deliver wider area housing 2335 needs through Duty to Cooperate with ENP. (ENPA)

Support confirmation of a flexible approach to land release which will help to deliver 1537 a maintained land supply and to provide for greater development choice.

Support the absence of a programme of land release. The nature and scale of 1538 committed and allocated sites will provide a gradual delivery of new dwellings.

Policy ST07 and ST08 are poorly drafted. Unable to correlate the categorisation of 378 settlements in ST07 with those set out in ST06. Additionally insufficient housing is directed to the areas given the length of the plan period; commitments / completions to date and the number of more rural settlements identified.

Absence of housing densities results NPPF non compliance (paragraph 47). 536, 1516

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

There should be an element of flexibility in the distribution of the overall requirement 1502 in Policy ST08 as it may transpire that a greater proportion of housing will need to be provided elsewhere should the strategic allocations not deliver as expected.

The Local Plan has emphasised the Biosphere Reserve to the detriment of other 1957 (NE) significant biodiversity interests. Contrary to NPPF paragraph 117, the components of the local ecological network are not identified or mapped.

The distribution of development is flawed and does not maximise the use of previously 2068 developed land.

Do not support the assumption that extant permissions will necessarily deliver in 2384 their entirety, with the source generally being discounted.

Does not accord with NPPF requirement for Plans to meet objectively assessed 2402 needs with flexibility to respond to change. Wording in current form, referring to 2012 SHMA, will become out-of-date; more flexible wording would be beneficial relating to 'latest adopted SHMA'.

Paragraph 159 of the NPPF states that Local Planning Authorities should “have a 2403 clear understanding of housing needs in their area”. The Local Plan confuses the issues of housing need versus the provision of housing land supply which is not in accordance with the NPPF.

The approach of providing uplift from the OAN is supported. Additional analysis of 1716 affordability is however required to understand the role that increasing delivery of housing could play in delivering greater numbers of affordable homes, and in providing greater numbers of market housing as a measure of increasingly supply and thus affordability.

Paragraph 4.22 of the Joint Local Plan implies that the housing requirement of 16,496 2533 will “deliver housing needs of wider HMA under the Duty to Co-operate” but there is no further explanation of this statement. It is noted that in March 2014 the Devon authorities entered into a county wide co-operation protocol to strategically plan across local boundaries. However two of North Devon and Torridge’s neighbours are excluded namely West Somerset and perhaps similar arrangements such as signed Memorandums of Understanding should be sought with these authorities. The northern part of Cornwall was part of the original HMA but it is no longer a constituent part of up-dated reports. It is also suggested that each authority is now meeting its own OAHN but Cornwall is not proposing to do so in its Local Plan proposals. It is not clear whether or not North Devon and Torridge District Councils have raised concerns with Cornwall Council.

Table 4.2 Ilfracombe Commitments at 192 and Non Strategic Sites at 165 can not 2307. be relied upon to be delivered. A level of 150 commitments and 75 on non strategic sites is considered more realistic.

Housing too high

Proposed housing development will result in negative environmental impacts including 1467 use of greenfield sites, increase pollution and congestion, which will prejudice the qualities tourists seek, form the area. No justification for housing other than affordable accommodation for local people.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Objects to planned level high of housing proposed in Local Plan for northern Devon 2138 as it will not help local people.

The scale of development which is unsustainable and the effect planned development 2207, 2168 will have on traffic, jobs, and climate change and wildlife habitats in the area.

Housing numbers are higher than the objectively assessed housing need. Reference 2229 is made to the duty to cooperate as one of the key reasons but further detail is required. Not convinced that provision should be made for further second home ownership.

Housing too low

Amend the housing requirement to accommodate additional expected population 1494 growth, which might require 500-600 additional dwellings. The Plan should be clear how it provides for a 5 year land supply plus buffer, using the Sedgefield approach to address under-supply thus far.

More housing needs to be allocated in the Local Plan. RSS figures drastically reduced 597 without reasoned justification.

The draft RSS housing requirement, as reflected in the draft Core Strategy should 2569, 2557 be applied. The housing target of 16,000 will not meet the objectively assessed needs required by the NPPF or have sufficient flexibility to adapt to rapid change. In rejecting a higher growth option, too much consideration is being given to community aspirations and key elements of the assessment of housing needs, such as the backlog of need, are being overlooked.

There is a very real risk that the draft Local Plan is unjustified, contrary to the Framework: restricting the release of land, hampering the ability to address the urgent need for housing. It will fail to deliver the required flexible and responsive supply of housing land. The Local Plan should include some provision for the interim release of housing sites. In order for a 5 year supply to be robust. It is highly likely that some sites will need to be released for development in advance of the anticipated timetable for the adoption of the Local Plan to demonstrate a 5 year rolling supply.

The current imbalance between housing requirements and delivery places critical importance on the deliverability of sites identified for development, but that importance is heightened further by the acute need for affordable housing. Failure to allocate sites for which there can be certainty over timely delivery would run contrary to the requirements of the Framework and exacerbate and extend the District’s vulnerability to speculative unplanned residential development proposals. It is critical that the Council allocates sites that are genuinely deliverable and able to meet the identified housing need within the required timescales.

The evidence base does not meet paragraphs 47 and 159 of the NPPF; the 1502 requirement in Policy ST08 should be at least 18,450 dwellings to take account of the GL Hearn Report and the backlog at 2011. There will also need to be a buffer for the first 5 years of the plan and in light of identified shortfalls together with a 20% buffer for a persistently deliver failure housing supply requirements.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

The proposed strategic housing requirement is insufficient to meet the housing needs. 2118 The proposed level is not supported or informed by a robust evidential analysis; it does not conform to the NPPF and PPG. The Councils should at least look to the mid point between the Experian and Cambridge Econometrics projections which would result in jobs growth of 12,664 and a corresponding housing requirement of 21,234 dwellings.

Concern at the housing requirement of 16,469 which represents the bottom end of 2115, 2255 the evidenced economic forecast range recommended and will fall short of delivering the Council’s economic growth objectives; is not consistent with the core principles in the NPPF.

The objective assessment of need for both market and affordable housing should 1967, 2255 be met in full, unless the Council can demonstrate substantive reasons why it cannot.

For North Devon the “What Homes Where?” toolkit identifies household growth of 2525 8,507 (425 per annum) over the plan period whilst the 2011 interim household projections indicate a household growth of 235 per annum 2011 – 2021 (2011 growth as a percentage increase on 2008 is minus 45%). For Torridge the “What Homes Where?” toolkit identifies household growth of 9,676 (483 per annum) over the plan period whilst the 2011 interim household projections indicate a household growth of 408 per annum 2011 – 2021 (2011 growth as a percentage increase on 2008 is minus 21%). If the standard NHPAU methodology for converting household growth into number of dwellings is applied, the equivalent figures are 442 and 244 dwellings per annum respectively for North Devon and 502 and 424 dwellings per annum respectively for Torridge. The figures of 244 and 424 dwellings per annum (overall total of 13,360) derived from 2011 based household projection reflect a recessionary trend whilst the 442 and 502 dwellings per annum (overall total of 18,880 dwellings) derived from 2008 based data represent a long term trend. These benchmarking figures suggest that an OAHN of only 14,520 dwellings may be too low and an uplifted housing requirement to 16,496 dwellings may be an inadequate adjustment to meet a demographic based OAHN, employment forecasts and other market signals.

Concerns with the Councils' calculation of OAHN as set out in the SHMA Up-date. The methodology explains that the 2008 Sub National Household Projections were re-based to conform with 2011 Census data and a 20 year trend based projection of lower net migration was used for both Districts, which reduces the overall number of households down from 17,533 to 13,780 (6,119 households in North Devon and 7,661 households in Torridge). The Final Report also calculates a backlog of housing needs increasing the OAHN to 14,520 dwellings (6,656 dwellings for North Devon and 7,864 dwellings for Torridge).

Re-basing to 2011 based data and using lower net migration trends will reinforce recent recessionary trends in particular the suppression of household formation rates which across all households in North Devon & Torridge but especially the 25 – 34 years age group are significantly less in the 2011 based data compared to 2008 based data. A hybrid approach using a combination of the 2008 and 2011 data is recommended in acknowledgement of a gradual recovery from the slowdown in household formation rates due to the recession and its impact on the housing market. The Northern Devon Up-dated Report does not use such an approach but relies upon 2011 based data only.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Housing affordability is acute across the plan area, the area is characterised by low 2530 incomes and high value housing resulting in a high level of ned for affordable housing.

Councils should estimate the number of existing and future households without their own home or living in unsuitable accommodation, who cannot afford to meet their housing needs in the open market. This total affordable housing need should be considered in the context of its likely delivery as a proportion of mixed market and affordable housing developments. The total housing figure should be increased where it could help deliver the required number of affordable homes. The more significant the affordability constraints and the stronger other indicators of high demand, the larger the improvement in affordability needed and therefore the larger the additional supply response should be. The Joint Local Plan fails to increase supply adequately to meet the backlog of need.

The proposed scale of housing provision is insufficient to meet the authorities’ full 2586 objectively assessed housing needs. The proposed requirements do not align to any of the scenarios presented in the recent Northern Devon Housing and Employment Report, which reveals that 16,668 dwellings would be needed across the two authorities to support economic growth forecast for the area, with 9,556 homes required in North Devon and 7,112 in Torridge. A further ‘policy on’ scenario from this Report indicates that a combined target of 16,800 homes would be necessary. Whilst noting the supporting justification for Policy ST08 and the assessment of housing needs provided by the 2012 North Devon and Torridge SHMA Update, question the appropriateness of the housing requirements for the two authorities in light of the Northern Devon Housing and Employment Report’s findings.

Ensure that the proposed housing requirements are consistent with the process for identifying and meeting objectively assessed housing needs, as set out in the Framework and the PPG on Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessments. The Councils’ should begin by identifying their full objectively assessed needs, taking economic growth forecasts, market signals and affordability into account, then test whether any adverse impacts of meeting these need would clearly and demonstrably justify a lower Local Plan requirement. The Councils should not set their housing requirements based on what they consider to be deliverable through housing land supply or against a predetermined figure.

Employment Land

Significant over allocated of employment land against the evidence. Amend to reflect 1409 Employment Land Review with regard to overall scale and distribution.

The plan needs to allocate more land for economic development in northern Devon 1018 as the evidence only considered historic trends and did not consider a growth scenario should the economy improve in this area.

Amend part (2) of the policy to allocate up to 60 ha of land for economic development 809 in the areas recommended by the Employment Land Review.

The Council have not provided a robust evidence base to justify the proposed levels 2394 of Employment Land, and have not demonstrated an understanding of existing need.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

A strong economy, quality well paid jobs and good training cannot be sustained with 1718,1747 high business costs.

“at least”

The housing requirement should be stated as a minimum. 1502, 2384

Support for the overarching strategy but provision figure should be seen as a 1535 minimum, which would accord with the overarching principles of the NPPF, which requires Local Planning Authorities to plan positively for growth. Amended ST08 to: (2) Planned provision for at least 16,469 dwellings…

Policy ST08 and associated supporting text should make it clear that the housing 2255 requirement is a minimum reflecting the requirement in national planning policy to significantly boost the supply of housing and ensuring that growth is planned for positively over the Plan period. Housing levels should be amended to reflect improving economic circumstances and the need arising from neighbouring authorities in the wider housing market area.

Development targeted towards each settlement should be confirmed as “at least”; 2132 allowing for flexibility to ensure local needs are met, to boost the housing supply and to ensure plan wide consistency.

General support for the proposed distribution of new development, however the 2681 housing requirement should be expressed as a minimum because it is overly based on demographic projections. The Councils have failed to acknowledge that economic trends as well as market signals should also be considered in the calculation of objectively assessed housing needs.

The housing requirement should be expressed as a minimum because it is overly 2531 (HBF) based on demographic projections. The Councils should acknowledge the NPPF greater policy emphasis on housing provision and its approach to start with full OAHN. The Councils have failed to acknowledge that demographic projections are the starting point and employment trends as well as market signals should also be considered to be an NPPF compliant SHMAA. To be found sound the full objective assessment of need for market and affordable housing should be met.

Evidence and five year land supply

Reassess Policy ST08 requirements and undertake a SHMA update. 1502

Use (PAS) ‘Objectively Assessed Need and Housing Targets’ (June 2014), to 1708, 1967 calculation the housing requirement. This guidance clarifies that the composite parts of a housing requirement consist of a range of indicators; demographic, past delivery and market signals, future employment projections and affordable housing need. The Torridge Urban Housing Needs Assessment (UHNA) (2012) should not be used as the base to determine the housing requirement.

Objects on the basis ST08 is unsound as the overall level of housing growth is not 1472 based upon the latest subnational population projections 2012 (May 2014) and the Plan does not demonstrate how the proposed allocations deliver a 5 year land supply.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

The policy is unsound, there is a disconnection between the policy and the related 942, 884, evidence, it is not clear how the evidence has been used to shape and inform the 522 Plan. Consider that the Plan doesn't: make reference to recent evidence including the GL Hearn Reports; demonstrate the linking of housing and economic growth; demonstrate the scale of unmet housing need being accommodated from surrounding local planning authorities; make use of the latest projections and hence comply with NPPF / NPPG; take account of market signals in establishing an OAN for housing; and set out how second home ownership is factored into established housing figures.

It is not clear Policy how it provides specific sites for development for the periods 1863 2015-2020 (the first 5 years plus a buffer), then developable sites or broad locations for periods 2021-2031. It clear that neither Torridge nor North Devon can currently demonstrate a 5 year land supply and are reliant upon new allocations to achieve this. The Plan should be more positively prepared, in supporting sites such as land at Daddon Hill to be brought forward in the first part of the plan period to address demonstrable need. The Plan should be clear how it provides for a 5 year land supply plus buffer, using the Sedgefield approach to address under-supply thus far.

Housing growth is not based upon the latest subnational population projections 2012; 1860 the plan is not positively prepared, justified and consistent with national policy.

The plan does not demonstrate how the proposed allocations deliver a 5 year land supply (plus buffer) in the absence of one in the relevant Council’s position statements on this matter. It is currently not positively prepared in this respect.

To respond to the latest Sub-National Population Projections, consideration should be given to adjusting the housing requirement to accommodate the additional expected population growth, which in basic terms might equate to between 500-600 dwellings more (calculated with a 2.2 person occupancy rate and a 5% vacancy allowance).

Concerns expressed regarding the overall scale of housing development due to 1966, 2254 some underlying assumptions that inform the estimate of objectively assessed needs.

Paragraph 2.14 of the Local Plan states the need for "about 11,200 new homes just 2531 (HBF) to retain the same number of jobs as existed in 2012". It is difficult to relate the Local Plan to the economic ambitions of the Heart of SW LEP Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) 2014 - 2030 Final Submission dated March 2014 which states "our ambitions for economic growth will also drive population growth as investment and workforce demand drive in-migration. Our modelling work shows that our growth ambitions are likely to require an additional 74,500 homes by 2030." It was not possible to cross reference the LEP's modelling work with the councils' assessment as the Heart of the South West LEP Economic Scenarios Housing Requirement Report dated March 2014. The Councils have not taken into account any uplift to the OAHN for employment trends.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

It is not obvious if the conversion from household growth to number of dwellings in the calculation of OAHN is representative of existing vacancy rates (3.43% in North Devon and 3.54% in Torridge) which are above the regional average (2.72%) and the national average (3.03%). Likewise there are also high numbers of second homes at 4.82% in North Devon and 3.59% in Torridge.

SHMA assesses the level of housing need to be 212 dwellings per annum less in 2398 North Devon, and 142 dwellings less per annum in Torridge than determined by the draft RSS. The variation between the RSS and SHMA is at least in part due to the use of an inadequate evidence base, and the failure to consider the significant level of backlog.

The 2012 figures estimate an increased level of population growth when compared to 2010 figures, and this has resulted in the SHMA underestimating housing need. The 2010 figures are out of date. The SHMA cannot be considered to provide an up to date accurate assessment of housing need. This directly conflicts with the aims of the NPPF.

With an objectively assessed need (OAN) at 14,520, uplift is applied to “support 2688 improved economic performance and affordable housing delivery”. This uplift is 1,949, based upon the Councils’ assessment of housing land supply at 16,469.

The 2012 SHMA update only relating to the administrative boundaries of North Devon 2607 and Torridge Districts, without reference to cross boundary issues. This is a convenient sidestep of the need for the update to objectively define housing need across a housing market area. Paragraph 159 of the NPPF is relevant. It is unlikely that a housing market area will tally with administrative boundaries. The two local authority areas are not, an island and the duty to cooperate on the key issue of housing delivery applies in this instance. The 2012 SHMA update should not form part of the evidence base informing the Local Plan.

The Local Plan proposes an overall strategic housing requirement of 16,020, a significant reduction from proposed Changes to the RSS. A level which is considered to relate to the depressed economic circumstances that have held sway since 2008 and it is arguable that the 2010 based components of population change figures used to justify the lower figures in the SHMA are related to this. A deficient SHMA and insufficient joint working across the housing market area can lead to the suspension of an examination. The SHMA should be jointly reviewed with neighbours within the Northern Peninsula Housing Market Area.

The Framework sets out the process of undertaking an objective assessment, which 2584 should be undertaken in a systematic and transparent way. Paragraph 159 requires local planning authorities to have a clear understanding of housing needs in their area.

Paragraph 159 specifically relates to catering for both housing need and housing demand within the authority area.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Any assessment of housing need and demand within a SHMA must also consider the following factors; falling household formation rates, net inward migration, the need to address the under provision of housing from the previous local plan period, the preliminary results of the Census 2011, housing vacancy rates including the need to factor in a 3% housing vacancy rate for churn in the housing market, economic factors to ensure that the economic forecasts for an area are supported by sufficient housing to deliver economic growth, off-setting a falling working age population by providing enough housing to ensure retiring workers can be replaced by incoming residents, addressing affordability and delivering the full need for affordable housing in an area.

The majority of the SHMAs that were prepared under the current guidance on SHMA preparation are not Framework compliant. To avoid Examination issues on this matter, SHMAs should be updated to take account of the Framework and ensure plans are based on robust and up-to-date evidence.

Having identified the full, objectively assessed need in the housing market area, the LPA should seek to undertake the assessment outlined in paragraph 152 of the Framework. LPAs should seek to deliver the full, objectively assessed need and that this should be tested through the evidence base. Only where the evidence shows that this is not achievable should they then test other options to see if any significant adverse impacts could be reduced or eliminated by pursuing these options.

Guidance provided by Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) on Housing and Economic 2585, 522, Development Needs Assessments should be followed when objectively assessing 2066 and evidencing its housing needs. Key points from this document include:

Plan makers should not apply constraints to the overall assessment of need, such as limitations imposed by the supply of land for new development, historic under performance, infrastructure or environmental constraints Household projections published by the DCLG should provide the starting point estimate of overall housing need Household projection based estimates of housing need may need adjusting to reflect factors affecting local demography and household formation rates which are not captured by past trends, for example historic suppression by under supply and worsening affordability of housing. The assessment will need to reflect the consequences of past under delivery and the extent to which household formation rates have been constrained by supply Where the supply of working age population that is economically active is less than the projected job growth, this could result in unsustainable commuting patterns and could reduce the resilience of local businesses If the historic rate of development shows that actual supply falls below planned supply, future supply should be increased to reflect the likelihood of under-delivery of a plan Plan makers should take account of concealed households Housing needs indicated by household projections should be adjusted to reflect appropriate market signals, as well as other market indicators of the balance between the demand for and supply of dwellings. Appropriate comparisons of indicators (land prices, house prices etc) should be made – with longer term trends in the HMA, similar demographic and economic areas, and nationally.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Divergence under any of these circumstances will require upward adjustment to planned housing numbers The more significant the affordability constraints (as reflected in rising prices and rents, and worsening affordability ratio) and the stronger other indicators of high demand (e.g. the differential between land prices), the larger the improvement in affordability needed, and the larger the additional supply response should be

Market signals are affected by a number of economic factors. Plan makers should increase planned supply by an amount that, on reasonable assumptions and consistent with principles of sustainable development, could be expected to improve affordability.

The PPG states that Housing Need Assessments will need to reflect the 2401 consequences of past delivery of housing. Paragraph 6.25 of the SHMA however states that no backlog of Market completions has been identified.

The combined backlog of market housing across the plan area (based on RSS figures) is 3710 dwellings, which equates to 186 dwellings per annum over the life of the plan, or 742 dwellings per annum over the next 5 years. The Housing need stated by the SHMA should be revised accordingly to address this provision, as required by the NPPG.

The SHMA 2012 uses secondary statistical data, which accords with NPPG paragraph 2397 014. However concerned by the age of some key sources of information used by the SHMA in carrying out its assessment. Paragraph 015 of the NPPG states that DCLG Household projections should provide the starting point for estimates of overall housing need. Account should also be taken of most recent ONS demographic population adjustments. The SHMA is based on DCLG Housing Projections from 2008 which is outdated by the 2011 update. It is not acceptable for the Local Plan to be based on the findings of a SHMA that is out of date.

The OAN is from the SHMA (2012.The assessment is based upon data which is out 2689 of date, confidence in the data is limited with the need to re-examine the data once future releases of the Census 2011 data is made. These releases have occurred, however it is not evident that an update or cross-check with the SHMA (2012) has been undertaken.

No detail is provided as to the methodology behind the economic projections, however from analysis within other plan areas, we note that these frequently apply national trends to existing local employment structures; taking no account for local growth aspirations or local employment characteristics. Consideration of how local policy interventions, must be considered in more detail in relation to the presented economic projections. It is noted that the Employment Land Review (April 2014) considers the land requirements based upon economic aspirations. It notes at paragraph 6.5 that local economic policy, as detailed in the draft Northern Devon Economic Strategy 2013-17, indicates economic aspirations for employment growth over the plan period, at 54% above the baseline indicated in PROJ2. This is significant, and indicates that the Councils are pursuing a growth agenda without planning for the appropriate housing growth needed to support it. The ELR goes onto note that the upper land

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

requirement is some 60ha over the plan period, it is noted that at 110ha, the draft Local Plan makes a significant uplift beyond that required to provide churn and land choice. It is evident that the Councils’ current housing selection is not appropriate, with the baseline projection (PROJ2) of 16,668 note even meeting the Councils’ growth aspirations.

Planning Advisory Service (PAS) ‘Objectively Assessed Need and Housing Targets’ (June 2014), provides the most comprehensive methodology for the calculation of a housing requirement. This guidance makes it clear that the composite parts of a housing requirement consist of a range of indicators; demographic, past delivery and market signals, future employment projections and affordable housing need.

There is no single document which provides the basis for the housing requirement, and as such consideration of the range of scenarios must be undertaken. Torridge have undertaken an Urban Housing Needs Assessment (UHNA) (2012).

The Government’s aspirations seek to ensure the recovery of economic conditions and house building well before 2025, with significant advances anticipated earlier than 2031. The Government’s growth agenda envisages housing playing a significant role in the economic recovery.

Concerned that the Councils have selected a housing target based upon a 20 year-trend. This is despite the SHMA (2012) noting at paragraph 6.16 that the 20 year trend-based projection is “substantially lower than the projection from the 2008-based SNPP”. The SHMA (2012) shows that migration, especially internal migration, is the “most significant single component of population increase” in North Devon and Torridge, according to both the 2008-based and 2010-based SNPP. This has been reaffirmed by the recently published 2012-based SNPP which indicates migration will continue to play a significant part in population dynamics over the plan period. It is already noted that migration assumptions are trend based, and as such require the consideration of undersupply, exceptional events and economic conditions on recent migration trends. Nationally, migration has been significantly impacted by the recession, with less movement in the market both as a reflection of less employment-based moves but also due to a lack of available equity preventing lifestyle migration, notably retirement migration.

This is reflected in the 2010-based SNPP; which represent observed trends for a 5 year period from the base date (thus between 2005 and 2010). The SHMA (2012), selects the 20 year trend and justifies it based upon its conformity with the 2010-based recessionary migration levels this is not appropriate. In particular, it is noted that if migration rates returns to pre-recession levels, there will be a significant increase in the number of persons moving into the plan area, who will not be accounted for in the housing target. Based upon the calculations at paragraph 6.17, this could account for some 3,753 households. It is also noted, that based upon the economic projections, migration at levels greater than the 2010-based figures would be required to ensure that a sufficient working population is retained in Northern Devon over the plan period. The PPG is clear; Councils must consider the potential alternate migration scenarios which may occur over the plan period.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Paragraph 6.17 applies average household size based upon the 2011 Census. This is simplistic. Inbuilt in the household projections are trend based calculations for household representative rates, which seek to predict changes in household size. The use of trend-based household formation rates, and thus household size, should be considered in more detail. In particular, it is noted that with a particularly ageing population, the future prevalence of smaller households is a concern which must be considered.

The PPG identifies that failure of past supply has a significant impact on demographics. Suppressed migration is harder to detect, however it notes that consideration of historical changes in net migration and relating these to housing completions should be undertaken. The PAS guidance makes clear, however that under-supply and under-delivery in this context do not relate to policy targets, but in relation to whether the targets themselves reflect demand and need.

Whilst the SHMA (2012) contains some detail in respect to the affordability of Northern Devon, this relates solely to the affordability of accommodation to meet current housing needs, rather than an assessment of whether past supply has resulted in the plan area becoming increasingly unaffordable. A number of indicators can be used to understand the localised housing market, and the role that supply has had on affordability. We recognise that the draft Local Plan at paragraph 4.22 indicates that the uplift in delivery from the OAN seeks to address affordable housing needs. This approach is supported. However, we believe additional analysis of affordability is required to understand the role that increasing delivery of housing could play in delivering greater numbers of affordable homes, as defined by the NPPF, but also in providing greater numbers of market housing as a measure of increasingly supply and thus affordability.

The 2012 Study presents two economic projections (PROJ2 and PROJ3) and the subsequent dwelling requirement. It is not clear from the 2014 document, the date at which these projections are from. The earlier 2013 study presents an alternate economic scenario (PROJ 5) which indicates the consultant’s position that economic growth is likely to exceed the Experian (PROJ 2) baseline projections and that net out-commuting is likely to reduce as a result of greater employment growth (see paragraph 9.20): The report finishes with “based on the analysis within this report, we conclude that it would be reasonable to plan for provision of between 16,000-17,000 homes over the plan period, with the economic evidence in particular converging on the potential for provision of around 16,800 homes” (paragraph 9.28).

No detail is provided as to the methodology behind the economic projections. Consideration of how local policy interventions, for example the aspirations of the Local Enterprise Partnership, must be considered in more detail in relation to the presented economic projections. It is noted that the Employment Land Review (April 2014) considers the land requirements based upon economic aspirations. This is significant, and indicates that the Councils are pursuing a growth agenda without planning for the appropriate housing growth needed to support it. The ELR goes onto note that the upper land requirement is some 60ha over the plan period, it is noted that at 110ha, the draft Local Plan makes a significant uplift beyond that required to provide churn and land choice. It is evident that the Councils’ current housing selection is not appropriate, with the baseline projection of 16,668 note even meeting the Councils’ growth aspirations.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Given that Northern Devon’s projected population dynamics indicate a consideration increase in non-working age populations, notably over 65s, it is necessary to consider if an adjustment is required, to allow for greater inward migration of working age persons to meet future job requirements. However no justification is given as to the levels selected. We would expect to see a degree of sensitivity testing.

Northern Devon’s affordability issues are extenuated by the second home and holiday let market. The Councils’ approach to this market, that there is no requirement to assess and account for future growth, is entirely inappropriate. The PPG recognises a range of housing products and notes that there are other products not listed that impact upon housing need. It is evident that this includes second homes. The housing requirement would require adjustment to seek to provide an element of this housing, without compromising the housing needs of the projected resident population.

Affordable housing need is a component part of the housing requirement. The SHMA (2012) contains a comprehensive analysis of housing need, however as noted above, it does not capture the most recent data, and is significantly compromised by its reliance on trend-based projections. It is not obvious from the SHMA (2012) what constitutes the current unmet housing need (the backlog). The workings in paragraph 7.11 indicate that the selected backlog is 747, i.e. those with no permanent home of their own (Table 6.4). This definition does not meet the PPG, which indicates that current unmet housing need includes homeless households, those in priority need in temporary accommodation, those in over-crowded households, concealed households, those in other tenures who cannot afford their own homes and existing affordable housing tenants in need (unsuitably housed) (paragraph 024).

Recognise that calculating newly arising need is problematic, given that trend-based assessments are limited, as discussed above. We would direct the Councils to the PAS guidance’s recommended approach to assessing and incorporating affordable housing need into the housing target: i Assess total housing need or demand (the OAN) as shown in earlier chapters, ending with a preferred scenario and / or a range of uncertainty. ii Estimate how much of that total need could be delivered as new affordable housing, given the affordable housing contribution that can be viably generated from market housing developments. iii Assess affordable housing need, as shown in paras 022-029 of the PG. iv Compare this affordable need with the potential affordable supply at stage ii. v Consider if the resulting scenario would meet a reasonable proportion of the affordable need. vi If not, consider raising the total need figure so it includes more affordable housing.

We note that the Councils have indicated that the current housing target contains an uplift seeking to address affordability issues; however the target itself falls short of the OAN based upon economic projections. It is clear that the current housing target will exacerbate affordability issues. With employment growth encouraging

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

greater employment activity, and resulting economic migration, the failure to provide sufficient housing will result in a housing shortage, thus increasing prices and impacting upon affordability.

It is necessary that the Councils select an appropriate housing target based upon objectively assessed needs. Following that the Councils may indicate local circumstances prevent delivery of the assessed need. In this case the Councils would then be required to engage proactively with neighbouring local authorities to ensure this need is met over the plan period.

Note that paragraph 4.23 indicates that the Councils expect to “step up” delivery from the second quarter of the plan period. A phased housing requirement would not be appropriate. This reference should be removed.

It is not clear what the intention of the statement "step up" delivery from the second 1721 quarter of the plan period means. A phased housing requirement would not be appropriate and is not included in the policy itself. The reference should be removed.

Settlement and Rural Area

Barnstaple should accommodate the largest scale of housing or employment growth 2629 inconsistent with its sub-regional role.

Reduce the development in South Molton. 785

Braunton/Wrafton’s housing allocation, at 340 is low in comparison to other main 2572 centres. Northam and Ilfracombe (with populations of approximately 11,500 each) have allocations of 1,550 each and South Molton, whose population at 4,090 is half of Braunton/Wrafton’ s at 8,100, has an allocation of 1,100. Great Torrington and Holsworthy are main centres with populations significantly below Braunton/Wrafton’s, with housing allocations significantly higher than Braunton/Wrafton’ s. Fremington/Yelland, which is identified as a ‘local centre’ has an allocation of 370.

There is a mismatch between the proposed housing allocations and the populations of the respective settlements. Acknowledge that population is only one indicator. The Local Plan notes that Braunton/Wrafton is ‘an important local service centre, this function is similar to the descriptions given for Ilfracombe and South Molton, yet the housing allocations are significantly lower.

Support the recognition of North Molton as a Local Centre. The Local Plan has not 2384 produced the most effective local strategy as sought by the NPPG, which states that “Local Plans should be tailored to the needs of each area in terms of their strategy and the policies required”.

The overall distribution of the 16,181 is inappropriately and inconsistently distributed. The provision of 6.37% of the total housing requirement to the Local Centres is likely to increase affordable housing shortfalls in such settlements. The proportion of planned development at Fremington and Yelland is questioned and suggested to be prejudicial to other Local Centres. Objection is made to the 10% growth strategy for North Molton, which is considered insufficient having regard to the settlement’s ability to meet its needs and contribute to meeting those of the wider area, including

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

part of the National Park. A 10% growth level would only maintain existing population levels due to projected reductions in household size and increased longevity; it would not deliver growth or boost the supply of housing as required by the NPPF. Failing to allow for growth will in turn contribute to a continued decline in rural services.

Concerns regarding the deliverability of the two allocations and their subsequent provision of affordable housing in light of the level of mitigation required, which may affect the level of affordable housing delivered. To address these issues the plan should indicate how the 10% growth figure will be allowed to be exceeded.

Supports Ilfracombe as a ‘Main Centre’ capable of accommodating growth; Increase 1503 the overall housing figure for North Devon; As a consequence of an higher housing figure overall, increase the amount of housing provision in Ilfracombe in recognition that it is one of the main centres capable of taking growth.

The distribution of housing is not reflective of past housing/population growth and 2694 future need. Acknowledge that the SHMA identifies currently a requirement in Ilfracombe of 1,085 new dwellings up to 2031 and that there has been provision for uplift to 1,426 dwellings. Further growth is required to address historically low growth levels below other centres. Higher growth should consequently be directed towards Ilfracombe, such as at the John Fowler Holiday Park.

The Core Strategy housing requirement of 21,600 dwellings is more realistic than 2443 16,469. Support the urban development focus and employment based growth strategy, the delivery of which should be supported by further growth at South Molton. More housing should be allocated compared to more remote areas such as Ilfracombe and Northam, and where there is a reduced housing/employment balance. Development opportunities are stated as available to provide addition housing at South Molton.

Rural growth to meet needs should be located in developments in settlements which 379 are serviced by a choice of transport modes and accessible to the communities they serve. In this respect Instow as a Local Centre performs better than other identified Local Centres.

Level of housing provision has not been soundly justified and demonstrated to reflect 2618 national policy. The objectively assessed need for housing within Torridge is greater than advocated. Considering the national requirement to boost significantly the supply of housing, and local aspirations for economic growth and market signals (affordability, migration and second homes), suggest a need for a higher housing requirement for Bideford.

Concerned at the large amounts of housing planned for the area and how this will 2105 affect drainage and sewerage in Kenwith Valley (Bideford/Northam).

Too much development in Bideford putting pressure on services and infrastructure. 2116

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

A level of housing can be accommodated in the existing built up area of Bideford 1999 and on smaller sites that are already planned for, but there is a limit to the amount of brownfield land available and thus significant development needs to be accommodated in sustainable locations on the edge of the town. Accordingly, the proposed approach of identifying land immediately adjacent to the town is supported..

Qualified support for the planned provision for dwellings and employment land in 1996 Bideford and the figures for the provision of allocated housing sites in the town.

Significant increase in the Northam housing requirement from the draft Core Strategy 156 (1000 dwellings) to the Local Plan (1782 dwellings) although the overall requirement has reduced from 21,600 to 17,469. The classification of Northam has also altered from part of the Bideford/Northam Locally Strategic Centre to a Main Centre. Reduced the housing requirement to reflect the lower order in the spatial hierarchy. The proposed level of development is disproportionate to the capacity of the area to meet the needs of an enlarged community and the physical ability of the area without detriment to its environmental.

NOR1 and NOR2 (Northam) are unsustainable locations for growth due to transport 2068 and landscape issues and would be better focused, if required, to Bideford.

General support for the planned provision for dwellings and employment land in 2258 Northam, but the overall scale of housing development should be higher. Appropriate that development is focused on the Main Centres, as sustainable locations, which will help safeguard and improve existing facilities and contribute to self-sufficient communities. This follows the principles of good planning and is reflected in the allocation subject to Policy NOR07) which will make a significant contribution towards meeting the future housing needs of Appledore.

The identification of only 196 dwellings from Rural Settlements and the Countryside 1601 is unrealistic and restrictive. Table 4.2 demonstrates that effectively the figure of 196 is based on completions existing commitments. Policy ST08 provides no flexibility for additional supply to come forward from this source. More flexible is required particularly with respect to smaller settlements and coastal locations. Allow for more supply from Rural Settlements and the Countryside – based on the current build rate of 22 dwellings per year from this source (Table 4.2) a figure of at least 440 dwellings would be more realistic.

Support the policy reference to meeting the needs of the rural areas, but, in respect 2646 of (2) it should be limited to that supported through the Neighbourhood Planning process. Uncertain how the growth will be planned and how opportunities will enabled, clarification is required. If this is proposed through identification in Part 3 of the Local Plan, the supporting text should clearly make the necessary cross reference.

Distribution of housing and employment land is broadly supported. Concern about 1661,1736, the Plans ability to support rural vitality, the high levels of commitments for this and 1880, 1857, the likely impact this is likely to have on delivering development in Local Centres / 1975 Villages.

The urban growth focus should not be at the expense of addressing specific village 2120 development needs. It is vital to support an appropriate scale of growth in rural settlements commensurate with their size and function, In accordance with the NPPF.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Additional Information

Strategic Housing Market Assessment - Update

2.140 A supplementary update (NPSHMA)(4) to the Strategic Housing Market Assessment: North Devon and Torridge(5) has been undertaken to take account of recently issued data, most significantly the CLG 2012- based subnational population projections. The supplementary NPSHMA update provides a response to criticised evidence. As a further enhancement to the previous SHMA Update(6), the supplementary NPSHMA update relates to the Northern Peninsula strategic housing market area with the exclusion of the former North Cornwall District area (now part of Cornwall) and provides a disaggregation of the Exmoor National Park future housing requirement for each of the local planning authority (North Devon and West Somerset).

2.141 The supplementary update (NPSHMA) (7) presents a range of household projection scenarios for each of the partner local authorities (North Devon, Torridge, Exmoor National Park and West Somerset). The projection scenario recommended as being the most realistic, taking into account historic variables of growth such as migration and recession, is derived from applying 2012-based population projections to interim 2011-based household projections to 2021 followed by 2008-based projections to 2031. To determine the demographic based housing requirement an adjustment was additionally applied to take account of vacant homes, second homes and a backlog of affordable housing. On this basis the demographic based housing requirement is assessed to be 6,697 dwellings in North Devon and 7,778 in Torridge, providing for a combined requirement of 14,475 across the plan area. The following table provides the component elements of the demographic based objectively assessed housing need for the plan area.

Demographic Based: North Devon, Torridge and Exmoor National Park

North Devon Torridge North Devon and Exmoor National Park Torridge

Base Projection 5,664 6,939 12,603 153

Unmet Need 410 201 611 11

Total Households 6,074 7,140 13,214 164

Vacant + Second Homes +10.26% +8.94% - +19.2%

Total Housing 6,697 7,778 14,475 195 Requirement

Table 2.3

4 Northern Peninsula Housing Market Area Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) Update Final Report January 2015 5 Strategic Housing Market Assessment Market: North Devon and Torridge Update Final Report, December 2012, Housing Vision 6 Strategic Housing Market Assessment Market: North Devon and Torridge Update Final Report, December 2012, Housing Vision 7 Northern Peninsula Housing Market Area Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) Update Final Report January 2015

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Duty to Co-operate

2.142 Exmoor National Park has formally requested(8) on a “Duty to Co-operate” basis that the objectively assessed need of 193 dwellings originating from the North Devon part of the Exmoor National Park is accommodated within the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan. The request has been accommodated; for clarity it is recommended that an explicit reference is made to this accommodation, which will result in an increase in North Devon’s housing requirement. Exmoor National Park has additionally requested on a “Duty to Co-operate” basis that the Local Plan provides for the housing requirement of 524 dwellings from the West Somerset part of the National Park. This request has not been favourably received and the northern Devon housing requirement makes no allowance to accommodate the West Somerset housing needs as contained in Exmoor National Park. This position will require a detailed response setting out the basis for rejecting the Duty to Cooperate request.

2.143 Exmoor National Park has undertaken an additional project to the supplementary update (NPSHMA) that included a review of the positon of the boundary of the National Park and North Devon. The review identified an error, which has implications for the location of generated housing needs. The consequences are of a minor nature; about 10 dwellings are required to be attributed to the National Park, from North Devon. The overall housing requirement will remain unaltered as a consequence of the housing requirement from the North Devon element of the National Park being accommodated within the Local Plan. It is nevertheless considered appropriate that the Local Plan is reflective of the most up-to-date evidence. It is recommended that an adjustment to the housing figures relating to the North Devon demographic need and the Exmoor National Park duty to cooperate requirement, as to be stated in the supporting text to Policy ST08 is undertaken on confirmation of the required adjustment.

2.144 The supplementary update (NPSHMA) relates to North Devon, Torridge, West Somerset and Exmoor National Park. The full extent of the Northern Peninsula Strategic Housing Market Area was not covered by the assessment as a result of the omission of the former North Cornwall District Council area. This area now forms part of Cornwall Council who have separately undertaken a housing market assessment to cover the full extent of Cornwall. Through Duty to Co-operate discussions Cornwall Council have confirmed and demonstrated that the objectively assessed housing needs of the former North Cornwall Council area can be accommodated within the generating area. On this basis there will be no call on the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan to assist in accommodating the housing needs of this area.

Housing and Employment Balance

2.145 The GL Hearn Housing and Employment Study and Employment Land Review(9) provides evidence relating to the interaction of the housing market and economic dynamics, providing a linked assessment of housing and employment needs over the plan period. The Study concluded that, based on a policy on positon that would provide for strong economic growth a balanced housing and employment requirement would be achieved on the basis of 16,800 dwellings and 60 hectares of employment land.

2.146 The recommended employment land requirement related to development based on B1, B2 and B8 uses. On request GL Hearn provided further advice that by taking into account the full range of economic uses (NPPF definition of economic development(10)) enabled on Local Plan employment allocations and having regard to the anticipated employment growth sectors in North Devon and

8 Letter to North Devon District Council dated 6th January 2015. 9 Northern Devon Housing and Employment Study and Employment Land Review (GL Hearn Final Report April 2014) 10 National Planning Policy Framework Annex 2 Glossary

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Torridge a top range of 75 hectares of employment land could be supported. Guidance was further provided as how to calculate what would be the housing requirement to support levels of employment growth beyond 75 hectares. The advice provided in this respect was on the basis of a rudimentary methodology. The table below, through the application of the GL Hearn methodology provides a guide as to the housing requirement for a range of growth scenarios. As a rough guide, for each additional hectare of employment land provided above 75 hectares, a further 43 dwellings would be required to be provided for.

Employment (hectares) Housing Requirement (dwellings)

75 16,785

80 16,999

85 17,214

90 17,428

95 17,642

100 17,867

110 18,285

2.147 It is clear that there is an imbalance of employment/housing as provided for in the draft Publication Local Plan, to the extent that if the employment supply remained unaltered a further 1,500 dwellings would be required above the 16,785 requirement and about 1,900 above the supply (16,469 dwellings) provided in the draft Publication Local Plan.

2.148 In response to the housing/employment imbalance, the supply of employment sites has been subject to re-evaluation as part of the review of the Town Strategy sections within the Local Plan. From the Publication Local Plan, which included a supply of 110 hectares of employment land, allocated employment sites have been subject to recommended reductions and loss at Barnstaple

2.149 (- 4.6 hectares), Fremington and Yelland (-7 hectares) and South Molton (-3.6 hectares), which provides an employment land balance of about 95 hectares. If the employment land supply remains unaltered from this point, the housing requirement would equate to a level of about 17,640 dwellings.

2.150 A critical review of the contributing sites to the housing requirement has additionally been undertaken, to ensure accuracy of data, including updates relating to planning consents and to reflect recommended adjustment to allocated housing or mixed use development sites. The table below provides the detail of the housing position following the referenced review, which indicates uplift from the draft Publication Local Plan of about 775 dwellings.

LOCAL PLAN Built Commitments Non Allocations Total Strategic

Barnstaple (greater) 106 356 494 3183 4139

Braunton (greater) 21 101 68 200 390

Fremington 54 9 86 277 426

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Ilfracombe 104 209 191 925 1429

South Molton 19 102 199 920 1240

Bideford 249 854 309 2715 4127

Northam 41 155 90 1630 1916

Great Torrington 18 126 38 450 632

Holsworthy 65 240 0 365 670

ND Local Centres 47 150 89 289 575

TD Local Centres 64 181 0 303 548

ND Villages 83 116 31 286 516

TD Villages 45 179 0 294 518

ND Rural Settlements 12 41 0 0 53

TD Rural Settlements 13 54 0 0 67

NORTH DEVON 446 1084 1158 6080 8768

TORRIDGE 495 1789 437 5757 8478

TOTAL SUPPLY 941 2873 1595 11837 17246

2.151 Taking account of the review of housing and employment provisions, there remains an imbalance that must be addressed through a reduction in the employment supply or an increase in housing levels. Further opportunities for a reduction in proposed employment land have been identified and are set out in separate reports on this agenda.

2.152 In taking forward an objectivity assessed housing need based on economic growth , it should be recognised that the Housing and Employment Policy-On position for an economic driven scenario (2011-2031) that would require a housing split across northern Devon on the basis of 10,137 dwellings in North Devon and 6,648 in Torridge. However, this must also be balanced against Torridge having a higher demographic need than North Devon, which exceeds the suggested economic growth requirement (at 7,700 dwellings) and the settlement strategy requirements for each of the Torridge Town’s, most significantly with regard to the need for increased levels of self containment at Bideford.

Consideration of Issues Arising

General Comments

2.153 A number of representations have been received that express general support for the scale and distribution of growth across northern Devon including from Exmoor National Park Authority who welcome the approach of the Plan to deliver some of Exmoor’s housing need through the ‘Duty to Cooperate’. The Highways Agency also fully supports the general principles of the policy and the principle to focus development at Barnstaple and Bideford and other main centres. Support is also given to the more flexible approach within the Plan to land release which is considered will help deliver

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

a maintained land supply and provide development choice. However, there are a number of concerns regarding the strategic housing requirement / employment provision and the interpretation of the evidence base behind Policy ST08.

2.154 The response from Natural England is noted, although it is not accepted. The Spatial Planning Vision of the Plan is to enable the delivery of infrastructure, jobs, accessible local services and housing for future generations while supporting the world-class environment of the Biosphere Reserve, an approach that is not considered unreasonable. Objective (a) of Aim 2 : A World Class Environment – where important assets are valued and enhanced for future generations seeks to protect and enhance the undeveloped coastline, estuarine and important countryside assets of northern Devon; Objective (b) seeks to ensure important wildlife habitats, protected landscapes, and our distinctive heritage are conserved and enhanced and the decline of biodiversity is reversed; and Objective (c) seeks to ensure land is used efficiently and effectively – optimise how ecosystem services provide and result in productive living landscapes and townscapes that adapt to our changing needs. Further detail on this matter is set out within Policy ST14: Enhancing Environmental Assets. The Plan area Policies map and individual policies maps clearly identify a number of biodiversity assets such as SACs, SSSIs, CWSs, HPGs and LNRs that all contribute towards the local ecological network, although it is accepted that additional work will be required to update the GI strategy in order to create linkages between these distinct areas of local habitat.

2.155 The representation that considers Policies ST07 and ST08 are poorly drafted and there was no correlation between the settlements in ST07 and ST06. It is unclear from the representation as to the objector’s perceived confusion as the settlement hierarchy is clearly set out within Policy ST06 (Strategic and Main Centres) and ST07 which identifies the Local Centres and Villages. It was not considered appropriate to attempt the identification of Rural Settlements across the Plan area as listing such settlements could allow for errors by excluding settlements that may qualify now or in the future but are not identified. Therefore, the most appropriate method of recognising whether a Rural Settlement would qualify is set out within Policy DM24: Rural Settlements and is proposed for inclusion within ST07.

2.156 A couple of representations have expressed concern that the policy does not clearly detail housing densities as required by paragraph 47 of the NPPF. However, as the Plan must be read as a whole it should be noted that paragraph 3.28 clearly states ‘Density standards are not defined in respect of residential development. Within the context of making efficient use of land, it is recognised that a flexible approach to density is required to create successful places, respond to site specific factors and achieve quality residential environments. Good design will result in variable densities that appropriately take account of the principles set out in Policy DM04: Design Principles’. As stated, this is further referenced within Policy DM04 and paragraph 12.35 and in order to deliver and support the creation of successful places then good design will result in variable densities that need to have regard to the design principle set out within Policy DM04. Therefore, it is not accepted the Plan is contrary to the NPPF in terms of setting out the approach to housing density. It is not proposed to make further changes to the Plan in response to these representations.

2.157 Development of brownfield land is supported by the NPPF and the reuse of previously developed land is a key aspect of delivering sustainable development (paragraph 17 – Core planning principles). The Plan supports housing development on previously developed land, which is set out as a policy objective within Policy ST01: Principles of Sustainable Development and Policy ST02: Mitigating the impact on Climate Change (criterion e). This is further clarified in paragraph 3.6 which states ‘reuse and redevelopment of previously developed land will be encouraged where available and environmental constraints allow’. The Plan has identified the developable previously developed sites where they have been identified through the SHLAA process. However, it must be recognised that the districts of North Devon and Torridge, due to their rural nature, have a very limited supply of

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

previously developed sites that can be redeveloped for housing, particularly in Barnstaple where approximately 25% of the built up area and most available brownfield sites are within an indicative flood zone where houses are considered a more vulnerable use and should be directed away from such areas.

2.158 A representation has expressed concern that Table 10.12 will not deliver what is relied upon within the plan period and additional housing sites will be required in Ilfracombe to meet the level of supply proposed in the Plan. The representation has indicated that the figures of 192 (commitments) and 165 (non allocated developable sites) cannot be relied upon and a more realistic figure of 150 and 75 are more realistic. It is considered the existing commitments (192) are deliverable as these are sites already within the planning system which are either under construction or with an extant planning permission. A similar representation has been received in general terms regarding the delivery of unimplemented planning permissions as set out within the Plan. The unimplemented commitments have already had a 15% non-implementation discount applied to reflect that not all sites with planning permission will be delivered. This level of discount rate was agreed by the SHLAA panel and used throughout the local plan for consistency as a realistic approach to non-implementation.

2.159 Paragraph 4.22 does imply that the housing requirement for northern Devon will deliver housing needs of the wider HMA under the duty to cooperate’. The Plan is seeking to deliver higher housing numbers than the objectively assessed need within the HMA to support improved economic performance and affordable housing delivery. As part of the growth aspiration for northern Devon it has been agreed with Exmoor National Park Authority that North Devon will deliver some of the Parks housing needs (193 – North Devon in ENP) over the Plan period to 2031. However, there has been no such agreement to accommodate the housing growth for West Somerset in North Devon (524 – West Somerset in ENP). Cornwall Council have undertaken their own HMA and confirmed in writing that they will be meeting their own objectively assessed need.

2.160 It has been suggested there needs to be an element of flexibility in the distribution of the overall housing requirement as it is considered a greater level of housing may be required elsewhere if the strategic allocations do not deliver. The strategy does not identify minimum or maximum housing numbers to be achieved but is flexible in so much as it will not prevent higher housing numbers being delivered if a well designed scheme is presented that will help meet the spatial vision for Barnstaple to 2031 and deliver the specific development requirements as set out in the housing policies for Barnstaple. As such, the spatial strategy for Barnstaple delivering approximately 3,900 dwellings through specific strategic and non-strategic site allocations is not contrary to the requirements of the NPPF. However a higher figure of approximately 4,140 is proposed.

2.161 Paragraph 47 of the NPPF makes it clear that to be considered deliverable, a site should be available now, offer a suitable location for development now and be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within 5 years. Sites with planning permission should be considered deliverable until permission expires. Clearly, with approximately 3,000 dwellings with or very close to being granted planning permission the LPA are facilitating the delivery of sustainable development across North Devon, it is now for the development industry to seek an approval of details and commence development on these sites.

Housing levels too high and too low

2.162 Respondents have objected to the housing requirement both in respect of being too high and conversely too low.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

2.163 The draft Publication Local Plan provided for the development of about 16, 470 dwellings and 110 hectares of employment land. It is recognised that this position cannot be maintained on the basis that there is an imbalance between planned housing and the housing needs that would be generated by the growth required to support 110 hectares of employment land. This point is made clear by the recommendations in the Housing and Employment Study and accompanying Employment Land Review(11) which provided that in support of a policy on positon to deliver economic growth, 60 hectares of employment land (subsequently increased to 75 hectares to accommodate all forms of economic development) could be justified, which would need to be supported by 16,800 dwellings. To address the imbalance a critical review of the Publication Local Plan employment allocations has been undertaken, which is recommended to be reduced (as separately reported) to a level of about 85.1 hectares, which would generate a housing requirement of about 17,220 dwellings. It is therefore recommended that Policy ST08 is amended, subject to the acceptance of wider matters (separately reported) to state a planned provision of at least 17,220 dwellings and 85 hectares of employment land.

2.164 Allied to the changes recommended above to Policy ST08, it will be necessary to amend the supporting text in paragraphs 4.19 – 4.28 to reflect the revised housing requirement and the basis for its derivation. As such, it is recommended that the supporting text to Policy ST08 is amended to set out:

a revised housing requirement of 17,220 dwellings across northern Devon and approximately 85 hectares of land for economic development, on the basis of a balanced housing and economic strategy; recognition of a demographically derived need for approximately 14,500 dwellings; that the uplift from the demographically derived need seeks to help address housing affordability issues and deliver locally derived growth strategies; that, following a Duty-to-Cooperate request, the revised housing target incorporates the housing requirement arising from the North Devon part of Exmoor National Park; and that the identified housing supply comprises of 8,768 dwellings in North Devon and 8,478 dwellings in Torridge.

Housing too high

2.165 Concerns relating to oversupply relate to matters of environmental impacts, the absence of need for housing other than in respect of affordable homes and the lack of justification for providing above demographic needs. Issues relating to the avoidance of environmental impacts have been subject to previous discussion, significantly through the consideration of comments to the Town Strategy section of the Local Plan. The Local Plan in providing for objectively assessed needs, both economic and social, has taken environmental considerations into account through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment and Sustainability Appraisal. By virtue of the nature of the area and the scale of development that must be planned for it is inevitable that there will be development impacts, but in considering such matters through the allocation process and the application of the general policies of the Local Plan which seek to protect such assets, the impacts from development will be minimised.

2.166 With regard to the scale of housing to be provided, the Local Plan as a minimum must provide for objectively assessed needs. The NPPF(12) requires local planning authorities to use their evidence to ensure their local plan meets the full objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing. The Local Plan cannot restrict housing delivery to affordable housing, to do so would result in

11 Northern Devon Housing and Employment Study and Employment Land Review (GL Hearn Final Report April 2014) 12 National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 47

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

noncompliance with the national planning guidance and having regard to viability would result in non-delivery of the sought housing type; the majority of affordable housing will be delivered as a result of cross subsidy from market housing led schemes.

2.167 It is suggested that the Local Plan, should provide only for demographic needs, this position is not accepted. The NPPF is clear in requiring the objectively housing assessed need, which the Local Plan must accommodate, to take into account a range of factors such as market signals and affordable housing considerations. Detailed guidance on this matter is further provided by a technical note(13) provided by the Planning Advisory Service, which usefully sets out the range of contributing elements that will produce the local objectively assessed housing need. To provide only for demographic needs across northern Devon would result in housing needs relating to affordable housing and economic growth being unmet and market signals such as second and vacant homes being absent for the calculation of need which would result in increasing housing pressures as a result of an undersupply; such an approach would result in noncompliance with the NPPF and jeopardise the soundness of the Local Plan.

Housing too low

2.168 A number of respondents suggest an increase in the housing requirement should be made to reflect the draft revised RSS requirement, which for Torridge and North Devon would equate to 21,600 dwellings (2006-2026). Following the revocation of the RSS in May 2013, local planning authorities were required(14) to obtain their own evidence of housing need for their area. Additionally the evidenced used to support the draft revised RSS housing requirement is considered to be out of date having regard to the availability of more recent projection data, it is also worth noting the RSS plan period only extended to 2026.

2.169 A supplementary update Strategic Housing Market Assessment(15) determines the objectively assessed demographic need for North Devon of approximately 6,700 dwellings and for Torridge approximately 7,800 dwellings, which equates to an approximate need across the Plan area of 14,500 dwellings. Additional to this, under ‘Duty to Cooperate’, North Devon has planned to accommodate the housing growth requirement for Exmoor National Park (within North Devon) of approximately 193 dwellings. To form the objectively assessed need for the plan area, further account is taken of the Northern Devon Housing and Employment Review and the related Employment land Review(16). It is clear that the draft Publication Local Plan provides for an undersupply of housing against employment provision, to address this imbalance a reduction in the employment land supply is recommended. It is not however accepted the Local Plan should plan for a level of housing proposed by the draft revised RSS.

2.170 It is suggested the Local Plan is restricting the release of land to address an urgent need for housing. Comment is made that allocated sites must be deliverable, the need for which is highlighted by the variance between required and delivered levels of growth. The point is also made that poor delivery rates will impact on the required supply of affordable housing. In response to the presented situation, it is suggested that the Local Plan provides for the interim release of housing sites. The Local Plan plans to accommodate the full extent of the objectivity assessed housing need and includes flexibility for delivery above this required level through unaccounted windfall sites. It is recognised

13 Objectively Assessed Need and Housing Targets Technical Advice Note (Planning Advisory Service June 2014) http://www.pas.gov.uk/documents/332612/6363137/Objectively+Assessed+Need+and+Housing+Targets/f22edcc2-32cf-47f1-8e4a-daf50e4412f7 14 National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 17(March 2012) 15 Northern Peninsula Housing Market Area Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) Update Final Report January 2015 16 Strategic Housing Market Assessment Market: North Devon and Torridge Update Final Report, December 2012, Housing Vision

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

that at this point a 5 year land supply cannot be demonstrated, the Councils are however working to achieve such a position at Examination. As stated in the presented comment, it is recognised that in the absence of a 5 year land supply, the local planning authorities are at risk of speculative development proposal which fall outside the framework of the development plan.

2.171 The delivery of affordable housing in both North Devon and Torridge is an issue for the whole Plan to recognise. There is an acceptance that viability is a key factor of delivering sustainable development and therefore the Plan will not meet all the identified affordable need in northern Devon without allocating many thousands of more houses which is unlikely to be supported by the market. Also, in November 2014 the Government issued a Ministerial Statement that removed the ability for LPAs to seek the delivery of affordable housing on sites of less than 11 dwellings, although within the designated rural areas (North Devon and Torridge), the Authorities may adopt a threshold of 5 units or less for affordable housing. For sites of 6-10 dwellings in the designated rural areas where the 5 unit threshold is applied, financial contributions may be requested, but must be paid after completion of the houses. Therefore, the potential delivery of affordable housing in both North Devon and Torridge has been dramatically reduced, particularly in the rural areas.

2.172 A range of comments suggest increasing the housing supply above the 16,469 dwellings provided for in the Publication draft Local Plan, on which basis the Housing and Employment Study is quoted in support of the suggested increase. The recommendations of the referenced Study have been used, to establish the proposed housing requirement of about 17,220 dwellings. It is recognised that the Housing and Employment Study considered a number of demographic and economic based projection scenarios, which provided a housing range of 11,196 to 25,800 dwellings. The high growth levels advocated in comment to the Local Plan are provided as a result of projections linked to Cambridge Econometrics Projections, which forecast significant economic growth of 18,400 jobs over the plan period. This growth scenario is considered unrealistic; it was not presented as a recommended position. The recommended approach was formed by taking account of the economic growth opportunities within the local economy to provide a policy-on forecast based on: an interrogation of baseline economic projections from both Experian and Cambridge Econometrics and an analysis of local opportunities having regard to a review of the draft economic strategy and through discussion with the Council’s economic development officers. The approach is considered robust and realistic having regard to local aspirations for economic growth, which would provide for growth in FTE employment of 7,400 jobs, equating to total employment growth of about 9,200 jobs. It is not considered necessary to increase the housing requirement to a level higher than the recommended 17,220 dwellings.

2.173 It is suggested the objective assessment of housing need should be met in full having regard to both market and affordable housing. The basis of the comment is to achieve an increase in the overall housing supply. This matter is discussed in some detail through the consideration of Policy. ST18: Affordable Housing on Development Sites through which it was identified that to fully address the scale of affordable housing need over the lifetime of the Plan, it would be necessary to apply a significant uplift to the overall level of housing provision, to a level of at least 29,000 dwellings. Increasing the overall housing provision to such a level is not considered a realistic option. Such a level of delivery is not considered likely to be achievable or appropriated having regard to: the required development rate significantly in excess of historically achieved rates, the absence of sufficient deliverable and developable land to realise such growth a level of growth, the likely creation of an imbalance with realistically achievable economic growth and the potential for deficits in achievable infrastructure provisions. While it is not considered appropriate to fully accommodate the scale of affordable housing need, the proposed housing requirement provides 18.8% uplift from demographic based needs which will make a considerable contribution to affordable housing delivery together with the a positive framework for the delivery of affordable housing as part of a package of provisions intended to meet the identified needs for housing.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

2.174 Criticism is made of the basis for the use of the SHMA update(17) to calculate the objectively assessed housing need. It is accepted that the SHMA Update used to inform the demographic based needs in the Local Plan is based on data which has been updated. This position has however been addressed though the commission of a supplementary update (NPSHMA) (18)which has regard to more recent projections and provides the base line position for demographic based housing requirement. It is recognised that demographic projections alone do not form the objectivity assessed need, on which basis the housing requirement of 17,220 is proposed, which represent a 20% uplift from demographic needs , which takes into account consideration of affordable hosing need, economic growth requirements and market signals such as vacant and second homes.

Employment Land

2.175 It is suggested (plps 1409 and 809) that there should be a reduction in the supply of employment land to the 60 hectares recommended in the Employment Land Review to address the significant oversupply provided in the Local Plan. No suggestion is provided as to which settlements or sites should be affected by the sought employment land reduction. It is recognised that there is an oversupply of employment land having regard to the stated evidence.

2.176 It is not however accepted that the employment supply should be reduced to a level of 60 hectares. The 60 hectare requirement recommend by the Employment Land Review relates to the range of development within the “B use class” which represents only an element of the enabled range of development on the Local Plan allocated employment sites. The range of uses falling within the NPPF definition of “economic development” will be supported on allocated employment sites. Advice from GL Hearn, following the completion of the Employment Land Review indicated that to accommodate the intended range of economic activity, with regard to anticipated growth sectors, an employment land supply of 75 hectares would be required to support the positive policy on position provided to meet economic growth aspirations.

2.177 Having regard to the evidence provided by Northern Devon Housing and Employment Study and Employment Land Review, it is accepted that the scale of employment provision within the Local Plan is excessive. The level of employment land allocated in the Local Plan with applied reductions of about 15 hectares agreed though consideration of Town Strategies remains too high in respect of realistic delivery targets and with regard to the housing that would be required to support such growth.

2.178 A supply of 95 hectares of employment land is however considered unjustified and undeliverable over the lifetime of the Local Plan. It is worth noting that the Local Plan provides significant support for economic and employment generating growth through the scale of allocated employment land and its general policies, including the release of additional sites where justified to meet a specific need that would contribute to improvements in the local economy.

2.179 A further review of the economic allocations has been undertaken, which is set out in more detail in the town strategy chapters for Bideford, Holsworthy and South Molton. The review had regard to: the need to achieve a local balance of housing and employment growth within the context of the spatial strategy, the vision for each settlement and the delivery prospects for each of the allocated sites. The review resulted in a reduction of allocated sites to provide for on overall supply of 85.1 hectares. This level of provision is acknowledged to exceed the evidenced positon. However, having regard to the stated considerations and the need to provide the market with choice, the level is considered appropriate, particularly when taking into account the quantum of the employment supply

17 Strategic Housing Market Assessment Market: North Devon and Torridge Update Final Report, December 2012, Housing Vision 18 Northern Peninsula Housing Market Area Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) Update Final Report January 2015

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

that is provided as a result of extant planning permission. At a level of 85 hectares, about 50% (42.2 hectares) of the employment supply is pre-determined through consented sites, some of which have a poor delivery history, but are contributing sites by virtue of an established commitment.

2.180 It is separately suggested (plp 1018) that the employment land supply is inadequate. This point is not accepted. The Employment Land Review sets out a range of growth scenarios from which the Local Plan takes forward and exceeds the requirements provided by the policy-on economic driven- scenario. Enabled growth on allocated employments sites would significantly exceed historically achieved development rates. As discussed above the employment supply provided for in the publication Local Plan, at 45% above the evidence level is not justified and requires reduction.

2.181 Comment (plp 1018) suggests that a strong economy cannot be sustained with high business costs; this matter, which is raised with regard to rates and utilities, falls outside the scope of the Local Plan.

2.182 Comment is provided (plp 2394) that robust evidence to justify the proposed level of employment land has not been provided and that there is no demonstration of existing needs. As stated above, the starting point for the level of employment land provision is the Northern Devon Housing and Employment Study and the related Employment Land Review (GL Hearn Final Report April 2014), which recommended growth levels having regard to the examination of such matters as: employment profile, historically achieved growth and growth aspirations as set out in the areas(19) Economic Strategy. It is not accepted that the proposed level of economic growth is not based on robust evidence. It is accepted the that Local Plan provided for economic growth on allocated sites beyond the quantum recommended in the referenced Employment Land Review, which is considered justified, as stated above on the basis of: to address the Councils’ aspirations to achieve economic growth beyond historic rates and to provide for market choice and within the context of the spatial strategy and vision of strategic and main centres of the plan area.

"At least"

2.183 A number of comments are provided with the common point that the housing requirement should be stated as a minimum, with the prefix of “at least”, which should additionally be applied to the housing targets for each settlement. The suggestion is made with regard to the NPPF requirement that local planning authorities should plan positively for growth. The point is also made that the Local Plan should recognise and provide for objectively assessed needs which are based on more than demographic projections, including such factors as economic trends and market signals.

2.184 The need to positively plan to meet assessed housing needs and demands is accepted, to do otherwise could constitute a risk to the Local Plan with regard to soundness. The NPPF (paragraph 17) requires not only that objectively assessed needs are met but that local planning authorities respond positively to wider opportunities for growth. It is also recognised, as suggested (plp 2531) that objectively assessed needs are formed by more than demographic based needs and for clarity amendment is proposed elsewhere within this report to provide for such a distinction.

2.185 As stated above, it is recommended that the objectively assessed housing need for the plan area is formed on the basis of economic growth, from which the housing requirement is about 17,220 dwellings. The level must be viewed as a minimum, from which further appropriate development should be afforded support. The comments made on this issue are considered to be valid. It is recommended that the Local Plan is amended to introduce the spatial development strategy housing

19 Northern Devon Economic Strategy 2014-2020 (North Devon District Council and Torridge District Council)

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

levels for northern Devon and for each defined settlement as “as a minimum”; to do otherwise would result in noncompliance with the NPPF. The proposed terminology is considered to provide the sought flexibility and required positivity with regard to housing growth.

2.186 It is also worth noting that the Local Plan makes no allowance for windfall sites as part of the housing supply, which have historically added to achieved development across the plan area and significantly so in North Devon. It is unrealistic to suggest that achieved development will be limited to that which is subject to current commitments, non-allocated developable sites or allocated housing sites.

Evidence

2.187 A range of criticism is directed towards the evidence underpinning the housing and employment requirements set out in Policy ST08, with many respondents citing a range of issues within their representations. In the interests of brevity, the issues raised have been grouped by topic in order to provide a response, rather than repeatedly responding to many similar, but slightly different, cross-cutting responses.

2.188 In general, respondents consider that there is a disconnect between the Policy provisions and the related evidence, citing that it is not clear how the evidence has been used to shape and inform the Plan.

Validity of Evidence

2.189 The comments that the North Devon and Torridge SHMA Update is based upon secondary sources of information, and that this accords with national planning practice guidance, is supported.

2.190 A respondent suggests that the Local Plan should not use the Torridge Urban Housing Needs Assessment 2012 as a basis for determining the future housing requirements. The Plan makes no reliance upon the Torridge District Council 2012 Urban Housing Needs Assessment(20) in the derivation of the future housing requirements set out within the Plan, rather relying upon alternative evidence in the form of the portfolio of Strategic Housing Market Assessment reports completed by Housing Vision and the Housing and Employment Study completed by GL Hearn.

2.191 Criticism has been directed towards the North Devon and Torridge SHMA Update on the basis that it based upon out-of-date information and is not compliant with national planning practice guidance that indicates that the starting point for establishing future housing requirements should be the most up-to-date household projections. Allied to this, a range of respondents suggest that the Plan should take account of the ONS 2012 Sub-national Population Projections, with others suggesting that an uplift of 500-600 dwellings should be applied to the planned housing requirements to take account of the more recent projections predicting higher population growth.

2.192 It is recognised and accepted that the North Devon and Torridge SHMA Update doesn’t make use of the most up-to-date sub-national household projections – the CLG 2011 Interim Sub-national Household Projection as the Update was prepared prior to the release of these projections. The report did however make use of 2011 Census data to realign earlier projections to ensure their validity and robustness. Recognising that the series of SHMA Updates can no longer be considered to be fully consistent with national Planning Practice Guidance, in that they are not based upon the most up-to-date demographic projections, North Devon Council and Torridge District Council, along with Exmoor National Park Authority and West Somerset Council, jointly commissioned Housing

20 Torridge District Council 2012 Urban Housing Needs Assessment (JG Consulting, August 2012)

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Vision to complete a Supplemental SHMA Update(21) to provide a comprehensive review and appraisal of the implications of the 2012 Sub-national Population Projections on future housing requirements. In doing so, it modelled a range of scenarios to establish potential future housing requirements for the local planning authorities within the NP HMA, taking account of re-based 2008 and 2011 Household Projections. The preferred scenario identified within the Report makes use of a hybrid modelling approach which applies the CLG 2011 Interim Household Projections from 2011 – 2021, with the CLG 2008 Household Projections following on from 2021-2031, both re-based to take account of the ONS 2012 Sub-national Population Projections. This is an approach followed in some recent Local Plan Examinations in Public and is intended to recognise recovery to pre-recessionary levels of household growth (as set out in the 2008 projections) as the Plan period progresses.

2.193 The North Devon and Torridge SHMA Update identified a demographic based housing requirement for northern Devon of 14,520 dwellings over the period 2011-2031, equating to 6,656 dwellings for North Devon and 7,864 dwellings for Torridge. The preferred scenario within the supplemental report, taking account of the ONS 2012 Sub-national Population Projections, along with the CLG 2011 Interim Sub-national Household Projections and the CLG 2008 Sub-national Household Projections, identifies a revised demographic housing requirement for 14,475 dwellings over the period 2011-2031, which equates to 6,697 dwellings for North Devon and 7,778 for Torridge. In arriving at these revised figures, an allowance is incorporated for vacant dwellings and for second homes provision. In contrast to the North Devon and Torridge SHMA Update, the figures for North Devon (and hence northern Devon) no longer contain the housing requirements arising from the North Devon part of Exmoor National Park, with such figures being available separately within the Supplementary SHMA Report.

2.194 It can be seen that the demographic based housing requirements established through the Supplementary SHMA Report are broadly similar to those derived from the North Devon and Torridge SHMA Update Report, offering support for the broad validity of the approach taken within the earlier Update and the outcomes of it and for a demographic based housing growth requirement of approximately 14,500 dwellings over the Plan period. A position reinforced by the Housing and Employment Study(22) that suggested a demographic based future housing requirement for approximately 14,300 dwellings over the Plan period, which makes use of a combination of 2010 and 2011 ONS Sub-national Population Projections(23).

2.195 The completion of the Supplementary NP SHMA Update Report is therefore considered to satisfactorily address concerns that the SHMA was not based upon the most recent and up-to-date household projections. The report is also considered appropriate to enable a demographic based housing requirement to be established for the basis of determining an Objectively Assessed Need for Housing and a future housing requirement figure for the Plan. It is also considered to provide a robust justification to dismiss the calls to increase housing requirements by 500-600 dwellings to take account of more recent projections.

2.196 Respondents raise concerns that the North Devon and Torridge SHMA Update applies a 20 year migration trend rather than making use of the migration data behind the 2008 CLG Sub-national Household Projections. They also highlight that migration is likely to continue to be a significant driver for future housing requirements over the Plan period, recognising that the recession is likely to have suppressed migration in the short term, but that it is likely to recover in the longer term. It is accepted that the North Devon and Torridge SHMA Update deviated from the migration trends contained within

21 Northern Peninsula Housing Market Area Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) Update, Final Report (January 2015, Housing Vision) 22 Figure 55, Northern Devon Housing and Employment Study, Final Report (GL Hearn, April 2014) 23 Appendix: Demographic Projections Methodology and Outputs – Torridge & North Devon Housing and Employment Study (GL Hearn, April 2014)

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

the sub-national projections. This was an approach considered to be legitimate by the consultants completing the assessment on the basis of the uncertainty arising from the depressed economic and housing market situation and in the context of the 20 year trend’s conformity with the more recent and revised 2010-based Components of Population Change(24).

2.197 Respondents suggest that the North Devon and Torridge SHMA Update(25) applies the average household size based upon the 2011 Census in order to derive the future housing requirements, citing that this is much too simplistic and an inappropriate approach to deriving future housing requirements and that rather, the SHMA should make use of a trend based approach to household sizes, as used in sub-national projections, particularly given the ageing population. The North Devon and Torridge SHMA Update does make use of trend-based household sizes to derive the future housing requirements. The use of the current average household size, as noted in paragraph 6.17 of the Report, is only used in the process of applying an adjustment to take account of different migration trend data, and not in the subsequent modelling, which does apply trend-based household sizes. As noted above, it is considered that the modelling approach applied within the North Devon and Torridge SHMA Update is validated by the Supplementary NP SHMA Update that derives broadly consistent housing requirements for northern Devon.

2.198 A respondent notes that national planning practice guidance recognises that a failure of past supply may have an impact on future demographic projections, and that whilst harder to detect, it might also have an impact on suppressed migration. They go on to set out that they consider that the PAS guidance makes it clear that under-supply and under-delivery should be seen in the context of whether housing targets are reflective of demand and need. The modelling scenario recommended to form the basis of establishing future housing requirements within the Supplementary NP SHMA Update Report is reflective of a recovering migratory and economic picture over the Plan period, with recessionary household projections used during the period 2011-2021, and pre-recession projections for the latter 2021-2031 period. As such, the demographic based future housing requirements are considered to adequately address a recovering migration trend.

2.199 Respondents suggest that most SHMAs that were prepared on the basis of following previous guidance are unlikely to be compliant with national planning policy. The series of SHMA reports prepared by Housing Vision for the local planning authorities across the NP HMA are considered to collectively provide an effective evidence base for deriving demographic based future housing requirements. It is however accepted that these SHMA reports do not provide evidence on the level of housing that might be required to reflect economic growth aspirations and to this end additional evidence has been commissioned on this basis. Together, the collated evidence base prepared to support the preparation of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan is considered to be appropriate, proportionate and effective for the purpose of establishing the future housing requirements that should be delivered in northern Devon over the Plan period.

2.200 A respondent highlights that national planning policy(26) requires that local planning authorities have a clear understanding of housing needs in their area and that they should seek to deliver the full, objectively assessed need derived from the evidence base. It is considered that the two local planning authorities do have this understanding, informed by a robust and proportionate evidence base, comprising particularly of the suite of Strategic Housing Market Assessment documents completed by Housing Vision and the Housing and Employment Study provided by GL Hearn. Subject

24 Paragraph 6.17, Strategic Housing Market Assessment: Torridge and North Devon Update (Housing Vision, December 2012) 25 Paragraph 6.17, Strategic Housing Market Assessment: Torridge and North Devon Update (Housing Vision, December 2012) 26 Paragraph 159, National Planning Policy Framework (CLG, March 2012)

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

to the recommended revisions to the Plan, it is considered that the local planning authorities are seeking to deliver the full, objectively assessed need for housing arising from northern Devon and contributing appropriately to the delivery of housing across the wider Housing Market Area.

Geography

2.201 Respondents advocate that it is not possible to consider northern Devon in isolation when considering potential future housing requirements. In particular, respondents direct criticism towards the North Devon and Torridge SHMA Update(27), advocating that it does not form appropriate evidence to support Plan preparation as it only covers North Devon and Torridge rather than the wider Housing Market Area (HMA). In doing so, respondents suggest that it side steps the issue of Objectively Assessed Need for housing across the wider HMA and that the SHMA should be jointly reviewed with other partner local planning authorities across the wider HMA. There are also calls that the Plan should reflect unmet need from surrounding local planning authorities.

2.202 It is recognised that national planning policy(28) requires local planning authorities to work with neighbouring authorities where housing market areas cross administrative boundaries to prepare a Strategic Housing Market Assessment to assess their full housing needs. Further it is accepted that it is necessary for local planning authorities to use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area, as far as is consistent with the policies set out in national planning policy(29).

2.203 It is accepted that it is not possible to view northern Devon in isolation and that it is necessary for the two local planning authorities to work with neighbouring authorities on the matter of establishing future housing requirements. It is considered that North Devon Council and Torridge District Council have robustly and effectively worked together with the other local planning authorities across the wider HMA, and other neighbouring authorities, in establishing an appropriate housing requirement for the Plan.

2.204 North Devon and Torridge sit within the Northern Peninsula Housing Market Area (NP HMA) which is a polycentric housing market area incorporating the geographical areas of West Somerset District Council, Exmoor National Park Authority, North Devon Council, Torridge District Council and the former North Cornwall District Council (now part of the wider unitary Cornwall Council). The local planning authorities within the NP HMA have demonstrated long standing and effective partnership working on the matter of future housing requirements. The original SHMA(30) covering the whole of the NP HMA was completed in 2008 by Housing Vision, working on behalf of a partnership made up of all local planning authorities within the HMA along with Devon County Council. Moving forward, it was recognised that there was a need to review and update the HMA to support Plan preparation, however because of varying Plan timetables at the time, it was not possible for all of the local planning authorities across the HMA to come together to commission a joint update. As such, Housing Vision completed a North Devon and Torridge SHMA Update in December 2012(31). Subsequently, Housing Vision have completed comparable SHMA Updates for both West Somerset and Exmoor National Park Authority, following a consistent methodology to that utilised in the North Devon and Torridge SHMA Update. With the exception of the area covered by the former North Cornwall District Council, the series of updates are together considered to provide a comprehensive update to the Original NP SHMA, offering consistent evidence across the HMA as to establish future housing requirements.

27 Strategic Housing Market Assessment: Torridge and North Devon Update (Housing Vision, December 2012) 28 Paragraph 159, National Planning Policy Framework (CLG, March 2012) 29 Paragraph 47, National Planning Policy Framework (CLG, March 2012) 30 27Strategic Housing Market Assessment for the Northern Peninsula (Housing Vision, December 2008) 31 Strategic Housing Market Assessment: Torridge and North Devon Update (Housing Vision, December 2012)

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

2.205 Recognising that the series of SHMA Updates can no longer be considered to be fully consistent with national Planning Practice Guidance, in that they are not based upon the most up-to-date demographic projections, North Devon Council and Torridge District Council, along with Exmoor National Park Authority and West Somerset Council, jointly commissioned Housing Vision to complete a supplemental SHMA Update to provide a comprehensive review and appraisal of the implications of the 2012 Sub-national Population Projections on future housing requirements. In doing so, it modelled a range of scenarios to establish potential future housing requirements for the local planning authorities within the NP HMA.

2.206 Whilst Cornwall Council, the remaining local planning authority with part of their geographical area within the NP HMA, have not been party to the series of HMA Updates, they have independently prepared evidence to establish their future housing requirements by completing a Cornwall-wide SHMA. North Devon Council and Torridge District Council have proactively engaged with Cornwall Council, through the Duty-to-Cooperate (DtC), on the matter of future housing requirements, with a particular focus on the former North Cornwall local planning authority area. Cornwall Council have confirmed that, both for Cornwall as a whole, and within the geographical area of the former North Cornwall local planning authority, they are seeking to Plan to meet the full objectively assessed need for housing. In doing so, they have confirmed that they foresee no call upon any local planning authority within the wider NP HMA to address any housing need arising from within Cornwall.

2.207 Looking to other neighbouring local planning authorities, through the DtC, North Devon Council and Torridge District Council have established that both Mid-Devon District Council and West Devon District Council are planning to meet their full objectively assessed needs for housing and that neither have a call upon North Devon, Torridge or any other local planning authority within the NP HMA to deliver housing on their behalf. Equally, North Devon Council and Torridge District Council have confirmed that, on a DtC, there is no need to call upon any other local planning authorities to deliver housing to help address needs arising within northern Devon.

2.208 As set out earlier in this report, Exmoor National Park Authority has identified that it does not consider it possible for the full objectively assessed need for housing for Exmoor National Park to be met within Exmoor National Park Authority’s boundary. As such, it has approached North Devon Council, on a DtC basis, to ascertain whether the Council could help address this matter by planning to deliver housing through the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan. As confirmed earlier in this report, the position is supported and the Plan seeks to make provision for the objectively assessed need for housing arising from the North Devon part of Exmoor National Park.

2.209 To conclude, it is considered that the Plan has been prepared on the basis of effective joint working across the Housing Market Area and that appropriate evidence has been prepared across the NP HMA to support the scale of housing being planned for delivery through the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan. Responding to calls for the joint review of the SHMA with other partner local planning authorities across the NP HMA, it is considered that the recent joint SHMA Update to review the implications of the 2012 ONS Sub-national Population Projections, provides effective SHMA based evidence for the planning of future housing requirements. The local planning authorities across the NP HMA are committed to continued partnership working to ensure that future housing needs are addressed effectively.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Market Signals and Affordability

2.210 Citing the provisions contained within national planning practice guidance(32), a range of respondents highlight that in arriving at an appropriate housing requirement for the Plan, it is necessary to consider what adjustment it might be appropriate to make to that suggested to be appropriate by household projections to take account of ‘market signals’. One of the key market signals relates to ‘affordability’.

2.211 In terms of evidence of ‘affordability’, respondents acknowledge that the North Devon and Torridge SHMA Update does contain detail with respect of affordability in northern Devon, although it is cited that this evidence relates to current housing need rather than an assessment of whether past supply has resulted in housing across the plan area becoming increasingly unaffordable. It is accepted that the North Devon and Torridge SHMA Update does not contain a full appraisal of housing affordability that enables trends in housing affordability over time to be reviewed. The Housing and Employment Study(33) does however provide an analysis of housing market dynamics which considers market signals, affordability and housing need and includes analysis of trends over time. On the basis of the available evidence, it is recognised that northern Devon does suffer from a housing affordability issue.

2.212 On this basis, it is considered appropriate to make an adjustment to the demographically derived housing requirement of approximately 14,500 dwellings to account for market signals. The Publication draft of the Plan acknowledges, at paragraph 4.22, that the uplift to 16, 469 dwellings is intended to help address the high need for affordable housing across northern Devon, and hence address affordability issues. Wider changes to the planned housing requirements set out elsewhere within this report, to approximately 17,220 dwellings, on the basis of economic growth aspirations, is considered to provide an appropriate uplift to respond to market signals on affordability.

2.213 It is accepted that the Plan does not currently set out a clear explanation of how the Plan target is derived and that amendment should be made to the supporting text to do so. Additionally, it is advocated that a comprehensive technical paper on this matter is prepared to accompany the Local Plan.

Vacancy Rates and Second Homes

2.214 A range of respondents have questioned how vacancy rates and second home ownership have been factored into establishing an Objectively Assessed Need for housing, noting that in particular second homes and the holiday let market are significant for the area. In deriving the demographically based need for future housing in northern Devon, the recently completed Supplementary NP SHMA Update has transparently included allowances for both vacancy rates and for second homes, making use of Census data to provide specific local planning authority based figures for each component. As such, the baseline demographic requirement for approximately 14,500 dwellings across northern Devon over the Plan period is considered to appropriately reflect local evidence on vacancy rates and second homes.

32 Paragraph: 019 Reference ID: 2a-019-20140306, National Planning Practice Guidance (CLG, Last updated: 6th March 2014) 33 Chapter 4, Northern Devon Housing and Employment Study (GL Hearn, April 2014)

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Backlog

2.215 A range of respondents raise issue with both the North Devon and Torridge SHMA Update and the housing requirements set out within the Plan on the basis that they do not appropriately consider the backlog of housing need. National planning practice guidance(34) sets out the range of households that should be considered when deriving the existing level of housing need:

the number of homeless households; the number of those in priority need who are currently housed in temporary accommodation; the number of households in over-crowded housing; the number of concealed households; the number of existing affordable housing tenants in need (i.e. householders currently housed in unsuitable dwellings); the number of households from other tenures in need and those that cannot afford their own homes.

2.216 The North Devon and Torridge SHMA Update did incorporate the backlog of housing need into its modelling of future housing requirements(35), although it is accepted that they it not fully reflect the scope of households advocated for inclusion by the national planning practice guidance, principally because the SHMA Update preceded the publication of the guidance. Similarly, the Supplementary NP SHMA Update has incorporated a backlog of affordable housing into the modelling(36), although again it is accepted that this does not fully reflect the full breadth of households advocated within the national planning practice guidance. The Plan does however currently allow for a significant uplift beyond the demographically derived housing requirements, with a further uplift advocated elsewhere in this report on the basis of re-balancing the housing and employment provision. To this end, whilst it is accepted that there may be some under-estimation in the overall housing backlog, it is considered that this could reasonably be accommodated within the proposed uplift above the demographically derived requirements.

Constraints to the Objectively Assessed Need for housing

2.217 Respondents have indicated that the local planning authorities should not seek to adjust the derivation of Objectively Assessed Need on the basis of local constraints, such as the availability of land for development. They also note that local planning authorities should seek to meet the Objectively Assessed Need for housing unless evidence indicates that this is not achievable. Both points are noted and accepted. It is not the intention to reduce the Objectively Assessed Need for housing on the basis of local constraints, such as the availability of housing land supply; neither is it the intention to reduce the overall housing target on this basis. Rather, it is the intention that an appropriate Objectively Assessed Need for Housing should be established, clear of local constraints, and that this should be fully reflected within the housing target taken forward within the Plan.

Economic Balance

2.218 Respondents highlight that the Plan doesn’t currently provide a link between the scale of economic growth planned for delivery and the amount of housing proposed. In doing so, respondents highlight that the Plan doesn’t currently make reference to the Housing and Employment Study

34 Paragraph: 024 Reference ID: 2a-024-20140306, National Planning Practice Guidance (CLG, Last updated: 6th March 2014) 35 Paragraph 6.25, Strategic Housing Market Assessment: Torridge and North Devon Update (Housing Vision, December 2012) 36 Paragraph 6.7-6.11, Northern Peninsula Housing Market Area Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) Update, Final Report (January 2015, Housing Vision)

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

completed by GL Hearn, with the purpose of establishing appropriate balanced levels of housing and economic growth that should be taken forward through the Plan. Allied to this, respondents highlight that the Employment Land Review identifies a requirement for 60 hectares of employment land, balanced by a housing requirement of 16,785 dwelling, whilst the Plan currently seeks delivery of 110 hectares of employment land and only 16, 469 dwellings.

2.219 As noted earlier in this report, it is accepted that there is currently an imbalance between the scale of planned employment provision and the amount of housing that would be required to support an appropriate workforce. It is also accepted that the current housing requirement set out in Policy ST08 is not based upon an objective assessment of housing need that are linked to future economic growth aspirations and that it is necessary to make amendment to the Plan on this basis, to increase the scale of housing growth and reduce the scale of employment provision, so as to come to a balanced position.

2.220 Respondents suggest that the current housing requirements, that are significantly below the figures advocated through the draft Regional Spatial Strategy, are depressed upon the basis of economic circumstances. Whilst it is accepted that the housing market has been impacted by the recession and the housing market is likely to have been depressed on this basis, it is not accepted that the Plan should look to deliver the levels of housing proposed within the former draft Regional Spatial Strategy . The evidence upon which the housing requirements proposed within the draft Regional Spatial Strategy for the South West are now considered to be fundamentally out of date and not appropriate for future Plan making. As such, it is not considered appropriate or useful to compare existing plan provisions to such legacy requirements. Rather, it is considered appropriate to make reference to more recent locally compiled evidence to derive the appropriate balance of housing and economic development.

2.221 It is suggested by respondents that the methodology behind the economic assessments completed by GL Hearn is not clear, as it is not published. This is not accepted. Both the Employment Land Review and the Housing and Employment Study provide significant detail about the approaches and assumptions applied in deriving the results, with the Housing and Employment Study supported by a technical appendix setting out the demographic projections methodology and outputs.

2.222 Criticism is directed towards the Housing and Employment Study, suggesting that it seems to apply national trends and does not take account of local growth aspirations or characteristics. The study contains a series of five projections based upon different assumptions, with PROJ 5, providing a Policy-On Economically-Driven Scenario(37). This scenario has been derived to take account of the economic growth opportunities within the local economy and which takes account of the potential economic impacts of economic strategy initiatives, ambitions and local growth opportunities. The Policy-On forecast was developed following an interrogation of the baseline economic projections from both Experian and Cambridge Econometrics, along with an analysis of local opportunities for economic growth based upon a review of the Economic Strategy for Northern Devon, a review of Devon-wide research and consultation with the Councils’ economic development officers. In doing so, the economic growth in key sectors was adjusted from the baseline projections and in doing so, a more positive economic outlook and employment growth forecast was applied to the following sectors:

Accommodation and Food; Agriculture, forestry and fishing; Construction;

37 Paragraphs 6.28-6.34, Northern Devon Housing and Employment Study (GL Hearn, April 2014)

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Key higher value-added manufacturing sub-sectors – computer and electronics; machinery & equipment; pharmaceuticals and other manufacturing; Education; Public administration and defence; and Professional services.

2.223 In doing so, the Policy-On scenario sees employment growth over the period to 2031 which is 54% greater than that predicted within the Experian Baseline Projection. The Housing and Employment Report takes forward the outcomes of the Policy-On Scenario (PROJ 5) in formulating its conclusions about the appropriate levels of future housing and employment growth. As such, the Housing and Employment Study is considered to reflect local circumstances and aspirations for future economic growth. It is accepted that this should form the basis for deriving the appropriate housing and employment growth levels to be contained within the Plan and recommendations elsewhere within this report propose amendment to Policy ST08 and other parts of the Plan on this basis.

2.224 Coupled to this, respondents suggest that the Plan hasn’t provided an uplift on the Objectively Assessed Need for Housing in response to employment trends / requirements. The supporting text to Policy ST08 recognises that the uplift of the housing provision contained within the Publication draft of the Plan from a demographically based requirement for approximately 14,500 dwellings to 16, 469 dwellings, is in part about meeting the aspirations for growth in particular communities(38). It is however accepted that this is not a quantified uplift and that it is not an appropriate level of housing to match the economic growth currently taken forward within the Plan. To this end, amendment is now recommended, elsewhere within this report, to realign the housing and employment provision and ensure that there is an objective relationship between the two requirements.

2.225 Further respondents suggest that it is difficult to relate the current Plan provisions to the economic ambitions of the Local Economic Partnership (LEP) and in particular their recognition that economic ambitions will drive population growth; noting that it is not possible to cross-reference the modelling carried out by the LEP with that of the local planning authority. As noted previously, it is accepted that there is currently a disconnect between the scale of housing and employment growth within the Publication draft of the Plan, and that it is necessary to make adjustment to realign the scale of housing growth (increase) to the amount of proposed employment growth (decrease). As noted elsewhere in this Report, it is now the intention to link the scale of housing and employment growth to an objective assessment of requirements based principally on the findings of the Housing and Employment Study. It is now recognised that the key driver for establishing the future housing requirements for northern Devon is the scale of proposed economic growth. In terms of links to the LEP ambitions, the findings of the Housing and Employment Study were predicated upon the future growth ambitions set out in the northern Devon Economic Strategy, with the LEP being were key consultees on the draft version of the Strategy. The northern Devon Economic Strategy is considered to broadly align with the LEP’s Strategic Economic Plan, and hence, by association, the findings of the Housing and Employment Study can be considered to be broadly in line with the aspirations of the LEP. As such, subject to realigning and coupling the Plan’s housing and employment provisions based upon the findings of the Housing and Employment Study, it is considered that the Plan will fit with the LEPs future economic ambitions.

2.226 A respondent suggests that the Plan needs to recognise that the Government’s aspiration is to ensure recovery of economic conditions and house building well before 2021, with housing playing a significant role in the economic recovery. The provisions contained within the Publication draft of the Plan, coupled with the recommended changes to the planned housing and employment

38 Paragraph 4.22, North Devon and Torridge Local Plan – Publication Draft (June 2014)

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

provision are considered to be compatible with the Government’s aspirations. Subject to the proposed amendments, the Plan will support appropriate housing and employment development to meet identified needs and to enable a locally derived economic growth agenda to be realised.

2.227 Respondents highlight that employment growth will encourage economic in-migration and that failure to provide enough housing will result in a shortage, increasing house prices and impacting on affordability. It is accepted that employment growth needs to be matched by appropriate housing growth and that there is currently a disconnect between the two elements within the Plan. It is accepted that revision is required to the Plan to balance the two elements and this is addressed through the wider recommendations contained within this report. The higher level of housing growth required to match proposed economic growth will result in significantly more housing being planned for than that identified as being required to meet demographically driven housing growth and it is reasonable to infer that this will be as a result of economic in-migration. The wider recommendations of this report to ensure a balance between housing and employment growth levels will however address this matter.

2.228 Respondents cite that the 2014 version of the Housing and Employment Study does not contain the Policy-On economic scenario (PROJ 5) which was contained within the earlier 2013 draft of the Study. It has been identified that the Report made available on the Council’s websites may not be reflective of the final version of the Housing and Employment Study and that it is necessary to review and update the website to ensure that the final version of the Study is available. The recommendations of the Housing and Employment Study are predicated on the outcomes of the Policy-On economic scenario (PROJ 5) and these findings are being utilised to underpin the proposed amendments, set out elsewhere in this report, to the housing and employment levels stated within Policy ST08.

2.229 A respondent suggests that the base-date of the projections contained within the Housing and Employment Study are not clear. The economic projections from Cambridge Econometrics and Experian used within the Housing and Employment Study were those published in January 2013. These are supplemented by use of forecasts prepared by Cambridge Econometrics for Devon county Council in autumn 2012. The projections are considered to remain valid for plan making purposes, particularly given that the projections were critically reviewed in order to establish a locally relevant Policy-On scenario.

Establishing the Objectively Assessed Need for Housing and a Housing Target

2.230 A range of respondents indicate that it is necessary to ensure that the housing requirements contained within the Plan conform with national planning practice guidance and suggest that the PAS guidance(39) on this matter provides a robust method for establishing requirements. Allied to this, respondents consider that the current housing requirement specified within Policy ST08 is unsound.

2.231 It is recognised that it is appropriate to construct a housing target using an objective process and that the PAS guidance provides an appropriate methodology for doing so. It is also accepted that the derivation of a housing requirement on the basis of planned housing provision, as provided within the Publication draft of the Plan, is not appropriate. To this end, it is recognised that the current housing target of 16,469 specified within Policy ST08 is not objective or justified and revision to the Plan is required.

2.232 In line with national planning practice guidance, it is accepted that the starting point for deriving an appropriate housing requirement should be demographic projections and recently completed work by Housing Vision for the partner local planning authorities across the Northern Peninsula HMA provides this foundation, identifying a demographically derived housing requirement

39 Objectively Assessed Need and Housing Targets – Technical Advice Note (Planning Advisory Service, June 2014)

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

of 14, 475 dwellings for northern Devon over the Plan period of 2011-2031. It is however recognised that it is necessary to provide an uplift to this figure in order to establish an Objectively Assessed Need for Housing, to take account of future employment growth ambitions and to account for market signals (and in particular housing affordability). It is considered that the determining factor for the appropriate scale of uplift is the scale of housing required to match economic growth and that the Housing and Employment Study, along with further guidance from the consultants that prepared that study, provides a robust basis for establishing this requirement. In doing so, it is considered that an Objectively Assessed Housing Need of 17,220 dwellings, coupled to an associated 85.1 hectares of land provision for economic growth, is appropriate. Such a figure is considered to also provide an appropriate increase (18.8%) above demographically driven requirements to account for affordability issues. The PAS guidance recognises that the Housing Provision Target may be different to the Objectively Assessed Need for Housing and that variation may be required to account for supply capacity issues, unmet need from other areas and Authorities’ policy objectives. There are no supply capacity issues or wider Authority based policy objectives that are considered likely to require a variation from the Objectively Assessed Need to establish a housing provision target. Exercising a Duty-to-Cooperate, it has been accepted that provision will be made within the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan to accommodate the future housing needs arising from the North Devon part of Exmoor National Park. It is not however considered necessary to make any amendment to the figure of 17,220 dwellings to address this requirement, as that part of the National Park formed part of the geographical area covered by the Housing and Employment Study, and hence the future housing requirements were subsumed within the recommended planned housing provision of 16,800 dwellings. It is recognised that it is important that the detailed approach to establishing the future housing provision target should be clearly and transparently set out, particularly in order to support the Plan at the Examination in Public. To this end, it is recommended that a comprehensive housing technical paper is published to draw together available evidence and set out the derivation of the Objectively Assessed Need for Housing and associated Housing Provision Target.

Stepping – up Delivery

2.233 Respondents query the meaning of the statement in paragraph 4.23 of the Publication draft of the Plan which indicates that the ‘plan aims to step up the performance from the first quarter of the plan period’, stating that a phased housing requirement is not considered appropriate and that the reference should be removed. The statement referring to a ‘step up’ in housing performance is not intended to introduce phasing provisions into the Plan. Rather, it is intended to be a reflection of likely future housing delivery, based as the programme for Local Plan adoption, the timescales likely to be required to being development schemes to come forward on allocations and recognising that time is need to for the house building industry to recover from the impacts of the recession. It is accepted that the wording of paragraph 4.23 may be open to misinterpretation and that it is unnecessary. The approach to housing land supply release is considered to be adequately addressed by the first sentence of paragraph 4.24 which states that ‘To ensure a maintained land supply and to provide for development choice the Local Plan adopts a flexible approach to land release’. On this basis, it is recommended that Paragraph 4.23 of the Plan is deleted.

Five Year Housing Land Supply

2.234 A number of respondents consider that the Councils cannot demonstrate a five year housing land supply. In doing so, they consider that the Councils are reliant upon the new allocations contained within the Plan to achieve this and go on to indicate that it is not clear how the Plan will achieve an appropriate five year housing land supply. The respondents therefore consider that the Plan cannot be considered to be positively prepared and that this should be addressed by the Councils clearly setting out how the Plan provides for a five year housing land supply. One respondent goes on to

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

advocate that the Plan should be more positively prepared by supporting sites, such as land at Daddon Hill (NOR01) to be brought forward in the first part of the Plan period so as to address demonstrable need.

2.235 It is accepted that there is an expectation for local planning authorities to be able to demonstrate a five year housing land supply at the point of Plan adoption in order for a Local Plan to be found sound through its examination. It is recognised that neither the Plan, nor supporting documentation accompanying it, currently enable this to be demonstrated. The two Councils are currently undertaking additional work in order to support the demonstration of a five year housing land supply at the point of plan adoption, including an engagement exercise with development interests to ascertain their intentions for development delivery on sites identified within the draft Plan.

2.236 It is considered that the Plan takes all reasonable steps in order to provide a sufficient supply of land to deliver future housing. The Plan seeks to fully allocate the scale of housing land required to meet identified housing needs and does not seek to make use of ‘broad locations’ nor a windfall allowance. Further, the plan does not seek to phase or constrain the release of allocated housing land coming forward for development over the plan period.

2.237 Both local planning authorities are also proactively working with development interests, with a particular focus on sites proposed for development within the Plan, in order to bring forward housing to meet identified needs so as to establish and maintain a five year housing land supply.

2.238 It is recognised that a failure to identify a five year housing land supply at the point of adoption does pose a risk to the soundness of the Plan. However, it is not considered that any reasonable adjustment could be made to the plan to address this matter and that rather it is an issue that needs to be monitored and kept under review in the run up to the examination.

2.239 It is not considered necessary or appropriate to make amendment to the Plan in response to the respondents request to amend the Plan to make it more positively prepared and support the early release of land at Daddon Hill (NOR01) for housing development. The Plan does not preclude the early release of land at Daddon Hill, allocated under Policy NOR01, for housing development. As noted above, the Plan does not seek to phase or manage the timing of delivery for housing that is allocated for delivery through the Plan. Rather, the Councils are willing to work with development interests to ensure the timely delivery of future housing development.

2.240 A respondent considers that it is not clear how the Plan provides specific deliverable sites for the first five years of the Plan and then developable sites or broad locations for subsequent years. The Plan provides for a full identified housing supply to meet the revised housing requirement of 17,220 dwellings. In doing so, the housing supply is made up of identified dwelling completions since the start of the Plan period, extant and commended planning permissions for housing, allocations for housing development and non-allocated developable sites that have been assessed as being developable for housing over the lifetime of the Plan. As such, it is considered that the Plan establishes an appropriate supply of future housing to meet the identified housing requirements set out within the Plan. In doing so, the Plan places no reliance upon the identification of broad locations for housing development, nor makes any allowance for future windfall housing delivery; a source that is considered to have the potential to contribute significant additional housing over the lifetime of the Plan, given the wider flexible provisions of the Plan with regard to housing development (i.e. opportunities for rural building conversions, provision within the built form of a wide range of settlements, exception sites for affordable housing and housing to meet the needs of rural workers). As such, it is considered that the Plan provides an adequate supply of housing to meet the identified future housing requirements set out in the Plan.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

2.241 A respondent seeks that the Plan set out how it provides a five year housing land supply and use the Sedgefield method in doing so. It is not considered appropriate to set out in detail an assessment of five-year housing land supply within the Plan itself, particularly as this is a dynamic changing assessment that varies over time. Rather, it is appropriate that such an analysis is provided in supplementary material that can accompany the Local Plan, or for example within the Authorities’ Monitoring Reports. Likewise, it is not considered necessary or appropriate to establish the methodology for determining the five-year housing land supply within the Plan, particularly as the approach to doing so, is subject to regular variation on the basis of best practice and advice deriving from appeal decisions.

Settlement and Rural Areas

Barnstaple

2.242 It is suggested that the majority of housing and employment should be provided for at Barnstaple having regard to the sub-regional status of the centre. It is recognised that the level of planned development at Barnstaple and Bideford is comparable. Taking account of recommended changes to town and rural strategies and corrections to elements of the housing supply, the northern Devon housing requirement equates to about 17,220 dwellings of which about 4,140 dwellings (24%) are identified to be delivered in Barnstaple and about 4,125 dwellings (23.9%) in Bideford. With regard to employment about 22 hectares is provided for at Barnstaple and 25.2 hectares at Bideford. The scale of development provided for at both settlements is significant and considered necessary to meet objectively assessed needs having regard to the spatial strategy and vision for each town.

2.243 The SHMA update identified a demographic based need for North Devon of approximately 6,700 dwellings, but the Local Plan is seeking growth for North Devon, having regard to economic aspirations, of over 30% above the base line demographic need. About 47% of the North Devon housing requirement is provided for in Barnstaple. The demographic based need for Torridge is about 7,800 dwellings, which is increased to over 8,400 (an uplift of about 10%) in response to affordable housing needs. About 49% of the Torridge housing requirement is provided for in Bideford. The comparable housing requirements and the strategy for each of the towns and other centres across the plan area has resulted in a closeness in the level of housing and employment growth planned at Bideford and Barnstaple. The level of growth planned for Barnstaple is considered appropriate to its sub-regional status.

South Molton

2.244 It is suggested that the scale of development at South Molton should be both reduced (plp785) and increased (plp2443). The planned growth at South Molton includes about 1,235 dwellings, 10.8 hectares of employment land and supporting infrastructure. The scale of development is considered appropriate having regard to the community supported aspirations for growth. The scale of housing growth at South Molton is required as a necessary contribution to objectively assessed needs, which have been enhanced beyond demographic based needs as a result of economic growth aspirations linked to the town’s economic advantage provided by its proximity to A361.

2.245 Support is provided for urban focused growth and in respect of South Molton a strategy based on employment growth. To further this approach additional housing growth is proposed in respect of which development opportunities have been presented to the east of South Molton at Mill Green, which do not perform as well in sustainability terms as the strategic extension to west of the town which helps to deliver strategic infrastructure requirements. The scale of housing planned for at South Molton is significant, but of a level that is considered to be appropriate to the town’s spatial

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

strategy and vision for South Molton. Additional housing growth is not considered to be necessary during the plan period. The detail of sites presented as development opportunities have been considered in detail through the related town strategies.

Braunton/Wrafton

2.246 Criticism is provided (plp 2572) that the housing requirement at Braunton/Wrafton is disproportionately low in comparison to other Main Centres. The stated positon is accepted; the housing requirement at Braunton/Wrafton at 386 dwellings is the lowest of all the Main Centres and is considerably lower than Ilfracombe, Northam and South Molton. The level of housing development at Braunton/Wrafton is however restricted as a result of landscape and environmental constraints. Issues include extensive flood risks, the great field and air quality issues in the village centre, which has resulted in a restricted development potential compared to other Main Centre settlements. The proposed level of housing and employment growth is considered appropriate in view of these constraints and Braunton and Wrafton’s spatial vision and development strategy.

Ilfracombe

2.247 Support is provided (plp 1503) for the status of Ilfracombe as a Main Centre but with the suggestion (plp 1503 and 2694) that the housing requirement for the town is increased. As proposed, the overall housing requirement is subject to an increase, to a level of about 17,220 dwellings that will meet objectively assessed needs, although the housing requirement at Ilfracombe has remained at about 1,420 dwellings. Ilfracombe currently provides for the delivery of approximately 17% of North Devon’s housing growth and 8% across northern Devon. The level of planned development is substantial and appropriate to the Spatial Vision and Development Strategy for the town, which includes regeneration through growth. The housing requirement of about 1,420 (provided by commitments, allocated and non allocated developable sites) is considered appropriate. Paragraph 14 of the NPPF advocates ‘the presumption in favour of sustainable development’ which is reflected in the Plan for Ilfracombe. It is not considered necessary to add to the Ilfracombe housing requirement.

North Molton

2.248 Support is provided for the classification of North Molton as a Local Centre but with regard to the distribution of development across such centres the Local Plan is considered to be inconsistent with the NPPG, which requires Local Plans to provide strategies to meet the need of each area. It is suggested that the scale of development planned at Fremington and Yelland has been prejudicial to other Local Centres. Additionally the 10% growth level is considered to be inadequate with regard to providing a boost to housing growth and the delivery of the allocated sites at North Molton are questioned. It is accepted that the scale of development at Local Centres is modest at about 6.5% of the total housing requirement but such is a consequence of such factors as: the accommodation of development in the most sustainable locations (Strategic and Main Towns), the capacity of settlements to accommodate growth and meeting housing and employment needs at the point of greatest generation needs. Concerns regarding the 10% growth sought for Local Centres is not considered to be valid; the 10% level was provided as a minimum to provide for growth a local service centres. Within North Molton, the local plan proposes a much higher level of growth. The level of development as set out in Part 3 of the Local Plan is very much informed by the ambitions of the individual communities. In response to direct engagement with parish councils a significant range of growth rates have been provided for to meet housing needs and growth aspirations at Local Centres. It is worth noting that the 10% growth level for North Molton was in the region of 50-60 dwellings and the Local Plan requirement is 134 dwellings, which represents a growth level of about 25% that provides for a significant boost to the local housing supply. No further change to the scale of development at North Molton is proposed.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Instow

2.249 Comment is made that growth to meet rural needs should be located at settlements which are well served by a range of transport modes and have accessible community facilities, having regard to which Instow is presented as a well performing Local Centre. No change is sought as a result of the comment. The point made is noted, which is considered to be reflected by the provisions of the Local Plan.

Bideford

2.250 Comment in relation to Bideford provides both that there is too much and too little development planned for the town; support is also provided for the scale of growth and for the use of strategic extensions to contribute towards objectively assessed needs.

2.251 The suggested over provision of housing at Bideford is based on concerns relating to infrastructure and the capacity of services to meet the needs of an increasing population. Issues raised in relation to the scale, phasing and location of new housing, employment and infrastructure together with community service levels were generally addressed in response to the previous round of consultation. Housing development will be supported by additional infrastructure, as set out in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan, significantly in respect of improved highway capacity and increased education provision. Infrastructure required in support of development is set as a requirement in allocating policies and general requirements relating to all sites will be sought as required through Policy ST23. A specific concern is raised with regard to drainage and sewage, again infrastructure improvements will be sought through development and sites included within the Bideford Critical Drainage Area will be required to provide enhanced sustainable drainage systems.

2.252 It is suggested that the level of housing growth at Bideford represents an under provision with regard to the objectively assessed need. This assertion is not accepted. The requirement for Bideford at 4,123 dwellings represents 48.6% of the Torridge requirement and 23.9% of the northern Devon requirement, a significant but appropriate level of housing is provided at Bideford in support of addressing housing needs and within the framework of local objectives. The SHMA update identified a demographic based need for Torridge of approximately 7,600 dwellings, which exceeds the policy on position presented through the North Devon and Torridge Employment Study of 6,648 dwellings over the plan period. The housing supply planned for delivery through the Local Plan for Torridge is over 8,400 dwellings, which exceed the demographic requirement by over 9%. This figure, takes into account the component elements of objectively assessed need, including market signals and the need to provide an uplift to address affordable housing need. The level of the Local Plan housing requirement provides for an annualised development rate in Torridge of about 424, which in accordance with NPPF requirements is considered to represent a significant boost to the supply of housing. Additionally it is worth noting that the housing supply to address the housing requirement makes no windfall allowance, such is considered to add flexibility to the supply and to provide the opportunity for development about the required level. No amendment is considered necessary to the policy to address this matter.

Northam

2.253 Comment in relation to Northam is provided on the basis that the scale of housing development is too high (plp 156) and in relation to specific allocations, in objection (plp 2068)to Policies NOR01 and NOR02, which are suggested to represent unsustainable locations for growth and in support of Policy NOR07 (plp 2258). Comments directly relating to allocated sites, were addressed in detail though the consideration of issues raised to the policies in the Northam Town Strategy.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

2.254 It is accepted that the housing requirement for Northam, as set out in the Local Plan exceeds the level proposed in the draft Core Strategy. The level of housing planned for Northam is however, required not only as a contribution to the area’s objectively assessed needs, but as a necessary component to achieve the vision for the parish. The Torridge Urban Housing Needs Assessment (JG Consulting 2012) identified a need for 1,458 dwellings (948 market and 510 affordable) over the period to 2032 in Northam. The housing requirement of about 1,900 (provided by commitments, allocated and non allocated developable sites) is considered appropriate with regard to the scale of identified need and the opportunities to bring suitable sites forward having regard to the character and form of the area.

2.255 Housing growth is required to rebalance the local housing market, including increasing the availably of affordable housing and the supply of housing to meet the changing needs of an increasingly aging population. The level of planned growth reflects the sustainability of Northam and the opportunity and capacity to accommodate required growth. The scale of planned housing growth in Northam Parish is appropriate to identified needs and demands as evidenced in the Torridge Affordable Housing Needs Assessment (JG Consulting 2012). Deliverable and developable sites are available in Northam to meet locally occurring needs and demands, on which basis there is no justification to seek a redistribution of housing sites away from the parish.

2.256 It is also suggested that the higher than draft Core Strategy housing requirement is inconsistent with the reclassification of Northam as a Main Centre, from part of the Bideford/Northam Local Strategic Centre. Northam’s classification as a Main Centre reflects the sustainability of the area to accommodate additional growth; it is not accepted that the changed hierarchy position of Northam should equate to a reduced housing requirement. No amendment is considered necessary to the policy to address this matter.

Rural Settlements and Countryside

2.257 It is suggested (plp 1601) that in attributing only 192 dwellings to rural settlements and the countryside will prevent additional development coming forward during the lifetime of the Local Plan. Additional supply is suggested to be required from such locations. A revised policy table within Policy ST08 provides for 120 dwellings as a contribution to the area’s objectively assessed needs from rural settlements and the countryside. The requirement should not be confused with the supply that may come from this source over the plan period and it is worth noting that the Local Plan requirement at Local Centres and Villages is about 2,175 dwellings.

2.258 It is inevitable that housing requirements in settlements with very limited supporting services and in locations where development is required to be justified will be of a modest scale. The scale of development provided against Rural Settlement and the Countryside should not be viewed as a maximum, the Local Plan provides that opportunities for additional dwellings, beyond existing commitments can be supported. Policy ST07: Spatial Development Strategy for Northern Devon’s Rural Area provides the basis for additional housing to be provided beyond defined settlements, with Policies: DM24: Rural Settlements, DM27: Reuse of Rural Buildings, Rural Worker Accommodation proving the detail of how such could be supported. The Local Plan is considered to provide significant opportunities for development across the rural area.

2.259 Comment is provided (plps 1661, 1736, 1880 and 1857) in support of the general distribution of housing and employment but with concerns expressed about the plan’s ability to support rural vitality having regard to the level of commitments in Local Centres and Villages, which is seen as a constraint to needed development. The comment on the overall distribution of planned growth is noted. With regard to the scale of development planned for in Local Centres and Villages it is not accepted that such is inhibited by the level of existing commitments or achieved development. It is

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

worth noting that the requirement for housing in defined rural settlement amounts to 2157 dwellings, of which only 29% is taken by achieved development or commitments (at 31st March 2013). Housing requirements in such settlements have been d established with regard to the needs and aspirations of rural communities, minimum development levels were sought with regard to growth but no ceiling was suggested. The Local Plan is considered to provide flexibility with regard to rural community growth for the range of social and economic uses, opportunities for appropriate development is enabled to be supported through the general polices of the Local Plan.

2.260 The comment (plp 2120) that it is important to support an appropriate scale of growth in rural settlements, as provided for in the NPPF, is noted. It is considered that the general policies of the Local Plan and settlement specific provision provided for in Part 3 provide a NPPF compliant approach to development beyond the district’s urban areas.

2.261 Comment (plp 2646) has been made in error against Policy ST08: Rural Area Strategy of the Consultation Local Plan. The issue raised with regard to planning for development in the rural area and the use of neighbourhood plans is considered to have been addressed with the introduction of Part 3 of the Local Plan at the Publication Stage.

Other Matters

2.262 The housing trajectory and the housing tables (4.2, 10.1, 10.3, 10.5, 10.7, 10.8, 10.8, 10.12, 10.14 and 10.15) are required to be updated to take account of a review of housing data and recommended revisions to allocated sites.

2.263 With regard to employment sites, the site areas have been subject to review to ensure the correct attribution of hectares. The review has presented the need for a minor revision to Table 10.4: Employment Land Supply for Bideford that will result in a reduction of the Bideford supply from 25.7 hectares to 25.4 hectares.

2.264 Policy ST08 of the Publication draft of the Plan provides for a joint housing requirement for northern Devon and does not establish individual housing requirements for either North Devon or Torridge. A consequence of the joint housing requirement is that it is necessary to have a joint five year housing land supply, as it would not be possible to assess it on an individual local planning authority basis.

2.265 National planning practice guidance(40) recognises that where there is a joint plan, housing requirements and the need to identify a five year supply can apply across the joint plan area. It goes on to note however, that the approach being taken should be set out clearly in the plan. It is recognised that the Publication draft of the Plan does not currently do so. As such, it is recommended that a statement is inserted into the supporting text, directly after the policy and preceding paragraph 4.20, to read:

Conclusion

2.266 A range of amendments are considered necessary to response to consultation comments, significantly to ensure the correct identifications of the objectively assessed need for northern Devon, which will provide a required balance between housing and employment. A number of the proposed recommendations address matters that could form a risk to the soundness of the Local Plan.

40 Paragraph: 010 Reference ID: 2a-010-20140306

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Agreed Actions

2.267 The following are agreed as Main Changes to Policy ST08 and the associated supporting text:

1. Amend Policy ST08 to read:

Policy ST08: Scale and Distribution of New Development in Northern Devon:

(1) Development will be focused at the Sub-regional, Strategic and Main Centres to increase self-containment through sustainable growth that provides balanced housing markets within environmental limits and increases access to jobs, health, education, leisure, culture and community facilities.

(2) Planned provision for a minimum of 16,469 17,220 dwellings and 110 85.1 hectares of employment land, to will be provided on the following basis during the period 2011-2031:

Planned Housing Supply Planned Employment Land (dwellings) 2011 - 2031 Supply (hectares) 2011-2031

Barnstaple* 3,885 4,139 26.2 21.6

Bideford 4,161 4,127 30 25.4

Braunton/Wrafton 382 390 10

Fremington/Yelland* 426 0

Great Torrington 499 632 4

Holsworthy 640 670 9.5 7.1

Ilfracombe 1,426 1,429 5

Northam 1,782 1,916 0

South Molton 1,208 1,240 17.5 10.8

Local Centres** 952 1,123 0.9

Villages 912 1,034 0.3

Rural Settlements and 196 120 0 Countryside

Area Total 16,469 17,246 110.4 85.1

Table 2.4

2. Amend the supporting text to Policy ST08 to set out:

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

a. a revised housing requirement of at least 17,220 dwellings across northern Devon and 85 hectares of land for economic development, on the basis of a balanced housing and economic strategy; b. recognition of a demographically derived need for approximately 14,500 dwellings; c. that the uplift from the demographically derived need seeks to help address housing affordability issues and deliver locally derived growth strategies; d. that, following a Duty-to-Cooperate request, the revised housing target incorporates the housing requirement arising from the North Devon part of Exmoor National Park; and e. that the identified housing supply comprises of 8,768 dwellings in North Devon and 8,478 dwellings in Torridge.

3. Amend as necessary, the Spatial vison of Policy ST06 and ST07 defined settlements to refer to the “provision of a minimum of xxxx dwellings……”

4. Delete paragraph 4.23 of the supporting text.

5. Quantify and recognise the objectivity assessed housing need for the plan area includes the accommodation of generated needs from the North Devon element of Exmoor National Park.

6. Correction to the referenced North Devon demographic based housing requirement for North Devon to take account of a correction to the boundary positon between North Devon and Exmoor National Park.

7. Amend the Housing Trajectory in Appendix 2, the housing Supply tables (Tables 4.2, 10.1, 10.3, 10.5, 10.7, 10.8, 10.8, 10.12, 10.14 and 10.15) and any other subsidiary supporting text to take account of a review of housing supply data and recommended revisions to allocated sites.

8. Amend Table 10.4: Employment Land Supply for Bideford to reflect a corrected employment land supply figure and a reduction of the Bideford supply from 25.7 hectares to 25.4 hectares.

9. Insert additional paragraph into the supporting text, directly after the policy and preceding paragraph 4.20, to read:

‘4.xx The overall housing requirements set out in Policy ST08 apply across the joint plan area and are not disaggregated to an individual local planning authority. Equally, the need to identify a five year housing land supply will apply across the joint plan area as a whole, rather than being applicable to each individual local planning authority.’.

Policy ST09: Coast and Estuary Strategy

Comments made in response to Policy ST09: Coast and Estuary Strategy

Total Number of Responses 37 (from 21 separate individuals)

Yes No

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 9 2

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 1 13

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 9 2

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy ST09: Coast and Estuary Strategy and supporting text plp number

The plan should not discriminate against size or type of offshore developments, 131 amend ST09(10) as proposed. "Delivery of onshore facilities for operational servicing of large-scale offshore renewable energy proposals" to " Delivery of onshore facilities for operational servicing of offshore energy proposals "

The creation of the Coastal and Estuarine Zone is supported as it helps act as a 207 buffer to the AONB in the north. The areas of undeveloped coast should be clearly identified on the proposals map. The Local Plan should include a statement on the councils’ approach to its duties to protect and enhance the AONB.

Section (7) is too restrictive - does not allow for employment or tourism. Delete 537 last sentence of (4)

Supports the policy of no development north of the B3233 to protect the estuary 743 (FPC) outlook and ensure there is no skyline development.

Paragraph (7) does not adequately protect this important area. Part (d) needs to 882 be repositioned to avoid appeal problems further down the line. Delete part (d) and place its wording to the main paragraph so it reads "...... and is required (because it cannot reasonably be located outside the undeveloped coast and estuary):...... "

Policy ST09 advocates the sequential approach to the location and layout of 879 (EA) development according to flooding and coastal risks. This approach is further explained in paragraph 4.47 which is supported.

Support is given to Policy ST09 and the intention behind sub-paragraph (6). Further 880 (EA) clarification is sought on how this will be achieved.

Strongly support ST09. On point (5) there should be an embargo on all housing 1106 (TTEF) estates & industrialization of land North of the B3233 down to the estuary//RSPB’s nature reserve & the Ash Beds Conservation Area.

Policy is currently unsound. Concerned about harm to important heritage assets 1141 (EH) due to flooding and erosion. There needs to be explicit comment and policy in the plan as to what these policies and developments can do for these historic assets. Link to CIL.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Objection to Policy ST09(2): add flexibility to allow for the redevelopment of sites 1169 for mixed use development in circumstances where employment use is no longer desirable either commercially or because the location is not suitable for employment. The policy is too rigid which may result in continued dereliction or adverse environmental impacts.

Welcome the extent of the Coast and Estuary Zone, but object to the strategy set 1163 out in para 4.36; the area defined includes land within the Appledore development boundary which makes a significant contribution to the setting of Appledore, which should be protected from development. Development of the Appledore sites (as included in table 10.14): Land between Watertown and Staddon Road, Land at Kingsley Avenue, Appledore; and Land east of Churchill Way, Appledore would negatively impact on the setting of Appledore.

Objection to the re-establishment of flood plains, which is considered to result in 1517 NPPF non compliance.

Policy ST09 (7) relating to the undeveloped coast and estuary is too restrictive, 1519 resulting in NPPF non compliance(paragraphs 94, 29 and 37).

Policy ST09 (7) and (8) does not allow for employment or tourism, although a 1520 corporate priority. The approach results in NPPF non compliance ( paragraphs 94, 29 and 37).

Development impacting on estuary setting should not be allowed. 1426

Elements of policy repetitive and overly restrictive particularly (5) and (10). 1662

Policy ST09 is highly restrictive of development in coastal locations and this acts 1602 as a further brake to supply in an area with significant potential to drive forward economic growth through tourism. Sub paragraph 7 part (b) text should be replaced with “ to support local social and economic needs and services”.

Policy ST09: is generally welcomed and supported, subject to revisions to: (5) 1959 include reference to specified SAC and SSSIs designated for coastal and wildlife features; (7) revised reference to sports/recreation in the undeveloped coast and estuary.

Elements of this policy are repetitive and unnecessary; however there is support 1737, 1881, for particular elements like Clause 3. In respect to Clause 5 there are already and 1976 significant number of designations protecting the coast and estuaries, so further designations and documentation is unnecessary. Coasts around North Devon have potential to be used for offshore renewable energy. The existing ports are too small to facilitate with these emerging technologies. In this context Clause 10 is unnecessarily restrictive.

Strategic Policy ST09 (3) needs to be consistent with ST09 (5) and (7), and with 2090 (NT) the national conservation objectives under paragraphs 114 and 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Clarification required on tourism development in the undeveloped coast.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

The Coast and Estuary Strategy aims to maintain the separate identities of coastal 2199 settlements and yet the housing plans for Northam parish severely erode the separation and are likely, especially in the case of Westward Ho!, to lead to coalescence.

The strategy appears to replace the present Coastal Protection Area policy (ENV6) 2201 but is weak and the new policy does not require a need for a development to be shown. Clause (7) (b), is too general and open to justification for any large development and downgrades environmental and wildlife considerations. Clause (7) (c) on allowing. sport and recreation, any such facilities would disturb the tranquillity and affect the beauty of the protected coast.

Objects to the way in which the word ‘enhanced’ is used in criterion (1), (3), (5), 2259 (7) and (8). While it is important that the coast and estuary are protected, it is not always necessary to conserve and enhance. The requirement to enhance may, in some instances, make a development proposal unviable and undeliverable. The policy should be amended to state preserve and maintain the coast, in the first instance, and, where appropriate, enhance. Similarly para 4.34 of the supporting text should be amended in order to bring it (and the policy) in line with NPPF paragraph 173 which aims to ensure viability and deliverability of new development.

Support. 2336 (ENPA)

Supporting text paragraphs 4.34 to 4.50

The coastal and estuarine zone areas experience competing land uses and 2260 significant development pressure alongside a combination of environmental designations (Paragraph 4.34). Policy ST09 clearly aims to reconcile these conflicting pressures to preserve and, where appropriate, enhance northern Devon’s coastline and estuary.

Suggest that reference to the MMO’s role in consenting projects be made within 2256 (MMO) planning documents to ensure that necessary regulatory requirements are covered.

Let out clause “not providing benefits to the local community” is far too weak. 1107 (TTEF)

North Devon's Biosphere Reserve (BR) is not the only new style BR in England 2230 as stated. The South Downs has recently designated one.

The Plan must be founded evidence, there is no evidence that climate change or 132 sea level rise are a significant issue for coastal areas.

Support is given to the intention behind sub-paragraph (6) which states that water 881 (EA) quality will be improved where it has been affected by human activity. Further clarification is sought on how this will be achieved. Paragraph 4.40 emphasises the need for improved water quality in the Taw-Torridge estuary, this would be strengthened if the aim was reflected further in the relevant town strategies.

Amend paragraph 4.41 from " operational and maintenance links to any future 133 offshore renewable energy generation " to " operational and maintenance links to any future offshore energy generation ". Remove the reference to “renewable” energy.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

“New facilities ...... will be supported” Needs caveat to protect undeveloped areas. 1108 (TTEF)

Due to the lack of RSS or Structure Plan a statement is needed that sets out factors 212 that need to be balanced in order for support to be given to offshore regional infrastructure projects. The last sentence of paragraph 4.50 needs strengthening by referring back to the NPPF which states the AONB have ‘the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty’

Needs to relate to paragraph 115 of the NPPF to conserve landscape and scenic 213 beauty. Add to the first paragraph ‘conserves landscape and scenic beauty of the AONB’

Retain the quality of caravan and camping sites. 1751

Additional information

2.268 Coastal retreat is now an outdated term and should be replaced by coastal realignment (paragraph 4).

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.269 There was broad support for this policy from a range of consultees including the Environment Agency, Natural England, Exmoor Nation Park Authority and the Taw and Torridge Estuary Forum although representations cover a wide range of issues, which reflects the diverse range of issues and competing development pressures which this policy is seeking to balance.

2.270 Core planning principles in the NPPF (paragraph 17) requires planning to take full account of flood risk and climate change. Councils should reduce risk from coastal change by avoiding inappropriate development in vulnerable areas (paragraph 100). The level 2 strategic flood risk assessments for Barnstaple and Bideford provide evidence that climate change and sea level rise are a significant issue around the estuary since the areas at risk of flooding and the level of hazards anticipated are expected to increase over time. Consequently, climate change is a significant issue for coastal areas.

2.271 The Marine Management Organisation’s role is set out in paragraph 4.35. At their request, this paragraph should also recognise the MMO’s role in consenting projects to ensure that necessary regulatory requirements are covered. An amendment to address this is proposed.

Coast and Estuary Zone/ Undeveloped Coast

2.272 Creation of the Coastal and Estuarine Zone is broadly supported including a perceived role to act as a buffer for the AONB and estuary. However, there is concern that another environment designation is unnecessary. The undeveloped coast supersedes the previous Coastal Preservation Area designation and paragraph 114 of the NPPF requires local planning authorities to “maintain the character of the undeveloped coast, protecting and enhancing its distinctive landscapes”. It is distinct from the national designations of AONB and Heritage Coast. Defining the Coastal and Estuarine Zone and identifying the undeveloped coast within it will facilitate meeting this requirement.

2.273 A large number of comments relate to the undeveloped coast. The coastal and estuarine zone as a whole is shown on the Policies map and indicatively in Figure 4.2. The extent of the developed coast is explained in paragraph 4.36 and shown in more detail on the relevant policies maps by the designated development boundaries. It is criteria based and it is unnecessary and impractical to show it on the Policies map. Outside the inset maps, it would not be legible.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

2.274 The developed coast is supported in maintaining the separate identifies within Northam. There is also support (from Fremington PC and Taw-Torridge Estuary Forum) for land north of Fremington being shown as undeveloped coast (north of B3233) to protect its undeveloped character. There is opposition to developing undeveloped land at Appledore, shown within the development boundary (and hence as developed coast), as it would harm the local landscape which is considered in more detail within the Northam chapter.

2.275 In terms of the criteria for ST09(7), there is concern that restrictions for the undeveloped coast are too restrictive, potentially being a break on employment and tourism, non-compliant with NPPF. Alternative wording is proposed for criterion 7(b) “to support local social and economic needs and services”. However other comments indicate that criterion 7(b) is too weak, especially perceived imprecision of benefits for the local community at large and fear that it is too general and open to justification for any large development. The proposed alternative wording would potentially facilitate more economic development in the undeveloped coast. In view of NPPF’s requirement (paragraph 110) to maintain the character of the undeveloped coast, these restrictions and proposed exceptions are justified and considered to be in accordance with the NPPF. It is recognised that criterion (b) could be rephrased for clarity and certainty in facilitating appropriate development in the undeveloped coast required to meet the needs of the local community.

2.276 Two representations indicate that criterion 7(c) should exclude formal sports provision, such as football pitches, and should avoid disturbing the tranquillity of the protected coast, such as floodlighting or shooting. Paragraph 4.44 indicates that outdoor recreational activities are supported where environmental and heritage assets are protected including the undeveloped character of the Heritage Coast. Criterion 7 already requires the unspoilt character, appearance and tranquillity of the undeveloped coast to be protected and Policies ST14: Enhancing Environmental Assets and DM02: Environmental Protection also safeguard tranquillity including dark night skies. Further protection and exclusion of formal sports facilities is not required.

2.277 Taw-Torridge Estuary Forum indicates that new facilities for water sports should protect the undeveloped coast. Criterion 7(c) facilitates opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation within the undeveloped coast, already subject to not detracting from its unspoilt character, appearance and tranquillity. The policy does not need to be amended but paragraph 4.44 could be clarified to indicate that opportunities for water sports will be supported where the undeveloped coast’s unspoilt character and appearance is not harmed.

2.278 Criterion 7(d) seeks to facilitate development that must be located in the undeveloped coast and could not be relocated elsewhere, such as sea defences or cabling between land and sea. This requirement should apply to all proposed developments rather than just as one of four alternative reasons. The request is for criterion 7(d) to be deleted and moved to the first part of this paragraph, which would strengthen the policy. This amendment is accepted and a minor change to criterion 7(d) is proposed.

2.279 Tourism attractions are allowed in the developed coast by criterion (3) and would not normally be allowed in the undeveloped coast unless the requirements of criterion (7) are met. Further clarification of tourism development in the undeveloped coast is not required, apart from clarifying that being attracted to the coast is insufficient justification for being located outside the undeveloped coast and estuary under criterion 7(d).

Environment

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

2.280 A range of comments relate to protecting the environment around the coast and estuary. The policy mostly seeks to protect rather than enhance the environment, with enhancement only required by policy at a strategic level where opportunities arise, for example the coast and estuary’s integrity as an important wildlife corridor, the quality and diversity of the tourism offer and opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation. Environmental enhancement is cross referenced through other policies (ST14 and ST15), although enhancement could be removed from paragraph 4.39.

2.281 One representation supports the principle of the policy subject to revisions to paragraph (5) to include reference to specified SACs and SSSIs. This paragraph already recognises AONB and Heritage Coast as national designations, although these environmental assets are protected already by Policy ST14. As national designations, SACs and SSSIs to be referenced similarly, but there is no need to do so as the plan should be read as a whole.

2.282 It is accepted that paragraph 4.37 needs updating to recognise that North Devon Biosphere Reserve is no longer the only new style biosphere reserve in England, with one recently being designated in South Downs. This needs to be amended for accuracy.

2.283 English Heritage seeks clarification how heritage assets will be safeguarded from flooding and erosion. Heritage assets and stretches of coast to be defended from sea level rise are set out in the emerging Shoreline Management Plan. It is recognised there are heritage assets that are potentially at future risk from flooding and erosion but there are limited opportunities to address the issue through the local plan. Paragraph 3.19 recognises that there are limited opportunities for the historic environment to adapt to the changing climate. Policy ST09(4) already indicates settlements and resorts, where the majority of heritage assets are located, will be defended. The local plan as a whole provides a positive strategy for the historic environment, especially Policies ST15 and DM07. Any defence of specific heritage assets outside the main settlements, and beyond the scope of the Shoreline Management Plan’s planned defences, would need to be funded by English Heritage, unless directly related to future developments. It is not considered necessary to be more explicit about how these heritage assets will be protected.

2.284 Several representations from the Environment Agency refer to water quality, although their comments are broadly supportive. Further clarification is sought as to how water quality improvements will be achieved. Many potential water quality improvements are outside the scope of the local plan, such as changes to agricultural practices but, where new development is proposed, consideration of water quality improvements on the basis of local plan policies and objectives will help to achieve an overall improvement in water quality towards meeting the Water Framework Directive. No further clarification is considered necessary within the plan. The requested reference to water quality improvements within town spatial strategies has been considered for each main town.

2.285 Re-establishment of functional floodplains uses an ecosystem services approach to help address flood risks, which is in accordance with recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services (NPPF paragraph 109). The Local Plan does not identify specific sites and it is not considered to be in conflict with the NPPF.

Economy

2.286 Several representations raise concern about opportunities for economic development along the coast. The strategy for locating such development within existing towns and in the developed coast would provide economic development in the most sustainable locations with least environmental impact. ST09(2) focuses on employment uses requiring a coastal location, directing them to previously developed sites, such as Yelland Quay and Appledore Shipyard. Opportunities for enabling

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

development have been considered under representations for Policy FRE02 at Yelland Quay. The EA supports the clarification in paragraph 4.47 that employment uses not requiring a waterside location should be located elsewhere in areas of lower flood risk vulnerability.

2.287 One representation seeks to retain the quality of caravan and camping sites. The Local Plan cannot control the quality and maintenance of existing sites. Policies DM04: Design Principles and DM18: Tourism Accommodation provide control over the design, quality and appearance of new or the expansion of existing caravan and camping sites. No further amendments are required.

Renewable Energy

2.288 Onshore facilities for operational servicing should not relate solely to large-scale offshore renewable energy proposals, so reference to ‘large-scale’ should be deleted. One representation seeks operational and maintenance links for all types of future offshore energy generation, not just renewable energy. Whilst a more inclusive approach would be supported, there is no realistic prospect of offshore energy generation from any sources other than renewable energy, so an amendment is unnecessary. Other issues relating to renewable energy generation have been considered under Policy ST16: Delivering Renewable Heat and Energy.

2.289 One representation seeks confirmation that the AONB will be given the highest level of landscape protection when balancing environmental impacts against benefits for consideration of any future proposals for offshore infrastructure projects. It is also recognised that there could be environmental as well as social and economic benefits, which should be recognised in paragraph 4.46. A cross reference to Policy ST14 to environmental assets and the status of the AONB would be appropriate as an addition to paragraph 4.46.

Other Matters

2.290 ‘Coastal retreat’ is now an outdated term and should be replaced by ‘coastal realignment’. Paragraph (4) should be amended accordingly.

2.291 The Policies Map around Island requires an amendment to exclude the island mainland from the SAC designation but also the needs to be shown within the designated Lundy Heritage Coast.

2.292 The Habitats Regulations Assessment has concluded that a visitor management strategy is no longer necessary to avoid any potentially significant adverse impacts from increases in recreational use for SAC.

Conclusion

2.293 Numerous issues were raised through representations received, but none are considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan, although proposed changes are recommended for accuracy and clarification and would ensure that this policy is fully complaint with the NPPF. Main changes are required to clarify wording and intentions of this policy and particular paragraphs.

Agreed Actions

1. The following are agreed as Main Changes to Policy ST09: a. Amend (4) from ‘coastal retreat’ to ‘coastal alignment’. b. Amend paragraph (7): “Development within the undeveloped coast and estuary will be permitted where it does not detract from the unspoilt character, appearance and tranquillity of the area,

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

nor the undeveloped character of the Heritage Coasts, and it is required because it cannot reasonably be located outside the undeveloped coast and estuary, and is: .... ” c. Amend 7(b) to: “to provide community facilities that meet the needs for the benefit of the local community at large;” d. Delete criterion 7(d) and move ’or’ from 7(c) to 7(b). e. Amend criterion (10): “Delivery of onshore facilities for operational servicing of large-scale offshore renewable energy proposals will ...”

2. Make Main Changes to the Policies Map and Legend to Remove Lundy Island (mainland only) from the designated SAC but include Lundy within the area designated as Lundy Heritage Coast, Lundy Marine Nature Reserve and Marine Conservation Zone.

3. The following are agreed as Main Changes:

a. Amend paragraph 4.35: “The Marine Management Organisation (MMO) is responsible for delivering clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse seas, which includes through consenting projects, marine licensing in relation to offshore activity and preparing Marine Plans.” b. Amend third sentence of paragraph 4.36: “Much of the coastline including Lundy Island and surrounding coastal waters ...... ” c. Delete ‘and enhanced’ from the final sentence of paragraph 4.39 d. Amend second sentence of paragraph 4.44 by adding “... will be supported where the unspoilt character of the undeveloped coast is not harmed along the coast and estuary where environmental and heritage assets are protected, including the undeveloped character of the Heritage Coast“. e. Amend paragraph 4.46 by adding: “ ... against potential social, environmental and economic benefits, recognising the national and/or international importance of some environmental assets. f. Amend paragraph 4.50 by adding: “Tourism accommodation should be located outside the undeveloped coast. Desire for proximity to the coast and estuary is inadequate justification for new tourism accommodation being located in the undeveloped coast.”

4. The following are agreed as Minor Changes:

a. Amend first sentence of paragraph 4.37 to “North Devon’s Biosphere Reserve is the only first new style Biosphere Reserve in England and the first to be designated in the UK.” b. Delete the final sentence of paragraph 7.37. c. Amend ‘environmentally assets’ to ‘environmental assets’ in paragraph 4.50. Policy ST10: Transport Strategy

Comments in Response to Policy ST10: Transport Strategy

Total Number of Responses 48

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 4 6

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 1 12

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 7 5

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Summary of Issues

Comments on ST10: Transport Strategy plp number

General Comments

Improve links to Exeter//J27 by dualling A361 and provision of fast rail 1774 links.

It is difficult to find any detail of road improvements , other than the upgrading of 2380 some road junctions and ‘protecting and enhancing the function and safety of the road network'

Policy ST10 states it will ‘improve journey times and services on the Barnstaple – Exeter rail line linking ...... and the wider rail network.’ It fails to explain how they will get the privatised national rail services to improve a rail link that has changed little over the last 40 years.

Investigate the possibility of re-opening the Bideford to Barnstaple rail link, either 2549 (BTC) with a small working steam train or a monorail. This would increase tourism in the area as a whole and reduce congestion on the current roads between the two towns.

ST10

The following should be added to safeguard narrow lanes with high hedgebanks 214 from widening and over signing: ‘taking into account the impact on landscape character, qualities and protected landscapes designations’

Road access issues have not been sufficiently addressed in Barnstaple. There 481 appears to be no strategic vision regarding road access to the town which is already susceptible to congestion. To make the plan sound every new development should be conditional on a detailed traffic appraisal and where necessary road improvements. The plan should also include provision for a by-pass round Bickington from Fremington to Roundswell without passing along the A39, which is already heavily congested at peak times.

Support re-use of former railways. 551

Failure to address the lack of good transport links beyond 780 Bideford-Barnstaple-Ilfracombe. No statement as to a strategy for public transport. The proposed developments will result increased traffic volumes.

Contradiction within the Plan regarding suggested transport facilities improvements, 538, 1524 including to the rural areas. A sustainable transport policy will need to be backed by funding and partnership working, in the absence of which no change will result.

There is no indication as to how ‘reducing the need to travel’ and ‘improving 860 transport connectivity between rural communities and the main towns will be achieved as the two seem to be at odds with each other.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Development is currently being planned without serious consideration for transport 641 infrastructure. There needs to be a more co-ordinated approach to planning. Until resources are made available at county level to improve road infrastructure it will be necessary to accept small peacemeal improvement from developer contributions.

For Policy ST10, there is no evidence presented which would indicate that the 750 reinstatement of the line would provide good strategic connectivity referred to in this Policy. It is unlikely that the reinstated Line would have any strategic importance. Item (1)(g) should be deleted.

Policy ST10 could be strengthened by including a reference to improving water 883 (EA) quality from field runoff.

Policy currently unsound. How will the future transport proposals be expected to 1142 (EH) respond positively to the historic environment? Seek opportunities to improve historic streets, townscapes, landscapes and settings. How are traffic/street management, environmental improvements, paving, and street furniture going to be designed and managed in a historic streetscene?

Welcome reference to ‘Streets for All’. Must also be extended so as to be explicitly 1190 (EH) referenced in DM06 Parking Standards and ST10 the Transport Strategy, particularly section 3 that seeks to ‘reduce the environmental and social impacts of transport’.

ST10 (3) (e): in principle supported but policy unclear about who would undertake 1258 (DCC) such an exercise: District Council, Town Council or other body responsible for delivering local projects. DCC does not have the resource to produce such document other than for Barnstaple/Bideford.

Policy ST10 (1) (b): some development could adversely impact on the strategic 1253 (DCC) transport network beyond the plan area. Policy amendment sought to protect the function of the wider strategic road network.

Policy ST10 (2) (b) and (3) (b): traditional public services for smaller services not 1255 (DCC) on a corridor link are unlikely to sustain a commercial bus service. It may be too onerous for a service to be provided if not commercially sustainable. Amend Policy wording to remove "rural communities".

Amend policy to direct all applicants – not just major-to discuss the requirement 1256 (DCC) for a Transport Assessment/Statement with the Local Planning Authority.

As far as the Agency is concerned the SRN comprises the A30 which passes into 1289 (HA) the Torridge District at the southern edge and the M5 accessing Northern Devon. The principles of the policy are fully supported by the Agency, providing good stategic connectivity, meeting the needs of the local community and visitors and reducing the environmental and social impacts of transport, particularly by reducing the need to travel by car and enabling alternative sustainable travel options.

Should be an addition to part one of this policy to recognise in a more substantive 1663, 1738, manner than either point E or F, the potential/need to ensure that appropriate port 1882, 1977 facilities are available to support the potential for off shore renewable energy generation.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Support for the Councils’ Transport Strategy, noting that it is comprehensive. There 1726 is some duplication with DM05. References to Transport Assessments should be removed from ST10.

Controls sought on the operation of larger delivery vehicles to prevent damage to 1752 pavements/hedgerows. Small vehicles should be used from a transport hub.

Plan does not appear to identify any key or strategic employment sites. Consider 1770 traffic to be a barrier and though should be given to how to optimise traffic flows to and from Bideford and South Molton.

Support is given in general, but more specifically in respect of (2)(a) the provision 1864 of transport infrastructure that facilitates the delivery of proposed strategic extensions, specifically for housing.

Not clear what “ensuring the operational effectiveness of the strategic road network” 1994 (NE) (A361 and A30) would mean or what improvements if any are proposed. Any improvements will need to take into account the findings of a revised Habitat Regulation Assessment.

Make reference to improved broadband and ICT connectivity under item (3) of the 2232 policy.

Support inclusion of 1 (g). 2337 (ENPA)

It would be useful if North Devon ’ s leading politicians would offer leadership on 2431 a progressive, sustainable, wide-ranging holistic transport policy to tackle inequalities and injustice rather than just banging the drum for motoring-lobby schemes and policies. More needs to be done to improve conditions for walking, cycling, the use of public transport, and to improve living conditions in places affected by traffic, not just so that they are a little better than before (but still bad), but so that they are good.

To meet some of the objectives of the plan, it is suggested that the rail links be 2705 investigated, both in respect of the existing Barnstaple to Exeter route and a revisit to the to Barnstaple old line, which no longer exists. Quite how this will be funded and how it fits into the timescale of most of the proposed developments is totally unclear.

The Link Road should be dualled between Roundswell and Bishops Tawton as a 2733 (FPC) matter of priority. Improvements should be made to the Cedars roundabout before any development takes place.

Paragraph 4.51

The A361 is a two speed transport link; slow for cargo, fast for private vehicles; 1753 additional capacity is required for both users to co-exist.

Paragraph 4.52

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

A361 is not suitable for "tourists, visitors and business trips", the two cannot 1754 co-exist.

Figure 4.4 : Transport links

Add the B3230 to Figure 4.4 in light of the planned improvements during the plan 1259 (DCC) period in order to mitigate development impacts and improve connectivity between Ilfracombe and Barnstaple.

Paragraph 4.53

B3230 is particularly sensitive road and changes made reluctantly, with great skill. 1755

Paragraph 4.54

Unclear what is meant by ‘Demand Management’ in the context of this paragraph. 1260 (DCC) Add a definition of demand management, adjust the phrasing. 1407

Paragraph 4.56

Final sentence of this paragraph requires greater clarity. 1261 (DCC)

Paragraph 4.58

Transport Assessment is needed to address the consequences of HGV movements; 1757 a Barnstaple hub is required, to enable smaller vehicles to be used for onward local deliveries.

Paragraph 4.60

Paragraph 4.60 repeats previously stated text. 1525

Paragraph 4.61

The connectively strategy must include local hubs. 1798

Paragraph 4.63

Reinstatement of the former and Barnstaple railway line and opportunities 333, 2338 to explore associated recreational trails are welcomed. (ENPA)

Clarify paragraph 4.63,it currently refers to the reinstatement of former railway 1262 (DCC) lines for railway services and refers to reinstatement to expand the footpath and cycle network. The paragraph also conflicts with paragraph 4.65 where a former railway alignment forms part of the Tarka Trail.

Paragraph 4.65

It is wrongly suggested that a new trail on the route of former Bideford to Appledore 1265 (DCC) Railway between the Kenwith Valley and Westward Ho! is a commitment. DCC have yet to overcome land and funding issues. It is recommended that this infrastructure is funded through CIL and is included in the District’s Regulation 123 list.

Paragraph 4.66

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Making rural communities more sustainable through development presents 1266 (DCC) challenges; the delivery and maintenance of public transport and local services are subject to viability. Increasing housing in the rural area increases car dependency and the pressures on the highway network adjoining the main towns. While Park and Change facilities may assist accessibility issues for residents without a car will remain.

Additional Information

2.294 Local Transport Plan 3 – Devon and Torbay Strategy 2011-2026 (April 2011)

2.295 DCC consulted on the “Gateway to Northern Devon – A Strategy for the North Devon Link Road” during 2014, to which the councils provided a consultation response.

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.296 A range of responses to the Transport Strategy policy and supporting text have been submitted, including some support although there are also a number of objections, including from DCC. The Highways Agency fully support the principles of the policy as it provides good strategic connectivity, meeting the needs of the local community and visitors and reducing the environmental and social impacts of transport, particularly by reducing the need to travel by car and enabling alternative sustainable travel options.

2.297 The policy already seeks to improve the operational effectiveness of the strategic road network in northern Devon, which could include the opportunity to dual parts of the A361 around Barnstaple. Paragraph 4.52 ensures ‘development adjoining the A361 and A39 do not prejudice opportunities for future road and junction improvements’. However, it is unlikely the entire route of the A361 would become a dual carriageway unless major capital funding was made available by central Government which is extremely unlikely considering the route is no longer recognised as a ‘Trunk Road’. It is also likely Natural England would have a major objection to further destruction of Culm Grassland candidate SAC at Hares Down, Knowstone and Rackenford Moors, a site of international importance where the existing route of the A361 runs through this European protected site. The Plan does not propose to dual the A361 as such a proposal would be for the Local Highway Authority to pursue and would of course be subject to a detailed Habitats Regulations Assessment.

2.298 The Plan seeks to improve rail journey times between Barnstaple and Exeter as well as improvements to other modes of public transport on the highway network. It is accepted the implementation of such improvements to the strategic road and rail networks and public transport routes within and out of northern Devon cannot be controlled through the Local Plan. However, the Plan can provide the opportunities to work in partnership with the main infrastructure providers to ensure that such priorities are recognised within their future transport plans and bids for capital funding or through developer contributions. Specifically the Plan provides opportunities and infrastructure for modes of transport other than by the private car, such as improved public transport, cycle / pedestrian links, but it cannot force the residents of the new houses to use the alternative options once delivered.

2.299 Support has been expressed for the re-instatement of former railway lines, including from Exmoor National Park Authority. The response from Bideford Town Council regarding the potential for re-instating the Barnstaple to Bideford railway service as a commuter / tourist route is noted. The Plan should only include development proposals that will be delivered during the plan period to 2031, and there is no evidence to suggest a proposal to reinstate the former rail line between Barnstaple

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

and Bideford is a viable or deliverable option which is currently being pursued, unlike the route proposed under Policy BAR16 (Lynton to Barnstaple Railway), where a deliverable business case for this development is actively being pursued.

2.300 Whilst the Plan does not preclude the line’s reinstatement by seeking to safeguard routes and explore opportunities for the reuse and reinstatement of former railway lines, the importance and popularity of the Tarka Trail (and Coast Path) for walkers and cyclists between Barnstaple and Bideford is recognised in paragraph 4.65. Supporting paragraph 4.63 makes it clear that reinstatement of former railway lines will be explored towards the objective of reducing the need to travel by car. It is not accepted that criterion 1(g) is not strategic in so far as it provides the opportunity to improve the strategic footpath / cycle network throughout northern Devon connecting to the wider network outside the Plan area. DCC is concerned that paragraph 4.63 considers the possible re-instatement of the former railway line between Bideford and Barnstaple could compromise the Tarka Trail, which is inconsistent with paragraph 4.65 which seeks to safeguard the route of the Tarka Trail. It is accepted that some additional text should be added to paragraph 4.63 to recognise that any displacement of the strategic cycle / footpath network must provide alternative provision. It is also proposed to delete the wording ‘including the Barnstaple to Bideford line’ from paragraph 4.63.

2.301 One representation is seeking some additional wording to safeguard narrow lanes with high hedgebanks from widening and an over proliferation of signage. Road signage is predominantly a matter for the local highway authority. The focus of Policy ST10 is on the strategic road network but there is an opportunity to add some additional wording to recognise the need to protect landscape character. However, the Local Plan cannot control the operation of larger delivery vehicles which are presumed by one representation to damage pavements / hedgerows nor insist that small vehicles be used to transport goods to their final destination. Therefore, it is not proposed to make any changes to the Plan in this instance.

2.302 The Plan already recognises the need to maintain the operational effectiveness of the strategic road network in northern Devon (criterion 1a) and also requires major developments that generate significant traffic movements to provide a detailed ‘Transport Assessment’ and ‘Travel Plans’ (criterion 3c). All developments will be expected to provide highway improvements where it will impact on the local highway network. The Plan would not preclude an extension to the new road link from the A39 through BAR09 (Glenwood Farm) and BAR03 (Tews Lane) to Bickington although there is concern that any scheme is unlikely to be deliverable without an identified capital funding stream. Therefore, its deliverability is uncertain and it is not considered necessary to make further changes to the Plan.

2.303 The response from the Environment Agency is noted and it is accepted that water quality could be adversely impacted by water run-off from the highway network. The Plan cannot control directly the level of cars on the road and any potential pollutants from their movements on the highway network. Such matters would need to be addressed in partnership with the local highway authority. However, the issues of water quality is referenced throughout the strategic policies of the Plan including Policy ST03 (Adapting to Climate Change and Strengthening Resilience), Policy ST09 (Coast and Estuary Strategy), ST14 (Enhancing Environmental Assets) and Policy DM02 (Environmental Protection) in association with an ecosystem approach, so further references are considered unnecessary.

2.304 The level of detail required by English Heritage is not for Policy ST10 to consider. These issues should be resolved through negotiation as part of any future planning applications where highway issues to serve the development may have an adverse impact on the historic environment. As the Plan must be read as a whole; the historic environment is considered under Policy ST15:

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Conserving Heritage Assets and DM07: Historic Environment. However, protection for the historic environment could be strengthened by amending criterion 3(f) to recognise that improvements to physical infrastructure design should respect the historic environment.

2.305 DCC support in principle Policy ST10(3)(e) but it is unclear about who would undertake such an exercise: District Council, Town Council or other body responsible for delivering local projects. DCC has indicated that it does not have the resource to produce such documents other than for Barnstaple/Bideford.

2.306 Some development could adversely impact on the strategic transport network beyond the plan area. Policy amendment is sought to protect the function of the wider strategic road network, for example junction 27 of the M5. It is accepted the supporting text could make reference to the delivery of traffic management schemes in the main towns through partnership working with the local authorities and local community. It is also accepted that criterion 1(b) could be slightly amended to recognise the need to protect the wider strategic road network serving northern Devon outside the Plan area as part of the ‘Duty to Cooperate’ with adjoining Local Authorities. DCC are also concerned that a commercial bus service to some rural communities may not be commercially viable. Whilst this is accepted in principle, it is still considered important to try and deliver quality public and community transport networks to our rural areas to support those residents in rural communities without access to a private car. However, it is suggested that some additional wording is added to criteria 2(b) and 3(b) to recognise viability of running a commercial service.

2.307 In terms of Figure 4.4 – Transport links of strategic importance for northern Devon, DCC have suggested the B3230 should be added as it forms part of the strategic road network between Barnstaple and Ilfracombe. It is recommended that such a change should be made to Figure 4.4. At paragraph 4.54, DCC are unclear as to the precise meaning of ‘demand management measures’. It is not considered the term ‘demand management’ is inappropriate in the context of paragraph 4.54 although it is accepted that a definition should be included within the glossary. However, the response from DCC regarding paragraph 4.56 is not considered justified without some clear guidance from DCC as to how they wish the paragraph to be clarified. The final sentence sets out the general principles of the policy, and it is not considered necessary to repeat every aspect of the policy.

2.308 One representation has suggested that criterion 1(e) or (f) should include the potential / need to ensure that appropriate port facilities are available to support any future off-shore renewable energy generation. Paragraph 10.305 (Ilfracombe Town Strategy) has recognised that ‘appropriate infrastructure should also be incorporated into the harbour to facilitate an operational hub for any future large-scale off-shore renewable energy schemes’. It is accepted that reference could be made in Policy ST10 to support appropriate infrastructure for any off-shore renewable energy schemes. It is also proposed to amalgamate criteria 1(e) and 1(f).

2.309 It is not accepted the Plan does not identify any key or strategic employment sites. Clearly, the Plan identifies economic growth around the main employment centres in northern Devon at Roundswell, Caddsdown Business Park and Pathfields Business Park. Criterion 1(a) already seeks to ensure the operational effectiveness of the strategic road network (A39 and A361) between these key employment sites. Criterion 2(a) also requires the provision of transport infrastructure to facilitate the delivery of housing and employment development and economic regeneration.

2.310 One representation has suggested reference should be made to improve broadband and ICT connectivity under criterion 3 of Policy ST10. It is not considered appropriate to include broadband / ICT under the Transport Strategy however, it is noted that such provision is set out within Policy ST23: Infrastructure. As the Plan should be read as a whole the reference in Policy ST23 is considered adequate.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

2.311 The representation regarding the repetition of paragraph 4.60 with the previous stated text is unclear. Therefore, no change is proposed to the Plan.

2.312 DCC object to the assumption in paragraph 4.65 of the Plan that a new trail on the route of the former Bideford to Appledore Railway between the Kenwith Valley and Westward Ho! is a commitment as DCC have yet to overcome land and funding issues. DCC consider that such provision should be included on the Council’s section 123 CIL list. It is therefore recommended that the route of the former Bideford to Appledore Railway (BID08) should be included on the IDP and CIL section 123 list once prepared. It is also recommended to make a minor change to the supporting text within paragraph 4.65 to clarify how it will be delivered.

Other Matters

2.313 It has been highlighted that safety and capacity improvement works are required to Lynton Cross and Two Potts to support Ilfracombe’s continued economic regeneration.

2.314 Figure 4.4 is labelled “Transport links of strategic importance for northern Devon” but shows only main roads. Other strategic transport links (railways, passenger airports and strategic ports) are shown on Figure 4.3. As such, Figure 4.4 should be relabelled as road links of strategic importance.

Conclusion

2.315 A number of issues have been raised through representations received, but none are considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan. However, main and minor changes are required to clarify wording and intentions of a particular paragraph or the strategy.

Agreed Actions

1. The following are agreed as Main Changes to Policy ST10:

a. Amend criterion 1(b) to read “maintaining the function of the wider strategic road network within serving northern Devon”. b. Amalgamate criteria 1(e) and 1(f) to read as follows “maintaining the function of Bideford as a commercial port and developing enhanced harbour facilities, including at Ilfracombe to support any future passenger ferry service and operational hub for any future off-shore renewable energy schemes”. c. Amend criterion 2(b) to read “ ...rural communities where viable” d. Amend criterion 3(b) to read “ ...and the main towns where viable” e. Amend criterion 3(f) to read “maximising safety on transport networks through improvements to physical infrastructure design whilst conserving historic environment assets”. f. Add new criterion 3(h) “protecting the landscape character along the main and minor route(s)”.

2. Make the following Main Changes to the following paragraphs:

a. Amend paragraph 4.53 to read “Improvements to upgrade the existing Lynton Cross and Two Potts junctions on the B3230 will be supported”. b. Amend paragraph 4.58 by adding after the first sentence ”Other smaller developments will also be expected to submit a Transport Assessment or Transport Statement along with a Travel Plan where it is considered the development would be likely to impact on the transport network”. c. Amend paragraph 4.60 to read “Bideford and Ilfracombe are the main ports / harbours in northern Devon, both serving Lundy island. The role of these ports as entrances to northern Devon will be maintained and enhanced. and Opportunities to provide new pedestrian ferry links to South

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Wales and beyond, as well as appropriate infrastructure to facilitate an operational hub for any future off-shore renewable energy schemes, will be supported”. d. Amend paragraph 4.62 by adding the additional wording to the second sentence “...... new development through partnership working with DCC as the Local Highway Authority, North Devon and Torridge District Councils and local communities”. e. Amend paragraph 4.63 to read “The reinstatement of the former railway line between Lynton and Barnstaple (Policy BAR16: Lynton and Barnstaple Railway) will be supported to deliver economic regeneration, tourism and sustainable travel objectives. Reinstatement of other former railway lines including the Barnstaple to Bideford line will also be explored towards the objective of reducing the need to travel by car although any future re-instatement must include suitable provision of an alternative walking and cycling route where existing provision will be displaced. Reinstatement of other former railway lines to expand the network of strategic footpaths and cycleways will also be supported. There is a statutory responsibility to consult Network Rail for any new level crossings as a result of new or reinstated railway lines.” f. Amend paragraph 4.65 to read “A new trail will also be established supported on the route of former Bideford to Appledore Railway between the Kenwith Valley and Westward Ho! (Policy BID08: Former Bideford to Appledore Railway)”. g. Add the route of the B3230 (Ilfracombe to Barnstaple) on Figure 4: Transport links of strategic importance for northern Devon.

3. Provide a definition of ‘Demand Management Measures’ within the glossary:

2.316 “ Demand Management for transport covers a range of measures aimed at reducing the adverse impacts of car use, particularly that of single-occupancy private vehicles and peak flows . It is a general term for strategies that result in more efficient use of transportation resources, including travel by means other than private cars. Demand management can be a cost-effective alternative to increasing capacity and resilience on the network as well as an approach to transport that has the potential to deliver better environmental outcomes, improved public health, stronger and more prosperous communities.”

4. Make a Minor Change to the title of Figure 4.4: ‘Transport Road links of strategic importance for northern Devon’.

5. Make Minor Changes to paragraph 4.56 to correct the titles of Policies ST02 and ST08.

Chapter 5: Enabling a Vibrant Economy Policy ST11: Delivering Employment and Economic Development

Comments made in response to Policy ST11 Delivering Employment and Economic Development and supporting paragraphs

Total Number of Responses 29

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 2 8

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 3 11

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 3 4

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy ST11 Delivering Employment and Economic Development and plp number supporting text

Northern Devon has a poor electronic communications infrastructure in terms of both 786, 1438 next-generation broadband and mobile technology; no clear statement of how improvements will be secured.

A supermarket levy should be part of the policies about the economy and retail 1416 development to gain funds for the towns and make big business contribute to the sustainability of the small towns in North Devon.

Insufficient consideration of brownfield sites in accordance with NPPF, CPRE and 1777 para 3.1 of the Local Plan.

The Plan should set out 'future proof' locations for livestock/food markets to allow 1768 these industries to survive

A "diverse and resilient economy" (Vision) is not achievable with high local business 1759, 1766 costs (rates/utilities). Reduce basic costs to support job creation or accept an economy focused on Unique Selling Point areas.

Economic growth isn't sustainable given that the earth has a finite number of 299 resources and humans are using about 2+ planet's worth - habitat is being slowly destroyed.

Job creation in environmentally friendly areas needed.

The Highways Agency supports the provision of employment and economic 1293 development as appropriate. Growth of this type has to be supported by residential development or vice versa, so it is favoured that development should be mixed and integrated where appropriate to reduce the need to travel.

Support the intent of policy but uncertain other than the general allocation proposed 1664, 1740, in Clause 1 what spatial elements are contained within the policy that are appropriate 1883, 1978 to the Local Plan.

Plan has inadequate provision for economic development in rural areas and is unduly 2551, 540, restrictive outside identified villages (ST07). Flexibility is required in respect of rural 1354 diversification opportunities to avoid businesses having to move to urban areas.

Add policy on enabling prosperous rural economy and expansion of rural based businesses (not just farm diversification) and increase flexibility to respond to market changes to comply with NPF para 28.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

This policy needs to take a positive approach to support growth of existing businesses 810, 796, and the establishment of new ones in accordance with NPPF paragraph 21. The 1528 proposed wording does not go far enough in supporting the growth of the economy, especially small and micro businesses with less than 10 employees.

Add policy relating to sui generis uses, recognising that this contributes to employment generation.

Amend clause 1 to provide 60ha of land for employment development. 796, 810

Policy generally accords with NPPF para 28. Supportive of criterion (4) which 918, 1005, recognises the importance of home-working and the expansion of ICT. Specific 1413, 2463, support for live-work developments should be provided, both within urban areas and 2312 the countryside and relate to new build and conversion schemes. Reference in ST11 and ST17.

Support for Policy ST11, which is central to the Local Plan’s spatial planning vision 2004 of creating a stronger and more competitive local economy through growth in job opportunities. There is also backing for the encouragement of new business formations (criterion 4), sustainable forms of business which includes home working (criterion 4) and links between employers and the local community (criterion 5).

Agree with flexible approach (criterion 2) to relocation and expansion proposals, as 2305 LPA support for businesses who are seeking to expand and/or relocate to a new site is crucially important. This flexibility needs to apply both in terms of the site which the business is moving to, and the site which they vacate; often the cost of building new premises and moving facilities is, in part, funded by the selling and/or redevelopment of the existing employment site.

When considering the possible redevelopment of older employment sites the LPA should recognise that comprehensive redevelopment and mixed-uses should be supported and recognise the changing nature of employment provision.

Delete Policy ST11(7), which does not comply with the recently revised GPDO. 811, 1425

Barnstaple's designation as the regional centre is not backed up by strong policies 1422 to focus major growth here. Should be much stronger commitment to urban regeneration.

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.317 One representation supported the policy and a number of representations supported the general approach.

2.318 The need for improved ICT infrastructure and connectivity is recognised in paragraph 5.17 of the Local Plan. The Councils’ ‘Northern Devon Economic Strategy’ recognises the ‘Provision of effective infrastructure’ as a theme to realise the overall vision for the local economy and specifically the provision of superfast broadband connectivity and mobile coverage. Specific actions to these requirements are identified in the Action Plan that accompanies the Strategy.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

2.319 It is not clear what form a ‘supermarket levy’ may take and this is not a planning issue. The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Charging Schedule provides the opportunity to consider the contribution that new supermarket floorspace may make to meeting the general infrastructure needs of the area.

2.320 With respect to the use of ‘brownfield land’, all policies of the plan should be read together and Policy ST3(e) (Mitigating the Impact on Climate Change) provides a framework for this issue. Reuse of appropriate previously used land contributes to the land requirements identified in clause (1) of ST11.

2.321 Reference is made in the Local Plan to locations for new livestock markets where the need has been identified at Holsworthy and South Molton. The sites identified are considered to be suitable for long term use. No specific need for sites for ‘food markets’ has been identified.

2.322 The Local Plan cannot directly influence the rental levels for property within the area, the level of business rate, the valuation of property or utility charges. However, long term vacancy of employment property is not in the interests of the local economy or sustainable development. The Northern Devon Economic Strategy prioritises areas with the most potential to provide economic growth and job creation.

2.323 Objection is made that the majority of policy clauses are not appropriate for inclusion in a local plan. Policy ST11 provides the strategic framework for economic development and recognises the high environmental value of the area and the links between the economy and the environment. The policy provides spatial and land use guidance for more detailed development management policies, for the scale and distribution of new development and for the determination of individual proposals. The policy reflects the scope of the NPPF and is considered appropriate for inclusion in the Local Plan.

2.324 Clause 1 provides guidance on the amount of land to be provided for employment purposes in the Local Plan. Objection is made that the figure should be reduced to 60ha. In taking a wider interpretation of employment and economic activity the plan provides for more land than has been identified in the Northern Devon Housing and Employment Study as necessary to accommodate traditional ‘Business’ class uses. The exact scale of employment land provision is subject to consideration under Policy ST08.

2.325 The flexibility provided by clause (2) in respect of relocation or expansion is supported but it is suggested that this apply equally to the possible reuse of vacated premises. The Councils consider that the individual circumstances of each case will need to be considered in light of all relevant local plan policies.

2.326 Objection has been made that Policy ST11 is unduly restrictive and makes inadequate provision for economic development in rural areas outside of development boundaries and identified villages. The framework for acceptable development in such locations is provided by Policy ST07 ‘Spatial Development Strategy for Northern Devon’s Rural Area’. More detailed guidance on the rural economy is provided by Policy DM14. All policies of the plan need to be read together.

2.327 In response to representations to Policy DM14, amendment to the wording of that policy is proposed to clarify its interpretation. This clarification confirms that the policy enables a wider range of development than may have appeared acceptable. A separate strategic policy dealing with rural employment proposals is not considered necessary.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

2.328 With respect to the establishment and growth of individual businesses, Policy DM14 provides the criteria against which individual proposals should be judged. The strategic policy provides a wide ranging framework of support for business development that applies to all sectors and sizes of firms and is in accordance with NPPF paragraph 21. Specific policy support for individual defined classes of business use, or for the undefined ‘sui generis’ class, is unnecessarily detailed. Further detail does not add to the plan’s flexibility, which is considered to be appropriate to respond to changes in market conditions. Similarly, ‘live-work’ unit proposals are more appropriately considered on a case by case basis within the general framework of policies relating to economic and employment development as circumstances are likely to vary considerably between proposals.

2.329 Clause (7) of ST11 relates to the rural area. This is not considered to conflict with the requirements of NPPF paragraph 28 regarding support for economic growth in rural areas or to unacceptably qualify the general support for employment growth within the policy. Local Plan policies can only apply where planning permission is required and recent changes to the GPDO relate to only limited circumstances of the reuse of some buildings.

Other Matters

2.330 An imbalance exists between planned housing and employment growth, with a current significant over provision of employment land, as evidence by the North Devon and Torridge Housing and Employment Study (GL Hearn 2014). A review has been undertaken to identify opportunities to rebalance housing and employment levels, both in terms of reducing the scale of allocated employment land and increasing the provision of housing. This review is set out in detail in the report which considers the changes necessary to Policy ST08, the review has resulted in a reduction to the level of allocated employment land from 110 hectares to 85.1 hectares.

Conclusion

2.331 No revisions are required to Policy ST11 as a result of comments received; amendment as a Main Change is however required to reflect the review of allocated employment sites undertaken through the consideration of Policy ST08. The changes proposed to Policy DM14 are considered to clarify the range of acceptable development in rural areas.

Agreed Action

1. The following is agreed as a Main Change to Policy ST11, with associated supporting text revisions: a. amend Policy ST11(1): Employment generating opportunities to meet identified needs and locally determined growth aspirations. Employment land requirements will be met through the release of about 110 85.1 hectares of land…. ST12: Town, District and Local Retail Centres

Comments made in response to Policy ST12 Town District and Local Retail Centres

Total Number of Responses 21

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 1 2

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - 7

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 2 -

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy ST12 Town District and Local retail centres and supporting plp number text

Policy ST12 does not accord with NPPF paragraphs 28 and 112; it should not 929, 1006, restrict employment, residential and community and health services to town centres. 2314, 2464 Services should be supported in rural areas to help encourage more sustainable settlements with an organic amount of growth and to counter any decline of once vibrant communities.

Policy ST12 is not supportive of a prosperous rural economy in respect of allowing 1428, 812 for the development of farm shops, pop up shops or other retail activities in the rural settlements and countryside; it is not GPDO compliant.

Acknowledge established hierarchy of Centres but question value of the remainder 1741, 1665, of the Policy. Consider statements set out in paragraph 5.25 to be more appropriate 1979, 1885 expression of retail policy.

Policy ST12 is not justified; it is not evidenced based. Developments in the setting 1953 of protected landscapes have not been subject to capacity or sensitivity studies. It is not clear that development will be delivered without detrimental effect to the protected landscape. Refers particularly to Hartland and Woolacombe. Natural England response.

Supports ST12. Express some concern that the policy does not go far enough to 1927 express any measures or intent to protect the strategic role of Barnstaple. Amend to include an explicit commitment to maintaining and enhancing the current health, vitality and viability of Barnstaple as a town centre. We also believe the policy could be strengthened by a further reference to the Council’s intent to apply a rigorous sequential test to town-centre uses outside of a town centre, and the use of retail impact assessments to appraise retail proposals outside of established centres.

Consider that Sainsbury’s supermarket and adjoining retail and community facilities 2498 at Roundswell should be designated as a ‘District Centre’ under Policy ST12 which sets out the hierarchy of service centres in North Devon and Torridge. Without doing so consider that Plan will not have properly meet its obligation set out in the NPPF to define a network and hierarchy of centres (para 23).

Question the rationale and intended application of balancing retail development 1930 between Barnstaple and Bideford. Paragraph 5.20 to be amended to clarify relationship between retail functions of Barnstaple and Bideford, and to remove suggestions of constraint on development and enhancement in Barnstaple town centre.

The Councils strategy will not work in respect of Great Torrington. Without making 687 adequate provision for convenience floorspace in the town it will not be enhanced and there will continue to be significant leakage to other centres adversely affecting shopping patterns and the health of the centre.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Convenience floorspace growth figure for Barnstaple inconsistent with Retail and 1933 Leisure Study 2012. Acknowledge the current and future role of Green Lanes in Paragraph 5.24.

The new neighbourhood hub as part of the southern extension to Ilfracombe should 1124 be recognised within policy ST12 as a new district and local centre.

An over-encouragement of chain stores will de-vitalise exiting retail hubs, which 1775 should be sustained through a more unique offer, attractive to visitors.

A retail/service strategy must be based on a realistic assessment of internet based 1767 impacts on the local economy

Unique shops, such as at Barnstaple Pannier Market must be supported. 1773

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.332 One representation supported the policy.

2.333 Policy ST12 provides guidance on the role of retail centres within the Sub-regional, Strategic, Main and Local Centres defined in Policies ST06 and ST07. Policy DM21, Local and Rural Shops, relates to the rural area below the level of Local Centres, based on Policy ST07, and provides guidance on retail development in Villages, Rural Settlements and the Countryside. Amendment is proposed to Policy DM21 to ensure it provides guidance for all relevant parts of the rural area. Overall the plan is considered to be in accordance with the requirements of the NPPF.

2.334 In terms of the recent revisions to the General Development Permitted Order, it is accepted that there are currently permitted changes of use from and between town centre uses. However the Local Plan will continue to be relevant where permission is required for planning applications.

2.335 The supporting text at paragraph 5.25 is not a statement of retail policy but rather a set of aspirations for town centres. Policy ST12 sets the framework for making individual decisions and is the basis for more detailed DM policies.

2.336 The objection from Natural England relates to the possible impact of the provisions of Policy ST12 on protected landscapes. The guidelines provided for the different levels of centre should not be regarded in isolation as all policies of the plan need to be read together. In particular proposals for settlements in designated countryside have had regard to local circumstances and the requirements of Policy ST14 (Enhancing Environmental Assets) will need to be addressed in all cases.

2.337 Concern is expressed that the rationale for balancing retail development between Bideford and Barnstaple is not clear and the plan does not go far enough to protect the strategic role of Barnstaple, including the application of sequential testing and retail impact assessments of proposed out of centre developments. The overall approach of the Local Plan is to provide for the continuation of recognised roles and to enable communities to achieve their potential through the delivery of economic growth and social infrastructure improvements (paragraphs 4.3/4.4). The spatial development strategy identifies Barnstaple as the focus for future growth in northern Devon (Policy ST06) and the overall plan strategy, including clause (1) of ST12, reflects this.

2.338 The role of Bideford is complementary to that of Barnstaple, focusing on different strengths, rather than competing. Both settlements should however aim to achieve greater self containment in the interests of the wider sustainable development of the area.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

2.339 Policy DM20 is clear in reflecting national requirement to adopt a sequential approach to main town centre uses.

2.340 It is suggested that the Sainsbury’s supermarket area at Roundswell in Barnstaple is designated as a Local Centre. Identification would require the locality to be treated in the same way as would a traditional and more substantial town centre with regard to sequential consideration of sites. It is recognised that there is a range of town centre uses provided within the locality on which basis the request is considered to have some merit in respect of a district centre designation.

2.341 It is not considered appropriate to identify the ‘neighbourhood hub’ in the proposed Ilfracombe Strategic Southern Extension (Policy ILF01) as a formal level in the strategic retail centre hierarchy as this is intended to focus on meeting local needs rather than provide wider town centre services.

2.342 The town centre of Great Torrington is identified as a location where levels of self containment should be increased to reduce expenditure leakage and travel to other centres. The high level of leakage, principally to Bideford and Barnstaple, is noted in the Retail and Leisure Study 2012. Improvement and enhancement of the towns retail function is an element of the spatial development strategy for the town and any specific proposals will be considered against this framework and the detailed guidance provided by the Local Plan. The policy approach for South Molton is similar.

2.343 It is agreed that the figure for convenience floorspace required in Barnstaple identified in paragraph 5.24 is incorrect and the figure of 7,185 sqm convenience floorspace should be replaced by 2,967 sqm as included in the Retail and Leisure Study. The figure of 7,185 sqm relates to convenience floorspace required across the rest of North Devon. Lack of reference to Green Lanes as a specific scheme in the plan will not prevent consideration of an appropriate proposal should it come forward.

2.344 The 2012 Retail and Leisure Study, in identifying floorspace requirements, takes account of ‘Special Forms of Trading’ which includes projections for future demand for online food and comparison goods shopping.

2.345 The Councils agree that, where possible, the unique character of all town centres should be retained.

Other Matters

2.346 From reviewing the Policy and supporting text it is considered necessary to make a number of amendments to achieve consistency across the plan and improve clarity. For clarity ST12(4) should be split and a new paragraph (5) created from the final sentence of (4). This reflects the different issues tackled by the two parts of the present paragraph and gives greater emphasis to the intention of protecting existing locally important services and facilities.

2.347 Table 5.1, Hierarchy of Retail Service Centres, within Policy ST12 does not provide policy guidance. The hierarchy used is unique although most levels are identified elsewhere in the plan. Settlements in the additional classification of ‘District Centres – Urban Areas’ are identified in paragraph 5.26.

2.348 These changes do not require any additional changes to related policies although it would be beneficial to add a definition for ‘District Centre’ and ‘Local Retail Centre’ in the Glossary or the supporting text.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

2.349 The District Centres at Appledore, Northam, Westward Ho! and as recommended Roundswell, Barnstaple are required to be defined on the related Policies Maps, the current omission of such requires attention to meet the requirements of the NPPF( paragraph 23).

2.350 In recognition that all retail centres should be subject to the same policy considerations as town centres and be defined on the related policies map the validity of the extent of the retail hierarchy with regard to the Local Centres is questioned. The retail hierarchy currently includes Local Centres for retail purposes in line with the settlement hierarchy (Bradworthy, Bratton Fleming, Buckland Brewer, Chulmleigh, Combe Martin, Dolton, Fremington village, Halwill Junction, Hartland, , Instow, North Molton, Shebbear, Winkleigh, Witheridge and Woolacombe). Having regard to the scope and sparsity of retail and town centre uses provided within these Local Centres, it is recommended that Local Centres as a category within the retail hierarchy are removed. It is not considered practical to define local centre retail boundaries and it is considered impractical to treat Local Centres (as retail centres) as provided for Town Centres.

2.351 The policy intent with regard to Local Centres related to a desire to protect locally important retail services, as is also the case in respect of other villages. In the interest of clarity it is recommended that “retail” is added to part 5 of Policy ST12 to indicate that locally important local shops would be subject to protection.

2.352 Consequential changes to Policies DM19: Town Centres and DM20: Development Outside Town Centres, will result from the recognition that District Centres are subject to the same policy considerations as Town Centres and the loss of Local Centres from the retail hierarchy.

Conclusion

2.353 A number of Main Changes are recommended to Policy ST12 for clarity and to remove unnecessary detail. Additionally the scope of the policy is recommended to be amended to remove Local Centres from the retail hierarchy.

Agreed Actions

1. The following are agreed as Main Changes to the Local Plan: a. retitle Policy ST12: Towns and District and Local Retail Centres; b. split Clause 4 of ST12 into two parts; c. delete Table 5.1within Policy ST12 and reposition the retail hierarchy within the supporting text, removing the reference to Local Centres; d. amend ST12(2): In line with the retail hierarchy of settlements set out below the vitality and viability of the town centres of Barnstaple, Bideford, Braunton, Ilfracombe, Great Torrington, Holsworthy and South Molton, as defined on the Policies Map, will be protected and enhanced by focusing development proposals for retail, leisure, office and cultural facilities within defined town centres and through the positive management of regeneration measures; e. amend ST12(4): In District and Local Retail Centres, as defined on the Policies Map, development will be supported where it would enhance viability, vitality and self-containment and where it would be proportionate to the role and function of the settlement; f. amend ST12(5): In all retail centres and villages , Policy ST06 and ST07 defined settlements and Rural Settlements locally important shops, services and community facilities will be protected from loss and new provisions encouraged where appropriately scaled; g. amend paragraph 5.26 to: In the rural area, particularly at the Local Centres and In the urban District Centres of Appledore, Northam and Westward Ho! and at Roundswell a range of services and facilities provides essential support for the resident communities and, in respect of Westward

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Ho!, visitors to the area. The Strategy for the District Centres is to at least maintain service levels for the related local communities; a The Local Plan supports the continued presence, improved accessibility and the development of appropriately scaled new facilities that contribute to increasing the sustainability of northern Devon’s rural and urban communities. Policy ST22: Community Services and Facilities also guards against the loss of community services and facilities, education, health, social and other publicly provided services as a result of development, as does Policy DM21: Local and Rural Shops in respect of locally important shops. h. amend Policies DM 19 and DM 20 to reference district centres, in addition to town centres.

2. The following are agreed Minor Changes:

a. paragraph 5.24 delete figure of ‘7,185’ and substitute ‘2,967’ as a correction; and b. add a definition for ‘District Retail Centre’ in the Glossary or the supporting text. Policy ST13: Sustainable Tourism

Comments made in response to Policy ST13 Sustainable Tourism

Total Number of Responses 15

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 1 -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 2 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1 -

Table 2.5

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy ST13 Sustainable Tourism plp number

Accept the importance of tourism but disagree that there is a wealth of facilities and 1781, 2174 attractions; more creative consideration is required to support an extended range of facilities which can encourage more visitors.

Having regard to the economic benefits of tourism, the Council should invest in the 1782 sector.

There are many people achieving the aims of Policy ST13 without any assistance 1786 from the Council.

Development, including housing on greenfield sites, will have an adverse impact on 2439, 1787 tourism.

Due to the severe changing nature of the holiday park industry an overarching concern 2680 relates to the flexibility of the planning policies to enable sites to remain functioning and viable. For instance, where a holiday park is failing, maybe due to poor trade performance, planning policies should be sufficiently flexible to allow for either wholesale redevelopment or partial redevelopment to potential enable reinvestment opportunities either on site or elsewhere. This may then enable the remaining holiday

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

parks to fully function and thrive in what remains a challenging tourist economy in the South West and North Devon in particular. Indeed the Local Plan itself appears to acknowledge this as policy ILF looks to revitalise the town with an extended tourist season.

Include Green Tourism awards to encourage tourism providers of accommodation 300 and travel to aim for higher environmental standards with discounts for travel by public transport.

Support the intent that sustainable tourism must be enhanced, but this will require 1790 fresh thinking and daring and is at odds with much else in the Local.

Table 2.6

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.354 Six additional representations express support for the policy. Policy ST13 and supporting policies DM17 and 18 provide a flexible framework for new and improved tourism development where it accords with other polices of the plan, in particular the Spatial Development Strategy. The local plan does not place any limitations on the type of tourism facilities or the number of new or improved enterprises providing the proposals meet the detailed requirements of the relevant polices.

2.355 While the Councils acknowledge the economic importance of the tourism sector, direct investment decisions are not a matter for the local plan. The priorities identified within the Councils’ Northern Devon Economic Strategy will help guide any specific investment decisions. The objection in respect of flexibility to ensure existing facilities and attractions remain viable is noted. Amendments proposed to Policies DM17 and DM18 address this issue. It is not considered appropriate to make a similar amendment to ST13 which is a strategic policy.

2.356 Green Tourism Awards may be useful in raising awareness and standards but their encouragement is not a matter for the Local Plan. The comment in respect of ‘fresh thinking and daring’ is noted but appears to be an objection to other, unspecified, parts of the plan rather than on ST13. The suite of tourism polices are not intended or expected to inhibit innovative approaches to increasing sustainable tourism providing individual proposals meet any other relevant policy requirements of the plan.

Other Matters

2.357 A minor correction has been identified by officers in respect of the final line of Policy ST13 to delete the word ‘the’ so the Policy reads ‘… natural or historic assets of the northern Devon’.

Recommendation

1. The following are agreed as a Main/Minor Change to Policy ST13: a. Delete the word ‘the’ from the final line so the final sentence reads:

‘Tourism growth should be sustainable and should not damage the natural or historic assets of the northern Devon’.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Chapter 6 : A World Class Environment Policy ST14: Enhancing Environmental Assets

Comments made in response to Policy ST14: Enhancing Environmental Assets

Total Number of Responses 31

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 4 2

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 2 7

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 8 1

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy ST14: Enhancing Environmental Assets and supporting text plp number

Too much emphasis on protecting and enhancing the environment resulting in non 1529 compliance with NPPF paragraphs 21, 173 and 174 of the NPPF.

Too much emphasis on protecting and enhancing the environment. 541

Whilst recognising that protecting and enhancing environmental assets is a key aim 1728 of the Local Plan, it is important that the policy remains flexible.

The following addition should be made to the first part of the policy:

“.... will be protected and enhanced by ensuring that development contributes, as appropriate , to”

Policy amendment is required to make it sound: set criteria to judge proposals 1995 (NE) affecting protected wildlife or geodiversity sites or landscape areas with regard to the hierarchy of designations; the policy should give additional weight to the primary purpose of the designation; clarification that major development in the AONB will be enabled only exceptionally and extend the protection of assets from light pollution to landscapes and species.

Reinforcement of the national policy requirement for conserving the landscape and 2101 (NT) scenic beauty of AONB (para 115), which should be given ‘great weight’ in development management. Major development in the AONB requires exceptional circumstances and public interest tests (NPPF; para 116). Clarification on major development in the AONB is required.

Support subject to amendments from 'dark skies' to 'dark night skies' which is 2339 consistent with the wording for Exmoor National Park’s special qualities identified in (ENPA) the Exmoor National Park Partnership Plan 2012-2017.

With reference to Bratton Fleming - would housing development be allowed without 482 streetlights? How would the dark skies be protected if development went ahead?

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Support criterion (e) if applied appropriately. 2361 (HLNT PC)

This policy does not directly refer to the Water Framework Directive. An assertion 886 (EA) that improving failing water bodies and preventing deterioration remains core to all developments and re-development considerations.

Strongly support. 1111 (TTEF)

Policy ST14 (a) should be amended to include reference to a net gain in biodiversity 1539 being provided “where possible”. This would reflect the wording of Paragraph 109 of the NPPF. This should also be reflected in the supporting text at Paragraph 6.4.

Support the aim in Part (a) that development should contribute to providing a net 2454 (DWT) gain in biodiversity.

Questions how a net gain in North Devon's biodiversity be met when greenfield sites 2440 are being developed. The policy is at odds with reality and can never be achieved.

'Biodiversity offsetting' is a pernicious concept, implying that the complexities of 2205 natural systems can be replicated for the benefit of developers.

Use of the Biosphere Reserve Offsetting Strategy for biodiversity compensation, 2455 (DWT) poses number of questions: will it only cover biosphere area or whole plan area; only run up to 2018 in line with life of the strategy; apply only to developments of 4 or more homes; has Natural England agreed to its proposed roles; and has the strategy had official approval?

ST14 does not reflect national policy and is therefore not sound because it does not 746 clearly support expansion of important biodiversity habitats. Suggested amendment to item (a) - 'providing a net gain in northern Devon’s biodiversity, through positive management of an enhanced AND EXPANDED network of designated sites and green infrastructure.'

The 5th sentence in Paragraph 6.4 reading - " However, 'critical environmental capital' 753 such as ancient woodland is not replaceable and should not be lost " could be made even better by three amendments that would make it both conform to national policy as well as making it effective and justified by placing it in the body of Policy ST14: Enhancing Environmental Assets, rather than just in the supporting text.

Support the overall approach set out in this policy but believe it could be improved 1666, 1744, by cross referencing the clauses to the various designations set out on the proposals 1887, 1981 map.

Supporting text paragraph 6.2 to 6.14

The AONB is not exclusively coastal in character. Add to paragraph 6.5 the following 209 sentence: “The setting of the AONB, including inland areas, contributes to its special qualities”

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Support paragraph 6.5. 2340 (ENPA)

The night sky in Shirwell is dark, an inestimable selling point to tourists. 1792

Figure 6.1 - A more robust explanation of tranquillity is needed along with evidence 211 that demonstrates how the assessment has been applied to northern Devon.

The JLCA should be updated to take into account the new Local Plan as the current 210 version refers to the Structure Plan and Core Strategy which no long exist and require actions from organisations who may not have signed up to them.

Continued support for paragraph 6.9 which recognises the intrinsic value of the 2341 setting of Exmoor National Park. (ENPA)

Support paragraph 6.11, however, the links between fluvial and terrestrial pressures 890 (EA) on the quality of coastal waters should be made clear. The Government encourages a catchment based approach which imbeds this principle, as delivered through the Catchment Partnership as part of the Biosphere Reserve.

Revise paragraph 6.14 to clarify that ecosystem benefits are not restricted to Culm 891 (EA) grassland. The approach should be considered wherever there are significant benefits in joint delivery. A map of opportunities across the North Devon catchment is being prepared; a reference to which could be usefully added to the Local Plan.

The merit of hedgerows are sufficient to require a mention in paragraph 6.6. 1791

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.358 The responses received to Policy ST14 cover a wide range of different issues, which reflects the diversity of the environmental assets which the policy is seeking to conserve and enhance. There is one objection that the policy places too much emphasis on protecting and enhancing the environment in conflict with NPPF. Paragraphs 21, 173 and 174 require business not being overburdened by combined requirements of planning policy expectations and ensuring viability and deliverability. Policy ST14 identifies the range of environmental assets and how/where they should be conserved and enhanced. It is consistent with the environmental role of sustainable development (NPPF paragraph 7), which includes contributing to protecting and enhance the natural, built and historic environment and helping to improve biodiversity. The core planning principles (NPPF paragraph 17) include contributing to conserving and enhancing the natural environmental and promoting mixed use developments that recognise that some open land can perform many functions (such as wildlife, recreation etc).

2.359 Paragraph 6.1 of the plan recognises that the high quality local environment provides opportunities for economic growth. The Local Plan should be read as a whole and there is not too much emphasis on the environment. The policy remains sufficiently flexible to protect and enhance environmental assets whilst delivering our strategic objectives.

2.360 Several responses relate to the AONB addressing a number of issues. There is a request to give the AONB’s landscape and scenic beauty greater weight in accordance with NPPF (paragraph 115). In addition to the NPPF, paragraph 6.25 already indicates the primary purpose of AONBs to highlight the Councils’ duty to conserve and enhance the area’s natural beauty’. Policy ST14(d) also recognises the AONB’s special character and qualities. No changes are recommended to make ‘greater weight’ more explicit. The AONB is not exclusively coastal in character and paragraph 6.5

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

could be amended to clarify that the AONB, including inland areas and its setting, contributes to its special qualities. A new DM policy stating that major development will be inappropriate within the AONB except in exceptional circumstances is unnecessary if it is simply repeating the NPPF (paragraph 116). However, appropriate wording could be added to paragraph 6.5 to confirm this.

2.361 Support for plan’s recognition for the intrinsic value of the setting of Exmoor National Park is noted and welcomed. The joint Landscape Character Assessment was adopted in November 2010, prior to revocation of the RSS and structure plan. The landscape character types and areas were assessed objectively so are not dependent upon existing policies. The planning policy links and delivery recommendations for each landscape character type may need updating but do not undermine the validity or relevance of this Landscape Character Assessment, and would not affect the key characteristics or valued landscape attributes. Soundness is not threatened by reference to this document.

2.362 The local distinctiveness of hedgerows are recognised, especially Devon hedgebanks, but they are too specific to mention directly as an environmental asset. Where they contribute to the special qualities or key characteristics of particular landscape character areas, the joint Landscape Character Assessment will identify them.

2.363 There is general support for protection of dark skies. Exmoor National Park’s comment about ‘dark night skies’ is accepted; the policy should be amended for clarification and consistency. The comment about housing development harming dark skies is noted but there is no proposal to prevent future street lighting. Policy DM02: Environmental Protection seeks to prevent light pollution on areas not intended to be lit, particularly tranquil areas of the open countryside. The design and specification of any street lighting can minimise unwanted light pollution. Tranquillity is defined in the glossary and footnote 43 provides a link to the source material for CPRE’s tranquillity map. No further clarification is considered necessary.

2.364 The policy does not refer directly to water quality or the Water Framework Directive, which are identified elsewhere in the Local Plan under strategic aims and objectives in Chapter 2 and DM02: Environmental Protection. Water quality is not covered adequately by other strategic policies, apart from Policy ST09 which focuses on water quality along the coast and estuary. It is proposed through other comments to include it within Policy ST03. Improving failing water bodies and preventing deterioration are requirements of the Water Framework Directive and are valid objectives that should be included to ST14 as a further criterion, with cross reference added to the plan’s strategic objectives.

2.365 The Environment Agency’s response to recognise links between fluvial and terrestrial pressures on the quality of coastal waters could be clearer in paragraph 6.11, based on the Government’s current catchment based partnership approach.

2.366 It is accepted that ecosystem benefits are not restricted to Culm grassland, which is given only as an example in paragraph 6.14. The EA’s reference to a map of opportunities being prepared is noted but specific reference to a document that is still being prepared should be avoided. However, benefits arising from multiple delivery of ecosystem services could be recognised with opportunities to do so supported.

2.367 A number of representations relate to biodiversity and biodiversity offsetting. It is recognised that not all developments will provide a net gain in biodiversity, with many minor developments having no direct impact. However, development as a whole will contribute to this strategic objective. For individual applications it would be more appropriate to add some flexibility, such as ‘where possible’, which is in accordance with NPPF (paragraph 109). However, it is also recognised that the policy

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

should deliver an enhanced and expanded network of sites, for example through the designation of new local nature reserves. Incorporating biodiversity in and around development is supported by the NPPF (paragraph 118).

2.368 Development contributing to provide a net gain in biodiversity is supported by some. A net gain in biodiversity is achievable for greenfield sites since the baseline ecological value of improved grassland is low so appropriate development could achieve an enhancement of green infrastructure network including hedgerows to improve overall biodiversity value, measured using the Defra metric. It is not stated that developers can replicate natural systems, but the net result can be an enhancement, as well as delivering wider benefits through ecosystem services.

2.369 Reference to the Biosphere Reserve Offsetting Strategy (footnote 38) for biodiversity offsetting, is a useful link. It is accepted that the strategy only runs to 2018 so the footnote should reference successor documents. This offsetting strategy can and should be used across the whole plan area, according to the Biosphere Reserve Coordinator, so there is no issue from its use across only part of the plan area.

2.370 There is support for recognising 'critical environmental capital' such as ancient woodland are not replaceable and should not be lost. NPPF (paragraph 118) recognises that development resulting in loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats such as ancient woodland should be refused. It is suggested that this ought to be included explicitly within ST14. Additional wording for criterion (a) is proposed. Paragraph 12.59 recognises ancient woodland and veteran trees as critical environmental assets; veteran trees could be added as an example within paragraph 6.4 for consistency.

Conclusion

2.371 Numerous issues were raised through representations received, but none are considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan, although proposed changes would ensure that this policy is fully complaint with the NPPF. Main changes are required to clarify wording and intentions of this policy and particular paragraphs.

Agreed Actions

1. The following are agreed as Main Changes to Policy ST14:

a. Amend criterion (a) to providing a net gain in northern Devon’s biodiversity where possible, through positive management of an enhanced and expanded network of designated sites and green infrastructure, including retention and enhancement of critical environmental capital. b. Amend Criterion (e) to safeguard ... the setting and special qualities of Exmoor National Park including its dark night skies. c. Add new criterion “improving failing water bodies and preventing deterioration of water quality”.

2. The following are agreed as Main Changes to paragraph 6.4:

a. “All development will be expected to provide a net gain in biodiversity where feasible.” b. “However, 'critical environmental capital' such as ancient woodland and veteran trees are is not replaceable and should not be lost.”

3. The following are agreed as Main Changes to paragraph 6.5:

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

a. Add new sentence “The setting and inland areas of the AONB contribute to its special qualities.” b. Add a new sentence “Major development in the AONB will be enabled only in exceptional circumstances where it can be demonstrated as being in the public interest.”

4. A Main Change is agreed to supporting text (possibly after paragraph 6.8) that recognises the Water Framework Directive, its need to improve failing water bodies and cross refers to the strategic objectives of enhancing water quality across the plan area.

5. The following is agreed as a Main Change to paragraph to the second sentence of paragraph 6.11: “This changing policy framework requires coastal and inland areas to be considered together as part of a broader environmental system with terrestrial pressures affecting the quality of coastal waters.

6. The following is agreed as a Main Change to the first sentence of paragraph 6.14: “Many designated environmental assets deliver ecosystem services, with opportunities for delivery of multiple ecosystem services being supported.”

7. A Minor Change is agreed to footnote 38 to add reference to “or successor documents”. Policy ST15: Conserving Heritage Assets

Comments made in response to Policy ST15: Conserving Heritage Assets

Total Number of Responses 22

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 6 0

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 2 7

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 7 0

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy ST15: Conserving Heritage Assets and supporting text plp number

Policy unsound in current form. Does not provide a clear and positive strategy for the 1154 (EH) historic environment. Policy says nothing about heritage at risk. Policy should seek opportunities to improve historic streets, townscapes and landscapes using CIL. Greater commitment to maintaining and monitoring Local List

Policy ST15 should be amended to reflect ability to preserve and enhance the quality 1540 of the historic environment will vary on a site by site basis. The wording should be amended to read:

(1) The quality of northern Devon’s historic environment will be preserved and enhanced where possible and feasible through positive management by: The policy wording should also be amended through the addition of “and/or” at the end of criteria (c). As currently worded the use of ‘and’ only implies (a) to (d) would be required.

It is important that policies remain flexible. 1729

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

The first part of the policy should be amended as follows: “... will be preserved and enhanced, as appropriate , through positive management by..”

Objection to criterion 1(a) and (b) of Policy ST15 which require heritage assets to be 2027, 2261 conserved and enhanced. It is not always appropriate and necessary to conserve and enhance heritage assets. A balanced approach considers meeting development needs unless there would be harm or detriment - it does not extend to enhancement. Policy ST15 should therefore be amended so that enhancement is only required where it is necessary or appropriate.

A new paragraph is required, allowing micro quarrying to provide local stone for the 216 repair of vernacular buildings and features.

Section 1 of this policy is repetitive, especially repeating content from the NPPF. 1667, Support is given the intent of Section 2, however there is no indication of where the 1888, 1982 balance may lie in considering the need for future adaptations of buildings to achieve improved energy efficiency.

Deem Part (1) to be repetitive and unnecessary as it repeats provisions of the NPPF. 1745 Support intent of Part (2) however raise concerns about the balance achieved between enabling the reduction of energy costs and protecting the assets.

Amend condition (2)(a) to specifically state that primary double glazing will be allowed 792 providing it meets relevant criteria. Double glazing technology has moved on a great deal in recent years and several companies specialise in producing double glazing for historic buildings.

Consider the policy and supporting text to be vague and misleading. It suggests that 629 proposals will only be supported where alternative siting and design have been considered, although no detail is provided as to the extent and nature of the requirements. Consider that the policy and supporting text should be amended to provide more detail and greater clarity.

Policy unsound in current form. Criterion 2 is a DM issue and should be moved to 1157 (EH) DM07. Parts a) and b) of criterion 2 (energy efficiency) element of the policy don’t work as linked (by the ‘and’ at the end of para a) – by definition both tests cannot be met.

Support. 2363 (HLNT PC)

Supporting text paragraph 6.15 to 6.18

Local assets should be more accessible. 1794

Welcome reference to the Devon & Dartmoor Historic Environment Record within the 2343 supporting text (paragraph 6.15). (ENPA)

The list should be broadened to include undesignated earthworks and evidence of 217 the use of the coastal area during the second world war. The list should include these or should be less specific so as to not belittle their importance.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Include 'Fremington clay quarry is a heritage asset to be protected' this would help 325 make the Heritage assets section more sound

A number of matters for the historic environment identified but there is little 1159 (EH) understanding of why these are a priority and what the plan will do to conserve and enhance them.

Additional work is required; precious assets should be defined and treasured. 1796

Explain what "carbon emissions" are, if it means "carbon dioxide emissions", then 134 say so.

Generating renewable energy on/around listed buildings makes no sense, it should 134 only be enabled if invisible and economically sustainable.

Support. 2364 (HLNT PC)

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.372 Representations to this policy are diverse including support for recognition of the Historic Environment Record. The policy is already considered to be a clear and positive strategy as required by English Heritage. It justifies the policy wording seeking to conserve and enhance heritage contrary to representations seeking to remove requirements for enhancement. Other representations seek greater flexibility with enhancement ‘as appropriate’ or ‘where possible and feasible’. Positive management could be clarified by seeking enhancement where it is necessary or feasible, which is recommended as a change. It is recognised that the policy does not refer to heritage at risk, and an appropriate reference should be added to the supporting text. Policy ILF: Ilfracombe Spatial Strategy will also recognise Ilfracombe conservation area at risk of decline and the need to safeguard and enhance its special character and appearance.

2.373 The policy is not considered to repeat provisions of the NPPF, although it is compliant with it. The policy adds further detail and local interpretation of the NPPF. Positive management of the historic environment would be delivered through the 4 criterion listed in paragraph 1. All of these apply and there is no requirement to delivery them all through every development, so there is no need to select between them with ‘or’, nor to meet only one of them.

2.374 Locally important buildings are already referenced as heritage assets in criterion (1c) and paragraph 6.15, which includes a commitment that unlisted buildings that contribute to the local street scene will be identified as locally important buildings. No greater commitment to maintaining and monitoring the local list is considered necessary. However, a reference to a future supplementary planning document would provide an opportunity for future guidance for protecting undesignated heritage assets, which could include how locally important buildings are identified. Also how archaeological assets will be protected during archaeological investigation of a site or during subsequent development. There is a comment seeking local assets to be more easily accessible and widely talked about. The policy already recognises them and no further amendment is required. It is not considered to represent a challenge to the soundness of the plan.

2.375 The range of heritage assets is broad including those undesignated, not yet recognised or undiscovered (paragraph 6.15). Undesignated earthworks and evidence of the coastal area being used during the Second World War could fall within the scope of this definition and do not need to be identified separately. Neither does Fremington clay quarry need to be added as a heritage asset.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

2.376 Micro-quarrying to provide local stone for the repair of vernacular buildings and features would potentially facilitate opportunities for enhancement of heritage assets. However, quarrying is outside the scope of the Local Plan as policies on quarrying would normally be delivered through a Minerals Local Plan. No change is required on this issue.

2.377 There is some support for the second paragraph of Policy ST15 balances energy efficiency with protection of heritage assets. It is recognised that paragraph (2) is drafted as a Development Management policy. It could therefore be deleted here and added as a further paragraph of DM07: Historic Environment, with the second half of paragraph 6.18 relocated being with it.

2.378 Nevertheless, several representations consider the balance of this policy to be wrong. The criteria within paragraph (2) set out where the balance lays in considering the need for future adaptations of buildings to achieve improved energy efficiency. It is flexible rather than vague and enables proposals to be balanced against any harm to the historic integrity and heritage value of specific historic buildings. Only permitting renewable energy on heritage assets where it is invisible is inappropriate since harm to heritage assets can be caused when not visible, whilst harm to historic integrity may be minimal when visible.

2.379 It is recognised that there could be conflict between meeting the requirements of criteria (a) and (b). It is inappropriate to meet (b) without meeting (a) so both of them should be met. Paragraph 6.18 confirms that traditional doors and windows that form an integral part of a heritage asset’s historic fabric should be safeguarded. However, criterion (a) should be amended to reduce conflict by replacing ‘no loss’ with ‘no significant harm’.

2.380 The policy requires alternative siting and design to be considered. It is inappropriate for the Local Plan to indicate how to do this, although paragraph 6.18 requires investigation of alternatives to demonstrate what would have least impact on the heritage asset. In view of a request for greater clarification, supporting text could be amended to clarity what information needs to be provided for this assessment to be made. ‘Carbon emissions’ should be replaced with ‘carbon dioxide emissions’ to be consistent with Building Regulations Part L.

Other Matters

2.381 The final sentence of paragraph 6.15 is unclear and needs rephrasing to clarify what is meant by ‘a systematic approach to positive management’.

Conclusion

2.382 Several issues were raised through representations received, but none are considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan. However, additional clarification and flexibility is proposed to avoid potential conflict and being unduly restrictive. The second part of the policy is relocated as a DM policy to fit better within the structure of the plan.

Agreed Actions

1. The following are agreed as Main Changes to Policy ST15:

a. Amend “The quality of northern Devon's historic environment will be preserved and enhanced where feasible through positive management by:”. b. Move paragraph (2) from ST15 to DM07, together with the majority to paragraph 6.18.

2. The following is agreed as a Main Change to paragraph 6.18:

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

a. After first sentence: ”The Councils will identify heritage assets considered to be at risk and will take steps as opportunities arise towards securing improvement in their condition to mitigate the risk.”

3. The following is agreed as a Main Change to paragraph 6.15: a. Amend last part of paragraph: “... The intrinsic historic value of all of these undesignated heritage assets and the setting of all heritage assets will also be recognised and conserved. A supplementary planning document will provide further guidance on the approach to identifying and protecting undesignated heritage assets, including buildings which contribute to local character and sense of place. The setting of heritage assets will be assessed through a positive systematic approach of positive to development management.

4. The following is agreed as a Minor Change to paragraph 6.18 in the section to be relocated after DM07: a. Amend ‘carbon emissions’ to ‘carbon dioxide emissions’. b. Before final sentence (within text to be relocated after DM07): “Details of alternatives investigated and any assessment of their relative impacts on heritage assets would need to be provided alongside any development proposals considered against Policy ST15(2).”

5. The following is agreed as a Main Change to paragraph 12.56: a. “Areas of archaeological importance will be safeguarded. Guidance on how to assess and protect such assets if uncovered during archaeological investigation of a site, or its subsequent development, will be provided through a supplementary planning document.” Policy ST16: Delivering Renewable Energy and Heat

Comments made in response to Policy ST16: Delivering Renewable Energy and Heat

Total Number of Responses 25

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 12 2

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 4 13

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 14 ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy ST16 Delivering Renewable Energy and Heat and supporting plp number text

This policy is supported. 218

Should adapt to climate change, mitigating the impacts is futile. Explain “carbon 135 emissions” and provide for the increasing use of renewable energy where demonstrated that carbon dioxide emissions will be reduced and the schemes are economically sustainable.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Too much emphasis on protecting and enhancing the environment. 542

Consider that Part (4)(a) of policy which requires total compliance with landscape 630 sensitivity assessment in order for proposals to be afforded support from Local Planning Authority to be too prescriptive. Propose amendment to wording of criteria to enable greater flexibility. Consider Part (5) to be too vague and a positively worded criteria based approach should be adopted (with example from Woking Borough Council provided).

The government’s wish to empower local communities with regard to renewable 892 energy projects is not stated. The following would assist in this: Town and Parish ( & Councils should be consulted on renewable energy proposals and have more PC) influence on the decision making process, the definition of cumulative impact should be broadened, communities should receive a contribution from schemes that export energy to the national grid and compensation for ‘development nuisance factor’ for schemes where some or all of the power is exported to the grid and the scheme is designed to generate in excess of 1 megawatt.

Criterion c should reference heritage designations and ‘…their settings’ (Para. 132 1161 (EH) NPPF). The English Heritage ‘Setting of Heritage Assets Guidance’ should be referenced in this section. Paragraph 6.27 usefully signposts the historic environment policy this should be updated to ST15 (not 14) and the wording amended to include setting. In criterion c the term should be replaced with cause no harm, in accordance with NPPF (Para. 132 – 135).

Too much emphasis on protecting and enhancing the environment resulting in non 1530 compliance with NPPF paragraphs 21, 173 and 174.

The first part of this policy is a statement and not a policy - suggest rewording. 1668 Necessary for the Local Plan to provide greater guidance as to where the balance should be struck between competing objectives

Consider Part (1) of Policy to be statement and not Policy. Propose rewording to 1746 clarify that this element is to be delivered by other clauses. Deem the implicit policy aims of the policy to deliver carbon reductions and renewable energy development without significant impact on local amenities, landscape, biodiversity, etc. to be impossible. Suggest it necessary for the Local Plan to offer guidance on the balance to be achieved between competing objectives.

The Landscape Assessments’ for North Devon and Torridge and the Devon 2094 (NT) Landscape Policy Group Advice Note 2 on Accommodating Wind and Solar PV Developments into Devon's Landscape should be more clearly referenced. Policy ST16 sets a cumulative impact assessment, paragraph 6.24 requires amendment to clarify the information required to assess cumulative and visual impacts.

The first part of this policy is actually a statement and would need rewording to 1889, 1983 make it clear this statement will be delivered via the other clauses of the policy. Carbon reduction without a significant impact on local amenities, landscape and biodiversity is impossible. The Local Plan should provide greater guidance on where the balance should be struck between competing objectives.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Would question the frequency of updating the LSA with regard to turbine density, 2358 (HLNT how is impact on amenity assessed and how are turbine enhancement and PC) conservation assessed? Have omitted in list qualifying turbines 'those in appeal'.

Supporting text paragraph 6.19 to 6.27

Explain what "carbon emissions" are, if it means "carbon dioxide emissions", then say so.

Lack of understanding of the concepts of energy, heat and power. Heat is a 137 mechanism involved in converting energy from one form to another. Power is that rate at which the energy is converted from one form to another.

'Focus on energy efficient housing before renewable energy. Include small scale 326 renewable energy on development sites with solar pv on all industrial and farm buildings as a priority before solar pv in green fields.' This would make this section sounder by complying with aims more.

This paragraph should be deleted as it does not have regard to National Policy. 813 The requirement for developers to assess the current and future opportunities for decentralised energy networks could make development unviable. Developers should be encouraged to look at alternatives but not forced to do so.

No evidence to support the burden for developers to assess current/future 1430 opportunities for decentralised energy networks, or to proving that it will not make development unviable. Developers should be encouraged, not forced to look at alternatives.

Any renewable scheme should be shown to be economically sustainable. 138

The Councils’ economic strategy should not support economically unsustainable 139 technologies.

Assessing landscape and visual impacts will not minimise harm. Explicitly state 140 that renewable energy developments must be designed to minimise harm.

The last 5 words of this paragraph cancel out the rest of the paragraph. 2359 (HLNT PC)

The paragraph is missing the wording 'those in appeal'. 2360 (HLNT PC)

A circular statement, as 6.25 is part of ST16. However, ST16 does not state that 141 "The landfall and onshore infrastructure impacts and benefits associated with offshore renewable energy will also be considered ".

Financial inducements should be offered if an affected property is close to a 284 renewable development.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.383 A number of comments were received covering a wide range of issues within this policy, both from those in support of and opposing renewable energy developments. The first paragraph is identified as a statement rather than a policy, which is an accurate assessment as drafted. However, there is support for reducing energy demand through energy efficiency measures prior to energy generation through renewable sources. The first paragraph should be relocated into supporting text.

2.384 One representation seeks small scale renewable energy on new developments, industrial and farm buildings rather than through solar array. Whilst small scale renewable energy developments would be supported, subject to any impact of heritage assets (Policy ST15), this policy cannot prioritise them over larger scale developments. Paragraph (2) supports small scale provision whilst paragraph (4) considers larger scale developments. The policy does not and cannot prioritise one over the other. No further change is required.

2.385 Many representations relate to the correct balance between delivery of renewable energy with consequent carbon savings and resultant environmental impacts. It is not considered that the policy is giving too much protection for the environment, with the policy supporting renewable energy proposals subject to assessed impacts being acceptable. It is accepted that criterion 2c should also conserve the setting of heritage designations. However, it would be inappropriate to amend “conserved or enhanced” heritage assets to “no harm” as recommended by English Heritage, since this policy needs to balance impacts and benefits. It would need to recognise that there is no significant harm, as in criterion (b), since minor harm would not automatically outweigh the benefits from renewable energy.

2.386 Paragraph (5) does not require total compliance with landscape sensitivity, since this is one of the factors to be balanced against potential benefits of renewable energy development. It is not accepted that carbon reductions cannot be delivered without a significant impact on local amenities, landscape and biodiversity. Renewable energy developments must meet the policy criteria which will minimise harm, but the need for balancing competing objectives indicates that harm cannot be explicitly minimised.

2.387 The policy assesses potential impacts to balance them against potential benefits. Paragraph 6.23 lists the elements that landscape visual impact assessments should reference. A Parish Council indicates that relevant national planning guidance (NPPG) should be deleted from this list, although any national guidance as to how to prepare a landscape visual impact assessments should be considered. No change is required. The need for Landscape Sensitivity Analysis to be updated does not need to be specified. It would need to be updated if or when types or scales of renewable energy developments differed from those already assessed or where the landscape character type has changed significantly. The joint Landscape Character Assessment and Devon’s landscape policy group advice note are both referenced in paragraph 6.23, so no further references are required.

2.388 The Government’s wish to empower local communities can be expressed though a link to the relevant Ministerial Statement. Parish Councils are already consulted on all renewable energy applications (and all other types of planning applications) but planning decisions remain the responsibility of the local planning authority. Representations request financial inducements as compensation for affected properties or where power is exported to the grid. It is inappropriate for policy to require individual compensation for individual properties and/or community benefit funds from large-scale renewable energy schemes. Planning conditions and legal agreements can only address issues that enable adverse impacts to be mitigated and make acceptable a proposal that

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

would otherwise be unacceptable. A fund for community benefits would not meet these requirements, although they are a voluntary contribution supported by industry best practice and emerging government guidance.

2.389 Paragraph 5 of the policy seeks consideration of cumulative impacts of operational, consented and proposed development on landscape character. Proposals at appeal will be included as consented development once allowed, but would otherwise be proposed development alongside the current application. No further changes are necessary in ST16 (5) and paragraph 6.24. This paragraph is flexible rather than vague and the proposed alternative wording doe not clarify matters “All proposals will be considered on their individual merits with regard to scale, location, technology type and cumulative impact on the surrounding area. Applicants should take appropriate steps to mitigate any adverse impacts of proposed development through careful consideration of location, scale, design and other measures.”

2.390 Paragraph 6.25 refers to landfall and offshore infrastructure associated with offshore renewable energy. It should cross refer to ST09: Coast and Estuary Strategy rather than ST16.

2.391 One objector indicates that renewable energy must be an economically sustainable technology and should only be supported where carbon dioxide emissions will be reduced. This does not conform to Government policy and the NPPF, although renewable energy developments are likely to deliver a net reduction in carbon emissions during the development’s lifetime. The Councils’ economic strategy does not support economically unsustainable technologies.

2.392 The same objector seeks clarification of ‘carbon emissions’, which should be replaced with ‘carbon dioxide emissions’ to be consistent with Building Regulations Part L. Also, the meaning of energy, heat and power are questioned. The meanings in paragraph 6.20 are correct. The objector appears to be confused by ’combined heat and power’, which is a standard term and technology that integrates the production of usable heat and power (electricity), in a single highly efficient process.

2.393 There was concern that the requirement for developers to assess the current and future opportunities for decentralised energy networks would be a burden for developers and could make development unviable. Whilst opportunities for decentralised energy networks are supported, this requirement could be simplified firstly relating to major developments and secondly encouraging rather than requiring assessment. Amendments to paragraph 6.20 are proposed.

Other Matters

2.394 In response to general comments to the Local Plan, it was recommended to reference the Ministerial Statement (9th April 2014) within paragraph 6.27.

Conclusion

2.395 Several issues were raised through representations received, but none are considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan. However, clarification and flexibility is proposed to avoid potential conflict and being unduly restrictive. The first paragraph of the policy is relocated to supporting text to exclude a statement from the policy wording.

Agreed Actions

1. The following are agreed as Main Changes to Policy ST16:

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

a. Move paragraph (1) from ST16 incorporating it into paragraph 6.19. b. Amend (4c) to protect the setting of heritage assets: “the special qualities of nationally important landscape, biodiversity and heritage designations and their settings are conserved or enhanced.”

2. The following is agreed as a Minor Change to paragraph 6.19:

a. Amend ‘carbon emissions’ to ‘carbon dioxide emissions’ (both instances).

3. The following is agreed as a Main Change to paragraph 6.20:

a. Amend the first sentence to read “Applicants of major developments are encouraged to Developers should assess the current and future opportunities for decentralised energy networks, including proposals for combined heat and power facilities, which will be supported in principle where feasible.

4. A Main Change to paragraph 6.22 is agreed to amend paragraph 6.22 to refer to the economic benefits of the tidal demonstration zone off Lynton.

5. A Main Change to paragraph 6.27 is agreed to refer to the Ministerial Statement (9th April 2014).

6. The following is agreed as a Minor Change to paragraph 6.25:

a. Correct cross reference to ST09: Coast and Estuary Strategy rather than ST16: Delivering Renewable Energy and Heat. Chapter 7: Delivering a Balanced Local Housing Market

Comments made in response to Chapter 7 – A Balanced Local Housing Market

Total Number of Responses 10

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 1 4

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - 7

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 3 2

Summary of Issues

Comments on Chapter 7 – A Balanced Local Housing Market plp number

SHMA shows overwhelming need for dwellings suitable for single people and couples 669, 1795 and this is not properly addressed by the Plan. Thus the Plan is considered to be not conforming with the NPPF in terms of meeting objectively assessed needs.

Consultation was inadequate as the SHMA was not publicised and a SHLAA for 2392, 2396 North Devon was not available.

SHMA is based on out-of-date information and more recent data shows it to be 2392 inaccurate.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Seek inclusion of an explicit statement that the delivery of market housing will help 2648 to address identified housing issues such as in-migration and reflect the NPPF requirement to ‘boost significantly the supply of housing’.

Consider that the Plan doesn’t make adequate provision for Park Homes and in 205 doing so, does not comply with the NPPF. Advocate the identification of existing Park Homes sites on the Policies Map and inclusion of additional policy relating to Park Homes (with policy wording proposed).

Local plan acknowledges shortage of affordable dwellings but doesn’t set out delivery 1842 strategy.

Question the meaning of the term ‘sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities’ 327 and seek inclusion of additional text (paragraph 7.2) to require housing developments to have a ‘heart’ through the provision of meeting places such as village greens, allotments, etc. (with wording proposed).

Consider that the overarching strategic objective set out for this chapter should be 2647 to seek to fully meet the objectively assessed need for housing.

Concerned that the Plan may be inappropriately interfering with the market delivery 2649 of housing and that some statements (paragraph 7.7) are unhelpful and may adversely influence investment decisions and hence housing delivery.

Consideration of Issues

2.396 A respondent considered that the Plan does not appropriately plan to address the objectively assessed need for housing as it doesn’t reflect the overwhelming need for dwellings suitable for single people and couples. The SHMA provides evidence of a wide range of housing needs across northern Devon, not only for dwellings suitable for single people and couples, although it is recognised that this does form a significant element of identified housing need. Policy ST17 includes provisions in Part (2) to shape the mix of development proposals to reflect identified needs. In doing so, the supporting text (paragraph 7.12 & 7.13) recognises that proposals should have regard to evidence of housing needs and demands, particularly noting the Strategic Housing Market Assessment. The Local Plan does not specify a particular mix of housing which all proposals should respond to as it is recognised that this may vary by locality or over time based on specific local circumstances. Rather, the Local Plan seeks proposals to respond to evidence of housing need.

2.397 It is suggested that the consultation on the Publication Draft of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan was inadequate as the SHMA was not publicised and the SHLAA for North Devon was unavailable. The Strategic Housing Market Assessment(41) was readily available, along with a wide range of other evidence, via the websites for North Devon Council(42) and Torridge District Council(43) during the full extent of the consultation period on the Pre-publication draft of the Plan. Further, the introductory page relating to the consultation(44) explicitly stated that further information about the Plan ‘…including the comprehensive Evidence Base..’ was available on the Councils’ websites (with links provided).

41 Strategic Housing Market Assessment: Torridge and North Devon Update (Housing Vision, December 2012) 42 http://www.northdevon.gov.uk/index/lgcl_planning/nonlgcl_planning_policy/evidence_base/evidence_housing_market.htm 43 http://www.torridge.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=2281 44 http://consult.torridge.gov.uk/portal/planning/localplan/publication

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

2.398 It is recognised that the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) for the North Devon sites was not available during the consultation period. The final report for both North Devon and Torridge was not published at the time of the consultation, although the draft assessments for Torridge were made available. It had been the intention to publish the draft findings for North Devon on the same basis and not doing so was an oversight. The findings of the SHLAA did however feed into the Pre-Publication draft of the Plan and were reflected throughout it, particularly in relation to the dwelling yield attributed to sites through allocation Policies. The SHLAA Report is now published, will be available during the planned consultation on proposed modifications to the Plan and will be presented as evidence to support the Plan at Examination in Public.

2.399 It is suggested that the SHMA is out-of-date and the future housing requirements contained within it are out-of-date. A Strategic Housing Market Assessment Update(45) was published in December 2012 and was based on 2008 Sub-national Household Projections realigned to take account of the 2011 Census and other factors. Whilst still considered robust, the Councils have recognised that the Update is not based upon the latest household projections, as advocated by national planning guidance. As such, in partnership with other authorities across the Housing Market Area, the Councils have commissioned Housing Vision to analyse the implications of more recent population and household projections on future housing requirements. The findings of this work suggest that the scale of housing proposed through the Local Plan is appropriate.

2.400 The inclusion of a statement within the Chapter is sought to explicitly state that the delivery of market housing will be supported to help to address identified housing issues such as in-migration and reflect the national planning policy requirement to ‘boost significantly the supply of housing’(46) . The suggestion is supported. However, rather than such a statement being provided within Chapter 7 – A balanced local housing market, it is considered better located within the supporting text to Policy ST08: Scale and Distribution of New Development in Northern Devon that establishes the scale of housing to be provided across northern Devon.

2.401 A respondent considers that the Plan doesn’t make adequate provision for Park Homes. In doing so, they suggest that the Plan does not comply with national planning policy, which seeks local planning authorities to plan for a mix of housing to meet the needs of different groups in the community(47). In doing so, they advocate the identification of existing Park Homes sites on the Policies Map and inclusion of additional policy relating to Park Homes (with policy wording proposed). It is accepted that Park Homes can contribute to the provision of a mix of housing that meet the needs of different groups in the community. Whilst not providing explicit reference to Park Homes, Policy ST17 seeks to ensure that an appropriate mix of housing is provided to meet the needs of northern Devon’s communities. The wider policies of the Plan enable the provision of housing in appropriate locations to meet identified needs. Such provisions would not exclude the development of park homes. It is not considered appropriate or necessary to specifically enable Park Home development in a manner or locations that are not already enabled for wider housing provision. Further, it is considered neither necessary nor appropriate to identify park home estates on the Policies Map. The Policies Map does not identify the extent of any form of residential development and it is not considered that there is any relevant justification to single out park home estates in particular. To this end, it is not considered necessary to introduce specific policy provisions relating to park homes, nor to identify park home estates on the Policies Map.

45 Strategic Housing Market Assessment: Torridge and North Devon Update (Housing Vision, December 2012) 46 Paragraph 47, National Planning Policy Framework (CLG, March 2012) 47 Paragraph 50, National Planning Policy Framework (CLG, March 2012)

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

2.402 A respondent suggests that the Plan recognises the overwhelming need for affordable housing but doesn’t provide a delivery strategy to address it. Affordable housing delivery is enabled within the Local Plan through Policies ST18: Affordable Housing on Development Sites and ST19: Affordable Housing on Exception Sites. The referenced policies, along with the supporting text associated to this section of the Plan (paragraphs 7.19 – 7.38), is considered to provide an effective delivery strategy for the provision of affordable housing. Furthermore, Policy ST08: Scale and Distribution of New Development in Northern Devon provides an uplift in dwelling delivery above that identified through demographic projections, in part so as to further support the delivery of additional affordable housing to meet identified needs. The provision of a rural ‘exceptions’ policy will additionally offer the opportunity to enable additional affordable housing provision where local needs are identified and it can be demonstrated that they cannot be met by any other means. It is however accepted that because the provision of affordable housing is principally provided by seeking a proportion of affordable housing on market housing-led development proposals, and that the scale of such provision that can be sought is limited by development viability, it will not be possible to deliver a scale of affordable housing to meet the full extent of need identified through the SHMA. This is however common to many Local Plans and a constraint recognised by national planning practice guidance(48).

2.403 A respondent questions the meaning of the statement ‘creating sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities’ in paragraph 7.2. The intention of the statement is to reflect the broad range of aims set out in Chapter 2 of the Plan, and recognise that in delivering housing, development should seek to ensure that it is meeting the social, economic and environmental needs of our communities in a balanced manner that allows the integration of all sectors of our communities and creates attractive and well-functioning places. The Plan recognises the importance of delivering housing in a manner that creates communities and places high importance on the quality of development and design. This is threaded throughout the Plan but encapsulated in particular within Policy DM04: Design Principles and within ST17: A balanced Local Housing Market.

2.404 A respondent suggests that the overarching strategic objective for this chapter should be to seek to fully meet the objectively assessed need for housing. The overarching aims and objectives for the Plan are set out in Chapter 2 and are not attributed to individual elements of the Plan as it is intended to be read and operate as a whole. Aim 3 seeks ‘A Balanced Local Housing Market - where a choice of decent housing of all types is available and new development meets community needs’. Whilst not explicit, this aim and the associated objectives are considered to in effect establish the overriding objective of seeking to meet the objectively assessed need for housing. It is not considered necessary or appropriate to provide an alternative objective within Chapter 7 – A balanced local housing market as the delivery of housing to meet this Aim and associated Objectives is intended to be delivered by the Plan as a whole. In line with other objectives in Chapter 2, it is considered that a footnote could be added to objective (a) ‘a choice of decent, well designed housing for the range of needs of our existing and future communities’ under Aim 3 to relate it to the requirement to meet the national planning policy requirement(49) to ensure the Plan ‘meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing’.

2.405 A respondent considers that the Plan may be inappropriately interfering with the market delivery of housing and raises particular concerns about the final sentence of paragraph 7.7. As noted above, one of the national planning policy objectives is for a Local Plan to ensure that the full objectively assessed needs for housing are met. In doing so, it is necessary for the Plan to provide tools to help ensure that planning proposals are delivered to meet these housing needs – in terms of scale, mix and location. It is not accepted that the Plan is inappropriately interfering in the market delivery of

48 Paragraph 029, Reference ID: 2a-029-20140306, National Planning Practice Guidance (http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/housing-and-economic-development-needs-assessments/methodology-assessing-housing-need/#paragraph_029 49 Paragraph 47, National Planning Policy Framework (CLG, March 2012)

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

housing. It is however accepted that the phrasing of the final sentence in paragraph 7.7 is not positively prepared and maybe unhelpful. This sentence is not considered necessary and it is considered that it could be deleted without any adverse impact on the soundness of the Plan. A change is recommended on this basis.

Agreed Actions

2.406 The following are agreed as Main Changes to the Local Plan:

1. Provide additional supporting text to Policy ST08 to acknowledge that the Plan seeks to boost significantly the supply of housing to help address identified housing issues.

2. Delete the final sentence of paragraph 7.7 - ‘As such, the housing market has not been fully addressing the dwelling stock imbalance and the housing needs and demands found across northern Devon’.

3. Add footnote to Objective (a) of Aim (3) in Chapter 2 to state: ‘In line with the provisions of national planning policy that seek local planning authorities to meet the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing (Paragraph 47, National Planning Policy Framework, CLG, March 2012)’

Policy ST17: A Balanced Local Housing Market

Comments made in response to Policy ST17: A Balanced Local Housing Market

Total Number of Responses 38

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 3 6

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 5 8

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 6 2

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy ST17: A Balanced Local Housing Market and supporting text plp number

Support approach of ensuring that there is a balance of housing types that respond 938, 1085 to local needs.

Support developments that integrate with the physical, functional and community 381 environment.

Sites that closely relate to the existing and historical form of a settlement (Local Centre) 381 more likely to contribute to community cohesion and integrate into the local community.

The achievability of Policy ST17 could be constrained by the nature of the spatial 2385 development strategy and the way that rural settlement growth has been established simply by linking it to the scale of the place and the available facilities, rather than

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

looking at any local imbalances in the housing market and seeking to address them. Local Plan should look to establish the imbalance and then seek to address it. As such, Policy ST17 is not considered to accord with the rigid spatial strategy established through Policies ST07 and ST08 and is likely to be ineffective in terms of meeting unmet and future housing needs.

Local Plan does not address actual housing needs and particularly the immediate 2436 need for one bed units. Given the predicted future population, clear that current developments and current applications are not meeting identified housing needs, predominantly delivering 3 and 4 bed houses that maximise profits for developers, do not meet local needs and are likely to increase inward migration of retirees.

Many redundant buildings that could bee adapted and used as dwellings, maybe as 2169 social housing, which would improve the appearance of the area.

Previously developed land and buildings should be prioritised for housing in advance 2169 of greenfield sites.

Note that the clause that was in the Pre-Publication Draft requiring proposals to be 2344 commensurate to the scale of the existing community and to respond to housing (ENPA) needs of the community is now omitted but consider it still to be relevant, particularly for rural communities. Suggest it might be appropriately inserted into Policy ST07: Spatial Development Strategy for Northern Devon’s Rural Area.

Need to provide justification for policy by stating absolute need figures in supporting 2234 text.

Policy needs to recognise role of local needs housing, that needs to be affordable 951 but available to those not on the housing register.

Policy should recognise live/work development as an employment and residential 938, 2313, product in its own right, set out the support that such proposals would receive and 2465 set out the requirements for affordable homes, standards and other contributions.

Policy should be amended to make explicit reference to self-build, recognising 1008 provisions of NPPG and that local projects consider it as affordable housing.

Subject to minor amendment to reference self-build, consider policy to reflect national 1008 policy.

Incorporate provision to provide for the opportunity for self-build projects on unallocated 782 sites.

In paragraph 7.10, unsure about the concept of ‘rebalancing’ and do not consider that 2651 the issue of fully meeting the objectively assessed need for housing needs to be dressed up in this manner. Instead, refer to meeting these defined needs.

Consider that the content of paragraph 7.11 strays into the area of social engineering. 2652 Question how this will be implemented and what will happen if the market does not wish to deliver the required housing. Plan should be about proactively assisting the delivery of development to meet objectively defined needs.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Paragraph 7.12 identifies need to look at the make-up of the existing housing stock. 382 There are instances where it is more appropriate to compliment and not copy the existing stock.

Part (1) of Policy is unnecessary statement. 1669, 1748, 1984, 1890

Consider the insinuated need for all major residential development proposals to be 1130, supported by evidence of an assessment of objectively assessed needs is unjustified 1731, 2695 and that proposals should refer to existing evidence.

Respondent (plp1731) advocates amended wording:

“ The scale and mix of new dwellings, including affordable housing provision, will respond to specific local circumstances in terms of dwelling numbers, size, type and tenure. Development proposal will be required to be based upon the most recent Major residential developments will be required to be based upon an assessment of objectively assessed needs, unless local evidence indicates alternate provision would be appropriate for housing . All new residential development will have regard to the ..."

Support for recognition that development viability should be taken into account when 1541 deriving an appropriate housing mix but highlight the need for this to apply to both market and affordable housing.

Seek clarification within supporting text as to interpretation of Part (2)(a)-(d) and how 2650 the nature of the local housing sub-market, etc. is intended to influence residential development proposals.

Consider that the requirement in Part (2) for major residential developments to provide 2701 a balanced and proportionate mix of tenures to meet identified local needs may be an issue for the provision of specialist elderly accommodation as this tends to make use of smaller windfall sites which are often subject to a range of constraints. Consider that the Plan has little regard to this.

Support for taking a positive approach in seeking to provide appropriate 2701 accommodation to meet the needs of the elderly population and in particular Part (3).

Support Part (3) that seeks to address specific requirements of an aging population. 1742 Respondent (plp1742) considers it may be more appropriate to have a separate planning policy to address this requirement and suggests example policy wording (Mendip District Council):

“Proposals for care homes or similar specialist accommodation that meet an identified local need will be permitted in accordance with the Plan’s overall spatial strategy. Exceptionally, permission for such accommodation outside development limits will be granted where there is clear justification having regard to the need for the facility and evidence of the unsuitability and/or unavailability of alternative sites within named settlements. All such development should be accessible and be proportionate in scale to the locality. Any ancillary facilities provided as part of the development should complement locally available amenities and, where possible, be made available to

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

the wider community.” With further addition (form South Gloucestershire’s Core Strategy): “Extra Care schemes should be located so they are accessible to local facilities, proportionate in scale to the locality and provide ancillary facilities as part of the development. These ancillary facilities should complement locally available amenities and be made available to the wider community.”

Part (3) is unnecessary as the plan should be read as a whole. 2650

Locational requirements for specialist accommodation for the elderly mean that it is 2701 unlikely that the majority of larger sites, such as urban extensions, will be appropriate for it.

Recognising that specialist accommodation for the elderly usually incorporates an 2701 element of care and communal facilities at additional cost, it is unrealistic to consider that such provision can be provided through small scale piece-meal delivery as part of general needs housing development, but rather need to be delivered through specialist schemes of a critical mass.

Paragraph 7.16 recognises that the viability of extra-care proposals is such that they 2702 cannot provide a mix of accommodation types on site. It should also note that small scale forms of specialist accommodation for the elderly will also not be able to do so, but will contribute towards meeting the wider housing needs of the locality.

Disagree with the assumption in paragraph 7.17 that extra-care housing falls within 1749 Use Class C3, considering that this position is inappropriate, not justified and still subject to widespread debate. Consider that alternative wording should be included:

“The Use Class for a proposed development will be determined based upon the characteristics and restrictions of the proposed development, and in the context of national policy, guidance and precedent. When considering the application of ST18 (Affordable Housing), the Council will have regard to the viability of the development, its wider benefits of providing specialist housing and community benefits, and the practicalities of delivering onsite affordable provision."

Support threshold for Lifetime Homes provision, recognising that major development 938, 1008 proposals better suited to providing affordable and lifetime standard homes and that viability of smaller developments might be impacted by requirements.

Support for Lifetime Homes requirements to be subject to whether they are feasible 1541 and technically viable.

Part (4) of the Policy, in respect of Lifetime Homes, is not compliant with NPPF (para 814, 1433 173 and 174), written ministerial statements and has not been demonstrated to be economically viable and should be deleted.

Lifetime Homes requirements in Part (4) are not justified by robust evidence of need 1130, or assessment of impact on viability. The following detailed points are raised: 2031, Respondent (plp1130) consider clause should be amended to remove the stated 2262, proportions and rather state that developments will be encouraged to meet 1630, 2691 Lifetime Homes standards subject to viability and other policy requirements. (1130)

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Respondents(plp2031, plp2262) considers that the SHMA Update shows a requirement for a much lower proportion and that requirements should be realigned to match evidence. (2031, 2262) Do not consider proposal to be justified or consistent with the NPPF / NPPG. (1630, 2691)

Broadly support policy with exception of Part (1) and particularly support Part (4) that 1669, is considered to recognise government consultation on threshold for affordable housing. 1748, 1984, 1890

Remove Lifetime Homes requirements set out in Part (4) as there is no evidence of 1630, 2691 need nor demonstration that the proposals would be viable.

Part (4) of the Policy, in respect of Lifetime Homes, should be amended to future 756, 2725 proof it and make reference to any successor to Lifetime Homes (i.e. future Building (HBF) Regulation standards)

Consider that the wider Policies of the Plan do not deliver on the objective set out in 543, 1536 Part (5) to provide affordable housing to meet local needs.

Part (6) is not an appropriate statement to be contained in Policy and should be 1739 removed.

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.407 The representations received in support of Policy ST17 and sub-elements of the policy are noted and welcomed.

Policy constrained by nature of spatial development strategy

2.408 A respondent states that they believe that there will be considerable consequences on the achievability of Policy ST17 as a result of a flawed spatial distribution strategy established through Policies ST07: Spatial Development Strategy for North Devon’s Rural Area and ST08: Scale and Distribution of New Development in Northern Devon. They consider that the spatial strategy for the delivery of housing and consequently the level of housing proposed for individual settlements, is not justified and effective; noting that the level of housing growth for individual settlements has been established using an arbitrary approach (5% growth for Villages or 10% for Local Centres) that does not respond to local circumstances and take account of specific characteristics of the local housing markets. They therefore consider that Policy ST17 may not be effective, as the opportunity for the Policy to rebalance the local housing stock could be inhibited by inadequate scales of development being enabled through the spatial strategy for an individual settlement. In particular, concerns are raised over the scale of growth planned for in North Molton.

2.409 The specific comments about North Molton are addressed in the analysis of responses to that settlement. It is accepted that the achievability of the aims of Policy ST17 are linked to the wider policies of the Local Plan, including Policies ST07 and ST08. It is further accepted that the scale of housing provision in a locality will constrain the ability for Policy ST17 to influence the housing stock and hence to re-balance it to meet the needs of the existing and future population through the provision of additional housing development. The scale of housing development for a locality has been established through the development of Policies ST07 and ST08 and the locally specific sections of the Plan. The scale of housing growth overall and for individual localities is a matter for these policies and not directly for Policy ST17. The spatial strategy for individual settlements has however been

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

influenced by a range of factors, including the relative sustainability of settlements and the availability of developable sites. In the rural areas, the spatial strategies for Local Centres and defined Villages have been developed following a community-led approach, with the ambition of planning to meeting local ambitions for development where this is reasonable and practicable.

2.410 As noted by the respondent, the starting point for discussions with the local communities was for Local Centres to plan for 10% housing growth and for defined Villages to accommodate 5% housing growth. The latter level of housing growth (5%) was established as a minimum with the purpose of maintaining a stable population within those settlements, recognising that the average number of people living in each house is expected to fall over the plan period. The 10% level was provided as a baseline level of growth for Local Centres, recognising that this would allow for some population growth, helping to support the local services and facilities that they offer and reflecting that they also serve as hubs for a wider rural hinterland. These baseline growth levels were always only intended to be a starting point for the rural settlement planning exercise with the local communities and never intended to be a definitive level. It is accepted that the approach would not provide an appropriate level of growth for all communities. A range of factors have influenced the level of housing that should be planned for in individual localities, including matters such as the availability of developable housing land, existing commitments, constraints on the settlement and community priorities and aspirations.

2.411 It is accepted that Policy ST17 will not be able to fully rebalance the housing stock in all localities to provide the ideal mix of housing to meet the expected future population. This is not a reasonable prospect given the proportion of new dwellings that could be reasonably planned for delivery in relation to the scale of the existing stock. However, the role of the Policy is to ensure that all new housing development does contribute to this re-balancing so that housing stock better reflects the existing and expected future population demographics. To conclude, whilst it is accepted that the scale of development for a locality established through Policies ST07 and ST08 will constrain the extent to which Policy ST17 can rebalance the housing stock in a locality, the policy is still considered to provide effective tools to ensure that all new housing does contribute to this rebalancing of housing stock.

Does not address actual housing need

2.412 A respondent cites that housing developments that have been recently delivered and those in the planning pipeline are not meeting identified needs, predominantly delivering three and four bed dwellings that are maximising developer profits, not meeting local housing need and inflating in-migration of those wishing to retire. As such, they consider that the Plan is already failing to deliver a balanced local housing market. In response, it is fair to say that the provisions of the draft North Devon and Torridge Local Plan are not yet having an effect on the development that is gaining consent through the planning system. In line with the provisions on national planning policy(50), the Policies contained within the draft Plan are not yet being afforded any significant weight for decision making. As such Policy ST17 it is not yet having an influence on the mix of housing that is being achieved. The purpose of Policy ST17 is to ensure that development proposals do have regard to the mix of housing that is required within the locality and ensure that they respond positively to address the identified needs and demands for housing. As the policy has yet to be implemented, the respondent’s comment that it is already failing in this respect is considered to be unfounded. The provisions of the draft Policy are considered to be appropriate and no amendment is considered necessary to address the representation.

50 Paragraph 216, National Planning Policy Framework (CLG, March 2012)

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Redundant Buildings – could be adapted and used as dwellings – provide social housing + improve appearance of the area.

2.413 Calls have been made to make use of redundant buildings by adapting them to be used as dwellings. In doing so, a respondent suggests that it could provide a source of social housing, possibly administered by the local authority, and also lead to an improvement in the appearance of the area. A range of policies within the draft Local Plan already enable redundant buildings to be converted into residential use, subject to development addressing particular matters. As such, the Plan is already considered to effectively enable such development to occur and no changes are considered necessary to the Plan in relation to this matter. As noted in response to the consultation on the Pre-publication draft of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan(51), both Councils recognise the opportunity that empty properties offer towards meeting housing needs. Both Councils have adopted strategies(52) for managing the issue of empty properties and both seek to take a proactive approach to address the long-term issue of empty properties, with the aim of bringing them back into use. Such strategies are supported by a range of initiatives(53) and the approach accords with national planning policy(54). In response to the calls for the local authorities to administer social housing delivered in this manner, there is currently no indication that the local authorities are seeking to directly deliver social housing, nor have the resources to do so. As such, it is not appropriate for the Local Plan to include such provisions.

PDL + Buildings as priority over greenfield

2.414 Calls are made to prioritise the development of previously developed land and buildings over the release of greenfield land for the delivery of housing. In arriving at the spatial development strategies enabled through the Plan, the Councils have sought to make use of previously developed land where possible. Many of the settlement specific chapters identify and allocated previously developed land for redevelopment. For example, in Bideford, a range of previously developed sites are identified redevelopment under Policy BID07 and in Barnstaple, a range of brownfield sites are allocated for comprehensive redevelopment under Policies BAR11, 12, 13 and 14. The scale of development required to meet identified needs across northern Devon is however such that it is not possible to identify sufficient previously developed land that is known to be developable to meet the scale of need. To this end, it has been necessary to identify a range of greenfield sites to accommodate the extent of development that will be required over the Plan period.

2.415 Part (e) of Policy ST02 already supports the reuse of previously developed land for development with the goal of helping to minimise its environmental footprint, in line with one of the core planning principles of national planning policy(55) that ‘encourages the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value’. Further, the wider policies of the Plan are such that unplanned development is principally directed to be located within the confines of the existing built form of settlements, where the opportunity for development will be in the majority provided by previously developed land, particularly considering the protection afforded to green spaces through the Plan for amenity, ecological and landscape reasons.

51 See Paragraph 446 of Appendix 1, North Devon and Torridge Local Plan – Publication Draft – Consultation Statement (June 2014) 52 Empty Homes Strategy 2012-2015 (Torridge District Council, December 2012) and Private Sector Housing Renewal Strategy 2012-2015 (North Devon Council, June 2013) 53 Empty Property Action Groups, Tidy Town Initiatives, Loans to enable properties to be brought back into residential use, etc. 54 Paragraph 51, National Planning Policy Framework (CLG, March 2012) 55 Paragraph 17, National Planning Policy Framework (CLG, March 2012)

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Clause from pre-publication version – development should be commensurate to scale of settlement – re-insert to ST07

2.416 A response on behalf of Exmoor National Park Authority has sought the re-introduction of Clause (3) from Policy ST17 in the Pre-Publication draft of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan (March 2013), possibly into Policy ST07 rather than ST17. The intent of the clause was to require housing development to be commensurate to the scale of the existing settlement. The clause was removed from Policy ST17 in response to the outcomes of the consultation on the Pre-Publication Draft of the Plan(56). This was upon recognition that the scale of growth proposed for some settlements was already inconsistent with this advocated policy approach and that the clause was also covered by other policies within the Plan. This position is still maintained and it is not considered necessary to reinsert the clause. In particular, Part (1) of Policy ST04: Improving the quality of Development requires development to ‘achieve high quality inclusive and sustainable design’ that ‘responds to the characteristics of the site, its wider context and the surrounding area’. Additionally. clause (a) of Policy DM04: Design Principles in the Publication Draft of the Plan covers this matter in that it requires development proposals to be ‘appropriate and sympathetic to their setting in terms of scale, density, massing, height, layout appearance, fenestration, materials and relationship to buildings and landscape settings in the local neighbourhood’. These alternative policy elements are considered to satisfactorily address the concerns raised.

Absolute figures for need should be provided in supporting text

2.417 A respondent notes that the justification for the policy does not set out absolute figures relating to need. In doing so, they call for amendments to be made to the supporting text to contain such figures. The lack of explicit reference to figures for need within the supporting text is intentional and considered. Rather than provide absolute detail in terms of a breakdown of particular requirements to which developments should respond, the supporting text (paragraph 7.12 / 7.13) rather requires development proposals to respond to up-to-date and robust evidence of housing need and demand. In the first instance, it seeks development proposals to respond to the findings of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment but also recognises that there may be other relevant evidence that proposals should have regard to, such as Local Housing Needs Surveys, Urban Housing Needs Surveys, etc. This approach recognises that the most relevant evidence to underpin decisions on the mix of individual proposals may emerge over the lifetime of the Plan and also recognises that the mix will vary by locality, particularly given the policy’s requirement for proposals to have regard to the housing sub-market in which proposals are located.

Re-balancing

2.418 A respondent raises concern about the concept of ‘rebalancing’ (as stated in paragraph 7.10) and does not consider that it is necessary to ‘dress up’ the issue of fully meeting the objectively assessed need in this manner. Instead, they suggest that the Plan should simply refer to meeting these defined needs. The use of the term ‘re-balancing’ is considered important, reflecting a key conclusions from the Strategic Housing Market Assessment(57) that recognises that the housing stock within northern Devon is imbalanced to the housing needs of a changing demographic profile. It is accepted however that in reality the purpose of the policy is to help ensure that housing proposals help meet the national planning policy requirement to plan for a mix of housing(58) and to meet the

56 Paragraph 449, Appendix 1, North Devon and Torridge Local Plan – Publication Draft – Consultation Statement (June 2014) 57 Paragraph 7.5-7.6, Strategic Housing Market Assessment: Torridge and North Devon Update (Housing Vision, December 2012) 58 Paragraph 50, National Planning Policy Framework (CLG, March 2012)

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

full objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing(59). It is important to note however that meeting the objectively assessed need and demand for housing is not just about delivering the appropriate quantum of housing development, but also about delivering the appropriate mix of housing. The use of the term ‘re-balancing’ is considered legitimate as it reflects an important characteristic of the local housing market, and one that needs to be addressed so far as is possible.

2.419 Minor amendments are recommended to paragraph 7.10 to improve the legibility of the paragraph.

Social Engineering

2.420 A respondent states that they consider the policy is straying into ‘social engineering’. This was a concern also directed at the Policy in a response to the consultation on the Pre-Publication draft of the Plan and it was dismissed, considering that the Policy conformed with national planning policy and simply sought to shape planning proposals to ensure that they help meet objectively assessed needs for housing(60). This is still considered to be the case and no amendment is considered necessary on this basis.

Complement Housing Stock

2.421 In response to the call in paragraph 7.11 for proposals to have regard to the make up of the existing housing stock in the locality, a respondent suggests that there are instances whereby it would be more appropriate to complement the housing stock rather than copy it. This was a suggestion put forward in response to the consultation on the Pre-Publication draft of the Plan and it was noted in response to that representation(61) that it was not the intention of the Policy to require proposals to copy the existing housing stock in a locality. Rather, the policy seeks proposals to respond to local circumstances and amongst other things, have regard to the scale and mix of housing in the locality. In doing so, the Policy is intended to seek proposals to respond to matter such as deficiencies in particular housing types, sizes, etc. The policy does not therefore require proposals to replicate the existing housing stock.

Part (1) is Unnecessary

2.422 A number of respondents suggest that Part (1) of the Policy is an unnecessary statement and that it should be removed from the Policy. This is supported. Part (1) of the Policy is considered to be unlikely to have a direct impact on the consideration of planning proposals and simply replicates the intent of the aims and objectives provided in Chapter 2 of the Plan. As such, it is not considered necessary for this statement to be contained within the Policy and it is recommended that it is deleted. It is however considered that a similar wording could be usefully inserted into the supporting text to introduce the Policy.

Evidence of Objectively Assessed Needs

2.423 A number of respondents have suggested that the requirement within Part (2) of the Policy which seeks major residential developments to be ‘based upon an assessment of objectively assessed needs for housing’ is unjustified and unnecessary. In doing so, they consider that proposals should be able to reference existing evidence of housing needs and demand, rather than seeking them to provide their own supporting evidence. It was not the intention to require all proposals to provide

59 Paragraph 47, National Planning Policy Framework (CLG, March 2012) 60 Paragraph 460, Appendix 1, North Devon and Torridge Local Plan – Publication Draft – Consultation Statement (June 2014) 61 Paragraph 461, Appendix 1, North Devon and Torridge Local Plan – Publication Draft – Consultation Statement (June 2014)

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

bespoke evidence on this basis but rather seek proposals to make use of existing evidence to establish an appropriate mix of housing. This approach is recognised in paragraphs 7.12 and 7.13 of the supporting text, however it is acknowledged that the wording of Part (2) is ambiguous and open to interpretation. It is recommended that change is made to Part (2) of the policy to address these concerns.

Development Viability

2.424 A respondent supports the recognition in Policy that development viability will be considered but seeks that this extends to both affordable and market housing. Development viability is referenced in Part (2)(e) of the Policy, with the wider clause noting that the scale and mix of dwellings, including affordable housing, will have regard to a range of factors including development viability. As such, the policy is considered to satisfactorily cover the matter of allowing variation of requirements on the basis of viability and no amendment is considered necessary.

Interpretation and Implementation of Part (2)

2.425 The practical implementation of Part (2) of the Policy is questioned and in particular how sub-clauses (a)-(d) will be interpreted in practice. The sub-clauses of Part (2) are intended to identify the key factors that proposals should consider when they are establishing the appropriate housing mix that should be provided. In reality, the premise of the policy is that the mix of dwellings provided for through a development proposal should reflect identified housing need for the housing market and sub-market whilst having regard to the context of the site along with the viability of providing such a mix on the individual site. As such, it is considered that the clauses are reasonable and offer a practical implementable policy provision. However, it is also recognised that Part (2) of the Policy could be considered unnecessarily complicated and it would benefit from simplification and rationalisation to ease interpretation and implementation. Amendment is proposed on this basis.

Specialist Accommodation

2.426 The support offered towards Part (3) of the Policy which seeks to address the specialist accommodation needs of northern Devon’s communities is welcomed and noted. A respondent suggests that the topic may however benefit from a discrete and individual policy rather than being part of a wider Policy, and example policy wording is offered:

2.427 “Proposals for care homes or similar specialist accommodation that meet an identified local need will be permitted in accordance with the Plan’s overall spatial strategy. Exceptionally, permission for such accommodation outside development limits will be granted where there is clear justification having regard to the need for the facility and evidence of the unsuitability and/or unavailability of alternative sites within named settlements. All such development should be accessible and be proportionate in scale to the locality. Any ancillary facilities provided as part of the development should complement locally available amenities and, where possible, be made available to the wider community.” (Mendip District Council)

2.428 In terms of the example policy wording, it is considered that the existing policy wording could benefit from refinement and that parts of the examples provided could usefully form the basis for making the Policy more effective. It is recommended that the following principles are incorporated into Part (3) of Policy ST17:

1. recognising that proposals should be commensurate in scale to their locality; and 2. providing appropriate ancillary facilities that complement those available locally and, where possible, enable such facilities to be made available to the wider community.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

2.429 It is however considered neither appropriate nor necessary to enable the provision of specialist accommodation on greenfield sites outside of defined development limits. It is considered that the Plan offers sufficient opportunity to provide for the delivery of specialist accommodation, including identified provision within allocated sites, without enabling provision to be exceptionally provided outside of settlement limits.

2.430 It is suggested through representation that the requirement for major development proposals to provide a proportionate and balanced mix of dwellings may be problematic for schemes of accommodation on smaller windfall sites that are subject to a range of constraints. It is highlighted that this might be a particular issue for schemes of specialist accommodation for the elderly that are often provided on such sites. This is noted. It is accepted that small sites are sometimes subject to a range of constraints that may influence the form of development that can be accommodated. Part (2)(d) of the policy is intended to address such issues, enabling the mix to be adjusted to take account of the character and context of the individual development site. It is however recognised that the policy and supporting text is not clear that the mix of major development proposals may be amended on this basis. It is suggested that amendment be made to address this matter.

2.431 Similarly, calls have been made to recognise that schemes of specialist accommodation might not be able to provide a balanced and proportionate mix of housing. It is accepted that specialist accommodation is subject to a range of issues that differentiate it from general needs housing. It is recognised that such proposals should not be providing a balanced and proportionate mix of dwellings reflective of the general housing need but should rather be providing a mix reflective of the identified need for specialist accommodation. Paragraph 7.16 already recognises that extra-care proposals will not be subject to the requirement to provide a balanced and proportionate mix of dwellings applicable to the wider general population. It is recommended that the scope of this paragraph is revised to broaden it to cover all specialist accommodation and that it is rephrased to recognise that proposals for specialist accommodation will be expected to deliver accommodation reflective of identified need.

Locational Requirements of Specialist Accommodation

2.432 It is suggested by a respondent that the locational requirements of specialist elderly accommodation are such that it is unlikely that large greenfield sites, such as urban extensions, will be appropriate locations for this provision. The Policy does not identify the nature of site where provision should be delivered. Rather, it recognises that provision of specialist accommodation should be provided where it offers access to the services and facilities that may be required by residents (Part (3) and para. 7.15). The suitability of an individual site to provide specialist accommodation for the elderly will depend on its specific circumstances.

2.433 It is further suggested that the provision of such accommodation is unlikely to be delivered effectively through small piece-meal development as part of larger schemes of general needs housing because of the need for the provision of ancillary services to support such development. It is recognised that the provision of specialist accommodation does not necessarily lend itself to piecemeal development because of the need to provide ancillary services. The policy does not advocate such an approach. However it is considered reasonable to assume that a critical mass of specialist accommodation provision could be accommodated as part of a wider residential proposal.

2.434 A respondent suggests that it is inappropriate to specify that extra-care provision will be deemed to fall under use class C3: Dwelling Houses (as noted in Paragraph 7.17), considering that this position is inappropriate, not justified and still subject to widespread debate. Alternative wording is suggested:

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

2.435 “The Use Class for a proposed development will be determined based upon the characteristics and restrictions of the proposed development, and in the context of national policy, guidance and precedent. When considering the application of ST18 (Affordable Housing), the Council will have regard to the viability of the development, its wider benefits of providing specialist housing and community benefits, and the practicalities of delivering onsite affordable provision."

2.436 Paragraph 7.17 sets out that the Councils will generally consider extra-care provision to fall under Use Class C3, going on to recognise that this may however vary depending on the individual circumstances of a proposal. Therefore, the existing wording does already recognise that the use class of individual extra-care proposals will be dependent upon the exact characteristics of the proposal. It is however recognised that there is still significant debate about this matter and as such, it is considered appropriate to amended the paragraph to recognise that the use class of specialist accommodation will be determined on the basis of the characteristics of the proposed development.

Part (3) is Unnecessary

2.437 There are calls that Part (3) of the Policy simply duplicates provisions found elsewhere in the Plan which is unnecessary as it must be read as a whole. The section is considered to have value and it is considered to add detail in relation to the provision of specialist accommodation that is not provided elsewhere in the Plan, particularly in relation to the access to services and facilities and the integration into the local community. Furthermore, the specific provisions of this part of the Policy will be reinforced by introducing additional elements as recommended above.

Lifetime Homes

2.438 A range of response was provided in relation to the Lifetime Homes requirements set out in Part (4) of the Policy, with some offering support and others objecting to the provisions. The general support towards the Lifetime Homes requirements is noted, as is the specific support directed towards the provision of a threshold and the recognition of requirements being conditional on viability and feasibility.

2.439 A number of respondents have suggested that the requirement is not justified by evidence of need and that the provisions should be either removed or be amended to simply encourage compliance, rather than requiring specific provision. Comment is also made that the Strategic Housing Market Assessment shows a much lower requirement. In response to the latter, figures(62) referenced in relation to that representation only relate to households registered to apply for social housing at a specific point in time and do not represent evidence of the wider need for adaptable or accessible accommodation over the Plan period. As noted in response to similar representations received to the Pre-Publication Draft of the Local Plan(63), the Strategic Housing Market Assessment Update identifies the growth in the older population as the greatest challenge facing the housing market in northern Devon(64), going on to state that housing will need to be provided to meet the housing requirements of older households; to meet their growing support and care needs and encourage downsizing(65). Further evidence shows that a significant proportion of households will have a support need over the

62 Table 4.4, Strategic Housing Market Assessment: Torridge and North Devon Update (Housing Vision, December 2012) 63 Paragraph 465, Appendix 1, North Devon and Torridge Local Plan – Publication Draft – Consultation Statement (June 2014) 64 Paragraph 7.7, Strategic Housing Market Assessment: Torridge and North Devon Update (Housing Vision, December 2012) 65 Paragraph 7.18, Strategic Housing Market Assessment: Torridge and North Devon Update (Housing Vision, December 2012)

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

lifetime of the Plan or are subject to disabilities(66). Whilst there is evidence to show that there is likely to be a need for housing that is capable of meeting particular support and care needs, it is accepted that that there is no robust evidence to quantify the scale of the need that is appropriate to be met through the imposition of the Lifetime Homes Standard on an explicit proportion of new dwellings.

2.440 Additionally, a number of respondents have indicated that they do not believe that the Lifetime Homes requirements set out in Part (4) conform with national planning policy as the provisions have not been demonstrated to be viable. The Viability Report(67) prepared to inform the development of the Local Plan and establish appropriate levels for the Community Infrastructure Levy, included consideration of requiring construction of dwellings to the Lifetime Homes Standard. It noted that the requirement “may not necessarily add significant cost but rather has design implications” (68) although it goes on to state that studies into the standard have identified that costs may range from £545 to £1,615 per dwelling. Whilst the Viability Report has considered the imposition of lifetime homes standard in general terms, the costs of the implementation of the requirements were not directly incorporated into the viability modelling. National planning policy(69) requires that Plans do not impose obligations and policy burdens on proposals to such an extent that their ability to be developed could be threatened on the basis of development viability. As the Lifetime Homes Standards have not been explicitly tested in this manner, it is not considered possible to demonstrate that their imposition would not threaten the viability of development.

2.441 To this end, whilst the requirements to provide a proportion of homes to Lifetime Homes Standard in the Plan are considered a sensible solution to help meet the specific housing needs of northern Devon’s communities, it is considered that it is not possible to provide adequate and proportionate evidence to support the advocated approach. To this end, it is considered that the retention of Part (4) of Policy ST17 as drafted - requiring a proportion of houses to be constructed to Lifetime Homes Standard, cannot be sustained as it is not justified.

2.442 A respondent has suggested that rather than setting out that an explicit proportions of dwellings should meet Lifetime Homes Standard, rather the Policy should rather encourage provision of dwellings that meet the Standard. Recognising that it is not possible to sustain the inclusion of the Policy as it stands, this approach is supported.

2.443 A respondent highlights that proposals are being put forward by the Government(70) to wind-down the use of the Lifetime Homes Standard and rather implement optional Building Regulations provisions for adaptable and accessible homes. Whilst it is recognised that the proposals may result in the replacement of the Lifetime Homes Standard with other provisions, at this time, the proposals are only subject to consultation and have not been implemented. Allied to the proposed amendments above, it is however considered sensible for the policy to reflect the direction of travel of the Housing Standards Review. In doing so, it is suggested that the policy is amended to encourage residential development proposals to provide dwellings that are accessible and adaptable by incorporating Lifetime Homes Standard principles.

Part (5)

66 Paragraph 11.8 – 11.17 & Figure 11.13, Torridge District Council 2012 Urban Housing Needs Assessment – Final Report (Justin Gardner Consulting, August 2012); Paragraph 2.3.6 – 2.3.7, North Devon Council Urban Housing Needs and Wants Survey 2007 (RAE Consulting, August 2007); Paragraphs 2.3.4-2.3.7, North Devon Council Rural Housing Needs Survey 2006 (RAE Consulting, 2007) 67 Economic Viability Assessment of Housing Development in North Devon and Torridge (Adams Integra, October 2013) 68 Paragraph 2.11.7, Economic Viability Assessment of Housing Development in North Devon and Torridge (Adams Integra, October 2013) 69 Paragraph 173, National Planning Policy Framework (CLG, March 2012) 70 Housing Standards Review: Technical Consultation (CLG, September 2014)

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

2.444 It is suggested that the wider Policies of the Plan do not realise the intent of Part (5) of the Policy that states that “affordable housing delivery will be pro-actively pursued to provide adequate and appropriate accommodation within all sub-markets to meet identified needs…”. Whilst the Plan is not likely to realise a scale of affordable housing delivery through the sites allocated for development to meet the full identified need for housing (due to viability considerations), the purpose of the clause is to highlight that the delivery of affordable housing should be positively pursued, using provisions such as those contained in Policy ST19: Affordable Housing on Exception Sites and through positive and pro-active working with partners and the community.

2.445 On reflection, it is considered that Part (5) of the Policy forms a statement rather than spatial policy and that the intent of the clause is covered satisfactorily in the existing supporting text (paragraph 7.23). As such, it is recommended that Part (5) of the Policy is deleted.

Part (6)

2.446 It is suggested through representation that Part (6) of the Policy is simply a statement and that it is unnecessary for it to be contained within Policy. This is supported. It is considered that the content of Part (6) of the Policy is satisfactorily covered by Aim 3 and the associated Objectives contained within Chapter 2 of the Plan, along with the supporting text in paragraph 7.23. As such, it is considered that Part (6) of the Policy is unnecessary. On this basis, it is therefore recommended that it is deleted.

Self-Build

2.447 Respondents seek amendment to the Plan to make explicit reference to self-build in order to recognise the provisions of national policy / guidance and to reflect that local projects consider such provision to be affordable. Allied to this, calls are made to enable the provision of self-build dwellings on unallocated sites. It is accepted that the existing draft of the Plan contains no explicit reference to self-build or custom-build dwellings and that this is an omission that should be addressed.

2.448 Whilst not explicitly identified within the draft Plan, self-build housing could be reasonably enabled through existing policy provisions. The principle of residential development is generally accepted within development boundaries of defined settlements (or the principal built form of defined settlements that do not have settlement boundaries) and self-build provision is not excluded from such opportunities. Further, subject to meeting appropriate criteria for affordability and being subject to appropriate ties, self-build dwellings may be enabled through Policy ST19: Affordable Housing on Exception Sites. It is considered neither appropriate nor necessary to enable the provision of self-build housing in locations that would not be considered acceptable under the wider spatial strategy of the Plan.

2.449 It is proposed that a statement is added under the supporting text to Policy ST17 to recognise that the Government is seeking to increase the supply of housing delivered through self-build and to note that the Councils will support the construction of self-build housing in accordance with the settlement strategy.

Local Needs Housing

2.450 Respondents call for the Plan to recognise the role of local needs housing, that is ‘affordable’ but available to those who are not on the housing register. It is not considered necessary for the Local Plan to make specific provisions to enable the delivery of ‘local needs housing’. The draft Plan provides a wide range of opportunities for the delivery of housing which are considered to satisfactorily offer opportunities to address such provision. The Plan enables the delivery of open market housing within a wide range of settlement, including a wide range of rural settlements where such provision

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

would have been historically restricted. Further, affordable housing to meet an identified local need can be exceptionally enabled through Policy ST19 on sites adjoining or well related to Local Centres and defined Villages. The flexible approach to the tenure of affordable housing enabled though this Policy is such that it could enable the delivery of low cost homes for sale under the intermediate tenure to meet an identified local need. These provisions, along with those that enable housing to meet the needs of rural workers (Policy DM28), the conversion of rural buildings for residential use (Policy DM27) and provision of additional accommodation on farms (Policy DM29) are considered appropriate to enable the provision of a range of housing appropriate to reflect local needs.

Live/work Housing

2.451 Representation suggests that the Local Plan should recognise live/work development as an employment and residential product in its own right, set out the support that such proposals would receive and set out the requirements for affordable homes, standards and other contributions. The Plan is currently silent on live/work development and it is recognised that such development should be afforded consideration within the Plan. It is not however considered appropriate or necessary to recognise live/work development as an employment and residential product in its own right. Rather, it is advocated that live/work development should be considered as a form of residential development. In doing so, live/work proposals would be subject to the same policy considerations as residential development. This would enable a range of opportunities for the provision of live/work development allowing it to come forward in the same locations and manner as other residential proposals. Subject to meeting specific policy criteria, live/work development could be supported in locations where residential development is currently enabled, such as within defined settlement boundaries, within the built form of defined settlements that are not subject to development boundaries (Policy DM23), in rural settlements (DM24), through the re-use of rural buildings (DM27) and the provision of rural workers’ accommodation (DM28). Noting that the Plan is intended to be read as a whole, wider policy provisions of the Plan would be applicable to such development, including the imposition of any standards or contributions that may be applicable to other residential development. Recognising the ‘work’ element of such development, Policy DM01: Amenity Considerations may also be particularly relevant. It is not considered appropriate or necessary to broaden the range of locations in which live-work development could come forward beyond those that would be afforded support for wider residential development. To conclude, existing policy provisions are considered to satisfactorily enable live-work development to come forward and it is not considered necessary to introduce specific policy provisions in relation to live-work proposals. Rather, it is considered appropriate to provide additional supporting text to clearly set out that such development will be considered in the manner set out above.

Other Matters

2.452 Whilst not necessarily a matter of soundness, upon review of the Policy and having regard to the changes recommended above, it is considered that the policy elements that are proposed to be retained, Parts (2), (3) and (4), could benefit from being simplified to provide clarity and to ease implementation. In doing so, it would not be the intention to substantively change the principles and scope of the policy but rather improve its effectiveness.

Part (2)

2.453 Reflecting on representations received that questioned how this part of the Policy would be implemented in practice, it is considered that Part (2) of the Policy could be rationalised and simplified. In doing so, it is suggested that superfluous wording is removed and the policy is reframed in a positive manner.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

2.454 It is considered that the policy can be simplified by seeking residential proposals to simply ‘reflect identified local housing need’ rather than requiring proposals to ‘(a) have regard to nature of the sub-market’, ‘(b) the scale and mix of existing housing in the locality’ and ‘(c) the needs and demands of all sectors of the community’. In doing so, this would also negate the need to reference major development proposals being required to be based upon an assessment of objectively assessed need for housing as this is covered satisfactorily by the wider clause. It is considered appropriate to continue to enable the mix of proposals to be influenced by the character and context of the development site along with development viability.

Part (3)

2.455 Reflecting on the representations that suggested alternative policy wording with regard to the provision of specialist accommodation, it is considered that Part (3) of the Policy could be simplified to be more focussed whilst retaining all of the key policy requirements.

Part (4)

2.456 With regard to Part (4) relating to Lifetime Homes, it could benefit from minor rewording and restructuring to enable it to be more precise and effective.

Conclusion

2.457 A range of matters are raised through representation in relation to Policy ST17, some of which raise matters that could potentially impact on the soundness of the Plan. As such a series of amendments are recommended to address matters of soundness. A further series of changes are recommended in the interests of simplification and to enable the Policy to be more effective.

Actions Agreed

2.458 The following are agreed as Main Changes to the Plan:

1. Delete Part (1) of Policy ST17:

“ (1) All new residential development will contribute towards the creation of sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities by providing housing that reflects the needs of present and future generations whilst improving the balance of the local housing market and sub-markets. ”

2. Amend Part (2) of Policy ST17 to read:

“ (2) The scale and mix of new dwellings, including affordable housing provision, will respond to specific local circumstances in terms of dwelling numbers, size, type and tenure. Major residential developments will be required to be based upon an assessment of objectively assessed needs for housing. All new residential development will have regard to the:

(a) nature of the local housing sub-market;

(b) scale and mix of existing housing in the locality;

(c) needs and demands of all sectors of the community;

(d) character and context of the individual development site; and

(e) development viability.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Housing Scale and Mix

(1) The scale and mix of dwellings, in terms of dwelling numbers, type, size and tenure provided through development proposals should reflect identified local housing needs, subject to consideration of:

(a) site character and context; and

(b) development viability. ”

3. Define ‘ local housing needs ’ in the Glossary.

4. Amend Part (3) of Policy ST17 to read:

“ (3) Proposals will be supported where they take opportunities to contribute to addressing the specialist accommodation needs of northern Devon’s communities. Development proposals will respond to the specific requirements of an ageing population, along with other vulnerable members of the community who require care and specialist needs, by delivering appropriate accommodation in a way that enables them to access the services and facilities they require and integrates them into the local community.

Specialist Accommodation

(2) Within development boundaries, or the principal built form of defined settlements without settlement boundaries, proposals for specialist accommodation will be supported where they:

(a) meet an identified local need;

(b) are proportionate in scale to the locality;

(c) are located so they are accessible to local facilities; and

(d) provide necessary ancillary facilities as part of the development, that complement locally available amenities and, where possible, be made available to the wider community.”

5. Amend Part (4) of Policy ST17 to read:

“ On sites greater than 10 units, all affordable housing and at least 20% of market units on each site will meet Lifetime Homes standards, unless it can be demonstrated that it is not technically feasible or financially viable.

Accessible and Adaptable Homes

(3) Residential development proposals will be encouraged to provide accessible and adaptable homes by incorporating principles of the Lifetime Homes Standard or other equivalent provisions. ”

6. Delete Part (5) of Policy ST17:

“ (5) Delivery of affordable housing will be pro-actively pursued to provide adequate and appropriate accommodation within all sub-markets to meet the identified needs of those households who are unable to access open market housing. ”

7. Delete Part (6) of Policy ST17:

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

“ (6) During the period 2011 - 2031, opportunities will be taken to maximise the delivery of affordable housing to help towards achieving the objectively assessed needs of northern Devon. ”

8. Add definition of ‘Specialist accommodation’ to Glossary to read “Accommodation that incorporates an intrinsic element of care, support or supervision for the residents.”

9. Add new supporting text to directly precede Policy ST17 to read:

“All new residential development should contribute towards the creation of sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities by providing housing that reflects the needs of present and future generations whilst improving the balance of the local housing market and sub-markets.”

10. Amend paragraph 7.10 to read:

“The scale and distribution of housing to be delivered in northern Devon between 2011 and 2031 is dealt with by established through Policy ST08: Scale and Distribution of New Development in northern Devon. Policy ST17 seeks to ensure that residential development proposals deliver this housing in a way that contributes to the re-balanci ng of the housing stock market to ensure that appropriate housing is delivered to meet help it better reflect the identified needs and demands for housing of both existing and future communities of northern Devon, whilst helping foster sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities that are attractive places to live. This enables the re-balancing of the housing market by In doing so, the Policy supports ing residential development proposals that deliver a mix of dwellings, in terms of size, and type and tenure which respond to local circumstances. All housing residential development proposals should aim will be expected to positively contribute to a re-balanced ing the housing sub-market within which the site resides.”

11. Delete paragraphs 7.11 and 7.12.

12. Insert new subheading preceding paragraph 7.13 to read: “Housing Mix”

13. Insert new text following paragraph 7.13 to read:

“In deriving an appropriate housing mix, development proposals should respond to a broad range of matters and have regard to development viability. The Policy recognises that the character and context of an individual development site may influence or constrain the types of residential development that are appropriate in individual circumstances.

Major residential developments (10 or more net new dwellings) should provide a balanced and proportionate mix of dwelling sizes and types to reflect the identified housing needs and demands for the locality, subject to consideration of site character and context and development viability.”

14. Delete paragraph 7.14:

“7.14 The Joseph Rowntree Foundation Lifetime Homes Standard is part of a national strategy for housing in an ageing society. Designing homes and communities so that people can live in their homes independently, safely and for as long as possible, will promote sustainable communities and ensure social cohesion. All major developments will be expected to provide a proportion of dwellings that meet the Lifetime Homes standard unless it can be demonstrated that it is not technically feasible or financially viable.”

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

15. Insert new subheading following paragraph 7.14 to read: “Accessible and Adaptable Homes”

16. Insert new paragraph following sub-heading “Accessible and Adaptable Homes” to read:

“Recognising that a number of elderly households and those from other sectors of the community are likely to have a need for adaptable or accessible homes over the lifetime of the Plan, as part of providing a mix of housing to meet local housing needs, residential development proposals will be encouraged to provide dwellings that are accessible or adaptable where a need for such provision is identified. In doing so, they should seek to meet Lifetime Homes Standard (or any equivalent successor provisions), or include such principles within their design.”

17. Insert new heading preceding paragraph 7.15 to read “Specialist Accommodation”

18. Amend paragraph 7.15 and 7.16 to read:

“7.15 The Local Plan will support the provision of specialist accommodation to meet the identified needs of all sectors of the community. Proposals for specialist accommodation, such as sheltered housing, close-care or extra-care housing, will be supported where they meet an identified local need for the type of accommodation being proposed. Proposals should ensure that they enable occupants appropriate access to relevant residents are able to access public transport and local services and facilities. and they support the integration of those residents into the local community. Proposals should also provide necessary ancillary facilities as part of the development to meet the needs of the intended occupants, in a manner that complements those services and facilities that are available locally. Where reasonable and practical to do so, facilities provided through proposals should be made available to the wider community.

7.16 Recognising the specific accommodation requirements of the elderly population and to support the viability of development proposals, extra-care schemes Proposals for specialist accommodation should provide a mix of units that respond to identified needs for the particular section of the community that they seek to accommodate. They will not be expected to provide a balanced and proportionate mix of dwelling types and sizes that is applicable to accommodating the identified local needs for general needs housing of the wider population. , although they Proposals should however still contribute to re-balancing the wider housing market and the provision of a broader balanced housing mix as part of any larger development.”

19. Insert new heading and text following paragraph 7.18 to read:

“Self Build

The Government is seeking to increase the supply of housing through self build schemes (including individually built properties, custom built developer schemes and the provision of self build housing through co-operatives and community land trusts). The Councils will support the construction of self build schemes where they accord with the wider spatial strategy and will keep under review how to provide appropriate support for such development.”

20. Insert new heading and text following proposed insertion on Self-Build, as per recommendation 18 above, to read:

“Live/Work Development

Live/work development will be considered as a form of residential development and will be afforded support where it accords with the relevant policies of the Local Plan.“

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Policy ST18: Affordable Housing on Development Sites

Comments made in response to Policy ST18: Affordable Housing on Development Sites

Total Number of Responses 127

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 12 22

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 1 64

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 23 19

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy ST18: Affordable Housing on Development Sites and plp number supporting text

Support the requirement for the delivery of affordable housing 1087, 2696

Support the provision of 30% affordable housing 2235

Support affordable housing being identified as a priority, having regard to high 949 levels of affordable housing need.

Consider that the Plan doesn’t comply with paragraph 47 of the NPPF in that it 667, 2587 doesn’t meet the full objectively assessed need for market and affordable housing.

Scale of housing proposed through Local Plan is likely to significantly constrain 2587 the scope for meeting affordable housing needs. Increase housing numbers to boost delivery of affordable housing in line with para 29 of the NPPG.

Evidence (SHMA) indicates a need for significant amount of affordable housing 1805 delivery, linked to an acute issue of housing affordability. Question how the plan will address this issue when ‘over half of all housing’ needs to be affordable, with significant majority required to be social rented housing.

Need to increase the overall strategic housing requirement as the plan fails to 2664 make provision to meet full affordable housing need which will lead to a worsening affordability of housing. This is exacerbated because the Plan provides for a reduced strategic housing requirement and seeks social rented housing as a priority.

Consider the policy to be unjustified on the basis that insufficient consideration 2388 has been given to reasonable alternatives, such as increasing the overall scale of housing or varying levels of affordable housing requirements.

Plan is considered unsound as approach of seeking proportion of dwellings on 1150 development sites as affordable housing is unworkable and will not deliver required level of affordable dwellings, with level negotiated down by developers.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

How will delivery of affordable housing, to meet identified needs, be achieved 1805 when developers are seeking to reduce contributions?

Object to the provision of future housing, considering that most is likely to be 2152 unaffordable to local communities, and likely to be purchased by those outside of the area.

Need proactive programme to develop Council owned land and purchase market 1150 properties for delivery of affordable housing.

Unclear how objective of responding to local circumstances (Part (2) of ST17) 2388 will be achieved through the imposition of a fixed affordable housing requirement.

Concern that policy might impact on smaller ‘local’ house builders by adversely 1087 impacting viability of schemes.

Concern that policy might impact on ambition to deliver dwellings to Lifetime 1087 Homes Standard

Policy needs to allow adjustment to affordable housing provision on basis of 1132, 1268, development viability. 1543, 2544 (HBF), 2418, The following detailed specific points are made in respect of this matter: 2315, 2473, 2467, 1603, Current approach is insufficiently flexible is contrary to national policy (1132, 2145, 2178, 1268, 1419) 757, 949, 1009, not doing so might impact on delivery of critical infrastructure and delivery 1132, 1511, of acceptable and sustainable development (1268) 2418, 2554, to reflect guidance in the NPPF and NPPG (2696, 1132) 2537, 2696, propose reinstatement of Clause (4) from DM20 in the Pre-Publication Draft 1419 of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan (1132) Policy does not conform with paragraph 173 of NPPF (2315) Propose amendment to cite viability “30% affordable housing delivery unless the viability of the development can be proven to be undermined by that requirement, in which case a lower percentage of affordable housing can be negotiated.”. (2315) Propose previous wording (pre-publication draft) of ST18 is re-instated – “…whilst having regard to the viability of development”. (plp2473) Amend Part (3) to include consideration of viability when looking at the acceptability of off-site or financial contributions – “…on-site provision is not possible, viable or appropriate.” (1603) make explicit and clear reference to the use of a viability assessment to demonstrate that a departure from the normal approach will be acceptable and that the Council will accept the conclusions of such analysis provided this robustly justified. (2145, 2178) allow scale of provision to be adjusted (757) failure to do so risks the strategy by discouraging smaller / complex sites to come forward. (949) enable reduction of planning obligations and affordable housing. (1009) advocates amendment to Part (3) to ensure that provisions aren’t overly onerous, subject to high cost burdens, achievable in weaker markets or

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

subject to other extenuating circumstances that would render site / scheme unviable and undeliverable. (2554, 2537) Enable negotiation on the percentage and tenure mix of affordable housing (2696)

Requiring full viability assessments: 1557, 544 from all sites is considered unreasonable. (1557) from small sites is considered an unreasonable upfront cost. (544)

Statement in Part (5) offering the opportunity to depart from requirements subject 2145, 2178 to robust justification requires clarification. Does it apply to the policy as a whole or only this part? If only part, flexibility needs to be introduced into wider policy to allow departure from policy requirements where justified.

Unreasonable to require developer funded independent viability advice on all 1604, 1678, sites – approach should be addressed on a site by site basis. 1758, 1893, 1988, 2556, Respondent (1604) proposes third sentence of paragraph 7.27 should be deleted. 2538 Respondent (2556) seeks removal of requirement and proposes revised wording for paragraph 7.27:

“The obligation will lay with the developer to provide a robust financial justification to support any proposals falling below identified policy requirements. The local planning authority will consider such requests on the basis of an open book financial appraisal of development viability. Where it is demonstrated that scheme viability prohibits meeting the full policy requirements for the provision of affordable housing and / or other planning obligations, the local planning authority will enter negotiations to vary the proportion and or mix of affordable housing required.”

Respondent (2538) seeks amendments:

“The obligation will lay with the developer to provide a robust financial justification to support any proposals falling below identified policy requirements. The local planning authority will consider such requests on the basis of an open book financial appraisal of development viability. If it is deemed necessary to independently verify the appraisal, following agreement the developer will be liable for reasonable costs incurred to the local planning authority in doing so. Where it is clearly demonstrated that scheme viability prohibits meeting the full policy requirements for the provision of affordable housing and / or other planning obligations , the local planning authority will may enter negotiations to vary the required scale and/or mix of proportion and / or mix of affordable housing provision.”

With respect to approach of linking requirements to open market value in Part 949, 2035, (1): 2263, 1771, Should be amended to refer to proportion of dwellings (1132, 1504, 1542, 1677, 1756, 1495, 1761, 2153, 2692, 2696) 1986, 1892, not considered appropriate (949) 2153, 2177, will make determination of requirements protracted and unclear (2035, 2263) 2035, 2263, 3445,

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Not reasonable to require developers to pay for independent assessment of 1677,1756, sales values (1771) 1986, 1892, Clarification is required as to when the assessment of the value of the 2445, 816, contribution will be required and when payment will be expected. (1771) 1678, 1758, will result in requirements being open to subjective application, miscalculation 1893, 1988, and misunderstanding. (1677, 1756, 1986, 1892, 2153, 2177) 2263, 2692 will result in significant implementation difficulties (2035, 2263) will result in time wasting and mistrust (3445) will result in required financial contributions not being able to be realised until all dwellings on scheme are sold (1677, 1756, 1986, 1892, 2445) Likely to cause significant problems and concerns for development industry (2566) be challenging to establish at the planning stage where market values will be uncertain and housing mix may be undefined (2566 ,757, 1865). Not justified or consistent with national guidance (2566) Likely to lead to policy being found unsound (2566) Existing approach is confusing and not justified (1542, 2692) not the common approach to calculating affordable housing provision on-site. (757) Part (1)(a) should simply refer to provision of 30% of total housing on site as affordable (1865) confusing as provision should be based on delivery of free land only (816) wholly inappropriate benchmark or mechanism to apply (887, 943) is not supported by related evidence (887, 943) Alternative wording proposed to ensure consistency with viability evidence: “On-site provision of affordable housing will be equivalent to [30%] of all dwellings on site;” (887, 943) is incorrectly worded, misrepresenting the true intention, and should be corrected (887, 943) is confusing, open to interpretation and unsound (2263) assume ‘value’ is an error and propose it’s removal (2078) unreasonable, unclear and ambiguous (2153, 2177) fails to comply with paragraph 154 of the NPPF (2153, 2177) poorly drafted, misleading (757, 795) not considered to be positively prepared (757, 795) Question how approach of linking requirements to open market value has been factored into calculations of CIL viability (1678, 1758, 1893, 1988) Policy should be revised in line with standard policy as per recommendations in the Viability Report (2263, 2692)

The financial contribution required through Part (1)(b): 544, 1441, are not calculated in line with findings of Viability Report (2553, 1435) 1560, 2553, are not compliant with paragraph 50 or 154 of the NPPF (816, 1439) 2535, 816, should relate to cost of provision and not the value of dwellings / scheme 1439, 1435 (816, 544, 1441, 1560, 2553, 2535) should relate to residual land value of plots (816, 1439) amendment is particularly important for small sites (816, 1439)

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Method for calculating off-site affordable housing contributions should be published. 1771, 816, Respondents (1771, 816, 1439, 949) advocate that this is set out in the Plan. 1439, 949, 659, Respondents (1771, 1439) advocate replicating the method set out in the viability 2561, 2543 report. A number of respondents (659, 2561, 2543) state that the approach to calculating financial contributions should be published and made available for comment before being implemented.

The policy should be revised to provide a clearer policy preference for on-site 757, 2235 affordable housing provision so as to create mixed communities (2235)

Paragraph 484 - If affordable housing provided ‘off-site’, will it get delivered in the 484 same settlement?

In relation to Bratton Flemming, would affordable housing get delivered in the 484 settlement, or in Ilfracombe? Propose removal of The Glebe Field from the Plan as it is unsuitable for affordable housing.

Paragraph 7.27 – seek clarification of the interpretation of ‘smaller’ in relation to 2655 the application of flexibility for the on-site delivery of affordable units.

Proportions of affordable housing required should be specified as a maximum 760 and not a minimum to allow flexibility and ensure compliance with paragraph 50 of the NPPF.

Level of affordable housing should be expressed as a target and not a requirement 757, 1132, subject to application of a viability appraisal (2418) 2544 (HBF), 2418

Respondent (plp757)proposes amendments to Part (1) to: 757

“(a) on-site provision will be sought for up to 30% of dwellings to be affordable homes as a target unless economic viability and/or technical feasibility reasons justify a lower level of provision.

(b) off-site provision or a financial contribution equivalent in value to providing a target of up to 30% of all dwellings on-site as affordable homes unless economic viability and/or technical feasibility reasons justify a lower level of provision.”

Consider that 30% affordable housing requirement is: 161, 645, 877, not supported by evidence (161, 645, 877, 1556) 544, 1556, not justified (544) 1982, 2445, not viable (1556) 2544 not reflective of recent approved schemes around Barnstaple would suggest that 30% is not an achievable target (1982, 2445) not viable on many sites - particularly smaller ones, given current market conditions (760) may be overly ambitious / unrealistic as evidence of achieved levels of affordable housing (Table 3.10 in SHMA Update) show historical delivery to be lower than the proposed 30%. (2544)

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Provision not justified by viability evidence as it: 757, 1788, contains out-of-date construction costs, doesn’t take account of revised 1442, 1514, building regulation requirements, Lifetime Homes, Code for Sustainable 2643, 2544 Homes Requirements nor compliance with all local plan policies (i.e. ST05, (HBF) ST16, ST17, DM08) (1442, 1514, 2643, 1788) Isn’t proven that the proposed affordable housing requirements, CIL rates and other policy requirements are economically viable. (2544, 757) Not sufficiently robust for viability assessment to simply assume that Code for Sustainable Homes requirements will have ‘little impact on the viability of schemes’ (para. 2.11.7). Implied that the current requirements might not enable a competitive return to be provided to a willing land owner and developer as states that Members may choose to set a lower affordable / CIL requirement to encourage development on a profitable basis, and as such be non-compliant with paragraph 173 of the NPPF (para. 4.2.4). Policy doesn’t comply with paragraphs 173 and 174 of NPPF. (2643, 1442)

The following alternative affordable housing requirement should be sought: 161, 645, 877, 25% as it is evidenced to be viable (161, 645) 1210, 2388 20% as it will lead to the delivery of more affordable housing overall (877) 40% as 30% is inadequate and will not address identified needs (1210) 40% on large greenfield sites in line with Viability Report (2388)

To ensure viability, propose variation of provision based on scale of delivery: 953 requirement on smaller sites (less than three) linked to value of site; On-site: 2-10 dwellings – 20%, 11+ dwellings – 25%; Off-site: 2-3 dwellings – 20% (site value only), 4-10 dwellings – 20%, 11+ dwellings – 25%;

Evidence (2008 NP SHMA) shows significant differential in affordable housing 2388 need between North Devon (120%) and Torridge (75%) but policy applies a uniform approach and as such policy is considered unsound as it is unjustified and ineffective.

Propose variable affordable housing and CIL requirements aligned to housing 2544 (HBF) sub-market areas and Value Points identified in the Viability Report.

Plan doesn’t make a commitment to the preparation of an SPD, in line with the 1514 advice within the Viability Report (para. 3.7.22), to support the implementation of the Policy and in particular the calculation of financial contributions.

Comment being sought on policies without full understanding of affordable housing 2561, 2543 priorities and approach to calculation of financial contributions.

Expected methodology for assessing viability and its practical application should 2561, 2543 be published and made available for comment before being implemented.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

The current lack of threshold is not supported and one should be introduced. A 1511, 1514, range of justification is offered: 1557, 953, 949, To enable realistic level of affordable housing to be provided (1511) 760, 2144, not supported by evidence (viability report focuses on assessment of larger 2176, 1761, sites / doesn’t consider all cost burdens) (1514) 650, 544 small site / windfall delivery will be constrained (1514, 650, 1557, 544) Forms a significant departure from existing Plans (1514) exclude infill and rounding off-sites, particularly in rural settlements (953) exclude small sites subject to known constraints to remove need for negotiation and so as to not impact on this source of housing supply (949) Because it will impact on local building firms as smaller schemes will no longer be viable (760) To enable housing to be continue to come forward on smaller schemes that helps with delivery of required housing (760). Because current approach is unsound, not supported by evidence and represents an undue burden on development. (2144, 2176) Will deter development and diminish affordable housing delivery. (2144, 2176) Likely to be problematic in practice, given approach linking requirement to open market value (1761) Provision of a viability appraisal is not considered practical for private property owners (650) Impact on supply of windfalls upon which plan relies (544)

Policy requirements are inconsistent with current Government thinking (following 2539 (HBF) Housing Standards Review).

Windfall sites for single dwellings and conversions of redundant buildings should 645 be excluded from affordable housing requirements to help the delivery of homes to meet needs in rural communities and to encourage investment in town centres.

Propose a threshold of 3 or more dwellings as current provisions are considered 651 unworkable for owner /occupiers seeking to deliver single dwelling.

Propose introducing dwelling threshold of 5 net new dwellings as this is considered 762 reasonable.

Propose 10-unit threshold on the basis of: 1514 Policy conflicting with Government’s stated intention to introduce a 10-unit threshold for section 106 affordable housing contributions; Viability Report recognising that for smaller sites “the residual land value produced by a residential development may be increasingly marginal” (para. 4.1.3) provisions will negatively impact on the delivery of market and affordable housing. Policy is not prepared in accordance with paragraphs 173 and 174 of NPPF.

Propose 12-unit threshold on the basis of: 1603 Recommendation 1 of the Viability Report advocating this level;

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Viability Report recognising that for smaller sites “the residual land value produced by a residential development may be increasingly marginal” (para. 4.1.3) provisions will negatively impact on the delivery of market and affordable housing.

Propose 10-unit threshold on the basis of: 1670, 1750, Requirements for all residential developments to provide affordable housing 1985, 1891, being contrary to provisions of ST17 2445 Policy conflicting with Government’s stated intention to introduce a 10-unit threshold for section 106 affordable housing contributions; provisions will result in the failure to deliver small/ in-fill sites; provisions will result in debate over viability regarding all development

The tenure split in Part (4) is too restrictive. The following detailed comments are 544, 1132, made in relation to this matter: 1566, 1555, should be expressed as a target (1132); 815, 1435, doesn’t serve the needs of the younger population (544, 1566) 1553, 2653, will provide lowest supply numbers because of high social rented requirement 161, 760, 1544, and should be amended to enable greatest supply (1555) 1676, 1760, should reflect national policy that enables delivery through a range of means 1987, 1894, including rented, shared ownership and self-build (815, 1435) 2541 social rented requirement likely to restrict delivery because of lack of funding (815, 1435, 2645) Should be amended to enable affordable rented and self-build to come forward as affordable housing (815, 1435) Low cost / sub-market housing should be regarded as affordable – it is what most communities want (1553, 1676, 1760, 1987, 1894, 161) Approach does not comply with NPPF (paras 28 and 50) (1553) Priority for social rented might not be achievable given funding – affordable rent might offer an alternative (2653) Setting proportions for the type of "affordable" housing in a policy that will be around for many years again is insufficiently flexible – doesn’t accord with NPPF (para. 50). (760) Should be open to open to negotiation on a site-by-site basis accounting for viability and changes over the Plan period (1544) Should allow amendment on the basis of development viability (2541) mix for individual proposals should be based on submitted evidence and seek to maximise the scale of affordable housing delivery. (161) Respondent (2541) proposes amendment to paragraph 7.29 to reflect allowance of variation to tenure mix on the basis of development viability: “A variation to tenure mix split can be will be supported where the applicant can demonstrate more up to date evidence than the Strategic Housing Market Assessment: North Devon and Torridge Update (2012) and / or justification on the basis of development viability.”

Policy needs to make provision for self-build housing for local need, custom-build 544, 1566, or community build, noting that local authorities should include this type of housing 2644, 499, 654 in their assessments of housing need and make provision for it.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Plan should enable delivery of wider range of housing to meet local needs, 647, 762, 760 including dwellings for the elderly (762), key workers (647) and retiring agricultural / forestry workers (647). Local needs tend to be used just in the "affordable" sense and that is clearly the over-emphasis in the policy (760).

Policy doesn’t provide for sub-market housing that would better serve local 161 residents. Propose amendment to require 25% affordable housing, with amended definition and tenure split to enable 50% social rented and 50% sub-open market housing.

The tenure split required by policy is not that used within the Viability Report. 1780

Priority for social rented tenure is not appropriate: 1784, 1568, does not accord with government’s preferred rental tenure of Affordable Rent 2522 (1784) isn’t justified by SHMA evidence, given the changed role of Affordable Rent since it’s publication (1784) Affordable Rent is integral to Registered Provider’s development plans (1784) Failure to recognise Affordable Rent in inconsistent with national guidance and provides for an ineffective policy (1784) does not meet the needs of the area’s younger people (1568, 2522)

Should enable a ‘cascade’ of tenure on basis of no take up from a Registered 2558 Provider and enable variation on basis of viability.. Respondent (2558) proposes amendment to third sentence of paragraph 7.29:

“A variation of tenure mix will be supported where the applicant can demonstrate more up to date evidence than the Strategic Housing Market Assessment: North Devon and Torridge Update (2012) and / or justification on the basis of development viability. Flexible S106 provisions to enable a ‘cascade’ from one tenure type to another will be provided to aid delivery, where it can be demonstrated that there is/ will be no take up from a Registered Provider for a particular tenure type.”

Consider that the approach of seeking the recycling of shared ownership receipts 2523, 1569 into further affordable housing is flawed and that the monies simply pay towards the dwelling, with the occupant paying a mortgage towards the debt.

Plan does not recognise the contribution of non-registered housing providers e.g 566 Community Land Trusts( CLTs) and Community Self Build. Modifications are required to: Include non-registered providers; Allow for other methods of disposal e.g by equity-mortgage whereby freehold interests can be sold with an equity interest held by a CLT. recognize that affordable rental schemes can be provided by non-registered providers but not at a Social Rent or at 80% of Market rent.

Part (5) repeats provisions of ST17 and should be removed. 2039, 2264, 2544 (HBF)

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Part (5)is idealist and likely to prove impractical to deliver in practice. More flexible 757 approach should be adopted to:

take account of the funding of developments and the need to keep costs low at the outset of a development where infrastructure costs are often at their highest; and to take account of the practical management issues of dealing with affordable housing dispersed throughout a development site.

Policy should ensure affordable housing can be delivered without prejudice to the overall objectives of the plan to deliver a choice of new homes to meet community needs.

Affordable housing should be protected from being marketed those wishing to 192 buy a second home.

Proposed occupancy restrictions will result in households in rural communities 657 not being eligible to occupy. Aim should be to maintain vibrant communities through provision of housing stock that is not available to second home owners but always available to local families. Approach of using Devon Home Choice for assessing eligibility should be removed or else policy included to allow for local needs housing, which are discounted in perpetuity, subject to local occupancy conditions but not subject to Devon Home Choice eligibility assessment.

Occupancy should be subject to a ceiling on income. 657, 1152

Support local occupancy restrictions as defined. 1570, 2524

The requirement in Part (6) for affordable housing to remain available in perpetuity 799 is unrealistic. Propose removal of “in perpetuity” from the clause.

Part (6) repeats provisions of ST17 and should be removed. 2039, 2264, 2544 (HBF)

New homes should be affordable and for local people and avoid second homes 2172 investment.

Plan concludes that the affordable housing requirements are considered robust 2670 and achievable, yet text in 12.113 refers to ongoing work on viability, which is acknowledged as potentially changing policy. Paragraph 12.117 clearly cannot be stated with any certainty and should only be included when it can.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Additional information

2.459 On the 28th November 2014, a written ministerial statement(71) by the Minister of State for the Department for Communities and Local Government, Brandon Lewis, set out measures to restrict the ability of local planning authorities to seek affordable housing and section 106 planning obligations on small-scale housing proposals. The ministerial statement was supported by changes to the National Planning Practice Guidance(72).

2.460 The statement establishes a new national threshold that makes it clear that proposals for ten-units or less which have a maximum of 1,000 square metres gross floorspace should not be subject to affordable housing requirements or tariff-style planning obligations. Discretion is however provided to allow local planning authorities to choose to implement a lower threshold of five-units or less within designated rural areas. If such an approach is followed, authorities may then choose to seek financial contributions towards affordable housing provision and tariff style planning obligations on schemes of six to ten dwellings in those areas. On-site provision of affordable housing would not be supported on these smaller qualifying sites in rural areas and financial contributions could only be collected upon completion of the dwellings.

2.461 The ability to seek affordable housing through the release of rural exception sites is not impacted by these changes. The provisions do however apply to all residential annexes and extensions. The statement relates the introduction of the new provisions on the disproportionate burden that affordable housing and planning obligations currently place on small-scale developers.

2.462 Further provisions are introduced under the guise of boosting development on brownfield land. Proposals that bring vacant buildings back into any lawful use or demolish them for re-development are subject to an affordable housing discount, in the form of a ‘financial credit’, that is proportionate to the gross floorspace of the vacant buildings.

Proposal Provisions

Residential development proposals for: All forms of affordable housing provision and 11 or more dwellings; or tariff-style planning obligations. more than 1,000 square metres of gross residential floorspace, irrespective of the number of dwellings.

In designated rural areas, residential Financial contributions towards affordable development proposals for six to ten dwellings. housing provision and tariff-style planning (Optional) obligations.

Residential annexes and extensions. No affordable housing provision or tariff-style planning obligations.

Vacant buildings brought back into any lawful Affordable housing provision subject to discount use or demolished for re-development. proportionate to ‘financial credit’ linked to the gross floorspace of the vacant buildings.

71 Written Ministerial Statement, Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis), Column 54WS-57WS, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm141128/wmstext/141128m0001.htm#14112842000008 72 Paragraphs 012-023 (Planning Obligations), National Planning Practice Guidance (Department for Communities and Local Government), http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/planning-obligations/planning-obligations-guidance/

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

2.463 The ministerial statement and associated changes to national planning practice guidance have significant implications for the draft Plan and for the associated delivery of affordable housing across northern Devon. It is clear that the new national provisions will have an adverse impact on the quantity of affordable housing that would be delivered across the plan period, given that the draft Plan sought to introduce requirements for all residential development proposals, from a single dwelling upward, to contribute to affordable housing delivery. A not-insignificant number of proposals will now be removed from the scope of contributing towards affordable housing delivery.

2.464 In terms of implications for the Plan resulting from the imposition of new national thresholds, there are considered to be two key aspects that warrant attention:

The detailed provisions of Policy ST18: Affordable Housing on Development Sites – how do these need to be amended to reflect the new national provisions? Implications on the wider strategy and the overall scale of housing growth – what reasonable alternatives need to be explored? Is there a need to increase the overall housing target to compensate for any resultant loss of affordable housing?

2.465 On the 6th January 2015, the Executive at North Devon Council resolved to apply a threshold of 5 units or less for affordable housing and tariff style infrastructure contributions through planning obligations be adopted in the designated rural areas of the North Devon District where allowed by Government policy and guidance (currently all parishes with the exception of Barnstaple, Ilfracombe and Fremington). A report recommending that the lower threshold is applied to designated rural areas in Torridge (currently all parishes with the exception of Bideford, Great Torrington and Northam) is being considered by Full Council on 12th January 2015.

Changes Required to Policy ST18

2.466 It is evident that the new national provisions make it necessary to introduce a threshold into Policy ST18. It is clear that the starting point for establishing such a threshold is the requirement to remove proposals for 10-units or less and which have a maximum of 1,000 square metres of gross floorspace, from affordable housing requirements. To implement this requirement, it is recommended that Part (1) of Policy ST18 is amended to establish a threshold and in doing so, state: ‘(xx) Proposals for 11 or more dwellings, or for the provision of greater than 1,000 square metres gross residential floorspace irrespective of the number of dwellings, will be expected to provide on-site delivery of affordable housing equal to 30% of all dwellings on site;’. It will also be necessary to make a range of consequential amendments and additions to the supporting text.

2.467 Allied to the introduction of the principal threshold set out above, it is necessary to consider whether the opportunity to introduce a lower threshold within designated rural areas should be taken up. In doing so, residential development proposals for six to ten dwellings within those areas would become eligible to provide financial contributions towards affordable housing and tariff-based planning obligations.

2.468 To help inform the decision regarding the introduction of a lower threshold, it is first necessary to understand the scope of the geographical area to which it may apply. This is considered relevant as it may have a significant impact on the scale of affordable housing delivery that might be realised from the introduction of the lower threshold. The new provisions link the potential to apply a lower

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

rural threshold to ‘designated rural areas’ which is in turn tied to a legislative definition(73). Upon reviewing the relevant legislative provisions(74), it is considered that within northern Devon the designation would cover:

the North Devon Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB); all parishes in North Devon with the exception of Barnstaple, Fremington and Ilfracombe; and all parishes in Torridge with the exception of Bideford, Great Torrington and Northam.

2.469 As such, the national provisions would enable a lower threshold to be applied across all rural areas within northern Devon and have the consequence of enabling financial contributions to affordable housing to be sought across these areas on residential development proposals for six to ten dwellings. Unfortunately, it would not however maintain the opportunity to seek on-site deliver of affordable housing on such proposals.

2.470 The collection of financial contributions for affordable housing within rural areas is not considered an ideal solution, recognising that it may be challenging to find appropriate mechanisms and schemes to spend the resultant contributions. In collecting them, it will be increasingly important for the local planning authorities to take a pro-active approach to the delivery of affordable housing and to managing the spend of any financial contributions that are collected. However, given that on-site delivery cannot be secured on such schemes and that there is a significant identified need for affordable housing across northern Devon, it is considered that the Local Plan should seek to introduce a lower affordable housing threshold within designated rural areas. In doing so, proposals would also be eligible to be subjected to tariff-based planning obligations, maintaining the opportunity to seek contributions towards wider infrastructure provision within the communities where they are constructed.

2.471 To implement this requirement, it is recommended that an additional clause is inserted into Policy ST18 to read: ‘(xx) In designated rural areas, including the North Devon Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, proposals for 6 to 10 dwellings will be expected to provide a financial contribution of broadly equivalent value to providing on-site affordable housing equal to 30% of all dwellings on site;’. It will also be necessary to make a range of consequential amendments and additions to the supporting text. In doing so, it is considered appropriate to formally acknowledge within the supporting text that the Councils intend to implement the lower threshold in designated rural areas.

2.472 It is also necessary to introduce amendments to Policy ST18 to reflect the new provisions relating to vacant buildings. National practice guidance(75) requires that ‘where a vacant building is brought back into any lawful use, or are demolished to be replaced by new buildings, 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 may be sought’. The guidance(76) goes on to note that buildings that have been abandoned are excluded from these provisions.

73 Section 157 of the Housing Act 1985 74 Section 157 of the Housing Act 1985 and The Housing (Right to Buy) (Designated Rural Areas and Designated Regions)(England) Order 1981 75 Paragraph 021, Planning Obligations (Reference ID: 23b-021-20131128), National Planning Practice Guidance (Department for Communities and Local Government), http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/planning-obligations/planning-obligations-guidance/ 76 Paragraph 023, Planning Obligations (Reference ID: 23b-023-20141128), National Planning Practice Guidance (Department for Communities and Local Government), http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/planning-obligations/planning-obligations-guidance/

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

2.473 This is not a topic currently reflected within Policy ST18 and as such it will be necessary to introduce new elements to cover the matter. To implement this requirement, it is recommended that an additional clause is inserted into Policy ST18 to read: ‘(xx) As part of residential development proposals, where vacant buildings are brought back into any lawful use, or are demolished to be replaced by new buildings, the affordable housing requirement for the proposal will be discounted by a proportion equivalent to the existing gross floorspace of the vacant buildings.’. It will also be necessary to make a range of consequential amendments and additions to the supporting text. In particular, it will be necessary to make it clear that the gross floorspace relates to the ‘gross internal floorspace’.

2.474 The recommended amendments to the policy set out above will also require consequential amendments to be made to the supporting text associated to the policy. In particular, it is recommended that change is made to the supporting text to reflect that:

1. the affordable housing provisions are subject to thresholds, with lower thresholds applicable in designated rural areas; 2. ‘designated rural areas’ relates to those areas defined under the Housing Act 1985; 3. annexes and extensions are exempt from providing affordable housing; 4. abandoned buildings do not qualify for the discount to affordable housing provision applicable to vacant buildings; 5. the vacant building discount will be calculated on the basis of the ‘gross internal floorspace’; and 6. provisions are required to ensure that affordable housing requirements cannot be circumvented by sub-division, etc.

Implications on the Wider Strategy and the Overall Scale of Housing Growth

2.475 All other matters considered equal, the new national thresholds are likely to have a consequence of lowering the amount of affordable housing realised from a given amount of market housing delivered across an area, recognising that some sites will now fall below the threshold for requiring provision. The specific nature of the provisions of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan are such that the consequences arising from the introduction of the threshold are likely to be more limited than may first be anticipated. This is because the Plan explicitly identifies the full range of sites that are required to deliver the overall housing target for the Plan period and the significant majority of these sites have a capacity of six dwellings or more. As such, whilst the mechanism for affordable housing delivery may change on some of the smaller sites allocated within the rural areas, i.e. financial contributions will be secured rather than on-site delivery, the scale of provision should be broadly similar.

2.476 A review of the allocations within the Publication draft of the Plan identifies that 33 site allocations, with a total estimated capacity of 264 dwellings, could be impacted by the new national thresholds by virtue of having a yield of 10 dwellings or less (Table 1).

2.477 Of these, 11 sites, with a total estimated capacity of 47 dwellings fall below the lower six-dwelling threshold, removing them from the scope of seeking affordable housing contributions. In doing so, this could result in a net loss of 14 affordable dwellings over the plan period compared to that anticipated to come forward at present. The impact from the thresholds is likely to be relatively limited in terms of the scale of affordable housing actually lost overall from planned housing delivery, however the loss is likely to have a very real impact on many small rural communities where the small site allocations within the Plan are the only realistic opportunities to achieve any affordable housing.

Table 1. Sites impacted by national thresholds on draft Plan Allocations

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Sites

Sites with a capacity of 1-10 dwellings 33

Sites with a capacity of less than 6 dwellings 11

Sites with a capacity of 6 to 10 dwellings 22

Overall Dwelling Yields

Yield from sites with a capacity of 1-10 dwellings* 264

Yield from sites with a capacity of less than 6 dwellings 47

Yield from sites with a capacity of 6-10 dwellings* 217

Table 2.7

2.478 More significantly, a further 22 allocated sites, with a total estimated capacity of 217 dwellings, are subject to allocated yields of between six and ten dwellings (note: the yield from the allocation in Tetcott that provides for 27 dwellings over multiple sites is included in this, although in reality some dwellings from this allocation could be delivered on smaller sites and fall under the five dwelling threshold). These sites would no longer be eligible to seek on-site affordable housing delivery, rather being subject to provisions that would enable collection of financial contributions towards dwelling delivery. This would result in the potential loss of 65 affordable dwellings from direct on-site delivery, although recognising that financial contributions should be of ‘broadly equivalent value’(77), the change of delivery mechanism should not theoretically result in a net loss of affordable dwellings.

2.479 As such, the impact on affordable housing delivery, on the housing planned for delivery through the Plan, as a direct consequence of the introduction of the national affordable housing thresholds is likely to be limited if the Councils choose to apply the lower rural threshold. The result in this case would be a net loss from allocated sites of only around 14 affordable dwellings and a switch from on-site delivery to provision of financial contributions for a further 65 dwellings. The reality may be even more limited, given that such levels assume full compliance with policy requirements to deliver 30% affordable housing which might not be realistic in all cases given the need to consider development viability.

2.480 Whilst the overall scale of affordable loss from the proposed allocations is not too great, its impact on delivery across rural communities could be quite profound. The total loss of delivery from sites of fewer of six dwellings is likely to have a very real impact on many of the smaller rural communities, given that the small site allocations within the Plan may have been the only realistic opportunities to achieve any affordable housing. Recognising the difficulty in bringing forward sites for development in and around rural settlements, it is going to be very challenging to make use of the financial contributions that are collected to realise the lost affordable housing within these rural communities.

2.481 Whilst the impact from the thresholds is likely to be limited in relation to the scale of affordable housing lost through planned housing delivery, it could have more of an impact on any future windfall delivery. Whilst this source of housing supply has not been quantified, nor used to support the delivery of the overall housing levels sought through the Plan, it was expected that windfall development would offer an additional source of affordable housing supply over the plan period to help further address

77 Paragraph 50, National Planning Policy Framework (CLG, March 2012)

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

the overall housing need. The affordable housing yield from this source is likely to be reduced on the basis of the introduction of thresholds. Based upon analysis(78) of historic windfall development rates, it had been estimated that approximately 75 dwellings could be delivered per annum on small-scale(79) brownfield windfall sites across northern Devon. Prior to the introduction of the new national thresholds, such a supply could have theoretically yielded an additional affordable housing supply of 22 dwellings per annum, or 330 dwellings over the remainder of the plan period (2016-2031). Further delivery could be yielded from windfall development on greenfield sites, although this has not been quantified as no analysis has been completed on this source.

2.482 Recognising that there is likely to be some loss of affordable housing resulting from the imposition of national thresholds compared to that which was expected to be delivered through the draft Plan, it is considered appropriate to explore whether any changes should be made to the wider Plan as a consequence. In doing so, it is appropriate to look to whether there are any reasonable alternatives to the planned strategy. As this is also a matter that has been raised in response to the consultation on the Publication draft of the Plan, the consideration is threaded into the wider discussion on the policy set out below.

Consideration of Issues Arising through the Consultation

2.483 The support offered towards the Policy and sub-elements by some respondents is noted and welcome, as is the support offered towards affordable housing delivery being identified as a priority.

Meeting Objectively Assessed Needs

2.484 A number of respondents suggest that the Plan does not conform with national planning policy(80), by virtue of not meeting the full, objectively assessed need for affordable housing. Allied to this, calls are made to increase the overall level of housing provision within the Plan to facilitate the delivery of additional affordable housing, in line with the provisions of national practice guidance(81), with some questioning how the Plan will address the affordability issues identified by the Strategic Housing Market Assessment and the need for the significant proportion of housing to be of the social rented tenure. Others object to the provision of future housing on the basis that it won’t deliver housing to meet the needs of local communities, being generally unaffordable to local people and leading to the delivery of housing that is likely to be purchased by those from outside the area. A similar range of issues were raised in response to the consultation on the Pre-publication draft of the Plan and the concerns were fully addressed in response to that consultation(82). The responses provided at that time are still considered to remain valid.

2.485 It is recognised that it is not possible for the Plan to fully address the issues associated to the affordability of housing within northern Devon as many issues, such as access to finance, fall outside of the scope of the Planning system. The Plan does however seek to use planning tools to effectively intervene and improve the situation where it can. Alongside the provisions to shape housing proposals to ensure that affordable housing is provided, that smaller and more affordable dwellings are built, the Plan also supports a strategy to improve the local economy, recognising the need to

78 Analysis included within Five-year housing land supply statements for North Devon and Torridge, establishing a windfall rate of 60 dwellings per annum for North Devon and 15 dwellings per annum for Torridge. 79 Sites of fewer than five dwellings or smaller than 0.1 hectares 80 Paragraph 47, National Planning Policy Framework (CLG, March 2012) 81 Paragraph 029 (Reference ID: 2a-029-20140306), National Planning Practice Guidance (Department for Communities and Local Government) - http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/housing-and-economic-development-needs-assessments/methodology-assessing-housing-need/ 82 Paragraph 558-567 of Appendix 1, North Devon and Torridge Local Plan – Publication Draft – Consultation Statement (June 2014)

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

affect positive improvements to a generally low wage economy and offer opportunities to address under-employment. This positive intervention in the local economy, should in turn, offer an opportunity to help address the affordability issues surrounding access to housing.

2.486 The Strategic Housing Market Assessment(83) establishes the scale and nature of affordable housing need across northern Devon for the plan period. In doing so, it determines that approximately 60% of the overall identified housing need is for affordable housing, with a significant proportion (approximately 85%) of that required to be of the social rented tenure.

2.487 National planning guidance(84) states that ‘an increase in the total housing figures included in the local plan should be considered where it could help deliver the required number of affordable homes’. The guidance does however recognise that the total affordable housing need should be considered in the context of its likely delivery as a proportion of mixed market and affordable housing developments, reflecting on the likelihood that delivery of affordable housing through market led housing schemes will be constrained by development viability.

2.488 To fully address the scale of affordable housing need over the lifetime of the Plan, it would be necessary to apply a significant uplift in the overall level of housing provision. Reflecting a policy requirement for the delivery of 30% affordable housing from market-led housing proposals, assuming all sites contribute and an overall need for approximately 8,700 affordable dwellings over the lifetime of the Plan, overall planned housing provision would need to be increased to over 29,000 dwellings (from an identified demographic need of approximately 14,500 dwellings(85)) to fully realise a scale of affordable housing sufficient to meet identified need. In reality, the housing requirement may be even higher, recognising the imposition of affordable housing site size thresholds and that the scale of delivery from some sites will be lower than the 30% target because of consideration of development viability.

2.489 Increasing the overall housing provision within the Plan to such a level is not considered a realistic option. Such a level of delivery is not considered likely to be achievable or appropriate. Firstly, it would require housing growth at rates significantly in excess of those achieved historically with no evidence to suggest that the development industry or housing market could sustain such high levels of delivery over the plan period. Evidence of potential housing land supply(86) does not identify sufficient deliverable and developable land to realise such a level of housing growth. Such a level of growth would also be likely to create an imbalance with realistically achievable economic growth, potentially also causing a deficit in available jobs. Additionally, it could potentially result in deficits in achievable infrastructure provision. Such a level of provision would also provide for a level of growth far in excess of that required to meet anticipated growth to meet projected demographic needs. The consequences of a level of provision so far in excess of that required for demographic growth is difficult to anticipate but it could have significant implications for the operation of the housing market. It is conceivable (although not possible to substantiate) that such a level of housing growth could lead to a reduction in house prices, which could, in turn, impact on development viability and therefore the scale of affordable housing that could be realised from development proposals.

2.490 To this end, as recognised in response to similar representations received during the consultation on the Pre-publication draft of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan, it is not considered realistic to increase overall housing numbers sufficiently to enable delivery to meet the

83 Strategic Housing Market Assessment: Torridge and North Devon Update (Housing Vision, December 2012) 84 Paragraph: 029 (Reference ID: 2a-029-20140306), National Planning Practice Guidance (CLG - http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/housing-and-economic-development-needs-assessments/methodology-assessing-housing-need/, last updated: 06/03/2014) 85 Strategic Housing Market Assessment: Torridge and North Devon Update (Housing Vision, December 2012) 86 North Devon and Torridge Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA), September 2014

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

full scale of affordable housing need. Recognising the high level of affordable housing need, and that market signals indicate that there is a housing affordability issue across northern Devon, it is accepted that the Plan should accommodate an uplift in market housing above that required to meet demographic requirements.

2.491 The scale of housing provision established through the Plan is predicated on a range of factors, one of which is the delivery of affordable housing. The draft Plan currently provides an uplift from the demographically based housing requirement of around 14,500 dwellings to 16,469 dwellings, in part to offer an uplift in affordable housing delivery(87). In response to the need to balance housing and employment levels, an additional uplift is now advocated to take the overall housing requirement to approximately 16,800 dwelling, to balance with proposed economic growth. This uplift is also considered appropriate in recognition of the imposition of the national affordable housing thresholds as it will provide scope for further affordable housing delivery, going some way to replace that which will be no longer realised because sites fall below the thresholds. It is not considered reasonable to incorporate an uplift of housing beyond this level.

2.492 In a similar fashion, representation received questions how the delivery of affordable housing to meet identified housing needs will be achieved when developers are achieving consents with a reduced scale of affordable housing provision. As noted above, the ability to deliver affordable housing through market-led housing schemes is constrained by development viability with national planning policy stating that Local Plans should not place a scale of obligations and policy burdens on development that would threaten their ability to be developed in a viable manner(88). The headline requirement for 30% affordable housing sought through the draft l Plan has been established on the basis of a robust appraisal of development viability and is considered a reasonable and appropriate target to seek from development proposals.

2.493 The Plan provides policies that will seek to maximise affordable housing delivery whilst recognising that the scale of affordable housing that can be sought is constrained by development viability, and that because the full need for affordable housing is unlikely to be met it is necessary to prioritise the delivery of social rented tenure so as to assist those in highest housing need.

2.494 Recognising the importance of affordable housing delivery, the Plan also provides for the exceptional release of land in rural areas to deliver affordable housing to meet identified needs. This will further increase the opportunity to deliver affordable housing to meet identified needs. Additionally, it is likely that additional housing will come forward on a windfall basis which is likely to result in the delivery of some additional affordable housing, on site and as a result of secured contributions.

2.495 It is however recognised that delivery from this source will be inhibited over that previously anticipated because of the imposition of national affordable housing thresholds.

2.496 It is recognised that some recent development proposals have been achieving consent on the basis of a relatively low level of affordable housing provision, including some which are allocated for development through the draft Plan. Equally, there have been instances whereby high levels of affordable housing have been secured including above Policy ST18 proposed 30% level. Variation on the scale of affordable housing delivery is to be expected as it will be affected by site-specific considerations, such as infrastructure requirements or abnormal site development costs. Such variation is supported by national planning policy and it is not possible to rigidly enforce the provision of affordable housing where this would undermine development viability.

87 Paragraph 4.22, North Devon and Torridge Local Plan 88 Paragraph 173, National Planning Policy Framework (CLG, March 2012)

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

2.497 To conclude, whilst it is recognised that the Plan will not be able to realise a scale of affordable housing delivery sufficient to fully meet the scale of affordable housing need, it is considered that the Plan contains appropriate provisions to seek to maximise the scale of affordable housing delivery whilst recognising that it is necessary to prioritise the type of affordable housing delivery (i.e. bed sizes / tenure) to reflect households in highest need, and balance delivery against a wide range of other issues and constraints. In doing so, it is considered that the Plan provides a positive framework for the delivery of affordable housing as part of a package of provisions intended to meet the identified needs for housing.

Reasonable Alternatives

2.498 Allied to the calls to increase overall housing delivery to achieve an increase the provision of affordable housing, is that insufficient consideration has been given to reasonable alternatives to support the delivery of affordable housing; citing an increase in overall housing numbers as one alternative and the provision of variable affordable housing requirements as another.

2.499 The process of developing the Plan has explored a range of opportunities for the delivery of affordable housing, including a number of potential approaches to facilitate delivery. Going back to first principles, the Issues and Options consultation(89) relating to the Core Strategy, from which the current draft Plan has evolved, presented two key strategic options to steer the delivery of affordable housing; to either seek to maximise the scale of affordable housing delivery or to prioritise delivery to provide for those in highest need, recognising that the scale of affordable housing delivery likely to be realised would not be sufficient to meet the full scale of affordable housing need. The outcome(90) was to seek to optimise overall numbers whilst being flexible enough to prioritise the needs of specific groups. To date, the Plan continues to be predicated on this approach.

2.500 The matter of increasing overall housing numbers to deliver additional affordable housing is fully considered above and is not replicated here in the interests of brevity, suffice to note that this is a matter that has been considered in the preparation of the Plan.

2.501 A range of alternative approaches to the delivery of affordable housing were explored through the Viability Report(91). Opportunities to vary the scale of provision by geographical location were explored and dismissed, recognising that most areas across northern Devon see a variety of property values and that the viability of schemes, land values and sale prices can vary on the micro level, from street-to-street and site-to-site dependent upon specific local circumstances(92). The report concluded(93) that the removal of a district-wide threshold would be more likely to enhance the planning-led delivery of affordable housing rather than looking to increase the target proportions (e.g. to 35% or 40%) in the two typically higher Value Point Areas, because within the higher value areas the land prices will be higher and that the differential between the higher land values and higher sales values will not be dissimilar from that in lower value areas. As such, the Viability Report dismissed variation of provision by geographical location as a reasonable alternative.

89 Questions 21 & 22, North Devon & Torridge District Councils’ Core Strategy Development Plan Document Issues & Options Report (November 2007) 90 Page 66, North Devon & Torridge District Councils’ Core Strategy Issues & Options Report – Feedback Report (February 2009) 91 Economic viability Assessment of Housing Development in North Devon and Torridge (Adams Integra, September 2013) 92 Paragraphs 2.5.7 & 2.7.8, Economic viability Assessment of Housing Development in North Devon and Torridge (Adams Integra, September 2013) 93 Paragraph 3.5.8,, Economic viability Assessment of Housing Development in North Devon and Torridge (Adams Integra, September 2013)

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

2.502 The Viability Report also tested the opportunities for varying the scale of provision dependent upon the size of development proposals (i.e. the number of dwellings). In doing so, it concluded that there is no significant variation in land value on the basis of the scale of development (i.e. smaller or larger sites) and that scheme viability is not dependent upon this factor. To this end, the report concluded that it is reasonable to seek provision of affordable housing from all site sizes. This is the approach taken forward in the Publication draft of the Plan, albeit that national planning policy now precludes the Councils from doing so. Allied to this, the Viability Report also considered the opportunities to realise on-site delivery versus off-site or provision through financial contributions and the recommendations arising from it are incorporated within the Plan.

2.503 A further area explored was the potential to vary provision on the basis of whether a site is greenfield or brownfield. The Viability Report concluded that there is scope to seek a higher proportion of affordable housing (40% rather than 30%) on large greenfield sites. Based upon the advice of the Viability Report that indicated that “Members may choose to set a lower figure for either Affordable Housing provision or CIL if they wish to further encourage development on a profitable basis”(94), the potential for a higher proportion was not taken forward as it was considered that the imposition of such a requirement may be detrimental to the aspiration to show that northern Devon is ‘open for business’ and may undermine the wider objectives of the Plan.

Use of Council Resources to Supplement Delivery

2.504 Allied to comment that the current approach towards housing delivery will not fully meet identified need, it is suggested that the Councils should have a pro-active programme to deliver affordable housing through the re-development of Council owned land and the purchase of existing open market properties. A similar proposition was put forward through the consultation on the Pre-publication draft of the Plan, seeking the Councils to make use of their financial assets to support the provision of additional affordable homes(95). The future use of any surplus Council owned land is likely to be subject to a significant range of demands, pressures and influences over the lifetime of the Plan. As such, whilst the use of such land for the provision of affordable housing might be laudable, it is not considered appropriate to set out such a policy position within the Plan, particularly when there is no evidence of such a commitment from either Council. Furthermore, the scale of land holdings by both Councils is limited and those that might be potentially available for development over the lifetime of the Plan are subject to a range of constraints, such as flood risk that would be likely limit the delivery of meaningful amounts of affordable housing.

2.505 Equally it is not considered appropriate to explicitly commit the expenditure of Council finances through the Plan to enable the provision of affordable homes through the purchase of existing open market properties. It is recognised that this approach could well provide an effective mechanism for the delivery of affordable housing and in particular, the financial contributions realised through the provisions of Policy ST18: Affordable Housing on Development sites could usefully be spent in such a manner. However, in the same manner as set out in relation to surplus land above, the use of wider Council finances, such as that realised through the New Homes Bonus or proceeds of land sales, are likely to be subject to many significant and competing priorities and demands over the lifetime of the Plan. It is not considered possible to establish with any degree of certainty the extent to which such funding might be committed to this form of delivery and as such it is not considered appropriate to set out in detail the particular funding mechanisms that might be utilised to support the wider delivery of affordable housing. It is worth noting, that the provisions of the Plan would not preclude such approaches as a mechanism for delivering additional affordable housing.

94 Paragraph 4.2.4,, Economic viability Assessment of Housing Development in North Devon and Torridge (Adams Integra, September 2013) 95 Paragraph 568 of Appendix 1, North Devon and Torridge Local Plan – Publication Draft – Consultation Statement (June 2014)

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Responding to Local Circumstances

2.506 Response to the Plan suggests that the fixed requirements for affordable housing delivery as set out in Policy ST18 do not reflect the principles of Policy ST17: A Balanced Local Housing Market that seek proposals to respond to local circumstances. The provisions of Policy ST18 are not considered to be incompatible with the principles established in Policy ST17. Policy ST18 is considered to incorporate flexibility with regard to the delivery of affordable housing; it clearly establishes the starting point for the make up of affordable housing provision and enables variation on the basis of evidence. Part (4) enables variation of the tenure mix on the basis of identified local housing need and Part (3) allows for the delivery off-site or through a financial contribution where on-site provision is not possible or appropriate. In all cases, the wider provisions of Policy ST17 in terms of dwelling mix will also be applicable. As such, it is considered that the policy offers sufficient flexibility to respond to local circumstances and is not incompatible with Policy ST17. To recognise that the policy is subject to flexible provisions, it is suggested that a lead-in sentence is introduced to the main provisions of Policy ST18 to recognise that provision may be open to negotiation. In doing so it is recommended that it states that ‘(1) Affordable housing provision will be negotiated on residential development proposals on the following basis:’.

Impact on local builders

2.507 Comment received through consultation on the Plan suggests that the affordable housing requirements are likely an adverse impact on ‘local builders’ because of the consequences of the requirements on the viability of development proposals. The Viability Report tested the potential of requiring affordable housing provision on small schemes (i.e. those under 15 dwellings). In doing so, it concluded that there is no significant variation in achievable land values and that there is nothing to suggest that smaller or larger sites are more or less viable. As such, there is no basis on viability grounds to consider that requiring affordable housing provision from small residential development proposals would have an unacceptable adverse impact on ‘local builders’. That being said, national affordable housing thresholds are being introduced on the basis of reducing the burden placed on small-scale developers. As noted above, it is proposed to amend Policy ST18 to reflect the new national thresholds for affordable housing. In doing so the burden on ‘local builders’ will be reduced. In urban areas, schemes of fewer than eleven dwellings will be excluded from providing affordable housing and tariff-based planning obligations. Whilst in rural areas, no provision will be sought on schemes of fewer than six dwellings, with proposals for six to ten dwellings subject to requirements that limit affordable housing provision to that sought through financial contributions rather than on-site or off-site delivery. The proposed amendments to Policy ST18 to reflect the new national affordable housing thresholds are considered to offer a significant reduction to the burden placed on small-scale residential development. This will improve the viability of small-scale development and reduce the impact on ‘local builders’. No further amendment is considered necessary to the policy to address this matter.

Impact on Lifetime Homes

2.508 A respondent raises concerns that the affordable housing requirements might have an impact on the ambition to deliver dwellings to meet the Lifetime Homes Standard. As noted in response to representation received on Policy ST17: A Balanced Local Housing Market relating to this matter, it is recognised that the potential costs associated with the implementation of meeting that standard were not fully considered through the Viability Report that was used to determine appropriate levels of affordable housing and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) contributions. To this end, in respect of Lifetime Homes Standards it is accepted that it would not be possible to robustly demonstrate compliance with national planning policy that requires that development is not be subject to such a scale of policy obligations and policy burdens so that their ability to be developed viably. Furthermore,

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

at the national level, consultation has recently concluded in relation to winding down the Lifetime Homes Standard and replacing it with optional Building Regulation requirements for accessible and adaptable homes.

2.509 As such, change is already recommended to Policy ST17 to modify the requirements for development to meet Lifetime Homes Standard. Rather than explicitly seek a proportion of dwellings to meet the standard on major development proposals, amendment is proposed to encourage the delivery of dwellings which incorporate the principles of the Lifetime Homes Standard (or equivalent successor requirements). Given the significant identified need for affordable housing across northern Devon it is not considered appropriate to vary the level of affordable housing sought through development proposals so as to enable the re-introduction of an explicit requirement for a proportion of homes to be delivered to Lifetime Homes Standard. No amendment is considered necessary to the policy to address this matter.

Variation due to Viability

2.510 A significant amount of comment was received which considered that the Policy should include provisions to allow affordable housing requirements to be adjusted on the basis of development viability. The current approach is considered to be insufficiently flexible and thus contrary to national policy(96) and planning guidance. A range of potential amendments are put forward to address the matter. It is considered that the representations are founded on legitimate concerns.

2.511 It is accepted that the Policy, as currently drafted, implies that only the tenure mix specified in Part (4) may be varied on the basis of development viability. This was not the intention. Rather, it was intended that the Policy would allow the full range of affordable housing characteristics to be varied on the basis of development viability. Such a clause was included within Policy DM20: Affordable Housing on Development Sites that was contained in the Pre-publication Consultation Draft of the Plan and had been intended to be retained when the policy was amalgamated with Policy ST18 as a result of the previous round of consultation. To this end, it is recommended that amendment is made to Policy ST18 to re-introduce a clause that allows affordable housing provision to be altered on the basis of development viability. In doing so, it is recommended that a new clause is inserted into Policy ST18 to read: ‘(xx) Negotiation to vary the scale and nature of affordable housing provision, along with the balance of other infrastructure and planning requirements, will be considered on the basis of a robust appraisal of development viability’. Allied to the introduction of this clause, it will be necessary to make amendments to the explanatory material contained within the supporting text to the Policy.

Viability Appraisals

2.512 A range of respondents to the consultation consider that it is unreasonable to require viability assessments / appraisals from all residential development proposals. It is suggested that the requirement represents an unreasonable up-front cost for proposals on small sites. In relation to this matter a number of amendments to the supporting text are suggested. Similar representation was received in response to the consultation on the Pre-publication draft of the Plan and at that stage and in response at that time it was noted that the provisions of the Policy were not intended to be interpreted in this way(97). Rather, it is only intended for a proposal to be supported by a viability appraisal where it seeks to deviate from the affordable housing requirements contained within the Policy. Coupled

96 Paragraph 173, National Planning Policy Framework (CLG, March 2012) 97 Paragraphs 497 and 498 of Appendix 1, North Devon and Torridge Local Plan – Publication Draft – Consultation Statement (June 2014)

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

with the insertion of the clause noted above to enable the variation of affordable housing provision on the basis of development viability, it is considered that the supporting text provided in paragraph 7.27 adequately explains the intent of the provisions.

2.513 The imposition of national thresholds will remove smaller development proposals from the scope of providing affordable housing and in doing so will further address the concerns raised by one of the respondents regarding the unreasonable up-front cost that the provision of a development appraisal would place upon proposals for smaller sites.

2.514 On a related matter, a range of respondents consider it unreasonable to require developers to fund independent viability advice on all residential proposals. In doing so, some respondents propose amended wording to the supporting text related to this matter (paragraph 7.27). One respondent (plp2556) seeks amendment to the third sentence ‘If it is deemed necessary to independently verify the appraisal, the developer will be liable for reasonable costs incurred to the local planning authority in doing so.’. A further respondent (plp2538) seeks wider amendments to the paragraph:

2.515 ‘The obligation will lay with the developer to provide a robust financial justification to support any proposals falling below identified policy requirements. The local planning authority will consider such requests on the basis of an open book financial appraisal of development finance viability. If it is deemed necessary to independently verify the appraisal, following agreement the developer will be liable for reasonable costs incurred to the local planning authority in doing so. Where it is clearly demonstrated that scheme viability prohibits meeting the full policy requirements for the provision of affordable housing and / or other planning obligations , the local planning authority will may enter negotiations to vary the required scale proportion and / or mix of affordable housing provision.’

2.516 Following on from the considerations set out above that recognise that development appraisals are only required where proposals seek to deviate from policy requirements for affordable housing, it is accepted that developers should not be required to fund independent viability advice on all residential proposals. However, it is considered appropriate for developers to fund the provision of such advice where it is deemed necessary for it to be sought. It is considered that the existing text provided in paragraph 7.27 is sufficient to explain the intent of the provisions and that no amendment is necessary.

2.517 It is not accepted that the paragraph should be amended to remove the provisions (third sentence) that can seek developers to fund the independent verification of financial viability appraisals. Should a developer seek to vary from the stated policy requirements then it is considered reasonable that any costs associated with validating such a position should be borne by the developer. It is however accepted that some of the wider wording proposed amendments (plp2538) would be beneficial and make the provisions more precise. It is not considered necessary to amend the paragraph to explicitly seek developer agreement in order to fund the verification, as such a requirement is implicit. Based upon the remaining proposed amendments, it is recommended that paragraph 7.27 is amended to read as follows:

2.518 ‘7.27 The obligation will lay with the developer to provide a robust financial justification to support any proposals falling below failing to meet identified policy requirements. The local planning authority will consider such request on the basis of an open book financial appraisal of development finance viability. If it is deemed necessary to independently verify the appraisal, the developer will be liable for reasonable costs incurred to the local planning authority in doing so. Where it is clearly demonstrated that scheme viability prohibits meeting the full policy requirements for the provision of affordable housing and / or other planning obligations, the local planning authority will may enter negotiations to vary the required scale proportion and / or mix of affordable housing provision.’.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

2.519 Further respondents suggest that the detailed approach to appraising development viability should be made available for consultation alongside the Plan and failure to do so means that it is not possible to make informed comment on the provisions of the Plan. It is accepted that it will be necessary to make available further detail on a wide range of matters relating to the implementation of the Policy. This is recognised at paragraph 7.32 of the supporting text that indicates that more detail in relation to affordable housing priorities, methods of establishing financial contributions, assessing viability and other interpretations of affordable housing policy will be set out in supporting documentation that will accompany the Plan. It is not accepted that it is necessary for such detail to be available in order to make informed comment on the principles set out in the Plan. The overarching principles are based upon comprehensive evidence of housing need and development viability that demonstrate that they are appropriate. It is considered that the consultation on the draft Plan did offer the opportunity to appropriately consider the provisions of the Policy and that it was not necessary to have the full detail of the approach to implementation available at the point of consultation.

Open Market Value

2.520 A significant number of representations were received criticising the approach currently set out in Part (1)(a) of the Policy that links the scale of on-site affordable housing provision to the ‘open market value’ of the development proposal. A broad range of criticism was directed at this approach; in summary it was suggested that the approach is likely to be challenging and time consuming to implement in practice, is not an approach justified by evidence and is not compliant with national policy. The range of criticism directed towards this policy approach is generally accepted.

2.521 The reference to ‘open market value’ into Part (1)(a) of the Policy relating to on-site provision of affordable housing was a drafting error introduced when the Policy was amended in response to changes recommended following the consultation on the Pre-publication draft of the Plan. At that time, a change had been recommended(98) to Part (1)(b) of the Policy to relate financial contributions for affordable housing to ‘open market value’. This was incorrectly transcribed and the change was applied to Part (1)(a) in error.

2.522 It was not the intention to link the scale of on-site affordable housing provision to the ‘market value’ of the scheme. Rather, it is accepted that the scale of provision should be linked to providing 30% of all dwellings on site as affordable housing. This is the approach tested through the Viability Report, is accepted as being the ‘standard’ approach to seek affordable housing and the approach supported by national planning policy. Amendment is now recommended to correct this error. In doing so, it is recommended that the policy is amended to remove reference to ‘open market value’ in relation to the calculation of on-site provision for affordable housing and rather tie the scale of provision to providing a specified proportion of all dwellings as affordable. The proposed amendment is considered to fully address the range of criticism that was directed at the previously advocated policy approach that linked on-site requirements to ‘open market value’.

Financial Contributions

2.523 A range of representation was received in relation to the Policy requirements that seek financial contributions towards affordable housing. Respondents consider that the financial contribution sought through Part (1)(b) of Policy ST18 is not compliant with national planning policy which requires that financial contributions should be of broadly equivalent value(99) and that only policies that provide a clear indication of how a decision taker should react to a development proposal should be included

98 Amendment 28, North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Publication Draft - Amendments and Proposed Changes (April 2014) 99 Paragraph 50, National Planning Policy Framework (CLG, March 2012)

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

within the Plan(100). Allied to this, respondents seek that the method for calculating financial contributions is published; with calls for it to be included within the Plan or to be made available alongside the Plan and thus subject to consultation. Some suggest that it is not possible to comment on the provisions of the Plan without access to the detail of how financial contributions will be calculated. Others note that the Policy should relate to the cost of provision and not value.

2.524 It is considered that Part (1)(b) of Policy ST18 does satisfactorily sets out the policy requirements for seeking financial contributions towards the provision of affordable housing. The Policy is clear in that the financial contribution should be of an equivalent value to providing the required affordable housing on-site.

2.525 As noted above, an amendment to the wording of Part (1)(b) of Policy ST18 had been agreed for inclusion within the Publication draft of the Plan, intending to introduce reference to ‘open market value’ in relation to the provision of financial contributions towards affordable housing. This amendment was however never applied, being incorrectly transcribed into Part (1)(a) as noted above. The previously proposed amendment is not now considered appropriate. Rather, it is accepted that a minor amendment to the policy wording would be beneficial, to reflect the provisions of national planning policy and ensure compliance with it. To this end, it is recommended that the Policy seeks the financial contribution to be of ‘broadly equivalent value’ to the affordable housing that would be required on-site. With such an amendment applied, it is considered that the Policy is sufficiently precise to accord with national planning policy.

2.526 It is accepted that it will be necessary to publish further detail relating to the implementation of Policy ST18, including the approach to calculating affordable housing contributions; this is already recognised in the supporting text at paragraph 7.32, which states that detailed matters relating to the Policy will be set out in supporting documentation that will accompany the Plan. It is not considered necessary or appropriate to set out such detailed matters within the Plan, with the requirement for contributions to be of broadly equivalent value considered to satisfactorily establish the scale of contribution that will be sought.

2.527 It is standard practice for detailed provisions relating to the implementation of policies such as ST18 to be set out is supporting documentation such as a practice note or Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). The scale of detail required in relation to the implantation of such policies is such that it is not appropriate for it to all be set out within the Plan. Furthermore, such an approach allows the detailed approach to implementation to be kept under review and up-to-date.

2.528 It is accepted that it will be necessary for such detailed guidance to be prepared and be available at the point of adoption of the Plan. It is also considered appropriate that draft guidance, or at least the key principles, should be available to support the Examination in Public of the Plan. Consideration will be given during the preparation of the guidance as to the extent of consultation that might be appropriate. The lack of detailed methodology for the calculation of financial contributions is not considered to undermine the legitimacy of the consultation on the Plan.

2.529 A number of respondents advocate that the approach for calculating affordable housing contributions should reflect that set out in the Viability Report(101). Further respondents consider that the scale of financial contribution should relate to the cost of provision or the residual land value of the plots and not the value of dwellings or the scheme. It is further suggested that this matter is particularly important for small sites.

100 Paragraph 154, National Planning Policy Framework (CLG, March 2012) 101 Paragraphs 3.7.14 – 3.7.22, Economic Viability Assessment of Housing Development in North Devon and Torridge (Adams Integra, September 2013)

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

2.530 The Viability Report sets out one potential approach to the calculation of financial contributions for affordable housing, linked to the estimation of costs associated with the replacement of serviced land off-site. It is recognised within the Viability Report(102) that the approach detailed is by no means definitive or the only approach that could or should be followed to establish the scale of financial contribution for affordable housing that should be sought.

2.531 The detailed method for calculating affordable housing contributions will be established through the preparation of supporting documentation for the Policy. Suffice to say, that the contribution will be expected to be of a value that would enable the off-site provision of affordable housing broadly equal to that which policy provisions would have generally expected to be delivered on-site (i.e. the amount of money received would be enough to deliver affordable housing in the local area of a similar scale and nature as that which would have been required to be delivered on the proposal site ).

On-site Preference

2.532 A respondent suggests that the Policy should set out a clearer preference for on-site provision of affordable housing. It is considered that the Policy provides a clear preference for on-site delivery (although it is recognised that the new national policy provisions mean that this cannot now be the case in all circumstances). Part (3) of the Policy clearly states a preference for on-site delivery and that provision off-site or through a financial contribution will only be considered where it is demonstrated that on-site provision is not possible or appropriate. This approach is further clarified within the supporting text at paragraph 7.26.

2.533 It is however recognised that the approach set out in Part (1) of the Policy that states that provision may be provided on-site or equally off-site or through a financial contribution is misleading and contradictory to Part (3) that clearly establishes an on-site priority. In light of the Policy containing the explicit statement within Part (3) of the Policy, it is considered that Part (1)(b) of the Policy is superfluous and could be removed. This would add clarity to the position. Reflecting wider recommended changes to the Policy, such as the imposition of thresholds, a flexible approach should be taken to provision and that the scale of financial contributions should be tied to being of ‘broadly equivalent value, it is recommended that Part (3) is amended to read: ‘ Affordable housing will be provided on-site; Where the policy seeks on-site provision, alternative off-site delivery provision or delivery provision through financial contributions of broadly equivalent value will only be alternatively considered may be negotiated where it can be demonstrated that on-site provision is not possible or appropriate.’. Allied to these changes, it is recommended that part (1)(b) of the Policy is deleted as it is no longer required.

2.534 A respondent queries whether ‘off-site’ provision of affordable housing would be delivered in the locality of the site from which provision was secured. Allied to this, the respondent questions whether financial contributions towards affordable housing secured in Bratton Fleming would be utilised to deliver affordable housing within that settlement, or elsewhere (for example, in Ilfracombe).

2.535 The supporting text(103) to Policy ST18 currently sets out a commitment to spend financial contributions for affordable housing achieved from a site within the housing sub-market area that the site resides. The purpose of such an approach is to ensure that the affordable housing is realised in a location that has a relationship in housing market terms to the site where the contribution is secured. Given the nature of the housing sub-market areas, it is recognised that the current approach may result in affordable housing being delivered in a location that is remote from the site where the contribution was secured.

102 Paragraph 3.7.10, Economic Viability Assessment of Housing Development in North Devon and Torridge (Adams Integra, September 2013) 103 Paragraph 7.26, North Devon and Torridge Local Plan – Publication Draft (June 2014)

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

2.536 Recognising this, it is considered more appropriate to amend the approach so that, in the first instance, endeavours are made to use the contributions to deliver affordable housing within the parish where the contribution was secured. Recognising that this might not be realistically achievable in all cases (such as in small rural communities where opportunities for delivery may be significantly constrained or where there is a limited pool of financial contributions for affordable housing), it is recommended that a cascade approach is introduced, so that the financial contributions that are secured may be used to deliver affordable housing across a wider geographical area if local delivery is not achievable within a realistic timeframe. This is considered a particularly relevant approach, given the significant affordable housing need across northern Devon. It is therefore recommended that the supporting text at paragraph 7.26 should be amended to read as follows:

2.537 ‘…. Financial contributions collected will be used to deliver affordable housing elsewhere within the same sub-market housing area. In the first instance, endeavours will be made to use financial contributions for the delivery of affordable housing, secured from residential development proposals, to achieve affordable housing delivery within the parish where the proposal site was located. Where it can be demonstrated that there is not a reasonable prospect of delivery within that parish, the contributions may be used to deliver affordable housing within adjoining parishes, or within a relevant grouping of parishes formally recognised by the local planning authority (such as the Rural Alliance). Ultimately, the use of contributions to deliver affordable housing may cascade to the wider local planning authority area where it is demonstrated that there is not a reasonable prospect of delivery within the parish where the original proposal site was located or within adjoining parishes .’.

2.538 In terms of the specific query relating to Bratton Fleming, the existing policy could result in financial contributions towards affordable housing secured through residential development proposals within Bratton Fleming being utilised to deliver affordable housing within the wider housing sub-market area within which the settlement resides. Bratton Fleming lies within the ‘Exmoor Core and Downland Fringe’ sub-market area and as such the contributions could conceivably be spent in a range of settlements including North Molton, West Down, Kentisbury & Kentisbury Ford, Shirwell or East Anstey. The existing provisions would not enable such financial contributions to be used to deliver affordable housing within Ilfracombe. Subject to acceptance of the amendments recommended above, the policy provisions would in the first instance seek delivery in Bratton Flemming, cascading to other locations only if there is not a reasonable prospect of delivery in that location.

Clarification of ‘smaller’

2.539 In relation to paragraph 7.27, a respondent seeks clarification of the term ‘smaller’ with respect to the application of flexibility regarding on site delivery of affordable housing. There is no reference to the term ‘smaller’ within paragraph 7.27 of the Publication draft Plan, nor any other paragraph associated to Policy ST18. However, such a term was present in paragraph 7.27 of the Pre-publication draft of the Plan. The respondent made similar representation through the earlier consultation(104) and the only reasonable conclusion is to assume that the comments made in response to this consultation relates to this earlier draft of the Plan. The text of the Publication draft was amended to address the comment made following the earlier consultation and no further actions is considered necessary in response to the representation.

Specify requirements as a maximum and not a minimum

104 Paragraph 529, Appendix 1 of North Devon and Torridge Local Plan – Publication Draft – Consultation Statement (June 2014)

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

2.540 A respondent suggests that the percentage of affordable housing sought through the Policy (i.e. 30%) should be stated as a maximum rather than a minimum. The Policy is not considered to currently state the level as a minimum; rather, it is simply a stated level, neither a minimum nor a maximum. It is however considered implicit that the stated level is set as a maximum, recognising that the supporting text at paragraph 7.27 enables the negotiated reduction in provision subject to a robust case being presented to the Council, and that there is no provision for seeking a higher level of provision. One of the recommended changes to the Policy, which seeks the introduction of a wide-ranging clause to enable the variation of affordable housing provision on the basis of development viability, will make this approach explicit within the Policy. It is not considered necessary to explicitly include the term ‘maximum’ within the Policy, nor make any further changes to the Policy or supporting text to address the representation.

Specify requirements as a target

2.541 In a similar manner to above, a range of respondents seek the percentage of affordable housing sought through the Policy to be expressed as a target and not a requirement. It is accepted that the provisions of the Policy as drafted could be construed as a ‘requirement’. However, with the recommended introduction of the wide ranging viability clause, along with a lead-in sentence to the Policy that states that affordable housing provision will be negotiated, it is suggested that the provisions could be reasonably considered as ‘targets’ even if not explicitly stated as such within the Policy. It is not considered necessary or appropriate to explicitly incorporate the term ‘target’ within the Policy and that the wider proposed amendments in relation to this Policy are considered to adequately address the concerns raised in relation to this matter.

2.542 Linked to this consideration, a respondent advocates that the Policy is amended to make the provisions subject to consideration of viability and the application of testing through viability appraisals. This is accepted and as noted above, a proposed amendment seeks to introduce such a clause.

2.543 A respondent proposes an amendment to Part (1) of Policy ST18 which provides to set the requirements as a ‘target’ and to allow variation on the basis of viability or technical feasibility. The aspects regarding target and viability are considered to have been satisfactorily addressed above. The final element that seeks to enable variation of affordable housing provision on the basis of technical feasibility is not supported. It is not considered appropriate to enable variation to the scale of provision on this basis. Rather, the Policy enables the delivery mechanism for the affordable housing provision to be altered, enabling off-site delivery or provision through financial contributions where it is demonstrated that on-site provision is not possible or appropriate. The latter term could reasonably include consideration of technical feasibility. Should technical feasibility of the site have a direct development cost then this may be considered through an appraisal of development viability. Subject to the inclusion of the recommended clause on viability, variation to the scale and nature of affordable housing could be enabled to address this matter. No further amendment is considered necessary to address the matters raised in this representation.

Evidence to Support Requirements – Viability Report

2.544 A range of respondents consider that the affordable housing provisions are not justified by evidence, and in particular that they are not viable. In doing so, they suggest that the viability evidence underpinning the policy provisions is flawed and do not accord with national planning policy(105).

105 National Planning Policy Framework (CLG, March 2012)

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

2.545 The affordable housing requirements set out within Policy ST18 are predicated on the findings of a Viability Report(106). The Viability Report was completed by Adams Integra in September 2013 and incorporated the findings of comprehensive research into the viability of housing development across northern Devon. The research established the scale of affordable housing provision and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) contributions that could reasonably be sought from residential development proposals across northern Devon. The adopted approach was based upon residual land valuation modelling of a significant number of indicative development scenarios.

2.546 The modelling incorporated a range of assumptions on both the costs and values associated to residential development. A range of the cost assumptions have been challenged by respondents who suggest that they undermine the outcomes of the Viability Report and hence the affordable housing provisions within the Plan. In particular, respondents suggest that the Viability Report:

reflects out-of-date construction costs; doesn’t take account of revised building regulation requirements; and doesn’t reflect Plan requirements for Lifetime Homes Standard, higher Code for Sustainable Homes requirement or other wider Local Plan policies (including ST05, ST16, ST17 and DM08).

2.547 Some of the points raised are considered to have validity, however, that being said they are not considered to undermine the affordable housing provisions contained within the Plan.

2.548 It is accepted that the Viability Report did not adequately incorporate the Plan’s requirements for a proportion of housing on major developments to meet Lifetime Homes Standards (Policy ST17) or the requirement for dwellings to meet a higher level of Code for Sustainable Homes than required through Building Regulations (ST05). It is accepted that such provisions could place an additional development cost on residential development proposals that was not satisfactorily considered by the detailed viability modelling. In recognition of this, amendment is now recommended to the Plan to remove these requirements from residential development proposals.

2.549 Beyond these particular requirements, it is not accepted that the Plan contains any wider provisions that would place an extraordinary cost on development that would undermine the findings of the Viability Report. None of the wider policy provisions applicable to residential development proposals, such as requirements for green infrastructure or play space, are considered likely to place an undue burden on development that would not have been accounted for through the assumptions applied to the modelling.

2.550 It is suggested that the Viability Report is now based upon out-of-date construction costs and doesn’t reflect additional costs that may be attributed to changes introduced through revised Building Regulations. It is accepted that there may have been some uplift in construction costs since the Report was produced. Equally however, it is recognised that there is likely to have been increases in achievable sales values, although it is not possible to demonstrate whether these would reasonably off-set each other. The conclusions of the Viability Report does however clearly state that the ‘30% target takes account of the collective impacts on schemes with regard to the general direction of increasing planning obligations, build enhancements through increasing Building Regulations / Code for sustainable homes, etc.’(107). As such, the findings of the report are considered to remain valid given the changes seen since its preparation.

106 Economic Viability Assessment of Housing Development in North Devon and Torridge (Adams Integra, September 2013) 107 Paragraph 4.1.7, Economic Viability Assessment of Housing Development in North Devon and Torridge (Adams Integra, September 2013)

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

2.551 That being said, it is considered prudent, in response to concerns raised through these representations, and similar comment received in relation to the consultation on the Draft Charging Schedules for the Community Infrastructure Levy that raised concerns around some of the development cost assumptions, to approach Adams Integra to seek assurance that the findings of the Viability Report can still be considered valid.

2.552 In advance of the outcomes of such discussion, there is no evidence to substantiate the criticism directed towards the Viability Report. Hence, the findings are assumed to remain a valid and robust basis to support the advocated policy requirements.

2.553 A range of comment suggests that the affordable housing provisions coupled with the Viability Report do not conform with national planning policy and in particular the provisions contained within Paragraphs 50, 173 and 174 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Subject to the wider recommended changes to the Plan, it is considered that these criticisms are now unfounded.

2.554 Paragraph 50 of the NPPF states that where there is an identified need for affordable housing then local planning authorities should set out policies ‘for meeting this need on site unless off-site provision or a financial contribution of broadly equivalent value can be robustly justified’. The criticism is considered to stem from concern that the Policy as drafted does not establish that the financial contributions are of a broadly equivalent value, although equally it could apply to the lack of preference for on-site first delivery. Both aspects of potential concern are addressed by wider recommended changes to the Plan that seek to remove Part (1)(b) to ensure that priority is given to on-site provision (where national policy permits it) and amend Part (3) to link the financial contributions to ‘broadly equivalent value’.

2.555 Paragraphs 173 and 174 of the NPPF seek to ensure that Plans are deliverable. In doing so, paragraph 173 states that ‘the costs of any requirements likely to be applied to development, such as requirements for affordable housing, standards, infrastructure contributions or other requirements should, when taking account of the normal costs of development and mitigation, provide competitive returns for a willing land owner and willing developer to enable the development to be deliverable.’. It goes on to state in paragraph 174 that using proportionate evidence, local planning authorities should assess the cumulative impacts of provisions on development to make sure that they do not ‘put the implementation of the plan at serious risk’.

2.556 Subject to the recommended changes to the Plan, and in particular the removal of the imposition of Lifetime Homes Standard and Code for Sustainable Homes, the inclusion of a clause that allows variation of affordable housing provisions on the basis of viability and linking financial contributions to ‘broadly equivalent value, it is considered that the provisions of Policy ST18 are viable, when considered in combination with the wider provisions of the Plan. Further, it is considered that the Viability Report does provide appropriate evidence to demonstrate that the Plan conforms with paragraphs 173 and 174 of the NPPF. In doing so, it is considered that the provisions of an amended Policy ST18 would not generally render residential development proposals unviable, nor put the implementation of the Plan at serious risk. The report has established that the affordable housing provisions, in combination with other requirements, are generally viable across the Plan area. In fact, the Report considered that a higher level of CIL could theoretically be realised (£80/m² vs 60/m²) and that a higher level of affordable housing could be achievable on large greenfield sites (40% vs 30%). Further, the Policy seeks a tenure split of 75% Social Rent / 25% Intermediate Housing, whereas a more costly split of 80% / 20% was tested through the Viability Report .

2.557 Representation suggests that the provisions of the Policy are not reflective of affordable housing achieved through recently approved schemes. This is accepted, although equally there have been a number of recent approvals where the affordable housing secured meets or exceeds the

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

proposed policy provisions. It is not considered reasonable to infer from this that the proposed provisions of Policy ST18 are unacceptable. Rather, it confirms that it is appropriate to include provisions that enable negotiation on the affordable housing provision to be enabled on the basis of development viability. This reflects an acceptance that there will be occasions where schemes are unable to meet the full affordable housing requirements because of particular circumstances relating to individual sites or proposals – such as abnormal site costs, cross-subsidy of other uses, etc. The Viability Report is considered to demonstrate that the affordable housing provisions within Policy ST18 (subject to recommended amendments), in combination with the wider requirements in the Plan, are appropriate.

Variation of Affordable Housing Percentage

2.558 A range of respondents propose amendment of the Policy to reflect a different headline percentage requirement for affordable housing. Some seek a lower percentage (20% or 25%), whilst others seek that provisions are introduced at a level of 40%, either on all proposals or on large greenfield sites. Others advocate the introduction of variable requirements based upon the size of site.

2.559 Some respondents suggest that the percentage should be reduced to 25% as this is reflective of evidence that demonstrates this level to be viable. This is not accepted. The Viability Report recommends a headline target percentage of 30% affordable housing which is based upon comprehensive evidence to demonstrate that such a level is viable, in combination with other policy requirements. The 25% advocated by respondents was the level presented within the Pre-publication draft of the Plan. This was however only reflective of tentative, early indications from the consultants completing the Viability Report. Upon completion of their research, the findings indicated that 30% rather than 25% was an appropriate level. As such, there is no evidence to suggest that 25% rather than 30% is a viable headline level of affordable housing.

2.560 A further respondent suggests that the Plan should seek 20% affordable housing from market-led residential development proposals because doing so will ultimately lead to the delivery of more affordable housing. The representation does not provide any detail or evidence to indicate why such an approach would result in the delivery of more affordable housing compared to the position established within the Plan. The 30% affordable housing requirement indicated within the Plan is evidenced as a viable starting point for seeking provision. Given the high level of affordable housing need across northern Devon it is considered that this is an appropriate percentage to seek, in that it maximises the opportunity to seek provision within the bounds of development viability. Reducing the target level of provision is not considered likely to result in an increase in overall affordable housing provision; rather it could have the adverse affect and reduce delivery. It is worth noting that recommended change to the Policy will allow the reduction of provision based upon an appraisal of development viability which should ensure that applicants are not deterred from submitting residential proposals that would have otherwise been rendered unviable. To conclude, as the suggestion is unsubstantiated, there is considered to be no robust justification to support the suggested amendment.

2.561 It is suggested that the percentage affordable housing requirement should be increased to 40% as 30% is inadequate and will not address identified needs. Whilst it is accepted that seeking 30% will not fully address identified needs, it is not considered appropriate to seek a higher proportion as this is not supported by evidence to demonstrate that it would be viable. The ability to deliver affordable housing through market-led housing schemes is constrained by development viability with national planning policy stating that Local Plans should not place a scale of obligations and policy burdens on development that would threaten their ability to be developed in a viable manner(108).

108 Paragraph 173, National Planning Policy Framework (CLG, March 2012)

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

The headline requirement for 30% affordable housing sought through the draft Plan has been established on the basis of a robust appraisal of development viability and is considered a reasonable and appropriate target to seek from development proposals.

2.562 Another respondent suggested that 40% affordable housing should be sought from residential development proposals on large greenfield sites. The Viability Report concluded that there is scope to seek a higher proportion of affordable housing (40% rather than 30%) on large greenfield sites. Based upon the advice of the Viability Report that indicated that “Members may choose to set a lower figure for either Affordable Housing provision or CIL if they wish to further encourage development on a profitable basis”(109), the potential for a higher proportion was not taken forward as it was considered that the imposition of such a requirement may be detrimental to the aspiration to show that northern Devon is ‘open for business’ and may undermine the wider objectives of the Plan. This position is still maintained.

2.563 A further respondent suggests that the affordable housing percentage should be varied dependent upon the scale of the proposal so as to ensure viability of development, considering that development viability varies with the scale of development and that current provisions will render development unviable and prevent sites from being brought forward for development. In doing so, they advocate that the following approach:

Remove single dwellings from affordable housing provisions; Seek on-site provision of 20% on schemes of 2-10 dwellings and 25% on schemes of 11+ dwellings; Seek financial contributions of 20% (based on site cost only) on schemes of 2-3 dwellings; 20% on schemes of 4-10 dwellings and 25% on schemes of 11+ dwellings.

2.564 There is no evidence to support the proposed variable approach to affordable housing percentages. The Viability Report tested the opportunities for varying the scale of provision dependent upon the size of development proposals (i.e. the number of dwellings). In doing so, it concluded that there is no significant variation in land value on the basis of the scale of development (i.e. smaller or larger sites) and that scheme viability is not dependent upon this factor. To this end, the report concluded that it is reasonable to seek provision of affordable housing from all site sizes. This is the approach taken forward in the Publication draft of the Plan. The representation raises no reason to consider that amendment is required to the Plan. It is worth highlighting however, that as noted in the discussion above, the introduction of national thresholds for affordable housing will remove the ability of local planning authorities from seeking on-site affordable housing from schemes of fewer than eleven dwellings, with the ability to seek affordable housing on sites below this threshold restricted to the collection of financial contributions towards it on sites of six to ten dwellings in designated rural areas and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Geographical Variation

2.565 A respondent suggests that there is significant variation in the scale of affordable housing need between North Devon and Torridge, citing that evidence indicates that there is a 120% affordable housing requirement for North Devon and 75% for Torridge (relative to overall housing requirements). In doing so, they suggest that application of a uniform policy requirement across northern Devon is unsound as it is unjustified and ineffective.

109 Paragraph 4.2.4,, Economic viability Assessment of Housing Development in North Devon and Torridge (Adams Integra, September 2013)

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

2.566 The figures of affordable housing need for North Devon and Torridge quoted by the respondent are from the original Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) for the Northern Peninsula(110), published in 2008. This has been subsequently updated and superseded by a SHMA update for North Devon and Torridge(111) which was published in 2012. Rather than a 120% affordable housing requirement for North Devon and a 75% requirement for Torridge, the North Devon and Torridge SHMA Update, shows a more balanced affordable housing requirement of 60.6% for North Devon and 59.0% for Torridge. As such, evidence of housing need does not support a differential approach to affordable housing requirements by local planning authority. In any event, both figures are higher than the 30% identified to be a viable affordable housing requirement.

2.567 Similarly, a respondent suggests that variable affordable housing provisions and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) charging rates should be introduced on the basis of the housing sub-market areas defined through the SHMA and the Value Points provided within the Viability Report. As noted earlier in the report, the potential to introduce variable affordable housing and CIL rates was considered by the Viability Report. Opportunities to vary the scale of provision by geographical location were explored and dismissed, recognising that most areas across northern Devon see a variety of property values and that the viability of schemes, land values and sale prices can vary on the micro level, from street-to-street and site-to-site dependent upon specific local circumstances(112). The Viability Report concluded(113) that the removal of a district-wide threshold would be more likely to enhance the planning-led delivery of affordable housing rather than looking to increase the target proportions (e.g. to 35% or 40%) in the two typically higher Value Point Areas, because within the higher value areas the land prices will be higher and that the differential between the higher land values and higher sales values will not be dissimilar from that in lower value areas. As such, the Viability Report dismissed variation of provision by geographical location as a reasonable alternative.

Preparation of an SPD

2.568 A respondent considered that the Plan doesn’t appear to make a commitment to the preparation of a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)to support the implementation of the Plan, in line with the recommendations of the Viability Report. The supporting text to Policy ST18, at paragraph 7.32, clearly states that detailed matters relating to the Policy will be set out in supporting documentation that will accompany the Plan. It is accepted that the wording is not specific about such detail being provided through a SPD, rather providing a more flexible approach to the provision of such guidance. It does however commit to the provision of detail regarding the implementation of the Policy through the publication of supporting documentation. The flexible approach leaves the opportunity for detail to be added by the most appropriate means, be it a practice note, delivery plan or a formal SPD. This is considered to be a reasonable approach to this matter. For transparency, it is however, recommended that amendment is made to the supporting text at paragraph 7.32 to state ‘…set out in supporting documentation, such as a practice note or Supplementary Planning Document, that will accompany the Local Plan.’.

Thresholds

110 Strategic housing Market Assessment for the Northern Peninsular (Housing Vision Consultancy, December 2008) 111 Strategic Housing Market Assessment: Torridge and North Devon Update, Final Report (Housing Vision, December 2012) 112 Paragraphs 2.5.7 & 2.7.8, Economic viability Assessment of Housing Development in North Devon and Torridge (Adams Integra, September 2013) 113 Paragraph 3.5.8,, Economic viability Assessment of Housing Development in North Devon and Torridge (Adams Integra, September 2013)

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

2.569 A range of respondents consider that the lack of threshold within the Policy is inappropriate and that one should be introduced. In doing so, a range of justification is provided along with various proposed approaches to the introduction of a threshold.

2.570 In terms of justification, respondents suggest that the current lack of threshold:

is not supported by evidence (with Viability Report focussing on assessment of larger sites, recognising that schemes ‘may be increasingly marginal’ and the assessment not considering all cost burdens); will deter development and constrain housing supply coming forward from small sites; will limit delivery from windfall development on which the Plan relies; will impact on local building firms as small developments will no longer be viable; forms a significant departure from existing plans; is likely to cause practical implementation issues including debate over viability, particularly given the approach of linking provision to open market value; is not reasonable to expect the provision of a viability appraisal for private property owners delivering very small schemes; and is inconsistent with current government thinking on affordable housing provision.

2.571 Respondents claim that the lack of threshold is not supported by evidence, citing that not all cost burdens associated to development have been appropriately considered, the Viability Report focusses on the assessment of larger sites and it recognises that schemes ‘may be increasingly marginal’.

2.572 The points regarding cost burdens have been addressed earlier within this report and amendment is recommended to the Plan to ensure that the wider burdens placed on development are reflective of those considered within the Viability Report. On this basis, the Viability Report is considered to have taken account of the wider costs associated to residential development and an appropriate source of evidence to inform affordable housing provisions.

2.573 It is suggested that the Viability Report focusses on the assessment of larger development sites and as a consequence does not therefore support the imposition of affordable housing requirements on smaller sites. The Viability Report explicitly tested the ability of ‘smaller schemes’ to accommodate affordable housing requirements(114). In doing so, it concluded that there is no significant variation in the land value across schemes of differing scale and that as such, there is nothing within the appraisal that suggests that smaller or larger schemes tend to be any more or less viable than each other. As such, the Viability Report explicitly recommends that the affordable housing policy threshold is removed so that provisions apply to all new housing(115).

2.574 The reference cited within the Viability Report that recognises that schemes ‘may be increasingly marginal’ in relation to smaller schemes is noted. The statement is provided in support of the recommendation to remove affordable housing thresholds. In doing so, the report recognises that there may be a ‘first-time impact’ on smaller schemes, whereby affordable housing requirements may not have been considered when negotiations on land purchase occurred and also that the uplift in return offered by a residential development proposal over alternative land uses may be increasingly

114 Section 3.6, Economic Viability Assessment of Housing Development in North Devon and Torridge (Adams Integra, September 2013) 115 Recommendation 3, Economic Viability Assessment of Housing Development in North Devon and Torridge (Adams Integra, September 2013)

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

marginal. It does not however suggest that this would preclude seeking affordable housing on ‘smaller sites’; on the contrary, it advocates applying affordable housing requirements to all schemes, down to a single net new dwelling.

2.575 As such, the Viability Report is considered to provide appropriate evidence to demonstrate that the imposition of affordable housing requirements on residential development proposals, irrespective of the size of scheme, is justified in terms of development viability, and would not result in burdens being placed on development that would undermine the delivery of development over the Plan period, as required to meet the strategic objectives of the Plan.

2.576 It is suggested that the lack of affordable housing threshold will deter development and constrain supply coming forward from small sites / schemes. There is no evidence to suggest that this will occur. As noted above, the Viability Report demonstrates that there is no reason to consider that the imposition of affordable housing provision of smaller residential development proposals would have an adverse impact on development viability. Subject to incorporating the recommended clause into Policy ST18 to enable variation of affordable housing provisions on an assessment of development viability, there is no reason to consider that smaller residential development proposals would not be able to be realised on a viable basis. Hence, there is no evidence to support the position that the imposition of affordable housing provisions on smaller schemes will deter development on them, nor constrain supply coming forward from this source. In fact, the Viability Report states that it is the author’s opinion that the removal of thresholds district-wide will enhance the planning-led delivery of affordable housing(116).

2.577 Following on, it is suggested that in constraining the housing supply from small sites will, in turn, have an impact on small builders. Given that it is contested that the lack of affordable housing threshold will impact on the supply of housing from smaller sites, it is equally considered unfounded to suggest that the provisions will have an impact on small builders.

2.578 Allied to these considerations, a respondent suggests that requiring affordable housing from small schemes will constrain housing supply coming forward through windfall development, upon which the Plan relies. The Plan does not rely upon windfall development to achieve the overall housing target. Rather, the required housing supply is provided through identified sites, including dwelling completions achieved since the commencement of the Plan period (2011), extant residential commitments, allocations for residential development and non-allocated developable sites for residential development. There is no reliance upon windfall development although it is recognised that such development has made a significant contribution to historic development rates and that it will further extend development opportunities beyond that required to meet the housing target. As such, although not quantified, this source is recognised as offering some additional flexibility into the potential future housing land supply.

2.579 The presented view that the removal of the affordable housing thresholds is a departure from the approach taken in existing development plans for North Devon and Torridge is accepted. This is not however considered to justify the continuation of the existing approach. The approach towards affordable housing thresholds contained within Policy ST18 is supported by viability evidence to demonstrate that it is deliverable and is considered justified by the high levels of affordable housing need identified across northern Devon.

2.580 Concerns are raised over the practical implementation of Policy ST18, particularly given the linking of provision to the open market value of a development scheme. Respondents suggest that it is not appropriate for private householders to have to prepare viability appraisals to support very

116 Paragraph 4.1.11, Economic Viability Assessment of Housing Development in North Devon and Torridge (Adams Integra, September 2013)

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

small scale proposals for residential development (in existing residential curtilage for example) and that the implementation is likely to delay proposals because of negotiations over values, etc. It is accepted that the introduction of affordable housing requirements onto smaller schemes is likely to introduce some additional complexity into the process that such schemes may have not been previously subject to. However, the processes and practices involved are well established across the planning and development sectors and should not prove unacceptably challenging to implement in practice.

2.581 A key point cited by respondents in relation to the lack of affordable housing thresholds was the Government’s intention to introduce national thresholds for affordable housing. At the time of consultation on the Publication draft of the Plan, the Government had not introduces such measures but had rather simply consulted upon the principle of doing so. As such, at the point of consultation, it was not considered appropriate to reflect such provisions within the Plan, particularly given that local evidence on viability and housing need suggested an alternative approach was more legitimate. It is however accepted, that now that the national position on affordable housing thresholds has been established through a written ministerial statement, amendment is required to the Plan to reflect the national provisions. Recommended change on this basis is offered earlier in this report. In introducing such thresholds, much of the criticism directed towards the lack of threshold is considered to be resolved, particularly in relation to very small developments, recognising that the national provisions exclude schemes of fewer than eleven dwellings in urban areas, and schemes of fewer than six dwellings in designated rural areas from being required to provide affordable housing contributions.

2.582 A range of thresholds are advocated by respondents, ranging from the exclusion of redundant buildings and single dwellings, through to proposals to introduce thresholds of 3, 5, 10 or 12 dwellings. It is recognised that the introduction of national thresholds will preclude some of the approaches advocated by respondents. In particular, it would no longer be possible to introduce thresholds that would only exclude single dwellings, or proposals for fewer than three or five dwellings. Subject to the discussion above which justifies the introduction of higher thresholds to reflect national provisions, it is not considered that there is any substantive local evidence that would have supported the introduction of thresholds at these levels in any case. The approach of excluding vacant buildings is an approach now advocated by national policy and guidance which is being taken forward in recommended amendments to the Policy.

2.583 In terms of proposals for thresholds of 10 or 12 dwellings, the former proposal is tied in particular to the threshold advocated by Government in their consultation (now implemented) and the latter on the recommendations of the Viability Report. In terms of the former, this is now the nationally advocated approach and is the minimum threshold that can be generally applied, with the exception of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and designated rural areas, where a lower six dwelling threshold may be applied, albeit that schemes of six to ten dwellings can only make financial contributions towards affordable housing. As such, whilst locally established evidence suggests that it is legitimate to seek affordable housing from all residential proposals that provide for a net increase in dwellings, it is accepted that the ten dwelling threshold advocated by respondents now has a legitimacy (as the proposals have now evolved into Government policy).

2.584 In terms of a 12 dwelling threshold, respondents advocate it on the basis that it is recommended within the Viability Report. It is accepted that this is a threshold advocated by the Viability Report, which puts it forward as a potential threshold for seeking on-site provision(117). The Viability Report does however go on, in subsequent recommendations, to advocate that the affordable housing policy threshold should be removed and that affordable housing could reasonably be sought from all residential development proposals. In doing so, it states that the preference in all cases should

117 Recommendation 1, Economic Viability Assessment of Housing Development in North Devon and Torridge (Adams Integra, September 2013)

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

be for on-site provision, although on schemes of 1-11 dwellings, alternatively seeking financial contributions towards affordable housing may be appropriate. To this end, the Viability Report does not support a 12 dwelling threshold as a cut-off for seeking affordable housing, rather suggesting it as a possible level for the transition of on-site / off-site provision. Given the wider recommendations of the Viability Report, it is considered that there is no justification for the imposition of a 12-dwelling threshold.

2.585 To conclude, whilst it is accepted that it is now necessary to reflect the nationally imposed thresholds for seeking affordable housing from market-led housing schemes within the Plan, local evidence suggests that the approach set out within the Publication draft of the Plan was previously legitimate and appropriate.

Tenure

2.586 A range of respondents suggest that the tenure provisions set out in Part (4) of Policy ST18 are too prescriptive. Respondents suggest that the tenure provisions in Part (4) of Policy ST18 that stipulate a rigid affordable housing tenure mix of 75% Social Rented and 25% Intermediate are insufficiently flexible and should be amended. In doing, respondents suggest that the provisions:

should be set out as a target rather than an absolute requirement; are insufficiently flexible considering length of Plan period; should be open to negotiation on a site-by-site basis; are likely to restrict delivery because of lack of funding and will result in the lowest level of supply; should enable other tenures and types of housing to come forward as affordable housing – Affordable Rent / Self-build / Low-cost / Sub-market Housing; and don’t serve the needs of the younger population / isn’t what communities want do not accord with national planning policy(118).

2.587 Response was received to the consultation that suggests that the tenure requirements should be set out as a target rather than as an absolute requirement. The tenure mix contained within Part (4) of ST18 was never intended to be an absolute requirement and is intended to be interpreted as a starting point that can be varied in response to identified housing local need and/ or development viability.

2.588 The purpose of Part (4) of Policy ST18 is to shape the tenure mix of affordable housing delivered by market-led housing proposals so as to meet identified needs. In line with the recommendations of the Viability Report, the clause is intended to set out that the prescribed tenure mix will be the starting point for negotiations and not to be rigidly applied on every site. Equally, it is intended to reflect the findings of the Viability Report that state that it is important to clearly set out the policy provisions to help inform land value expectations and to form the basis for a practical negotiated approach(119). It is not the intention that the prescribed tenure mix should be rigidly adhered to in all circumstances.

2.589 It is accepted that the current provisions within Part (4) of Policy ST18, do not fully convey the intent set out above and are somewhat contradictory. The first sentence of the clause rigidly establishes a tenure split, whilst the second sentence then goes on to state that variation may be negotiated on the basis of identified local housing need and/or development viability. It is recommended that Part (4) of the Policy is amended to introduce consistency and recognise that the stated tenure split is intended to be the starting point for negotiation that it may be subject to variance on the basis

118 Paragraphs 28 and 50 of the National Planning Policy Framework (CLG March 2012) 119 Paragraph 4.1.20, Economic Viability Assessment of Housing Development in North Devon and Torridge (Adams Integra, September 2013)

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

of housing need and/ or development viability. To this end, it is recommended that Part (4) of Policy ST18 is amended to read: ‘Affordable housing will be initially sought on the basis of a tenure mix of 75% social rented and 25% intermediate accommodation although variation may be negotiated on the basis of identified local housing need and/or development viability.’.

2.590 Allied to the recommended change above, it is accepted in line with representation received, that paragraph 7.29 should be amended to reflect the policy provisions that enable the tenure to be amended on the basis of development viability.

2.591 Respondents suggest that it is not appropriate to set out the tenure mix so rigidly, particularly given the length of time that the provisions will be in place and that circumstances may change over time. As advocated by national planning policy, the Councils have prepared a Strategic Housing Market Assessment that establishes the scale and nature of housing required to meet identified needs over the plan period. The advocated tenure mix stated within the Policy is intended to balance the tenure mix required to meet identified needs over the plan period, the need to enable a reasonable level of delivery and to ensure that provisions remain generally viable for residential development proposals. The evidence of housing need upon which the advocated tenure split is based covers the whole plan period; it should therefore remain legitimate over that period. It is considered appropriate to set out the tenure mix within the Policy that best enables provision to be delivered to meet identified needs. It is however recognised that circumstances may change over time that could impact on matters such as: housing affordability, the range and type of housing products available and development viability. The Policy should therefore provide safeguards and flexibility to ensure that it can respond to such changes. It is accepted that Part (4) of the Policy, as drafted, would not necessarily enable flexibility to respond to some of these circumstantial changes. However, that being said, the recommended amendment set out above is considered to satisfactorily enable appropriate adjustments to be made to the affordable housing sought through development proposals over the lifetime of the Plan. No further amendment is considered necessary to the policy on this basis.

2.592 Further respondents suggested that it is more appropriate to allow the tenure to be open to negotiation on a site-by-site basis. It is accepted that it is not appropriate to rigidly apply the advocated tenure mix and that variation should be allowed to respond to local circumstances and this is reflected in the amendment advocated above which provides sufficient flexibility to enable this to occur. It is however considered appropriate to continue to specify a target tenure mix to inform initial negotiations and manage land value expectations. No further amendment is considered necessary to the policy on this basis.

2.593 A number of respondents are critical of the approach of seeking Social Rented accommodation, suggesting that this may be difficult to achieve because of the lack of funding to deliver this tenure and that doing so will realise the lowest levels of affordable housing supply. Seeking a majority share of Social Rented accommodation is considered to be an appropriate policy requirement. To do so reflects evidence of housing need that identifies a significant requirement for housing of this tenure and that other tenures of affordable housing are generally unaffordable for many of those likely to be in housing need over the plan period.

2.594 Seeking Social Rented accommodation through the Policy should not be impacted by the availability of external funding. The delivery of this tenure has been tested as part of the Viability Report which concluded that, taking account of all other policy burdens, an 80% Social Rent / 20% Intermediate tenure split was a realistic mix to seek through the Plan. The Viability Report recognised that grant funding is not generally available from the Homes and Communities Agency for market-led housing schemes delivering affordable housing (so called s106 schemes). As such, the appraisals

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

were carried out on a without grant basis as standard(120). Therefore, the policy requirement to seek delivery of a proportion of Social Rented accommodation is not predicated on a requirement to secure external grant funding. Furthermore, the Viability Report highlights that the Affordable Rent tenure was never intended to make schemes more viable for developers(121). To this end, it is considered that the requirement to seek affordable housing of the Social Rent tenure should not prejudice affordable housing delivery due to the lack of external funding.

2.595 It is accepted that seeking a high proportion of Social Rented accommodation may have an impact on the overall scale of affordable housing that can be realised over the plan period. This is a considered approach. As noted earlier in the report, the Issues and Options consultation(122) relating to the Core Strategy, from which the current draft Plan has evolved, presented two key strategic options to steer the delivery of affordable housing; to either seek to maximise the scale of affordable housing delivery or to prioritise delivery to provide for those in highest need, recognising that the scale of affordable housing delivery likely to be realised would not be sufficient to meet the full scale of affordable housing need. The outcome(123) was to seek to optimise overall numbers whilst being flexible enough to prioritise the needs of specific groups. To date, the Plan continues to be predicated on this approach and the priority of seeking Social Rented accommodation is a key aspect of its implementation, recognising the high level of identified need for this tenure over the plan period. It is accepted that this approach is unlikely to maximise the scale of affordable housing delivery realised over the plan period. It is however, considered more valuable to deliver a smaller amount of affordable housing that better reflects the identified needs of northern Devon’s communities rather than delivering a larger quantum of affordable housing that doesn’t reflect needs.

2.596 It is suggested that the Policy should enable other tenures and types of housing to come forward as affordable housing, including affordable rent properties, shared ownership, low-cost / sub-market housing and self-build properties. Allied to this, other respondents suggest that the Policy should enable delivery in accordance with the provisions of national planning policy.

2.597 Whilst Part (4) of Policy ST18 is intended to provide an initial tenure split that prioritises the delivery of the Social Rent tenure and seeks delivery of a smaller share of intermediate housing, it is not intended to preclude delivery of other forms of affordable housing. The second sentence of that part of the policy is intended to allow negotiated variation of tenure mix on the basis of identified need. The recommended changes set out above further reflect this position. To this end, the Policy is intended to enable a range of affordable housing products to be delivered.

2.598 The term ‘affordable housing’ is defined within national planning policy(124) and it establishes the nationally accepted scope of what might reasonably be considered to be affordable housing. The glossary to the Publication draft of the Plan provides a local definition, based upon a subset of the national definition: ‘Social rented, affordable rented and intermediate housing provided to eligible households whose needs are not met by the market (see Annex 2, page 50 of NPPF)’.

2.599 The definition provided within national policy, and hence the summarised local definition, enables a broad range of housing products to be considered as affordable housing. The national definition clearly states that social rented, affordable rented and intermediate housing (either for sale

120 Paragraph 2.9.2, Economic Viability Assessment of Housing Development in North Devon and Torridge (Adams Integra, September 2013) 121 Paragraph 2.9.10, Economic Viability Assessment of Housing Development in North Devon and Torridge (Adams Integra, September 2013) 122 Questions 21 & 22, North Devon & Torridge District Councils’ Core Strategy Development Plan Document Issues & Options Report (November 2007) 123 Page 66, North Devon & Torridge District Councils’ Core Strategy Issues & Options Report – Feedback Report (February 2009) 124 Annex 2: Glossary, National Planning Policy Framework (CLG, March 2012)

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

or rent) can be considered as affordable housing. It also states that, subject to meeting specific criteria, low cost homes for sale and intermediate rent can be considered as affordable housing. It does however explicitly exclude ‘low cost market’ housing from being considered as affordable housing for planning purposes. As such, any housing product that can be considered to comply with the definitions for affordable housing could be potentially enabled for delivery through Policy ST18, subject to an identified need justifying variation from the initial tenure mix specified within Part (4). To this end, many of the housing products that are advocated to be brought under the scope of the Policy by respondents could already be reasonably enabled for delivery by the Policy. The exception to this would be low-cost market housing.

2.600 There are calls for self-build, custom-build dwellings or community self-build projects to be treated as affordable housing for the purposes of the Policy. It is considered that the Policy already allows for this, subject to the housing product being delivered conforming to the wider definition of affordable housing. It is not considered that any amendment is necessary to introduce particular concessions for self-build, custom-build or community-build housing.

2.601 It is recognised that it may be unhelpful to have a definition within the Plan which does not fully reflect that provided nationally. Whilst the definition within the Plan is considered to be broadly consistent with that provided within national planning policy it is considered appropriate to align it fully to the national definition to preclude any errors in interpretation, prevent any unintended consequences and to ensure that the Plan is precise. As such, it is recommended that the definition of affordable housing in the glossary to the Plan is amended to fully reflect that provided within national planning policy.

2.602 Respondents suggest that the affordable housing provisions enabled through the Plan do not address the needs of the younger population, with the suggestion that communities would rather see low-cost / sub-market housing delivered (particularly in rural areas). A respondent advocates that the affordable housing percentage should be reduced to 25% with the definition amended to enable 50% of such provision to be required at Social Rent and the other 50% as sub-market housing. There is no evidence to support the respondents advocated mix.

2.603 It is accepted that the initial tenure mix specified in the affordable housing provisions would not necessarily meet the needs of all sectors of the community. The provisions are however based upon evidence of identified needs and are shaped to ensure that delivery is prioritised to meet the requirements of households with the highest housing needs. However, the Policy, particularly with the proposed amendments, is flexible to enable a change to the tenure mix to be negotiated on the basis of identified local housing need; should evidence be presented that would suggest that a revised mix is appropriate.

2.604 In terms of the suggestion that the Policy does not deliver housing that communities want, and that they would rather see the delivery of low-cost / sub-market housing, there is no reason why such products could not reasonably be delivered as part of a wider housing mix. Subject to meeting the definition for affordable housing, it is conceivable that low-cost homes for sale could be considered as part of the Intermediate housing tenure enabled under the Policy provisions .Given the high levels of identified affordable housing need across northern Devon, it is not however considered appropriate to alter the affordable housing requirements (i.e. reduce the percentage or favourably alter the tenure mix to improve viability) to further the delivery of sub-market housing that would not fall under the accepted definition of affordable housing. To do so, would be at the detriment of affordable housing delivery which is considered a priority.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

2.605 It is suggested that the affordable housing provisions within Policy ST18 do not accord with national planning policy and in particular paragraph 50 on the National Planning Policy Framework. This element of national policy requires that local planning authorities plan for a mix of housing to meet local needs. It is considered appropriate to identify an initial tenure mix within the Policy for the reasons set out above and this in itself is not considered to conflict with national Policy. As noted above, it is however accepted that Part (4) of Policy ST18 as contained within the Publication draft of the Plan is somewhat contradictory, in that on the one hand it requires a specific tenure mix whilst also enabling variation on the basis of identified housing need and/ or viability. As noted above, this could be construed as inhibiting the ability to deliver a full range of affordable housing to meet identified needs. The proposed amendment to Part (4) is considered appropriate to address this matter.

2.606 A respondent highlights that the tenure split stated within the Policy is not reflective of that used within the Viability Report. Part (4) of Policy ST18 states an initial tenure split of 75% Social Rented and 25% Intermediate housing, whereas the findings of the Viability Report are predicated on a mix of 80% social rented and 20% intermediate housing. This was a matter raised in relation to the earlier Pre-publication draft of the Plan which contained similar provisions and no change was recommended in response at that time(125). The tenure split provided for within the Plan continues an established and successful approach that has been followed by both Councils. Importantly, it also has the additional benefit of enhancing deliverability of the policy requirements. An increase in the provision of Intermediate housing in place of Social Rented housing has the effect of improving the viability of development for developers and the financial position for Registered Providers. As such, whilst it is accepted that there is variation between the tenure mix stated within the Plan and that used within the Viability Report, this is considered justified and likely to result in a positive improvement in the deliverability of the Plan; consequentially it is not considered to undermine the robustness of the policy’s provisions.

2.607 A respondent suggests that the Policy should allow for delivery of housing for people who have a ‘local need’, such as dwellings for the elderly, key workers and retiring agricultural workers, rather than just those in ‘affordable need’. In doing so, they suggest that the Policy over-emphasises ‘affordable’ need. National planning policy explicitly requires that local planning authorities plan to meet the full objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing(126). In this context, ‘affordable housing’ is explicitly defined and it is intended to provide housing for eligible households whose needs are not met by the market. Policy ST18 provides one of the key mechanisms to secure delivery of ‘affordable housing’ to meet identified needs. It is accepted that the Policy will not enable the delivery of housing to meet ‘local needs’ where such needs would not be addressed by housing that complies with the accepted definition for ‘affordable housing’. The Policy has a particular role to play in the delivery of affordable housing and is not intended to address wider needs and demands for other forms of housing that fall outside of the definition. It is however recognised that it is important to plan for such needs and demands. The wider policies of the Plan (including Policy ST17: A balanced local housing market, Policy DM28: Rural Workers Accommodation and Policy DM29: Farmer Family Attached Accommodation) are considered to provide appropriate provisions to meet the wider housing needs and demands of northern Devon’s communities including appropriate opportunities to deliver housing to meet ‘local needs’. The scope for the delivery of housing to meet local needs was considered in response to representation received to Policy ST17 and it was concluded that the provisions of the Plan were appropriate to address such needs. To this end, the scope of Policy ST18 is considered to be appropriate and no change is recommended in response to the matter.

125 Paragraphs 509 – 512, Appendix 1 of North Devon and Torridge Local Plan – Publication Draft – Consultation Statement (June 2014) 126 Paragraph 47, National Planning Policy Framework (CLG, March 2012)

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

2.608 Respondents suggest that the current policy approach of seeking Social Rented tenure as a priority is not appropriate. Additionally that such an approach is not supported by evidence, given the changed role for the Affordable Rented tenure since the Strategic Housing Market Assessment was prepared and that it is not reflective of Registered Provider’s development plans. Allied to this, a respondent suggests that the failure to recognise the Affordable Rent tenure within the Policy is inconsistent with national planning policy, doesn’t reflect the government’s preference for this tenure and provides for an ineffective policy. The tenure mix specified within the Policy, which initially seeks provision of affordable housing in the Social Rented and Intermediate tenures, is a considered approach, intended to reflect the identified needs of northern Devon’s communities. This is reflective of evidence that indicates that the Affordable Rent tenure is generally unaffordable for those in housing need across northern Devon and that there is a high level of need for housing for the Social Rented tenure.

2.609 National planning policy does not require local planning authorities to deliver affordable housing of a particular tenure. The Policy is not however intended to preclude delivery of affordable housing in the Affordable Rent tenure to meet identified needs. Rather it is simply intended to prioritise affordable housing delivery in alternative tenures. Should evidence be forthcoming to identify that an alternative tenure mix is more appropriate then the Policy is intended to be able to respond to this. This could be on the basis of evidence of housing need or development viability. The latter would also enable the tenure mix to be altered, for example to deliver Affordable Rented tenure, should a Registered Provider demonstrate that it is necessary to do so in order to secure appropriate finance. As noted in response to other concerns about Part (4) of the Policy, it is recognised that as drafted, the wording of the Policy is such that it doesn’t clearly reflect the flexibility that was intended in relation to tenure. Change is already recommended to Part (4) of the Policy that will address this matter. As such, whilst the Affordable Rented tenure is not explicitly mentioned within the Policy, it is not considered that it fails to recognise it. Rather the Policy simply seeks to prioritise other tenures on the basis of identified need. This is considered to be an appropriate response to evidence of housing need across northern Devon which provides an effective policy approach. No further amendment is considered necessary to address this matter.

Cascade of Tenure

2.610 A respondent suggests that the Policy should enable a ‘cascade’ of tenure on the basis of no take up from a Registered Provider. In doing so, they propose a revised wording to paragraph 7.29 that would introduce flexible s106 provisions to enable a ‘cascade’ from one tenure type to another to aid delivery where it can be demonstrated that there is/ will be no take up from a Registered Provider for a particular tenure type. It is not considered necessary or appropriate to include such provisions within the Plan. This is a detailed implementation matter that is considered better left to supplementary documentation or negotiation relating to a particular case. The recommended changes to Part (4) of the Policy set out above enables the variation of tenure on the basis of identified need or development viability. Such provisions could reasonably facilitate the advocated approach to be implemented in particular cases. No change is considered necessary to the Plan on this basis.

Recycling Affordable Housing Receipts

2.611 Respondents suggest that the approach of seeking the recycling of shared ownership receipts into further affordable housing, as specified in paragraph 7.30, is flawed and that the monies simply pay for the dwelling. This position is contested. The requirements are intended to be reflective of the provisions within national planning policy that indicate that affordable housing should ‘include provisions to remain at an affordable price for future eligible households or for the subsidy to be recycled for

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

alternative affordable housing provision’(127). The provisions contained within paragraph 7.30 are considered to broadly reflect these national requirements. However, for clarification and consistency with national planning policy, minor amendment is recommended to the final sentence of paragraph 7.30 to read: ‘With respect to intermediate housing for sale, where receipts are received from the sale of ownership shares, there is an expectation that monies subsidies will be recycled into further affordable housing within the locality of the existing provision’.

Non-registered housing providers

2.612 A respondent suggests that the Policy does not recognise the contribution of non-registered housing providers, i.e. Community Land Trusts (CLTs) and a range of modifications are sought in response, to make the Policy more reflective of the delivery mechanisms preferred by Community Land Trusts. The Policy makes no reference to any particular form of provider for affordable housing and does not provide a preference towards Registered Providers or otherwise. Rather, the policy is concerned with the delivery of affordable housing to meet identified needs. Should a proposal meet the requirements of the policy then it will be supported, irrespective of the provider. As such, whilst the Policy does not explicitly refer to the delivery of affordable housing by non-registered providers, the provisions would not preclude delivery by such organisations. It is not considered appropriate to amend the policy to make particular provisions to non-registered providers as the policy is predicated with delivering affordable housing that meets the nationally prescribed definition. Should the housing product being delivered by non-registered providers do so, then it can be supported by the Policy. No amendment is considered necessary to the Plan on the basis of the matter raised.

Integration with Market Housing

2.613 A number of respondents suggest that the provisions contained within Part (5) of the Policy, which seeks to ensure that any provided affordable housing is integrated with the wider proposals for market housing, are unnecessary and duplicate provisions contained within Policy ST17: A balanced local housing market. This position is contested. The Policy elements contained within Part (5) are very specific to affordable housing delivery and are not considered to be sufficiently covered by the provisions contained in Policy ST17, nor the wider provisions of the Plan. No change to the Plan is recommended in relation to this matter.

2.614 A further respondent suggests that the provisions of Part (5) are idealist and likely to prove impractical to deliver. Specific criticism is directed toward particular measures contained within the Policy, including suggestion that there is a need to keep costs low at the outset and that there are management issues with dealing with affordable housing dispersed throughout a site. To this end, they advocate that a more flexible approach is adopted to reflect the realities of development. This is considered to be a necessary element of the Policy and the measures contained within it are deemed appropriate to ensure that affordable housing is integrated into the wider proposals. In doing so, they help to ensure that development accords with national planning policy provisions that seek to create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities(128).

2.615 The provisions are not intended to be overly prescriptive and the clause does contain measures that allow deviation from the requirements where robust justification is provided. The clause is considered to generally allow sufficient flexibility so as to address the particular concerns raised by the respondent. The term ‘broadly in-step’ in relation to the provision of affordable housing alongside the delivery of affordable housing would not preclude the affordable housing being delivered towards the latter part of a phase of development. It is accepted that the term ‘fully integrated’ in relation to the affordable housing and market housing may be somewhat restrictive and imply that affordable

127 Definition of ‘affordable housing, Annex 2: Glossary, National Planning Policy Framework (CLG, March 2012) 128 Paragraph 50, National Planning Policy Framework (CLG, March 2012)

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

housing must be ‘pepper potted’ across the site. In reality, the clause was intended to ensure integration of affordable housing but not necessarily be so prescriptive. For instance, it may be that ‘clusters’ of affordable housing could be appropriate. To this end, it is recommended that amendment is made to the first sentence of Part (5) to read: ‘…and be intermixed with it across the site fully integrated into the development.’.

Second Homes

2.616 A respondent suggests that affordable housing should be protected from being marketed to those wishing to buy a second home. In response, affordable housing would not be available to those seeking to utilise it as a second home, with occupation restricted to eligible households who are in identified housing need in line with officially published criteria (for example Devon Home Choice). As such, whilst affordable housing could potentially be marketed to those seeking to buy a second home, it would not be possible for it to be utilised as such. No amendment to the Plan is considered necessary in response to this matter.

2.617 A further respondent advocates that any new building should provide affordable housing for local people and not for second homes investment. National planning policy requires local planning authorities to use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing and to plan for a mix of housing based on current and future demographic trends(129). As such, the Plan contains provisions that seek to provide a scale and mix of housing to meet the identified need for housing that will arise in northern Devon over the plan period, including a mix of both market and affordable housing. It would not be appropriate to simply seek to deliver affordable housing for local people as this would not address the needs arising from the existing and future communities, which will include a range of households with differing needs. It is necessary to plan to meet the full range of housing needs including those that are generated locally, occurring from in-migration and those seeking second homes. Failure to do so is likely to exacerbate the issue of housing affordability, particularly for local households, as there will be a deficit in housing against demand, leading to more competition for housing and potentially house price inflation. As such, it is not considered appropriate to only plan for the delivery of affordable housing for local people. To this end, no change is recommended to the Plan on the basis of this matter.

Occupancy Restrictions

2.618 The support for the local occupancy restrictions, as defined, is noted and welcomed. A further respondent suggests that the proposed occupancy restrictions will result in households in rural areas not being eligible for occupancy, and that either the approach to eligibility (i.e. Choice Based Lettings through Devon Home Choice) is removed, or additional policy provision is made to enable ‘local needs’ housing. It is not considered appropriate to remove the restrictions on occupancy and decouple eligibility from officially recognised mechanisms for doing so. National planning policy indicates that affordable housing should be provided to eligible households whose needs are not met by the market, with eligibility determined with regard to local incomes and house prices(130). It is accepted that eligibility criteria may result in some households not being able to access affordable housing that is delivered through the Plan. However, it is deemed appropriate and necessary to ensure that affordable housing is retained for those in identified housing need. In fact, the Plan is currently silent on the matter of eligibility, and it is considered appropriate to introduce additional wording into the Policy and supporting text to clarify that affordable housing will be subject to restrictions to ensure that occupation is restricted to households in affordable housing need. This would also address a further respondent’s request that advocates that affordable housing occupancy should be subject to a ceiling

129 Paragraphs 47 and 50, National Planning Policy Framework (CLG, March 2012) 130 Definition of ‘Affordable housing’, Annex 2: Glossary, National Planning Policy Framework (CLG, March 2012)

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

on income. It is also considered appropriate that such a clause should reflect the position set out in supporting text that affordable housing in rural areas will be subject to provisions to give priority to households with a local connection. As such, it is recommended that an additional clause is inserted into Policy ST18 to read: ‘(xx) Affordable housing will be subject to planning conditions, obligations or other legally defensible limitations to:

(i) restrict occupation to households identified as being in need of affordable housing; and

(ii) in designated rural areas, give priority of occupation to households with a local connection.’.

2.619 Allied to this, it is recommended that appropriate additional supporting text is added to explain the implementation of this aspect of the Policy.

2.620 In terms of making further provision for housing to meet ‘local needs’, it is not considered necessary to make specific provisions for such housing. As noted in response to similar representation received in relation to Policy ST17: A balanced local housing market, it is considered that the wider provisions of the Plan offer an appropriate range of opportunities to deliver housing to meet ‘local needs’. As such, no change to the Plan is advocated in response to this matter.

Retention of Affordable Housing

2.621 A respondent suggests that it is unrealistic to seek to retain affordable housing in perpetuity, and that Part (6) of Policy ST18 be amended to remove the reference to ‘in perpetuity’. It is not accepted that the wording ‘in perpetuity’ is superfluous. The definition of affordable housing within national planning policy notes that ‘Affordable housing should include provisions to remain at an affordable price for future eligible households or for the subsidy to be recycled for alternative affordable housing provision’. To this end, it is considered that the words ‘in perpetuity’ as stated in Part (6) are appropriate and reflect such national policy provision, that seeks to ensure that affordable housing is secured for future eligible households. As such, it is recommended that ‘in perpetuity’ is retained within Part (6) of Policy ST18.

Robustness of Provisions

2.622 A respondent suggests that the supporting text contained within the Plan references on-going work on viability which contradicts the claims that the affordable housing requirements are robust and achievable. The paragraphs cited by the respondent are ones which were present in the earlier draft of the Plan(131) and are not contained within the Publication draft of the Plan. As such, it is considered likely that the respondent was reviewing the earlier draft of the Plan in error. The Viability Report(132) has now been finalised and the provisions contained within the Publication draft are based upon the final recommendations of this report, rather than draft findings. As such, the comments that were directed towards this earlier draft are no longer valid. No change is recommended to the Plan on the basis of the matter raised.

Other Matters

Circumventing or Mitigating Requirements

2.623 Recognising that it is recommended to introduce thresholds that will exclude certain residential development proposals from being required to provide affordable housing, it is considered appropriate to insert a clause into Policy that would prevent development proposals from being formulated in a

131 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan – Consultation Draft, January 2013 132 Economic Viability Assessment of Housing Development in North Devon and Torridge (Adams Integra, September 2013)

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

manner that would circumvent or mitigate the provision of affordable housing. A similar clause was included in the earlier draft of the Plan when the affordable housing policy was subject to thresholds. To this end, it is recommended that an additional clause is inserted into Policy ST18 to read: ‘(xx) Where it is considered that a proposal is formulated with a view to circumventing affordable housing requirements, the affordable housing provision will be re-negotiated.’. Allied to the introduction of this clause, it will be necessary to add appropriate explanatory material to the supporting text, which in particular clarifies that the provision applies to proposals that seek to artificially fragment sites or under-develop them.

2.624 The Viability Report appraises the potential for seeking affordable housing and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) payments on the basis that the affordable housing will be delivered without grant funding and the provisions of Policy ST18 are predicated on this approach. This is on the basis that grant funding from Homes and Communities Agency is not normally available to subsidise affordable housing being delivered as part of open-market housing schemes secured through the planning system (so-called s106 schemes) unless such subsidy would ‘add value’ to the provision being secured. The supporting text to the policy is currently silent on this matter and it is recommended that an addition is made to the supporting text to read: ‘The starting point for the provision of affordable housing through Policy ST18 is an expectation of delivery without grant subsidy. Any subsidy will be expected to provide a betterment of provision over and above the baseline provisions set out within the Policy (such as improvement of tenure mix or delivery of additional affordable dwellings above the prescribed level).’

Retention of affordable housing

2.625 It is recognised that Part (6) of Policy ST18 would benefit from minor refinement to make it more precise. At present, the clause specifies that the affordable housing, or broadly equivalent provision, should remain available to the local community. The reference to ‘local community’ is considered to be inappropriate. Rather, the provision should remain available to ‘eligible households’ as the affordable housing will not be available to all of the local community. As such, it is recommended that subject to wider recommended amendments, Part (6) of Policy ST18 is amended to read: ‘(6) All affordable housing will be subject to arrangements to ensure that it, or broadly equivalent provision, remains available to eligible households the local community in perpetuity.’.

Prioritising occupation to those with a Local Connection

2.626 It has been identified that the provisions associated with restricting occupation of affordable housing in rural areas specified in paragraph 7.31 are stated as an absolute rather than as a priority, with associated cascade to wider eligibility. Whilst it is appropriate to prioritise occupation to meet local needs, it is not appropriate to create a situation where properties are kept vacant because of unreasonably tight occupancy restrictions. It is therefore recommended that amendment is made to paragraph 7.31 to prioritise those with a local connection but to cascade potential occupation to those who reside elsewhere within the District.

Definition of Local Connection

2.627 Allied to the point above, it has been identified that there is an inconsistency within the supporting text in relation to the definition of ‘local connection’ for the purposes of the occupancy of affordable housing in rural areas and the scope of ‘identified local need’ set out in paragraph 7.35. The consequence is such that it might not be possible for those identified as being in housing need for the purposes of justifying the consent of a rural exception site to be prioritised for the occupation of the dwellings that are provided on the site. Alongside the cascade to adjoining parishes, it is also advocated that change is made to allow occupation to cascade to a relevant grouping of parishes

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

(such as the Rural Alliance).To this end, it is recommended to amend paragraph 7.31 to enable occupation in the first instance by those with a local connection to the parish, then to those within adjoining rural parishes or to a relevant grouping of parishes formally recognised by the local planning authority (such as the Rural Alliance) and then to the wider local planning authority area.

2.628 To ensure consistency with the changes introduced in response to the new national affordable housing provisions that relates provision in the rural areas to ‘designated rural areas’, it is recommended that the local connection definition relating to affordable housing occupation in rural areas should be amended to relate to ‘designated’ rural parishes. In doing so, it is recommended that ‘rural parish’ should be defined within the glossary, linking their definition to those designated as a rural area under the provisions of the Housing Act 1985.

2.629 For completeness, it is considered that ‘designated rural area’ should also be defined within the glossary, again linking the definition to that designated as a rural area under the provisions of the Housing Act 1985.

Other Changes

2.630 It has been identified that paragraph 7.28 of the supporting text relates to Policy ST19: Affordable Housing on Exception Sites. It currently resides in the middle of the supporting text associated to Policy ST18 and it is recommended that the paragraph is relocated to sit after existing paragraph 7.32 and just prior to Policy ST19.

2.631 Equally, the final sentence of paragraph 7.25 which currently sits after Policy ST18 is considered to be better placed within the introductory section on affordable housing provision. As such, it is recommended that the final sentence (and sub-points) are relocated to sit as a new paragraph following on from existing paragraph 7.23.

2.632 It is recommended that a range of other relatively minor wording changes and additions are made to the supporting text associated to Policy ST18 to improve the legibility of the Plan and to enhance plan delivery and effectiveness. These would not fundamentally alter the intent of the Policy or its application. Notably, they include, These changes are integrated into the wider recommendations set out below.

Conclusion

2.633 A range of amendment is considered necessary to respond to changes to national planning policy and guidance, and to legitimate issues that were raised through the consultation on the Publication draft of the Plan. A number of the proposed recommendations address matters that could form a risk to the soundness of the Plan, whilst others offer changes that will aide the implantation and deliverability of it.

Agreed Actions

2.634 The following are agreed as Main Changes to the Plan:

1. Amend lead-in sentence to Part (1) of Policy ST18 to recognise that provision may be subject to negotiation, stating that ‘All new residential development that provides a net gain in open market housing will be expected to contribute towards the provision of affordable housing either through physical provision or financial contributions on the following basis: Affordable housing provision will be negotiated on residential development proposals on the following basis: ’.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

2. Amend Part (1)(a) of Policy to read: ‘(a) Proposals for 11 or more dwellings, or for the provision of greater than 1,000 square metres gross residential floorspace irrespective of the number of dwellings, will be expected to provide on-site delivery of affordable housing equal to 30% of all dwellings on site; and ’.

3. Delete existing clause Part (1)(b) relating to financial contributions as this is covered by an alternative proposed clause.

4. Insert additional clause in Part (1) of Policy ST18 to read: ‘(b) In designated rural areas, including the North Devon Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, proposals for 6 to 10 dwellings will be expected to provide a financial contribution of broadly equivalent value to providing on-site affordable housing equal to 30% of all dwellings on site.’.

5. Insert additional clause in Policy ST18 to read: ‘(2) As part of residential development proposals, where vacant buildings are brought back into any lawful use, or are demolished to be replaced by new buildings, the affordable housing requirement for the proposal will be discounted by a proportion equivalent to the existing gross floorspace of the vacant buildings. ’ 6. Amend Part (2) of Policy ST18 to read: ‘( 2 3) Where a fraction of an affordable dwelling is required by policy, such provision will be collected through a financial contribution of broadly equivalent value.’

7. Amend Part (3) of Policy ST18 to read: ‘( 3 4) Affordable housing will be provided on-site; Where the policy seeks on-site provision, alternative off-site delivery provision or delivery provision through financial contributions of broadly equivalent value will only be alternatively considered may be negotiated where it can be demonstrated that on-site provision is not possible or appropriate.’.

8. Insert additional clause in Policy ST18 to read: ‘ (5) Negotiation to vary the scale and nature of affordable housing provision, along with the balance of other infrastructure and planning requirements, will be considered on the basis of a robust appraisal of development viability.’.

9. Insert additional clause in Policy ST18 to read: ‘ (6) Where it is considered that a proposal is formulated with a view to circumventing affordable housing requirements, the affordable housing provision will be re-negotiated. ’

10. Amend Part (4) of Policy ST18 to read: ‘( 4 7) Affordable housing will be initially sought on the basis of a tenure mix will be of 75% social rented and 25% intermediate. accommodation, although A variation may be negotiated on the basis of identified local housing need and/or development viability.’

11. Amend Part (5) of Policy ST18 to read: ‘( 5 8) Affordable housing provision should be provided broadly in-step with market housing as development delivery progresses, be visually indistinguishable from market housing and be intermixed with it across the site fully integrated into the development. Any proposed departure from these requirements will need to be robustly justified. ’.

12. Amend Part (6) of Policy ST18 to read: ‘( 6 9) All affordable housing will be subject to arrangements to ensure that it, or broadly equivalent provision, remains available to eligible households the local community in perpetuity.’.

13. Insert additional clause in Policy ST18 to read: ‘(10) Affordable housing will be subject to planning conditions, obligations or other legally defensible limitations to:

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

(i) restrict occupation to households identified as being in need of affordable housing; and

(ii) in designated rural areas, give priority of occupation to households with a local connection.’

14. Amend paragraph 7.21 to read: ‘7.21 Evidence indicates that over half of all housing required to meet the needs and demands of northern Devon's communities over the period 2011 to 2031 needs to be affordable provision ; the significant majority of which will only be affordable to local households if provided as social rented accommodation(133).’

15. Relocate final sentence of paragraph 7.25 to form new paragraph following on from existing paragraph 7.23, to read: ‘ 7.xx The Local Plan supports a range of mechanisms that are intended to increase the availability and range of affordable housing including:

(a) securing an appropriate mix of dwelling types, sizes and tenures;

(b) securing an element of affordable housing in open market residential schemes; and

(c) allowing affordable housing on sites that would not otherwise allow development.’

16. Amend sub-heading preceding paragraph 7.24 to read: ‘ Delivering Affordable Housing Affordable Housing on Development Sites’

17. Delete paragraph 7.25.

18. Split and amend paragraph 7.26 to read: ‘7.26 A contribution towards affordable housing delivery will be sought from all qualifying proposals for residential development. Policy ST18: Affordable Housing on Development Sites, requires all residential proposals providing a net gain of market housing to contribute to the supply of affordable housing. An on-site first position will apply to all sites unless it is not mathematically possible to deliver affordable housing based on the 30% requirement. Reflecting national provisions(134), affordable housing requirements for residential development proposals are subject to a series of development thresholds beneath which affordable housing will not be sought. In line with national provisions, North Devon Council and Torridge District Council have exercised the option to implement a lower threshold of five dwellings or less, beneath which affordable housing should not be sought, in designated rural areas.’

19. Insert new paragraph to follow first part of split paragraph 7.26, to read: ‘ 7.xx In all locations, on-site delivery of affordable housing will be sought on residential development proposals of 11 or more dwellings, or for schemes providing greater than 1,000 square metres gross residential floorspace irrespective of the number of dwellings. Additionally, in designated rural areas, a financial contribution towards affordable housing delivery will be sought from residential development proposals for six to 10 dwellings. No affordable housing provision will be sought from proposals for residential annexes or from residential extensions. Affordable housing enabled through Policy ST19, on rural exception sites, is not subject to the affordable housing thresholds established within Policy ST18. ’

20. Insert footnote associated to paragraph proposed for insertion at Recommendation 19 above, to follow text stating ‘… gross residential floorspacex …’ and to read: ‘Gross Internal Area (GIA)’

133 Strategic Housing Market Assessment: North Devon and Torridge Update (Housing Vision, 2012) 134 Written Ministerial Statement, Minister of State - Department for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis), Column 54WS-57WS, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm141128/wmstext/141128m0001.htm#14112842000008

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

21. Insert new paragraph to follow first part of split paragraph 7.26, and subsequent to above recommended addition, to read: ‘ 7.xx In line with national provisions, the affordable housing requirements for development proposals that bring vacant buildings back into any lawful use, or demolish them to be replaced by a new building, will be subject to a discount equivalent to the existing gross internal floorspace of the vacant buildings. Buildings determined to be abandoned do not qualify for the affordable housing discount. ’

22. Insert new paragraph, incorporating remaining part of existing paragraph 7.26, to follow split paragraph 7.26, and subsequent to above recommended addition, to read: ‘ 7.xx Where the policy seeks on-site provision of affordable housing, alternative off-site provision may be negotiated where it can be demonstrated that on-site provision is not possible or appropriate. In lieu of on-site provision, off-site provision, which should must be agreed with the local planning authority, may comprise a combination of financial contributions, land with planning permission for housing and/or completed dwellings. In all cases, the scale and nature of provision will be of broadly equivalent value to that which would have been required on-site. Financial contributions collected will be used to deliver affordable housing elsewhere within the same sub-market housing area. ’

23. Insert new paragraph to follow split paragraph 7.26, and subsequent to above recommended addition, to read: ‘ 7.xx In the first instance, endeavours will be made to use financial contributions for the delivery of affordable housing, secured from residential development proposals, to achieve affordable housing delivery within the parish where the proposal site was located. Where it can be demonstrated that there is not a reasonable prospect of delivery within that parish, the contributions may be used to deliver affordable housing within adjoining parishes, or within a relevant grouping of parishes formally recognised by the local planning authority (such as the Rural Alliance). Ultimately, the use of contributions to deliver affordable housing may cascade to the wider local planning authority area where it is demonstrated that there is not a reasonable prospect of delivery within the parish where the original proposal site was located or within adjoining parishes . ’

24. Insert new paragraph to follow split paragraph 7.26, and subsequent to above recommended addition, to read: ‘ 7.xx The starting point for the provision of affordable housing through Policy ST18 is an expectation of delivery without grant subsidy. Any subsidy will be expected to provide a betterment of provision over and above the baseline provisions set out within the Policy (such as an improvement of tenure mix or delivery of additional affordable dwellings above the prescribed level). ’

25. Amend paragraph 7.27 to read: ‘ The affordable housing requirements established through Policy ST18 are considered to be robust and capable of being achieved in the majority of circumstances. It is however accepted that there may be occasions whereby circumstances conspire to mean that the delivery of affordable housing in line with the policy requirements may compromise development viability. The obligation will lay with the developer to provide a robust financial justification to support any proposals falling below failing to meet identified policy requirements. The local planning authority will consider such requests on the basis of an open book financial appraisal of development viability finance. If it is deemed necessary to independently verify the appraisal, the developer will be liable for reasonable costs incurred to the local planning authority in doing so. Where it is clearly demonstrated that scheme viability prohibits meeting the full policy requirements for the provision of affordable housing and/ or other planning obligations, the local planning authority will may enter into negotiations to vary the scale proportion and/or mix of affordable housing provision.’

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

26. Relocate paragraph 7.28 to form new paragraph that directly proceeds Policy ST19 to read: ‘ 7.xx Ensuring housing needs are addressed locally is an essential component in delivering a long-term future for communities across northern Devon. The Local Plan seeks to ensure that housing needs can be appropriately realised to support the creation of sustainable communities, providing housing in response to locally generated social needs. The Local Plan enables exceptional land release around defined settlements for the provision of sites for affordable housing in line with the requirements of Policy ST19: Affordable Housing on Exception Sites. Recognising that viability may inhibit delivery, the Local Plan supports the delivery of an element of market housing on such proposals where this would enable the provision of significant additional affordable housing. ’

27. Insert new paragraph to follow paragraph 7.28, to read: ‘ 7.xx Where there is reason to believe that a proposal has been formulated with a view to circumventing affordable housing requirements, the local planning authority reserves the right to renegotiate the affordable housing provision that should be delivered. In determining the potential dwelling capacity, the local planning authority may have regard to a range of matters including site layout, forms and/or mix of development and the housing density that might be appropriate, reflecting on the context of the site and having regard to the need to make efficient use of land. Where a proposal site is subject to phasing, is sub-divided or where there is a reasonable prospect of adjoining land coming forward for residential development, the local planning authority may consider the site(s) taken as a whole for the purpose of determining the appropriate affordable housing provisions. ’

28. Amend paragraph 7.29 to read: ‘Reflecting evidence of identified tenure needs, priority will generally be given to the provision of affordable housing for rent(135) at a social rent. The starting point for negotiating affordable housing tenure mix is to seek a tenure mix of 75% social rented and 25% intermediate accommodation. A v Variation to the tenure mix split can may be supported negotiated where evidence of local housing need and/ or development viability indicate that an alternative mix is appropriatethe applicant can demonstrate more up to date evidence than the Strategic Housing Market Assessment: North Devon and Torridge Update (2012). This The evidence will need to demonstrate that the proposal provides a more appropriate balance between specific local affordable housing needs and development viability at the time of the proposal.’

29. Amend paragraph 7.30 to read: ‘The Local Plan seeks to ensure that when affordable housing is provided, that it or broadly equivalent provision is available to local communities in the long term. As such, affordable housing proposals will usually be subject to planning conditions or legal agreements that secure its affordability in perpetuity. With respect to intermediate housing for sale, where receipts are received from the sale of ownership shares, there is an expectation that any subsidy monies will be recycled into further affordable housing provision in the locality of the existing provision.’

30. Amend paragraph 7.31 to read: ‘7.31 The occupation of affordable housing will be restricted to households in need of affordable housing. , and a Additionally, within the designated rural areas (beyond strategic and main centres), affordable housing will be subject to provisions that afford priority to households with a local connection. For the purpose of Policy ST18 and Policy ST19, a household with a local connection is defined as those where: at least one of the following criteria must be satisfied by perspective occupants:

(a) at least one adult in the household was resident continuously in the P parish for a minimum of five years immediately prior to occupation;

135 Strategic Housing Market Assessment: North Devon and Torridge Update (Housing Vision, 2012)

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

(b) at least one adult member in the household was resident in the P parish for five years within the previous ten years immediately prior to occupation;

(c) at least one parent, guardian, child or sibling, or f at least one adult in the intended household, has been resident in the P parish for a minimum of 5 years prior to occupation; or

(d) at least one adult in the household has been in continuous employment for at least 16 hours a week in the P parish for at least five years immediately prior to occupation.’

31. Insert new paragraph to follow paragraph 7.31, to read: ‘ 7.xx For the purpose of defining a household with a local connection, a rural parish is taken as one designated as a rural area under section 157(1) of the Housing Act 1985. Where no household with a local connection qualifies for occupancy under these criteria, the scope for occupation will cascade to households with a local connection to an adjoining parish, or to a relevant grouping of parishes formally recognised by the local planning authority. Ultimately, where no household qualifies for occupancy within these areas, the scope for occupation will cascade to the wider local planning authority area. ’

32. Amend paragraph 7.32 to read: ‘7.32 The affordable housing priorities along with detailed matters such as the methods of assessing financial contributions, the methodology for assessing viability and other interpretations of affordable housing policy will be set out in supporting documentation, such as a practice note or Supplementary Planning Document, that will accompany the Local Plan.’

33. Insert new sub-heading following paragraph 7.32 to read: “Affordable Housing on Exception Sites’

34. Amend definition of ‘affordable housing’ within the glossary to read:

‘ Social rented, affordable rented and intermediate housing provided to eligible households whose needs are not met by the market (see Annex 2, page 50 of NPPF).

Social rented, affordable rented and intermediate housing, provided to eligible households whose needs are not met by the market. Eligibility is determined with regard to local incomes and local house prices. Affordable housing should include provisions to remain at an affordable price for future eligible households or for the subsidy to be recycled for alternative affordable housing provision.

Social rented housing is owned by local authorities and private registered providers (as defined in section 80 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008), for which guideline target rents are determined through the national rent regime. It may also be owned by other persons and provided under equivalent rental arrangements to the above, as agreed with the local authority or with the Homes and Communities Agency.

Affordable rented housing is let by local authorities or private registered providers of social housing to households who are eligible for social rented housing. Affordable Rent is subject to rent controls that require a rent of no more than 80% of the local market rent (including service charges, where applicable).

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Intermediate housing is homes for sale and rent provided at a cost above social rent, but below market levels subject to the criteria in the Affordable Housing definition above. These can include shared equity (shared ownership and equity loans), other low cost homes for sale and intermediate rent, but not affordable rented housing.

Homes that do not meet the above definition of affordable housing, such as “low cost market” housing, may not be considered as affordable housing for planning purposes.’

35. Add definition for ‘designated rural area’ to the glossary to read: ‘An area designated under Section 157 of the Housing Act 1985 as being a rural area.’

36. Add definition for ‘rural parish’ to the glossary to read: ‘A parish designated as a rural area under Section 157 of the Housing Act 1985.’ Policy ST19: Affordable Housing on Exception Sites

Comments made in response to ST19 Affordable Housing on Exception Sites

Total Number of Responses 22

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 2 2

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 8 6

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 5 1

Summary of Issues

Comments on ST19 Affordable Housing on Exception Sites plp number

Supportive of Policy ST19 – considered to be consistent with national planning 954, 1010, 1421, policy. 1793, 2475

The policy is limited as to its recognition as to the numerous ways that housing 663 is now developed. Biased towards developers with affordable housing providers and ignores community groups and self build scenarios.

The statement ‘Proportionate to the scale and nature of existing development 1010, 2317, 2469 and ‘identified need’ are supported but could place a heavy onus on small scale developers to prove local need as councils do not keep up to date needs information.

Part (d) that states that ‘the housing need could not reasonably be satisfied 1010, 2319, 2469 without the exceptional release of land’ is vague and undefined. This criterion should be removed. If there is a need within the local area then this should be enough to satisfy the policy.

Encouraging Council has acknowledged viability within wording of policy and 2318, 1010 a willingness to negotiate where necessary.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

LA will need to take flexible approach to ensure housing development are 1010 deliverable (paragraph 54 of NPPF)

Part (f) is flawed, more than 50% affordable housing is not viable, not what the 1571 rural communities want, does not deliver a suitable mix and does not accord with para 173 and 174 of NPPF.

Requirements for minimum 50% affordable housing in Part (f) may not be 546, 663 possible / financially viable.

Unnecessary for number of market dwellings to be less than the number of 2671 affordable units as a matter of principle.

Difficult to achieve viable development on rural exception sites where the 2562 proportion of affordable housing exceeds open market housing. Remove Part (f)(ii) and consequential changes to supporting text recommended.

Policy is welcomed – but Part (f) does not properly reflect para 54 of NPPF 1673, 1762,1896, with regard to the issue of cross subsidy and may be seeking to introduce a 1989 more onerous test than that envisaged by government.

Paragraph 7.28 – approach of requiring more than 50% affordable housing is 1567, 2521 flawed and will be unviable and undeliverable.

Part (f)( iii) is too restrictive. Social rented housing will be difficult to finance 959 under current government funding constraints and lack of support, especially on smaller sites. Policy needs to be flexible. Delete ‘complies…ST18’ and replace with ‘will reflect the character and capacity of the site’

ST19 is not justified, it is not evidenced based. Development in the setting of 1955 (NE) protected landscapes have not been subject to capacity or sensitivity studies. It is not clear that development will be delivered without detrimental effect on the protected landscape.

In considering support for sites adjoining development boundaries, safeguards 2095 (National are required on landscape impacts particularly in relation to AONB and Trust) undeveloped coast impacts. Revise ST19 so it accords with ST14 and ST09.

Exmoor NP ask for clarification on whether rural settlements should also be 2346 (Exmoor included in this policy. Clarification on whether exceptions site approach would NPA) mean that a higher number/proportion of local needs affordable housing could be achievable in these locations and, particularly in settlements close to the NP boundary, for households in communities within and close to NP.

An approach to development where numerous smaller scale sites can come 2319, 2469 forward would be an organic form of development ‘knitting and stitching’ the new site together. Approach allows these sites to make valuable contribution to stock and smaller scale sites can usually come forward more quickly. As such, approach should not be considered ‘exceptional’.

Exceptional release of land puts all communities at risk of development. A 895 mechanism needs to be in place to deter developers from exploiting rural areas to ensure housing is for the local working population.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Additional Information

2.635 On the 28th November 2014, a written ministerial statement(136) by the Minister of State for the Department for Communities and Local Government, Brandon Lewis, set out measures to restrict the ability of local planning authorities to seek affordable housing and section 106 planning obligations on small-scale housing proposals. The ministerial statement was supported by changes to the National Planning Practice Guidance(137). Further information about the new provisions is contained within the report considering Policy ST18: Affordable Housing on Development Sites.

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.636 The range of support offered towards Policy ST19 and the recognition that the Policy is considered to accord with national planning policy is welcomed and noted.

2.637 A respondent suggests that the Policy is limited in its recognition of the numerous ways that housing is now delivered and that in doing so, it is biased towards developers with affordable housing providers and ignores delivery from community groups and through self-build approaches. This is not supported. The policy is not considered to be biased towards traditional developers in partnership with affordable housing providers, although it is recognised that this is a traditional model for delivery. Rather, the Policy is silent about the nature of organisation that can deliver affordable housing on Exception Sites. None of the provisions within the Policy are considered to preclude delivery by community groups or to necessarily prevent delivery on a self-build basis.

2.638 It is suggested that the policy provisions set out in Part (c) that require there to be an identified need for affordable housing within the local community sufficient to justify the extent and nature of the proposed development could place a heavy onus on small scale developers to prove as the Councils do not keep up-to-date information on local affordable housing needs. National Planning Policy(138) indicates that in rural areas, local planning authorities should be responsive to local circumstances and plan housing development to reflect local needs, particularly for affordable housing, including through rural exception sites where appropriate. It is considered that the requirements set out in part (c) are an appropriate response to the national policy requirements, in that they seek to ensure that proposals for the exceptional release of land to deliver affordable housing in rural areas are reflective of local needs. In meeting the policy requirement, it is accepted that proposals would need to be supported by evidence of local needs to justify the housing being proposed, and that it might be necessary for such evidence to be prepared to support proposals. Whilst it is accepted that this may place a burden on proposals, it is considered appropriate and necessary to do so, as the policy is only intended to exceptionally meet land for affordable housing to meet specific, identified local needs for housing and is not intended to support the exceptional release of land to deliver speculative housing proposals. Failure to justify proposals on the basis of evidence of local housing need could result in greenfield land being exceptionally released for housing that is not required to meet a local need, or for the policy provisions to be used to justify speculative housing developments. Evidence of identified local housing need used to support the release of exception sites for affordable housing has traditionally been in the form of rural housing needs surveys. These continue to be an appropriate source of evidence to justify provision through Policy ST19, however, recognising that these can be costly and time consuming to prepare, the Policy is not prescriptive about the form of

136 Written Ministerial Statement, Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis), Column 54WS-57WS, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm141128/wmstext/141128m0001.htm#14112842000008 137 Paragraphs 012-023 (Planning Obligations), National Planning Practice Guidance (Department for Communities and Local Government), http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/planning-obligations/planning-obligations-guidance/ 138 Paragraph 54, National Planning Policy Framework (CLG, March 2012)

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

evidence that may be used to support proposals and is intended to be flexible on this matter. Wording on this matter is currently provided, out of place, in the final two sentences of Paragraph 7.22 along with paragraph 7.35. It is recommended that the final two sentences of paragraph 7.22 are relocated to paragraph 7.35 and amended to clearly set out the evidential requirements considered to be appropriate to justify proposals in terms of identified local need for housing.

2.639 A respondent considers that Part (d) of Policy ST19, which states that ‘the housing need could not be reasonably be satisfied without the exceptional release of land’, is vague and undefined. They go on to raise concerns about how this criterion will be satisfied, particularly given that the majority of housing provision in northern Devon is on a small scale. The clause is considered to be necessary and appropriate. It is intended to ensure that additional greenfield land is not released for development when provision could reasonably be made on alternative sites upon which the wider provisions of the Plan would already support residential development. It is not accepted that the clause is vague and undefined, with additional detail and clarification, as provided in the supporting text in Paragraph 7.34, setting out what reasonable alternatives might be considered.

2.640 It is accepted that the supporting text would benefit from some revision to aid clarity and make it more positive. Additionally, recognising that the majority of Local Centres and defined Villages are now afforded allocations for residential development within the draft Plan, which could reasonably have the potential to address identified local needs for housing, it is considered appropriate to amend the existing supporting text to recognise allocations as a potential alternative source that should be considered. To this end, it is recommended that the final sentence of paragraph 7.34 is amended to read: ‘Delivery is only of affordable housing through Policy ST19 will be supported where it is not possible to provide the required housing without the exceptional release of land. Proposals will need to be supported by evidence to satisfy the local planning authority that there are no reasonable and available alternatives, S such as development of an appropriate and available site or building within the extents of a Local Centre/ defined Village or through the development of an appropriate and available allocation for residential development, that could reasonably deliver the housing required to meet the identified local need , settlement or the conversion or redevelopment of an appropriate existing building.’.

2.641 Turning to the point made about the clause being of particular concern given the generally small scale nature of residential proposals across northern Devon, the changes to national planning policy which introduce thresholds below which affordable housing may not be sought on housing proposals, are likely to reduce the burden of evidence in relation to this clause. This is on the basis that the new national thresholds will bring smaller sites with the potential for residential development that lie within the existing build form of Local Centres and defined Villages out of the scope of providing affordable housing (i.e. on-site affordable housing delivery will only be able to be sought from sites able to deliver 11 or more dwellings). This will in turn have the consequence of making the specified provision of the Policy less onerous as there will be more restricted opportunities for reasonable alternatives. No further change is considered necessary to the Part (d) in response to this matter.

2.642 It is suggested that the policy will not deliver what rural communities want and will not deliver a suitable mix of housing. The policy is intended to be flexible and able to respond to identified needs for affordable housing. It is not prescriptive about the nature of provision, allowing the scale of provision along with the sizes, types and tenures of dwellings to be responsive to local circumstances. As such, it is unclear as to how the respondent considers the policy will not provide what rural communities want or deliver a suitable mix of housing.

2.643 Allied to the comments above, a respondent does suggest that Part (f)(iii), that is intended to ensure that the mix of open market houses is reflective of identified needs, is too restrictive and needs to be more flexible, suggesting that it seeks social rented housing. The respondent proposes

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

that an amendment to the policy to delete part (f)(iii) and to introduce an alternative clause that requires provision to reflect the character and capacity of the site. It is not the intention for the clause to require the delivery of social rented accommodation. Rather, it is intended to ensure that the open market housing is reflective of the site character/ context and identified housing need. In doing so, the Policy provides a cross reference to Policy ST18: Affordable Housing on Development Sites. It is recognised that, due to a drafting error, the cited reference to Policy ST18 in Part (f)(iii) of the Policy is incorrect and that it should rather reference compliance with Policy ST17: A balanced local housing market. The clause is not intended to require compliance with the provisions of Policy ST18, such as the requirement for a significant proportion of social rented accommodation, but rather is intended to shape the market housing in a similar manner to that advocated through the respondent’s proposed amendment. It is considered that the correction of the cited reference will address the concerns raised by the respondent. As such, it is recommended that amendment is made to clause (f)(iii) to change the cited policy reference from ST18 to ST17.

2.644 The comments by respondents that state that they are encouraged that viability is acknowledged within the wording of the policy and that the Councils show willingness to negotiate where necessary are welcomed and noted.

2.645 A range of respondents criticise the provisions within Part (f)(ii) that require the number of market dwellings to be less than the number of proposed affordable dwellings. It is suggested that the clause is too restrictive and that it is unnecessary, with suggestion that the clause introduces a more onerous test than that set out in national planning policy(139) which simply states that ‘local planning authorities should in particular consider whether allowing some market housing would facilitate the provision of significant additional affordable housing’. Allied to this, a number of respondents go on to suggest that they consider that the provision may result in proposals being unviable and undeliverable. Some suggest that the policy provisions would not accord with aspects of national planning policy(140) which state that plans should to be deliverable, not be subject to such a scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be developed viably is threatened and that the cumulative impact of standards and policies should not put the implementation of the plan at serious risk. In response, some respondents suggest that a more flexible approach is required to ensure deliverability and others that the clause is not necessary and should be deleted.

2.646 The clause was intended to be an interpretation of national planning policy that ensured that the allowance of an element of market housing would result in the provision of significant additional affordable housing. The approach was predicated on an interpretation that sought to ensure that each individual exception site would enable significant additional affordable housing, when compared to the scale of the facilitating market housing supported. However, it is now accepted that this may be a rather strict and literal interpretation that is not necessarily appropriate. Rather, it is considered that the national policy provisions could be reasonably interpreted as implying that local planning authorities should consider whether the wider approach of enabling cross-subsidy through an element of market housing on exception sites could result in the overall provision of significant additional affordable housing. As such, it is accepted that the clause may be more onerous than envisaged by national planning policy.

2.647 It is also accepted that the prescriptive nature of the clause is such that it could, in some circumstances, undermine the viability and deliverability of a proposal that could otherwise reasonably deliver affordable housing to meet an identified local need. This is not however to say that it is considered that the policy would not be generally deliverable or that it would put the implementation of the Plan at serious risk and therefore conflict with national planning policy; rather, it could potentially

139 Paragraph 54, National Planning Policy Framework (CLG, March 2012) 140 Paragraph 173 and 174, National Planning Policy Framework (CLG, March 2012)

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

inhibit the delivery of some potential sites for affordable housing which might impact on opportunities for affordable housing delivery in the rural area. This is something that could be perceived as impacting on the effectiveness of the policy.

2.648 Part (f)(i) of Policy ST19 already requires that the extent of market housing is the minimum amount required to support the delivery of the required affordable housing. As such, this clause limits the market housing to the minimum amount necessary to provide sufficient cross-subsidy to deliver the affordable housing required to meet identified needs. It is considered that this provides the appropriate starting point for considering the extent of market housing that should be acceptable through the policy. Resultantly, the clause that limits the extent of market housing to be less than the affordable housing is somewhat superfluous. Reflecting upon the considerations above, it is recommended that Part (f)(ii) of Policy ST19 is deleted.

2.649 However, that being said, this raises the question of what proportion of market housing would be acceptable to deliver affordable housing to meet an identified need? For example, would it be reasonable to release a greenfield site in a rural settlement that provides seven market houses to secure delivery of three affordable houses to meet the needs of the local community? At what point does it become inappropriate? In light of removing the restrictive clause within the Policy, it is considered appropriate to provide additions and amendments within the supporting text to clarify the extent to which cross-subsidy may be appropriate and to clarify what will be required to conform with the policy provisions. As such, it is recommended that Paragraph 7.37 is amended to read: ‘The policy allows for an element of market housing to be provided where this would enable the delivery of significant additional affordable housing. The Local Plan recognises this can be an effective mechanism to deliver affordable housing in rural areas. For the purposes of this policy, this means that the amount of affordable housing being provided by the development must be greater than the amount of open market housing. The starting point for delivery of affordable housing under this policy is an expectation of providing 100% affordable housing. Where this is not viable, the level of open market housing will be the minimum required to enable provide the necessary financial cross-subsidy to delivery of the proposed affordable housing. Where cross subsidy through the provision of open market housing is proposed, t The local planning authority will expect proposals to be supported by evidence to demonstrate that it is appropriate and necessary. ing this requirement This will normally be on the basis of an open book financial appraisal of development viability. ’

2.650 Natural England considers that the policy is not justified or evidence based on the basis that development in the setting of protected landscapes has not been subject to capacity or sensitivity studies. As a result, they go on to suggest that it is not clear that development will be delivered without a detrimental effect on protected landscapes. It is not accepted that the lack of capacity or sensitivity study in terms of the scope of housing development in the setting of protective landscapes undermines the provisions of Policy ST19. At the time of Plan preparation, it is not possible to determine the location, scale or nature of housing proposals that might come forward through Policy ST19. It is not considered necessary for all possible sites to be appraised for their potential impacts. The policy is intended to be reactive and respond to proposals to meet identified local need for affordable housing, some of which may arise at settlements that lie within protected landscapes. The Plan is intended to be read as a whole, and the wider policies of the Plan, most notably Policies ST09: Coast and Estuary Strategy and ST14: Enhancing Environmental Assets contain provisions to ensure that development doesn’t have an unacceptable detrimental impact on protected landscapes. As such, affordable housing proposals brought forward under the provisions of Policy ST19 would have to have regard to their impact on protected landscapes. It will be for the Development Management process to determine whether, on balance, a proposal for affordable housing brought forward under Policy ST19 should be accepted, or if there are planning considerations that might determine that it is unacceptable.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

2.651 Allied to the above, the National Trust consider that there is a need to ensure that the Policy includes safeguards in relation to potential landscape impacts, particularly in relation to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Undeveloped Coast. In doing so, they advocate that the policy is revised to accord with Policies ST09: Coast and Estuary Strategy and ST14: Enhancing Environmental Assets. As highlighted by The National Trust, safeguards in relation to potential landscape impacts related to landscape character are currently provided by Policies ST09 and ST14. As the Plan is intended to be read as a whole, it is considered that these provisions provide appropriate and adequate protection for the landscape. However, in the interests of robustness, it is considered that an additional clause could be added to the policy, similar to that contained in Part (e) of Policy DM17: Tourism and Leisure Attractions to offer protection to environment, landscape and heritage assets. To this end, it is recommended that an additional clause is added to Policy ST19 to read: ‘(x) environmental and heritage assets are not subject to significant harm, are conserved or enhanced, with particular respect to the setting and special qualities of nationally important landscapes, biodiversity and heritage designations.’.

2.652 The clause above is a variation on that currently contained within Policy DM17. In reviewing the clause for insertion in Policy ST19, it has been recognised that it currently requires that environmental and heritage assets are either conserved or enhanced. It is now recognised that such an approach might not be realistic and may be prohibitively restrictive and that rather the clause should be amended to add scope for proposals to be acceptable if they do not cause significant harm to environmental or heritage assets. To this end, it is recommended that the wording to Part (2)(e) of Policy DM17, Part (2)(f) of Policy DM18 along with any similar clauses within Policies contained in the wider Plan are amended to reflect the wording set out above.

2.653 A respondent suggests that the Plan should recognise the contribution that small sites can make towards housing supply and that the Policy provisions of ST19 should not be considered ‘exceptional’ because of the high level of affordable housing need. It is recognised that small sites can make an effective contribution towards the delivery of housing, particularly in rural communities. The Plan is considered to enable a wide range of opportunities for delivery of housing on small sites, which includes provisions to enable delivery of housing through development, re-development and conversion on sites within the extents of the existing built form of a wider range of settlements (including Local Centres and defined Villages) and on a range of small scale housing allocations. The Plan already sets out sufficient identified opportunities to deliver the housing required to meet the overall needs for housing across northern Devon over the Plan period. As such, it is not considered necessary or appropriate to extend the opportunities for the delivery of housing beyond those currently provided within the Plan. The provisions of Policy ST19 are stated as being ‘exceptional’ because they enable the release of land where this would not normally be considered acceptable; in doing so, the terminology accords with that contained within national planning policy(141). Whilst termed as an ‘exception site’ this does not mean that it is not possible for the policy provisions to be utilised routinely where it is necessary to do so – i.e. there is an identified local need for affordable housing that could not be addressed in any other manner. As such, it is not considered necessary to amend the Plan on the basis of the matter raised by the respondent.

2.654 A respondent considers that the exceptional release of land puts all communities at risk of development and that a mechanism needs to be in place to deter developers from exploiting rural areas and to ensure housing is for the local working population. The policy is framed in a manner that only enables sites to be released through Policy ST19 to deliver affordable housing to meet an identified local need that cannot be reasonably addressed on an alternative site. The clauses within the policy are considered to offer appropriate safeguards to ensure that the policy cannot be utilised to deliver speculative housing development.

141 Paragraph 54, National Planning Policy Framework (CLG, March 2012)

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

2.655 Exmoor National Park Authority question whether the scope of Policy ST19 should be widened to enable proposals for affordable housing on exceptions sites to come forward at designated Rural Settlements. The changes to national planning policy introducing thresholds for affordable housing, have an impact on the opportunity for delivering affordable housing at Rural Settlements. Policy DM24: Rural Settlements was intended to enable housing proposals commensurate to the scale and nature of the settlement to be supported where they would meet an identified local need and are subject to demonstrable community support. The policy was intended to support both market and affordable housing proposals, generally of a small scale. The introduction of national thresholds on affordable housing will preclude the opportunity to deliver affordable housing on sites of under 11 dwellings through Policy DM24. In doing so, the intended flexibility of the policy has been diminished considerably and it is no longer considered an effective mechanism to enable delivery of affordable housing at Rural Settlements. It has also been recognised that the Plan as drafted would, in the future, preclude the delivery of affordable housing schemes at Rural Settlements that are currently being afforded support by the local planning authorities.

2.656 As a consequence, and given that affordable housing is a corporate priority for both Councils, it is recommended that the geographical scope of Policy ST19 is extended to enable the delivery of affordable housing on exception sites at Rural Settlements. Doing so, would restore the ability to deliver affordable housing at Rural Settlements in order to meet locally identified housing needs. It is recommended that this is achieved by amending the lead-in sentence to Policy ST19 to read ‘Proposals to deliver permanent affordable housing at Local Centres, and defined Villages and Rural Settlements will be supported, subject to the following:’ and amending the second sentence of paragraph 7.34 to read ‘The Policy enables the delivery of affordable housing on land adjoining or well related to Local Centres, and Villages and Rural Settlements defined under Policy ST07: Spatial Development Strategy for Northern Devon’s Rural Areas.’. It is recognised that in extending the scope of Policy ST19 it is also necessary to make amendments to Policy DM24 to ensure compatibility between policy provisions; with such changes set out under the commentary on that Policy.

Other Matters

2.657 It has been recognised that the phrasing of Part (c) would benefit from some relatively minor amendment to put it in conformity with the wider provisions of the Plan. At the moment, the clause refers to ‘…an identified need for affordable housing within the local community…’. To align the policy provisions with those within the wider Plan it is considered that the clause would benefit from being amended to refer simply to an ‘identified local need for affordable housing’. As such, it is recommended that Part (c) is amended to read: ‘(c) there is an identified local need for affordable housing within the local community sufficient to justify the extent and nature of the proposed development;’.

2.658 Allied to the above, it is considered appropriate to amend the supporting text at paragraph 7.35 to reflect this change. Additionally, it is considered that the defined scope of identified housing needs stated within the paragraph would benefit from being more precise and that amendment is made on this basis. It is further recommended that the opportunity is taken to amend the geographical scope for ‘local need’ to align with the approach and terminology proposed for use in relation to the spend of ‘financial contributions’ for affordable housing and ‘local connection’ under Policy ST18. In doing so, it is recommended that the geographical scope for local needs is extended to offer the opportunity for needs to be considered from adjoining parishes or another relevant grouping of parishes formally recognised by the local planning authority (such as the Rural Alliance). As such, it is recommended that the supporting text at paragraph 7.35 is amended to read:

‘7.35 Proposals enabled through this policy need to be justified on the basis of an identified local community need for affordable housing. Development proposals should reflect on, and respond to, up-to-date evidence of local housing needs, such as that presented through Housing

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Needs Surveys. Development schemes will therefore need to be accompanied by evidence to demonstrate that a local community need exists for the scale and nature of affordable housing that is proposed, in terms of the number of dwellings, their size, type and tenure. The policy will not support speculative housing proposals. Proposals should respond to the specific identified affordable housing needs within the parish whilst having regard to identified housing need within adjacent parishes. The scale and nature of evidence should be commensurate to the scale of the proposed development. For the purpose of this policy, the extent of the local community is considered to be those residing within, or having a local connection to, the parish in which the site is located, together with those residing, or have a local connection to, surrounding adjacent parishes.

7.xx For the purpose of this policy, the geographical scope of local housing need is taken as that arising from households that have a local connection (142) to the parish where the proposal is located, the adjoining parish(es) and/ or other relevant grouping of parishes formally recognised by the local planning authority (such as the Rural Alliance) . Where relevant, adjoining parishes could be located in the adjacent local planning authority area. ’

2.659 The lead in sentence to the policy currently states that proposals ‘…will be permitted, subject to the following:’. Recognising that the plan needs to be read as a whole and there are other relevant policies or material considerations that may impact on the acceptability of a proposal, it is advocated that ‘permitted’ is replaced with ‘supported’. This change would also bring the policy wording into alignment with other policies within the Plan, which generally use the proposed wording. As such it is agreed that the lead in sentence in Policy ST19 is amended to read: ‘Proposals to deliver permanent affordable housing at Local Centres and defined Villages will be permitted supported, subject to the following:’

2.660 On the basis of making the policy more precise and for clarity, it is agreed that part (f)(i) is amended to read: ‘(i) the element of market housing is the minimum amount required to enable support the delivery of the required proposed affordable housing;’.

2.661 On the basis of making the policy more precise and for clarity, a simple amendment is also advocated to Part (f)(iii) to replace ‘houses’ with ‘dwellings’ to reflect that the open market element of the scheme may comprise of a variety of forms of dwellings (such as flats or bungalows for example) that are not houses. To this end, it is recommended that Part (f)(iii) is amended to read: ‘(iii) the mix of open market houses dwellings, in terms of type and size, complies with the requirements of Policy ST18 ST17.’.

2.662 It has been recognised that Policy ST19 is not subject to policy provisions that would restrict occupation to households in affordable housing need, nor prioritise occupation to those with a local connection. As such it is recommended that an additional clause is added to Policy ST19 to include such provisions on the following basis:

(x) the use of planning conditions, obligations or other legally defensible limitations to:

(i) restrict occupation to households identified as being in need of affordable housing; and

(ii) give priority of occupation to households with a local connection .’

2.663 Allied to this, it is agreed that consequential additions and amendments are made to the supporting text with respect to the clause proposed above.

142 See paragraph 7.xx for definition of local connection.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Conclusion

2.664 A range of matters have been raised in relation to Policy ST19 and a range of amendments are proposed, some to ensure that the policy is considered to be sound and others to ensure that the policy is precise and effective.

Agreed Actions

1. The following Main Changes to the Local Plan are agreed in response to the issues raised through consultation in relation to Policy ST19:

a. that the lead in sentence in Policy ST19 is amended to read: ‘Proposals to deliver permanent affordable housing at Local Centres, and defined Villages and Rural Settlements will be permitted supported, subject to the following:’

b. that Part (c) of Policy ST19 is amended to read: ‘(c) there is an identified local need for affordable housing within the local community sufficient to justify the extent and nature of the proposed development;’.

c. that part (f)(i) of Policy ST19 is amended to read: ‘(i) the element of market housing is the minimum amount required to enable support the delivery of the required proposed affordable housing;’

d. that Part (f)(ii) of Policy ST19 is deleted;

e. that Part (f)(iii) of Policy ST19 is amended to read: ‘(ii i ) the mix of open market houses dwellings, in terms of type and size, complies with the requirements of Policy ST18 ST17.’.

f. that an additional clause is added to Policy ST19 to read: ‘(x) environmental and heritage assets are not subject to significant harm, are conserved or enhanced, with particular respect to the setting and special qualities of nationally important landscapes, biodiversity and heritage designations and the undeveloped coast.’.

g. that an additional clause is added to Policy ST19 to read:

‘(x) the use of planning conditions, obligations or other legally defensible limitations to:

(i) restrict occupation to households identified as being in need of affordable housing; and

(ii) give priority of occupation to households with a local connection .’

h. that consequential additions and amendments are made to the supporting text with respect to the clause proposed for insertion through the above Recommendation in relation to the occupation of affordable housing enabled through the Policy.

i. that the wording to Part (2)(e) of Policy DM17 is amended to read: ‘(e) environmental and heritage assets are not subject to significant harm, are conserved or enhanced, including with particular respect to the setting and special qualities of nationally important landscapes, biodiversity and heritage designations.’

j. that Part (2)(f) of Policy DM18 is amended to read:

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

‘(f) is designed to respect and enhance the key characteristics of the relevant landscape types; and

(x) identified environmental and heritage assets are not subject to significant harm, are protected and conserved or enhanced, with particular respect to the setting and special qualities of nationally important landscapes, biodiversity and heritage designations and including the undeveloped coast.’ k. that paragraph 7.34 is amended to read:

‘Recognising the overwhelming need for additional affordable housing provision across northern Devon and reflecting its rural nature, the Local Plan enables the exceptional release of land that would not normally be allowed for open market housing to provide affordable housing. The Policy enables the delivery of affordable housing on land adjoining or well related to Local Centres and , Villages and Rural Settlements defined under ST07: Spatial Development Strategy for northern Devon's Rural Areas. Delivery is only of affordable housing through Policy ST19 will be supported where it is not possible to provide the required housing without the exceptional release of land. Proposals will need to be supported by evidence to satisfy the local planning authority that there are no reasonable and available alternatives, S such as development of an appropriate and available site or building within the extents of a Local Centre/ defined Village or through the development of an appropriate and available allocation for residential development, that could reasonably deliver the housing required to meet the identified local need , settlement or the conversion or redevelopment of an appropriate existing building.’. l. that the supporting text at paragraph 7.35 is amended to read:

‘7.35 Proposals enabled through this policy need to be justified on the basis of an identified local community need for affordable housing. Development proposals should reflect on, and respond to, up-to-date evidence of local housing needs, such as that presented through Housing Needs Surveys. Development schemes will therefore need to be accompanied by evidence to demonstrate that a local community need exists for the scale and nature of affordable housing that is proposed, in terms of the number of dwellings, their size, type and tenure. The policy will not support speculative housing proposals. Proposals should respond to the specific identified affordable housing needs within the parish whilst having regard to identified housing need within adjacent parishes. The scale and nature of evidence should be commensurate to the scale of the proposed development. For the purpose of this policy, the extent of the local community is considered to be those residing within, or having a local connection to, the parish in which the site is located, together with those residing, or have a local connection to, surrounding adjacent parishes.’; m. that Paragraph 7.37 is amended to read:

‘The policy allows for an element of market housing to be provided where this would enable the delivery of significant additional affordable housing. The Local Plan recognises this can be an effective mechanism to deliver affordable housing in rural areas. For the purposes of this policy, this means that the amount of affordable housing being provided by the development must be greater than the amount of open market housing. The starting point for delivery of affordable housing under this policy is an expectation of providing 100% affordable housing. Where this is not viable, the level of open market housing will be the minimum required to enable provide the necessary financial cross-subsidy to delivery of the proposed affordable housing. Where cross subsidy through the provision of open market housing is proposed, t The local planning authority

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

will expect proposals to be supported by evidence to demonstrate that it is appropriate and necessary. ing this requirement This will normally be on the basis of an open book financial appraisal of development viability. ’

2. No minor amendments are agreed in response to the issues raised.

Policy ST20: Providing Homes for the Travelling Communities

Comments made in response to ST20 Providing Homes for Traveller Communities

Total Number of Responses 2

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 0 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 0 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1 0

Summary of Issues

Comments on ST20 Providing Homes for Traveller Communities plp number

There is no hierarchy for securing travellers sites and to accord with the plan they 547, 1572 should be sought in Bideford and Barnstaple as being closest to services and to avoid travel by car

Additional Information

2.665 A Devon wide Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) was completed in 2006, which identified a level of accommodation need and demand for northern Devon. This evidence is now considered to be out of date and the Councils are currently undertaking a Traveller Accommodation Assessment in partnership with other local authorities across Devon which will provide evidence on traveller accommodation need and demands.

2.666 The Devon Partnership local and national park authorities commissioned RRR Consultancy to undertake the Devon Partnership Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment. The purpose of the assessment was to quantify the accommodation and housing related support needs of Gypsies and Travellers (including Travelling Showpeople) in terms of residential and transit/emergency sites, and bricks and mortar accommodation for the period 2014/15-2034/35. This evidence will directly inform the scale, location and nature of accommodation that will be enabled through this policy and include specific figures for Traveller pitches (transit/permanent) and Travelling Showpeople plots (transit/permanent).

2.667 Accommodation need for the study area was assessed using a model in accordance with Practice Guidance issued by the Department of Communities and Local Government (CLG). It contains seven basic components; five assessing need and two assessing supply, which are applied to each sub-group of Gypsies and Travellers, based on secondary data.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

2.668 A draft Report was published in December 2014. The draft report identifies the total requirement for new traveller accommodation across the wider study area over 20 years as:

151 residential pitches 4 transit sites/emergency stopping places 14 Travelling Showpeople plots.

2.669 The following table shows the draft results for individual local planning authorities over the 20 year study period (2014/15 – 2034/35). It should be noted that the first 5-year period is determined by survey responses, whilst subsequent 5-year periods are determined by projections based on data collected by the surveys. Figures for North Devon exclude the part of the district with Exmoor National Park.

Twenty year Gypsy and Traveller pitch needs summary 2014-34

Base Additional Additional Additional Additional need Additional numbers need need need 2029-2034 Need 2014-2019 2019-2024 2024-2029 2014- 2034

Dartmoor NP 0 1 0 0 0 1

East Devon 36 22 5 5 5 37

Exeter 10 5 1 1 1 8

Exmoor NP 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mid Devon 55 27 7 7 8 49

North Devon 3 3 1 1 1 6

Teignbridge 40 20 6 6 7 39

Torbay 0 2 0 0 0 2

Torridge 4 6 1 1 1 9

Total 148 86 21 21 23 151

Table 2.8

2.670 The draft Report identifies a need for 15 permanent pitches for gypsy and traveller accommodation in northern Devon over the period 2014/15 to 2034/35. This is broken down to a requirement for 9 pitches in Torridge and 6 in North Devon. There is no identified need for Travelling Showpeople accommodation in northern Devon over the study period. The draft Report also identifies the need for a single transit site of four pitches within the wider study area to help reduce the number of unauthorised encampments. The report recommended that the transit site is located close to one of the main arterial routes into the county (such as the A30) or in one of the areas where previous unauthorised encampments have been most prevalent. Further partnership working is required to ascertain the most suitable and sustainable location for transit provision.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

2.671 The findings of the draft Report go on to suggest that the accommodation needs do not necessarily have to be met where they arise. As such, the GTAA recommends that the study area local authorities adopt Housing Market Area-type collaborative structures to help determine how to jointly meet the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers. The following are the 3 new proposed Gypsy and Traveller Housing Market Areas (HMAs), which include all the study area local authorities:

1. North G&T HMA: Exmoor NP, North Devon and Torridge;

2. South G&T HMA: Dartmoor NP, Exeter, Teignbridge and Torbay; and

3. Central G&T HMA: East Devon and Mid Devon.

2.672 As well as quantifying accommodation need, the draft Report also makes recommendations on key issues. The main recommendations are as follows:

The preferred size for permanent/residential sites is for small, family sized sites. Following CLG (2008) guidance it is recommended that new sites contain a maximum of 15 pitches whilst smaller sites for individual extended families should be considered. Survey results suggest that a mix of public and private sites will be required dependent on need. Specific sites available should be outlined in future DPDs and guidance offered on the type of land that is likely to obtain planning permission as well as land that is unlikely to. Specific advice on the planning process should also be offered. Local authorities should consider how they can facilitate the provision of new sites including applying for funding as part of the HCA’s 2015-18 Affordable Homes Programme (AHP); sites developed on a cooperative basis; shared ownership; small sites owned by a local authority, but rented to an extended Gypsy or Traveller family for their own use; and Community Land Trust options. Local authorities should jointly examine their Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments (SHLAAs) to identify suitable locations. The GTAA needs calculations suggest a requirement for transit sites or emergency stopping places in the study area to further reduce the number of unauthorised encampments. However, it is recommended that when these are located close to existing sites that management issues be considered. For example, there is evidence that there can be tensions between Gypsies and Travellers residing on transit sites (or emergency stopping places) and those residing on permanent sites. Local authorities should consider adopting the ‘negotiated stopping’ model in response to unauthorised encampments i.e. negotiated agreements which allow caravans to be sited on suitable specific pieces of ground for an agreed and limited period of time, with the provision of limited services such as water, waste disposal and toilets. Local authorities across the study area should use consistent methods in recording incidences of unauthorised encampments. As well as recording basic data such as location of encampment, number of vehicles involved, length of stay, outcome (if any) of enforcement action, family names, records should also include reasons for encampment such as a visiting family, passing through the area, or attending a religious or cultural event. It is recommended that the accommodation needs of Travelling Showpeople are jointly met by the two local authorities where families are currently residing: East Devon and Mid Devon. However, this does not preclude all local authorities within the study area ensuring that fair sites have good provision in terms of, for example, electricity supply and security for the storage of equipment. Although to some extent study area local authorities already coordinate responses to Gypsy and Traveller issues local authorities should consider further liaison and information sharing.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

The population size and demographics of Gypsies and Travellers can change rapidly. As such, their accommodation needs should be reviewed every three to five years.

2.673 As a consequence of the publication of the draft Devon Partnership GTAA it is necessary to make amendments to Policy ST20 and the associated supporting text to reflect the findings. It should be recognised that the report is only an initial draft and is yet to be reviewed by the partner local planning authorities. As such, it is conceivable that the findings will be subject to change. However, the draft report forms the most up-to-date evidence on traveller accommodation needs and is therefore considered the most appropriate source to inform policy preparation.

2.674 In terms of implications for Policy ST20, it is recommended that Part (2) of the Policy is revised to reflect the specific identified needs for traveller accommodation for North Devon and Torridge within the draft Report. Whilst the Report covers the period 2014/15 – 2034/35, rather than 2011/12 - 2030/31, it is considered that it is appropriate for all of the identified need to be accommodated within the Plan period; particularly as a review of the accommodation needs by five-year tranche indicates that all of the provision, bar a single pitch in each authority is identified as being required prior to 2029. As such, it is recommended that Part (2) of Policy ST20 is revised to read: ‘’During the period 2011-2031, provision will be made to deliver at least 15 pitches for permanent gypsy and traveller accommodation within northern Devon to meet identified needs.’.

2.675 Allied to this change, it is advocated that changes are made to the supporting text to:

Update references in paragraph 7.44 to traveller accommodation needs evidence, from the 2006 Devon-wide Assessment to the draft Devon Partnership Assessment; Delete paragraph 7.43 that states that the scale and nature of provision will be informed by yet to be completed evidence on traveller accommodation; provide a breakdown of the provision by local planning authority (e.g. 6 permanent pitches for North Devon and 9 for Torridge); to acknowledge that there isn’t an identified need for any travelling showpeople accommodation over the plan period across northern Devon; and that a transit site is required across the wider study area and that partnership working will be necessary to establish the appropriate location for its provision.

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.676 A respondent criticises a lack of hierarchy for securing traveller sites in northern Devon and feel sites should be sought in Bideford and Barnstaple only. Whilst the comment is noted, the specific scale, nature and location of allocations for traveller accommodation were not determined when the draft Local Plan was published. The provision has been informed by the outcomes of the Traveller Accommodation Assessment (draft report December 2014) and a separate exercise will subsequently identify and assess land that has the potential to be developed as traveller accommodation. A separate Traveller DPD will propose land to be allocated for traveller accommodation and ensure that a five year supply is maintained. Policy DM30: Sites For Traveller Accommodation provides the detailed basis for assessing individual development proposals and allocations for traveller accommodation. The policy applies a sequential approach to the consideration of suitable locations and is intended to steer provision to the most sustainable locations whilst also recognising that traveller accommodation often has different requirements to that for the settled community. Proposals will be supported where there is an identified need for the scale and nature of accommodation provision proposed and it is demonstrated that the need cannot be reasonably met by any existing or planned provision.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Conclusion

2.677 The comments raised in response to Policy ST20 Providing Homes for Traveller Communities are not considered to raise any major issues that would challenge the soundness of the Local Plan. However, the receipt of a draft Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment offers the opportunity to amend the Plan to reflect up-to-date evidence of traveller needs.

Agreed Actions

2.678 The following are agreed as Main Changes to Policy ST20: Providing Homes for Traveller Communities and the associated supporting text:

1. Amend Part (2) of policy ST20 to read ’During the period 2011-2031, provision will be made to deliver at least 15 pitches for permanent gypsy and traveller accommodation within northern Devon to meet identified needs.’

2. Delete existing paragraphs 7.43 and 7.44.

3. Insert new paragraph to follow paragraph 7.42 to acknowledge completion of a draft GTAA Report. (e.g. setting up HMA type collaborative structures to support provision). New paragraph to read: ‘The Devon Partnership local and national park authorities commissioned RRR Consultancy to undertake the Devon Partnership Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) in 2014. The purpose of the assessment was to quantify the accommodation and housing related support needs of Gypsies and Travellers (including Travelling Showpeople) in terms of permanent residential pitches and plots, transit/emergency sites and bricks and mortar accommodation across the study area for the period 2014/15-2034/35. Accommodation need for the study area was assessed using a model in accordance with Practice Guidance issued by the Department of Communities and Local Government (CLG).’

4. Insert new paragraph, to following on from that agreed above, to set out the findings of the draft GTAA. New paragraph to read: ‘The draft GTAA identifies a need for 15 pitches for permanent gypsy and traveller accommodation within northern Devon over the period 2014/15 – 2034/35; with a need for six pitches arising from North Devon and nine pitches from Torridge respectively. The draft Report identified that there is no identified need for accommodation for travelling showpeople within northern Devon over the Plan period. Whilst the study period does not fully equate to the Plan period it is considered appropriate to seek to accommodate the full identified need from the study period within the Plan, given that only a very limited element of need is identified as arising beyond 2031. The findings of the Devon Partnership GTAA are only draft and may be subject to change. However, the findings are considered to form the most up-to-date and robust evidence of need for traveller accommodation across northern Devon. The policy is considered sufficiently flexible so as to enable additional traveller accommodation to be provided should further need be identified in subsequent evidence.’

5. Insert new paragraph, to following on from that agreed above, to recognise the collaborative working practices advocated within the draft GTAA. New paragraph to read: ‘The draft report indicates that accommodation needs do not necessarily have to be met where they arise. As such, the GTAA recommends that the study area local authorities adopt HMA-type collaborative structures to help determine how to jointly meet the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers. The following are the 3 new proposed Gypsy and Traveller HMAs which include all the study area local authorities:

1. North Gypsy & Traveller HMA: Exmoor NP, North Devon and Torridge

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

2. South Gypsy & Traveller HMA: Dartmoor NP, Exeter, Teignbridge and Torbay

3. Central Gypsy & Traveller HMA: East Devon and Mid Devon

Further liaison and collaborative working with partnership authorities is now essential in order to progress this area of work.’

6. Insert new paragraph, to following on from that agreed above, to recognise the identified need for a transit site across the wider draft GTAA study area. New paragraph to read: ‘The draft GTAA identifies the need for a single transit site of four pitches within the study area to help reduce the number of unauthorised encampments. The report recommended that the transit site is located close to one of the main arterial routes into the county (such as the A30) or in one of the areas where previous unauthorised encampments have been set up. Further partnership working is required to ascertain the most suitable and sustainable location for transit provision and to determine whether any such provision should be accommodated within northern Devon.’ Policy ST21: Managing the Delivery of Housing

Comments made in response to ST21 Managing the Delivery of Housing

Total Number of Responses 16

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 1 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - 4

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 2 1

Summary of Issues

Comments on ST21 Managing the Delivery of Housing plp number

Concerned about issue of land banking by developers. There needs to be a duty of 514 compliance from developers.

The Plan should include policies which require a more pro-active identification of 1153 suitable sites for local, affordable/social housing provision.

Policy ST21 states that where housing delivery performance falls significantly below 1545 that required the LPA will take steps to facilitate the expedient delivery of appropriate housing development. The supporting text recognises that in the first instance, this will be through seeking to provide support to enable existing allocations and outstanding permissions to be realised (Paragraph 7.54). This should also be reflected in the policy wording itself, whilst recognising that the scale and nature of appropriate interventions or approaches to facilitate development on a case by case basis.

Policy ST21(1-4)is supported, however the flexible approach detailed in paragraph 1573, 548 7.50 is inoperable; the exceptions sites approach is unviable , therefore there is no mechanism for site release to address undersupply.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Support for this policy. It may be beneficial to provide additional detail as to what 1799 would constitute “performance falls significantly below that required” (part (4)).

Consider that Part (1) of Policy is concerned with monitoring and should be relocated 1763, 1674 to the monitoring chapter of Plan. Remaining elements of policy considered to be no more than statement of good practice and deleted or moved to supporting text

Policy ST21 is superfluous and is mainly statements of good practise. It does not 2041, 2265, introduce any land-use policies or principles not already contained within the NPPF 1897, 1990 (eg paras 47, 158-159, 186, 188). Part 1 could be moved to the monitoring section.

Support for the Council’s commitment at Paragraph 7.51 to adopt a positive 1546 development management approach to the delivery of housing development.

Policy ST21 welcomed but the range of interventions, (to address undersupply) 1574 should be referenced.

There should be constraints on housing outside development boundaries such as 1155 when in open countryside, AONB and coastal areas.

Any sites exceptional y considered to meet an undersupply should be SHLAA tested, 1575 which should be stated in paragraph 7.55.

Clarification the ‘manage’ part of this policy and what the term ‘take steps’ means 2656 and under what powers these steps will be taken. Notes supporting text, in particular paragraph 7.56, but request clarification on the how and the what. The plan should set out clearly and concisely in the supporting text the range of tools available.

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.679 Four representations support all or part of the policy.

2.680 The key issue raised in representation is the need for the policy. Although of critical importance to the implementation of the Local Plan the issues it addresses relate primarily to process and procedure and not directly to decisions on land use. The issues are generally adequately covered in the supporting text and, as appropriate, in the Monitoring section of the Local Plan. The Councils’ ‘Statements of Community Involvement’ also outline the way in which the Councils will engage with applicants. Deletion of the Policy is therefore recommended. This change will not affect the plans conformity with the NPPF.

2.681 It is however considered that Clause 1 of the policy is not adequately referenced in the existing text. Accordingly it is suggested that the following is added to the end of paragraph 7.49 to cover this issue

2.682 ‘A positive and proactive ‘plan, monitor, manage’ approach to the delivery of housing development will be adopted.’

2.683 Deletion of the policy removes the need to cross reference the provisions of paragraph 7.54 as requested.

2.684 Paragraph 7.50 indicates some ways in which flexibility may be introduced to ensure housing delivery while paragraph 7.54 confirms the need for performance to be assessed on the basis of monitoring. The monitoring process, including the Annual Monitoring Report, will identify the reasons

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

for delivery falling below the required level and appropriate interventions can be identified in response. It is not considered possible or appropriate for all possible mechanisms to be identified in the plan at this stage as these may vary with the identified issues. They may range from support to enable existing consents to be realised (para7.54) to the preparation of additional or replacement development plan documents (para 7.56). The plan cannot anticipate what mechanisms may be introduced by Government in the future.

2.685 As indicated in paragraph 7.56, formally identified additional site allocations may be required to address a shortfall in delivery. Any such changes, or the introduction of additional or alternative sites by other means, will need to have regard to the overall strategy of the plan. It is agreed that reference to consideration of any such sites, whether promoted through formal alteration of the plan or exceptionally on an ad-hoc basis, should have been considered in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) process. Amendment to paragraph 7.55 to reflect this would be appropriate.

2.686 In light of the above, it is not considered that the plans flexible approach is ‘inoperable’ and that no mechanisms exist to address an undersupply of housing.

2.687 Deletion of the Policy avoids the need to amend Clause 4 in relation to performance falling below that required and this issue is expanded in Paragraph 7.54 by reference to ‘housing development prescribed in this Local Plan’.

2.688 The potential for ‘land banking’ by developers is acknowledged. The Councils will endeavour, as described in Paragraph 7.54, to enable existing allocations and outstanding consents to be realised, but success will depend on the particular circumstances. Present legislation does not enable the Councils to prevent land banking.

2.689 It is not appropriate for the Local Plan to include a policy to deal with the process of identifying sites for particular types of housing such as local or ‘affordable’. The plan facilitates the provision of such housing by requiring an appropriate contribution from qualifying development sites and responding to local circumstances that justify the release of ‘exception’ sites. In addition, local communities can use the neighbourhood planning process to influence the type and location of new development considered necessary in their area.

Conclusion

2.690 As policy ST21 does not deal with land use issues and will not be the basis for decision making it is recommended that it be deleted from the plan. Only minor consequential amendment to the text is required.

Agreed Actions

2.691 The following are agreed as Main Changes to the Local Plan:

1. Delete Policy ST21, Managing the Delivery of Housing.

2. Add sentence to end of paragraph 7.49 to read: ‘ A positive and proactive ‘plan, monitor, manage’ approach to the delivery of housing development will be adopted .’.

3. Delete third sentence of Paragraph 7.55 - ‘ Such development proposals will be require to demonstrate: ’ and replace with ‘ Any such sites should have been assessed through the SHLAA process and proposals will be required to demonstrate: ’

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Chapter 8: Strong and Inclusive Communities Policy ST22: Community Services and Facilities

Comments made in response to Policy ST22 Community Services and Facilities

Total Number of Responses 16

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 1 2

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 1 5

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 4 -

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy ST22 Community Services and Facilities and supporting text plp number

Closure of care homes and youth centres goes against the aims of paragraph 8.1. 286, 285 New ways of approaching health services must be explored and community care could play a part in this.

Add 'No housing developments will be built until the employment, social and care 330 needs for the kinds of people who would move into them are in place and the design and layout is in keeping with all the relevant policies.'

ST22 (1c) will prevent small settlements having community facilities unless ST22 549, 1577 (4) is overarching. CIL will replace this section.

There is a need to add LAP and LEAP thresholds to the policy. 937

Objection to Policy ST22(3) (b): alternative local provision should have at least equal 1172 community benefit to that which is lost.

Broadly support policy however consider that Part (3)(b) is too constrained as 1764, 1899, alternative delivery via online or mobile services may be appropriate but not 1991 supported.

Policy ST22(4) is not clear and the section is flawed, CIL will obviate the need to 1578 physically deliver infrastructure.

Paragraph 8.6 is flawed; rural schools require new development, which the Plan 1579, 2527 prevents.

Paragraphs 8.7 is flawed, small settlements need growth to ensure community facility 1580, 2528 retention; the plan does not support such growth.

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.692 One representation supported the policy.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

2.693 The Plan supports provision, retention and improvement of a wide range of community services and facilities and supports appropriate and innovative schemes to secure local delivery of public services. It is not considered appropriate to refer to issues related to specific services as these will inevitably vary over the life of the plan.

2.694 It is not realistic to require all necessary services to be in place before the commencement of new housing development and the specific needs of future residents are unlikely to be identified in advance. Integration of development and service provision and working with the service providers is the most likely way to achieve necessary provision.

2.695 Respondents are concerned that the reference to support for new community facilities where well related to public transport will prevent necessary new facilities in smaller settlements. The reference to public transport in ST22(1)(c) is qualified by ‘where possible’ as it is recognised that such provision is limited in much of the rural area. The need for the facility to help improve the self sufficiency of the settlement and meet a local need will need to be balanced with the accessibility issues. All clauses of the Policy are of equal importance but the general support for locally identified initiatives demonstrates the Councils’ commitment to support such proposals where they contribute to community sustainability.

2.696 Policy ST22 is a framework for supporting the provision and retention of community facilities. There are a wide range of standards that may be applicable and appropriate to individual services, which may vary over time. Including specific standards such as open space requirements within the policy is not considered appropriate. The policy will not be superseded by the introduction of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), which will assist with the provision of a specified range of infrastructure projects.

2.697 There is objection that alternative provision should be of equal community benefit to that which may be lost through change of use. The plan includes comprehensive guidance on the issues that will be considered before accepting a change of use and the intention to ‘..resist the net loss or reduction in the quantity, diversity and accessibility of existing community services and facilities.’ To reinforce this approach it is suggested that clause (3)(b) be amended by the inclusion of the word ‘appropriate’ before ‘alternative’.

2.698 The plan can also recognise the reality that online and mobile services may provide appropriate ways of delivering local services. The amendment suggested above also covers this point but a specific additional text reference in paragraph 8.7 is considered appropriate .

2.699 There is objection that the overall strategy of the plan prevents new development in small settlements and that as provision and retention of services in such settlements requires growth the policy and supporting paragraphs are flawed. Policy ST07, the Spatial Strategy for the plan area, does includes provision for appropriately scaled development and support for neighbourhood planning to identify and address community aspirations. This will enable appropriate sustainable growth in relevant settlements and provision of necessary community services to meet needs.

Other matters

2.700 From reviewing the Policy and supporting text it is considered necessary to make a number of amendments to achieve consistency across the policy area, with other policies and to achieve NPPF compliance.

2.701 It is considered appropriate to enable community facilities to be provided, extended or improved in Rural Settlements as well as at defined settlements. The Local Plan provides for housing in Rural Settlements and thus it is considered appropriate to support community uses in such

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

settlements. It is recommended that the opportunity for community facilities in the countryside on previously developed sites is removed; its retention would result in non compliance with the NPPF in providing for development in unsustainable locations.

2.702 Policy ST22 (3) is contradictory; it indicates in the first sentence that development resulting in the loss of community facilities and services will not be allowed then indicates in the second sentence that such will be allowed subject to listed tests; correction is required to address the inconsistency. Further amendment at (3)(a) is also recommended to clarify that the second element relates to premises.

2.703 Amendment to Policy ST22 (4) is additionally considered appropriate to relate the referenced community initiatives to those relating to the delivery of services and facilities.

Conclusion

2.704 A number of revisions are recommended in response to comments received and as a result of a policy review. The recommended revisions are considered necessary for the effective application of the policy, to support new, extended or improved community facilities and to provide safeguards against the loss of such unless justified .

Agreed Actions

1. The following changes are agreed as Main Changes:

a. Amend Policy ST22 to read:

‘(1) Development for new, or extensions or improvements to existing, community facilities that meet the needs of local communities will be supported within or adjoining defined settlements and Rural Settlements where:

(a) within or adjoining identified settlements or where proposed in the countryside it can be demonstrated that it cannot be accommodated at an identified settlement utilising derelict or previously developed land;

( b a) where it does not harm the character of the area and the amenities of the surrounding uses;

( c b) where it is well related to public transport infrastructure, where possible, and is accessible by walking or cycling; and

( d c) where it can be accessed without generating unacceptable levels of traffic on the local road network and / or reducing highway safety.

(2) In areas poorly served by public and community transport, support will be given to innovative schemes to secure local delivery of public services. Delivery of services through the use of mobile services and technology will be encouraged where service improvements result.

(3) Development that involves the loss of community services and facilities , education, health, social and other publicly provided services will not be supported unless there is Proposals which would result in the net loss a community facility will require compelling evidence to demonstrate:

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

(a) T the existing use is no longer commercially viable or could not be made commercially viable and is no longer required to meet the needs of the local community ; or

(b) T there is no appropriate alternative local provision that is accessible to the local community by walking or cycling .; and in either case

(c) the premises are no longer required to meet the needs of the local community.

(4) Community initiatives to delivery services and facilities, identified through Parish Plans or equivalent documents will be supported where they meet demonstrable social or economic needs and contribute to making local communities more sustainable.’

b. Amend final sentence of paragraph 8.5 to read: ‘The delivery of new services and facilities will be encouraged to be delivered on a multi-functional basis’ – in place of ‘Where appropriate, new buildings and facilities will be multi-functional’.

c. Amend paragraph 8.7 by adding additional sentence to read: ‘It is recognised that mobile and online services may help to provide local services.’

d. Amend final sentence of paragraph 8.8 to read: ‘Before considering a re-use of the building premises, the Council will wish to be satisfied that other uses of greater benefit to the rural community such as alternative community or employment use are not viable.’

2. The following is agreed as a minor change : a. Delete the last sentence of paragraph 8.3 ‘The enhancement of the green infrastructure network is co-ordinated by Policy ST03: Adapting to Climate Change and Strengthening Resilience.’

Policy ST23: Infrastructure

Comments made in response to Policy ST23 Infrastructure

Total Number of Responses 25

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 1 3

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - 8

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 2 3

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy ST23 Delivering Infrastructure and supporting text plp number

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Development is piecemeal, with little or no overall consideration as to the adequacy 672, 1839, of roads, schooling, medical provision, employment or the preservation of landscape. 1160, 1158 A general plan for infrastructure is needed within the local plan that is related to housing numbers. Provision should not be dependent on applicants providing for it with each development.

Consider the Plan to be non-compliant with the NPPF in relation to infrastructure 1844 and fails to meet the demographic requirements of the local community. As an example, consider that Ilfracombe Southern Extension fails to "demonstrate that planned infrastructure is deliverable in a timely fashion".

Questions how infrastructure will be delivered to support new housing growth; key 2170 services and the highway network are already at capacity.

Imperative that the delivery of strategic infrastructure is an equitable process whereby 1497, 1871 all new areas of growth that will benefit, will contribute proportionally. Particularly pertinent for sites allocated to north of Barnstaple. Process must be guided by CIL.

Policy ST23(1) is flawed and will be replaced by CIL. 1581

To reflect national policy the wording of ST23 clause 1 should be expanded to include 1112, 1547, “, having regard to the viability of the development”. Issue recognised in para 8.18 but needs to be clear from Policy and Charging Schedule. Development proposals 1608, should not be overburdened with planning obligations and only infrastructure that is necessary for development to proceed should be included rather than those elements 2053, 2266 that are merely aspirational. Viability should be key consideration in assessing level of levy. Necessary development could be stifled if not recognised. Reference should be made to Paragraph 173 of the NPPF.

Policy is broadly supported, although concerned about generality of Part (3) regarding 1769, 1900, increased demand for off-site services, the potential scope for wide interpretation of 1992, 1675 these requirements and non-compliance with statutory tests within CIL Regulations.

The Highways Agency fully supports the requirements set out in ST23. In the case 1297 of the SRN, new infrastructure should be in place at whatever stage is necessary to ensure that there are no adverse impacts on the operation of the SRN. In many cases this may mean before development commences or before it is occupied.

Regarding part (3) a holistic approach to transport assessment should be taken. Individual applications for development should also be supported by a robust transport evidence base as deemed necessary by DfT guidance.

North Devon infrastructure is already limited, building a significant amount of houses 698 is not sustainable and will ruin the region.

Sport England is concerned the evidence base for sport and recreation as set out 634 by the NPPF (para 73) needs to be addressed urgently to be used to influence planning obligations/CIL to sport.

Should infrastructure by required for mitigation for European Sites then this should 1998 be included in Policy ST23 and as a priority in the Regulation 123 list.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

CIL funding could be allocated to the improvement or maintenance of heritage assets 1164 classed as infrastructure where this infrastructure is needed to support development.

Support is given for Policy ST23, however the supporting text should include specific 893 reference to flood defences such as embankment, walls, road culvers and bridges. Contributions will be sought from developers and from the CIL to help towards the cost of these.

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.705 One representation supported the policy.

2.706 The general comments on the provision of infrastructure in relation to the timing and level of growth are noted.

2.707 The timely provision of infrastructure is essential. This may be in the form of additions to, or improvement of, existing facilities or new facilities. Provision in advance of development may impose additional financial burdens that affect the viability of necessary development and is likely to be required only where essential.

2.708 Policy ST23 is part of the wider framework relating to the provision of necessary infrastructure. The policy identifies the Councils’ expectation in relation to new development. This is informed by the North Devon and Torridge Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) which identifies the additional major requirements to ensure delivery of the Local Plan’s strategy and the anticipated sources of funding to secure these. Preparation of the IDP as a separate document is a statutory requirement and it is not necessary or appropriate to repeat its content in the local plan.

2.709 The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is a mechanism for securing contributions from development to a range of, predominantly large, infrastructure projects. These projects are identified in the IDP and in due course in the required ‘Regulation 123 Schedule’ that accompanies the CIL Charging Schedule. Projects included in both the IDP and in due course the Reg 123 Schedule are predominantly necessary to meet the needs of larger individual developments, groups of developments or the strategy for the sub regional, strategic and main centres.

2.710 The CIL Charging Schedule and IDP do not replace Policy ST23, and there is no duplication or conflict between requirements. The way in which new development will provide or contribute to the necessary infrastructure will vary with the individual proposal and the infrastructure required. In addition to possible contributions in accordance with the CIL Charging Schedule, infrastructure may be provided by the developer or by other parties such as service providers. For many local facilities, for changes solely attributable to a single development and for affordable housing provision, obligations or agreements under S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act may be used. Policy ST23 provides clarity to potential developers that provision of, or contribution to, necessary infrastructure will be expected. A minor clarification to the supporting text to explain how contributions may be secured is recommended.

2.711 It is considered that the supporting text adequately explains the need for infrastructure to be provided in step with new development and the potential difficulty of requiring provision in advance. The CIL Charging Schedule explains the necessity for its provisions to be informed by appropriate evidence.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

2.712 There is objection that Policy ST23 does not reflect the NPPF requirement that the viability of development is not threated by the scale and nature of obligations and policy burdens placed upon it (NPPF Para 173). Although this issue is recognised in the supporting text at para 8.18 it is agreed that it would be helpful to include it in clause (1) of the policy.

2.713 Policy Clause 3 relates to the general need to ensure that capacity exists or can be provided in off-site services if necessary to meet demand arising from new development. Objection is made that this requirement could be widely interpreted resulting in excessive funding requirements.

2.714 The Councils consider that the requirement is appropriate if it is to meet the Plans Objectives of appropriately located infrastructure to support the population and the need to secure infrastructure provision in step with growth. Regulations require that contributions may only be sought where they are required to make the development acceptable in planning terms, are directly related to the proposed development and are fair and reasonable. These judgements are required on a case by case basis within the framework provided by the policy.

2.715 The comments from the Highways Agency are noted. Guidance on the impact of new development on highways is provided by Policy DM05 and supporting text and does not need to be repeated. Reference is included there to the possible need for a Transport Assessment or Transport Statement.

2.716 Sport England supports the use of planning obligations and CIL as a way of securing the provision for sports places and their maintenance. The objection is that the evidence base to ensure appropriate implementation of the policy is inadequate, and does not reflect the requirements of NPPF para 73. A similar concern in respect to the CIL, which makes use of the same evidence base, is addressed through the response to consultation on that document.

2.717 The Councils consider that the evidence base used in preparation of the plan, which principally comprises the 2010 Playing Pitch Strategy and the 2013 Green Infrastructure Strategy, is adequate and appropriate. Additional evidence may also be available from neighbourhood plans and other community initiatives. The purposes of the policy are not affected by concerns related to the adequacy of the evidence base.

2.718 Statutory bodies Natural England, English Heritage and the Environment Agency request that specific forms of infrastructure to which contributions could, now or in the future, be requested via policy ST23 or through the Regulation 123 statement of the CIL, should be referred to in the text of the plan. These requests are noted but it is not considered appropriate for the plan to try to define all possible forms of ‘infrastructure’ to which Policy ST23 may be applied as it is unlikely to be comprehensive and could be misleading. Possible amendment to the CIL is a matter for the response to consultation on that document.

Conclusion

2.719 Revision to Policy ST23 is considered useful to clarify that the issue of development viability can be taken into account and to the supporting text to clarify the means by which infrastructure contributions may be sought.

Agreed Actions

1. The following are agreed as a main changes to Policy ST23:

a. Amend clause (1) by the addition of ’… having regard to the viability of development ’.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

b. Following second sentence of paragraph 8.18 that ends ‘… provide, fund or contribute toward it.’, insert additional sentence to read: ‘ Contributions may be sought through the Community Infrastructure Charging Schedule or by obligation or agreement under S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act. ’ Chapter 9: Neighbourhood Planning Policy ST24: Neighbourhood Planning

Comments made in response to Policy ST24 Neighbourhood Planning

Total Number of Responses 15

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 1 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - 2

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” - 3

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy ST24 Neighbourhood Planning and supporting text plp number

The approach to urban and rural areas should reflect their differences. There should 173 be no non-allocated land.

Policy is to be supported in broad terms, but we question if sufficient resources exist 2657 to support all parish and town councils and neighbourhood that wish to undertake neighbourhood planning.

ST24 (2) does not empower communities to deliver development or local needs 550, 1582 based development if at variance from the local plan. Communities are constrained if they wish to pursue neighbourhood plans. The approach does not comply with NPPF paragraph 17

Support but development should not be prejudiced or prevented through the lack of 1498, 1876 a formal process, should one not be in place or should it be started at a late stage in the delivery of the strategic sites.

The necessity of this policy is questioned. 1801

If the screening for HRA assessment cannot rule out locally significant effects, 2000 mitigation measures for any effects on European sites must be contained within the overarching Local Plan and not deferred to Neighbourhood Plans. In practical terms, Neighbourhood Plans should follow the local plan and not be adopted before.

9.3 There is little point in having Neighbourhood Fora if they have to comply with 189 Government policies.

9.4 Communities need to have a say in where development is to be located. 174, 332 Communities should be listened to before developers

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

9.4 Questions the Councils willingness to listen to neighbourhood forums. 175

9.5/6 Opportunities through Neighbourhood Plans will be result in market driven 176, 190 development pressures and unrestrained development.

9.6 Consideration may need to be given to those parishes split by the boundary of 2347 the National Park where neighbourhood planning may be taken forward in the future. Joint legal responsibilities.

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.720 Two representations support the Policy, with qualifications.

2.721 This section of the Local Plan highlights the recently introduced community led element of the planning framework known as ‘Neighbourhood Plans’ and summaries the purpose of, and regulations applying to, these plans. Policy ST24 expresses the Councils support and encouragement for the preparation of these plans by Town and Parish Councils or Neighbourhood Fora and repeats key aspects of the Regulations.

2.722 Each Neighbourhood Plan is likely to be different, reflecting the issues and aspirations of the community it covers. However, each must comply in its preparation and content with the relevant Regulations and in particular must be in general conformity with the strategic policies of the local plan. Amendment to clause (2) of the policy is required to reflect this as the qualifying reference to ‘general’ is omitted.

2.723 The supporting text emphasises the opportunity the process provides for communities to influence development at the local level within the framework of ‘general conformity’ with the policies of Part 1 of the Local Plan. As the preparation of Neighbourhood Plans is discretionary it is important that the Local Plan provides an adequate framework for development issues as suggested by the representation from Natural England.

2.724 Once adopted, Neighbourhood Plans prepared in accordance with the regulations are part of the local development plan and must be taken into account by the local planning authorities in making decisions on planning applications. The possibility of the preparation of a neighbourhood plan for an area which crosses the Exmoor National Park boundary is acknowledged but the issues arising from this are best tackled on an ad-hoc basis if the situation arises.

2.725 The text as drafted largely reflects the statutory framework for the preparation of neighbourhood plans. Policy ST24, with the exception of confirming the Councils’ support, does the same. On balance as the policy does not deal with issues over which the Councils have any control, it is considered that it should be deleted. A text reference can be added to confirm the support and encouragement to local Councils and Fora to prepare Neighbourhood Plans.

Conclusion

2.726 Delete Policy ST24 and add a text reference to general support for the process.

Agreed Actions

1. The deletion of Policy ST24 is agreed as a Main Change.

2. The following is agreed as a Minor Change:

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

a. Add to the beginning of Paragraph 9.6 ‘The Councils support and encourage Town and Parish Councils and Neighbourhood Fora to produce Neighbourhood Plans for their Parishes and/or neighbourhoods.’

Chapter 10: Town Strategies Town Strategies: Barnstaple

Comments made in response to Policy BAR: Barnstaple Spatial Vision and the associated supporting text.

Total Number of Responses 49

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 8 6

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 4 17

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 9 7

Table 2.9

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy BAR: Barnstaple Spatial Vision and Development Strategy BAR: plp number and supporting text

Infrastructure (Highways & Education)

The Agency recognises and supports the focus for future development being centred 1306 (HA) on Barnstaple as the town acts as a sub-regional centre for northern Devon, and also on Bideford. Key aims in the towns should be similar, in line with general policy, and should seek to improve public transport, traffic management and to tackle congestion and air quality.

Rail and road links need to be included, based on current and increased traffic and 700 need to be in place first not decades later. "Good access along the A361" the North Devon link road is no longer fit for purpose and can not cope with current traffic volumes.

In order to develop sustainable community transport links, southern boundary must 1457 be the focal point around which to develop these links. Keeping additional traffic away from the existing older built up areas should be a priority.

(n) ‘improvements to capacity at road junctions along A39 & A361’. All other 1432 infrastructure is to be paid for by Community Infrastructure Levy payments, which would not fund the road improvements (or the new schools which are already necessary).

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Growth needs to keep pace with improving public services and infrastructure. Funding 1429, 1420 is not mentioned in relation to new primary schools and park and change facility.

No need for new primary schools in Barnstaple as some primary schools not at 1378 capacity. Consider expansion of existing provision.

Given the concentration of development south of the Taw a site should be allocated 578 (FPC) for a secondary school south of the Taw.

Part (h) and 10.22): specific reference to the aspirations of Petroc relocation needs 764 (BTC), to be made here. Welcome the expansion of PETROC as a university level college. 1370

BAR (o) should include reference to, “enhanced primary and secondary provision 1269 through the expansion of existing schools.” (DCC)

Devon County Council has what it calls a “ hierarchy of transport modes ” but the 2432 amount that has been done to improve conditions for people who are walking or cycling or using the bus or train services pales into insignificance compared to what has been done over many years to encourage motoring and car-dependency.

Table 2.10

Retail

The town centre has a high number of empty shops and volunteer run charity shops 702 - Barnstaple the main focus for employment has lost many more jobs than have been created. The plan does not include confirmed businesses coming into the area.

Request clearer references within the supporting text to the need to protect the health, 1934 vitality and viability of the town centre.

Part (g): it is vital that the town centre remains the nucleus of the town’s vitality and 764 (BTC) all efforts maintained to consider this dynamic when assessing the pull of developments not just to Seven Brethren, but Roundswell, Pottington and Whiddon Valley as well.

Green Hills

Strongly supports strategy safeguarding hills around the town, especially area covered 318, 426, by policy BAR19. Essential that no development be allowed in this area in order to 646, 578 protect estuarine view. (FPC)

Part I) relates to the protection of hilltops. The policies current wording is overly 2415 prescriptive as it implies that any development in this location will be unacceptable. The policy should be reworded to state; “Development will be resisted on green hilltops whereby it would result in harmful impact upon Barnstaple’s setting and character, which cannot be otherwise mitigated against

Flooding / Water Quality

Parts (e), (f) & (p): require a far more robust approach towards planning applications 764 (BTC) to build on flood plains and areas prone to flooding, and any attempt to alter flood plains.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Support is given to the policy, in particular sub-paragraphs (e),(f),(j) and (p). Reference 898 (EA) is needed to water quality within this policy and supporting text, taking into account the WFD issues. SWW will need to confirm the availability and adequacy of the sewer system and treatment facilities and any work required to accommodate new development.

GI

Part (j): more emphasis needs to be given to dramatically improving the whole stretch 764 (BTC) of both sides of the Taw river-bank from the Iron Bridge to the new downstream bridge – and indeed the whole estuary beyond to the confluence - with a view to rendering it a recreational and tourist focal point.

Part (k): an absolute ‘must’, not just a good intention. We will never be able to respond 764 (BTC) to the pedestrian needs and all attempts to reduce unnecessary car use, gridlock and ever-increasing traffic flow unless effective alternative infrastructure is in place.

Welcome the development of green spaces, footpaths and cycle routes 1370

Housing Issues (including Table 10.1)

Support for Policy BAR, but the Local Plan fails to meet the stated objectives, in 888 particular scale of housing proposed at Barnstaple, with the availability / deliverability of key strategic site allocations to meet the short term (1-5 years) and long term housing requirements.

The distribution of development is set out in Policy ST08. The proportion of 1505 development for Barnstaple is 3,885 dwellings. There is a clear conflict between Policy ST06 and ST08 and Barnstaple should have a greater level of development. To meet the overall requirement it is considered that the supply in Table 10.1 Housing Supply for Barnstaple 2011-2031 is not deliverable in its entirety and the Council will need to justify to the Inspector the delivery of its housing trajectory not just for Barnstaple but for Northern Devon as a whole.

The Policy recognises Barnstaple’s role as a sub-regional centre and the main 1499 settlement for growth within North Devon. Should the housing provision for District be increased as Barnstaple represents an appropriate settlement to accommodate this additional growth.

Support the general principle of an urban extension to the south and south-west of 2497 Barnstaple and note that Roundswell offers good range of accessible range of services and facilities to serve the future growth.

In respect of residential development to serve Barnstaple we believe there is an over 1785, reliance on large sites. Experience with sites in the Barnstaple area and elsewhere 1783, 1797 would suggest that in the majority of cases these are slow to come forward and consequently will add to the lag in housing delivery we would therefore recommend that a number of modest sites should be included.

Welcome the development of new housing in the area to meet local and national 1370 needs.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Strategic development towards the north of Barnstaple would be less suitable in 2381, 2704 transport terms...... the highway network in the north of the town is less suitable for accommodating strategic growth.

The policy is overly prescriptive and does not provide the Council with sufficient 2410 flexibility in meeting housing targets. Allocated and “non-allocated” sites raise the total number of allocated units to 3453 units, 89% of the overall requirement. Of the 3085 dwellings proposed on allocated sites, 1900 (i.e. 62%) form part of the following 3 sites;

Westcott Urban Extension 850 units BAR01 Larkbear Urban Extension 750 units BAR02 Development at Tews Lane 300 units BAR03

Failure of these sites to be delivered or any delay to the start of works to these sites could have significant implications on overall housing numbers provided in the area. These implications could have significant impact on housing provision throughout the area, given Barnstaple’s role as Regional Centre. The policy does not provide any more specific information relating to delivery times and yearly completion rates. Without this information no assessment can be made of how this relates to the plan proposed Housing Trajectory, suggested time periods for construction and the implications of delayed delivery. This underlines the need for North Devon to issue an updated SHLAA relative this version of the Local Plan.

The draft local plan's reliance on allocated sites leaves it highly vulnerable should any of the allocated sites fail to deliver the yields required. If this is the case then the Council will run the very serious risk of being unable to demonstrate a 5 year HLS, which would then render all allocations as being void in the determination of planning applications.

Support the focus for growth on Barnstaple 2658

Nothing is guaranteed to negatively affect local communities more than the threat 765 (BTC) of a high number of new houses being ‘superimposed’ upon existing residential areas, especially those with an enhanced sense of local identity.

Prioritising brownfield sites, ensuring road systems will be able to cope and that infrastructural facilities (e.g. educational and medical) available to new residents are (more than) adequate should be fundamental.

Trayne Farm development has been approved, consideration should be given to 910 remove or reduce the housing developments, i.e. BAR05 which crosses the Barnstaple development boundary. It should be reduced in size so that the Local Green Space is respected and the housing allowance is not exceeded.

Support the position that land west of Oakland Park (57310) is not included within 664 housing supply within the Local Plan, particularly considering that the Plan can identify an adequate land supply without it.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

A number of listed sites are subject to the signing of a S106. There is a risk that 957 housing delivery targets will be missed. Land banking is a problem which could be addressed within S106 agreements through mechanisms to include time-limiting the ‘in principle’ approval so forcing the completion of the S106 and a start on site.

Support the inclusion of Westaway Plain (BAR05) as set out in Table 10.1. 2659

Employment

We are disappointed with regard to the employment opportunities set out for Barnstaple 1772 in that it appears to us to be a case of more of the same. The area contains a first class environment and has the potential to attract significant high value employment/leisure investment however we do not believe that any sites have been identified that would prove to be attractive to this market. Whilst at this stage we would not wish to identify any particular site we nevertheless believe that clear criteria should be provided in respect of potentially suitable locations. These would include parkland, but not part of the designated landscape, ease of access to the primary route network, potential to be served by public transport and possibly suitability for significant renewable energy generation.

Part d) of the Policy proposes a total of 26 hectares of employment land. The Local 2415 Plan does not however provide any justification or explanation of how this figure has been calculated.

Whilst the plan makes many references to increasing employment intensity it does 731 not show any engagement with businesses that have signed up or committed to either set up new or expand existing businesses in the area.

Site Proposals

Land off Goodleigh Road / Crookmans Corner (SHA/BAR/074) 1131 (NPS)

Land north of Goodleigh Road (SHA/BAR/067 & SHA/BAR/068) 1505

Land west of Mead Park, Bickington (SHA/FRE/132) 1506

Land at Windsor Road, Barnstaple (SHA/BAR/053 & SHA/BAR/054 & SHA/BAR/308) 1785

Land at Westaway Plain, Barnstaple (SHA/BAR/055) 1783

Land at Muddlebridge, Bickington (SHA/FRE/138)

Wet weather tourism attraction for Barnstaple (No site promoted) 1335

Flood alleviation solution for Braunton Road (Flood Gate in ) 1335

Land off Landkey Road, Barnstaple (No SHLAA) 2316

Land at Trayne Farm, Barnstaple (SHA/PWE/119) 2409

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Land west of Oakland Park South, Barnstaple (SHA/FRE/314) 430, 840, 841

Table 2.11

Additional Information

58420 : Approval Of Details In Respect Of Discharge Of Conditions 3 (Noise Mitigation), 4 (Construction Management Plan), 12 (Renewable Energy Strategy), 13 (Ecological Mitigation Strategy), 14 (Dormice Mitigation & Monitoring Strategy), 15 (Surface Water Management), 21 (Estate Layout Plans) & 22 (Access Road, Visibility Splays, Site Compound & Car Park) Attached To Planning Permission 55640, Land off Goodleigh Road. Approved 12/2/15

56640 : Erection Of 51 Dwellings Together With Associated Roads, Sewers, Landscaping, Parking, Garages & Other Associated Works (Amended Plans & Description), Land off Goodleigh Road. Approved 1/7/14

57310 : Outline Application For Residential Development, Access , Drainage & Landscaping, Land west of Oakland Park South, Barnstaple. Pending Decision

56492 : Erection Of 59 Dwellings, Associated Highway & Landscape Works Together With Provision Of Community Open Space & Associated Infrastructure (Amended Plans), Land at Mead Park, Bickington. Refused 29/7/14 (Appeal Decision Pending)

56047 : Outline Application For Up To 80 Residential Dwellings With Associated Gardens, Parking, Services, Infrastructure & Public Open Space, Structural Planting & Access Off Roborough Road (Additional Information), Land at Trayne Farm, Pilton West, Barnstaple. Approved in Principle

57304 : Demolition Of Existing Garden Centre & Redevelopment Of Site To Accommodate 44 Residential Dwellings Together With New Adoptable Highway & Associated Works (Amended Drawings), St Johns Garden Centre, St Johns Lane. Approved 21/10/14

56724 : Residential Development For The Erection Of 30 Dwellings (Amended Plans) (Amended Description), Land adj. Brannams, Old Torrington Road. Pending decision

54273 : Erection Of 14 Dwellings Together With Access & Drainage Works (Amended Plans), Land adj. Windsor Gardens, Old Torrington Road. Approved 25/7/13

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.727 A range of responses to the Barnstaple spatial strategy have been submitted, including some support together with a number of promotions of additional housing sites in order to meet need. This matter will be further discussed later.

2.728 Although there are no trunk roads in North Devon, the Highways Agency support the focus for future development being centred on Barnstaple as the town acts as a sub-regional centre for northern Devon, and also on Bideford. One representation would seek to ensure that rail and road links need to be included, based on current and increased traffic and need to be in place first not decades later. As the Plan should be read as a whole, the issues around strategic transport are dealt with in Policy ST10: Transport Strategy, including upgrading parts of the A361 around Barnstaple.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

2.729 The required improvements to the capacity of existing road junctions along the A39 and A361 and the development of new ‘park and change facilities’ are mainly focussed around the principal areas for development and are clearly a priority for DCC as set out within LTP3 (April 2011). Policy ST23: Infrastructure will require developments to provide or contribute towards the timely provision of infrastructure made necessary by the specific and/or cumulative impact of those developments either through on site provision or an off-site contribution. Some infrastructure funding will also be delivered through capital expenditure from DCC.

2.730 DCC as the education authority have identified there to be a need in Barnstaple to deliver at least two new primary schools, one to the west of the River Taw (BAR02) and one to the east of the town (BAR01) in order to accommodate the additional need required through housing growth over the plan period within the town. However, the County Council have not identified a requirement in Barnstaple for a further secondary school although it is accepted that criterion (o) of the spatial strategy could make reference to “enhanced primary and secondary education provision through the expansion of the existing schools”. Barnstaple Town Council supports the expansion of Petroc as a university level resource. However, it is understood that Petroc are no longer looking to relocate the facility to an alternative site within Barnstaple but expand on their existing site, although should their aspirations change over the Plan period then other policies would allow for such a relocation. Therefore, it is not considered necessary to make a specific reference in the Plan for any future relocation of Petroc.

2.731 One representation has expressed concern the supporting text to the strategy does not provide sufficient support to protect the health, vitality and viability of the town centre. Criterion (g) of the spatial strategy will support the expansion of the town centre to enhance the town’s vitality and viability and strengthen its role as a sub-regional centre for retail, commercial, community, leisure and cultural activities. It is considered that this policy approach is in accordance with paragraph 23 of the NPPF. However, the spatial vision should be amended to promote a healthy and vibrant town centre.

2.732 The landscape of Barnstaple is characterised by attractive countryside with the River Taw and its Estuary penetrating the heart of the town, set within a backdrop of undeveloped agricultural land where its estuary setting and green hills need to be safeguarded. A number of representations have supported criterion (l) of the strategy to protect the green hilltops around the town; this support is noted and welcomed. However, one representation has suggested the policy wording is too restrictive as it implies development would not be acceptable in any circumstance. They have suggested a wording to the policy to read “Development will be resisted on green hilltops whereby it would result in harmful impact upon Barnstaple’s setting and character, which cannot be otherwise mitigated against”. It is considered the current wording of criterion (l) already allows a degree of flexibility on some of the hills surrounding Barnstaple as it seeks to protect the green hills that contribute towards the setting and character of Barnstaple, mainly around the estuary. Protecting the green hills around the town featured strongly in community responses to the town’s spatial vision. Therefore, it is not proposed to change the Plan to the wording suggested although a very minor change would delete the second ‘to’.

2.733 The response from the Environment Agency supporting recognition within the spatial strategy to improve and mitigate against any adverse harm on water quality in the rivers and estuary (criterion e, f, j and p) is noted and welcomed. SWW have confirmed the current availability and adequacy of the sewer system and treatment facilities. Policy ST23: Infrastructure will require all developments to provide or contribute towards the timely provision of infrastructure made necessary by the specific and/or cumulative impact of those developments either through on-site provision or an off- site contribution. The capacity of the sewer system and treatment facilities should be resolved through negotiation as part of any future planning application(s) where required.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

2.734 However, it is accepted that a more specific reference should be made to ‘The EU Water Framework Directive’ within the plan’s strategic aims and objectives in Chapter 2 (Spatial Planning Vision) or in Chapter 6 (A World Class Environment). Barnstaple Town Council is concerned regarding flooding issues in the town and the building on flood plains. It is considered the Plan already provides sufficient safeguards to restrict new development in flood zones, with most allocated sites (excluding Anchorwood Bank) located within flood zone 1. No amendments are required for the Local Plan.

2.735 There is general support for the strategy to deliver new green spaces and improved footpath and cycle links in and around Barnstaple. This support is noted and welcomed. However, the Town Council wish to ensure the intentions of both criteria (j) and (k) are delivered rather than just an aspiration. For the Plan to be ‘sound’, part of this assessment requires it to be ‘justified’ and ‘effective’. Therefore, it is considered the above stated criteria are more than aspirational, although the Plan can only include proposals that are deliverable within the plan period. Also, the Plan can only facilitate the provision of accessible natural green space along the Taw estuary as well as the additional footpaths and cycle links in and around Barnstaple; it will be for the public and / or private sector to deliver as opportunities arise, with funding where feasible through developer contributions.

2.736 The Plan is very supportive to promoting additional employment growth and Policy ST08: Scale and Distribution of New Development in Northern Devon is proposing approximately 26 hectares of additional employment land in Barnstaple. The ‘Employment Land Review – April 2014’ has recognised Barnstaple should be the priority to deliver employment land. However, the ELR has also recognised there to be a current oversupply of land for economic development in the Plan therefore, it may be necessary to reduce the current allocations in and around Barnstaple. Whilst the Plan provides the opportunities for employment growth over the Plan period, it is for the Councils’ Northern Devon Economic Strategy and key partners for both North Devon and Torridge to deliver the employment growth and job creation. However, both North Devon and Torridge Councils will seek to capitalise on enhanced levels of assistance offered by the Assisted Area status in order to promote economic development and growth in the area. One representation is disappointed with the employment opportunities for Barnstaple as it appears from the Plan that it is more of the same. It is accepted that northern Devon has a high quality environment that has the potential to attract high value employment / leisure investment. It is also accepted a number of the employment allocations will be taken up by more traditional B1, B2 and B8 uses. However, it should be noted the land for economic uses to the south of the A39 is identified for a business campus including offices, research and development and high technology uses, which could be considered as meeting the aspiration of the objector. It should also be noted Policy ST11 will support a diverse local economy and encourage opportunities for inward investment from high value employers. It is considered there are appropriate opportunities through other policies within the Plan to encourage high value employment / leisure investment in northern Devon to strengthen and diversify the local economy.

2.737 There is support for the level of housing proposed for Barnstaple as well as the identification of the strategic sites and new development boundary within the Plan. However, there is also objection that Barnstaple is not delivering enough housing in view of its sub-regional status. The Local Plan has identified 16,469 dwellings for North Devon and Torridge which equates to 8,350 dwellings for North Devon. The SHMA Update identified an objectively assessed need for North Devon of approximately 6,600 dwellings but the Plan is seeking growth for the area and North Devon is seeking to deliver approximately 27% over the baseline demographic need. However, the SHMA is currently being reviewed. Policy ST06 recognises Barnstaple as the sub-regional centre of northern Devon and will be the focus for future growth, although it is recognised that Bideford is proposing a higher housing supply than Barnstaple. The main reason behind the additional provision in Bideford is mainly due to the fact Torridge has a higher objectively assessed need than North Devon as identified in the SHMA and, whilst Ilfracombe and South Molton wanted housing growth, there are fewer main towns in Torridge, outside of Bideford that could sustain a higher level of housing growth over the Plan

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

period. In terms of meeting the need in North Devon, approximately 48% of the housing growth will be located in Barnstaple, which reflects its sub-regional status and is not considered unreasonable when the town has a number of landscape and environmental constraints.

2.738 One representation makes specific reference to the urban extensions at Westacott, Larkbear and Tews Lane and that delivery is uncertain. Also, it is stated there is an over reliance on larger allocated sites which will mean the Plan will be vulnerable should these sites fail to deliver the yields required. Firstly, the NPPF (paragraph 12) makes it clear that the decision making process for planning applications should be development plan led unless material considerations indicate otherwise, so it is correct to assume the Plan is the starting point for decision makers. It is accepted the Plan in the main centres of Barnstaple, Bideford, Ilfracombe and South Molton have a number of larger sites that will take a number of years before commencement on site, which will undoubtedly have an adverse impact on the Council’s ability to demonstrate a 5 year (plus 20%) housing land supply and the identification of more smaller sites may improve housing delivery. However, in terms of sites proposed in Barnstaple, there is extant planning permissions in place or are approvals in principle subject to the completion of a S106 agreement on sites including Larkbear, Mount Sandford Green, Glenwood Farm, Old Torrington Road, Westaway Plain, North Lane, Anchorwood Bank and Tews Lane totaling approx. 1,800 dwellings, which equates to approximately 46% of the town’s proposed growth. The LPA are facilitating the delivery of sustainable development in Barnstaple and across North Devon, it is now for the development industry to seek an approval of details and commence development on site.

2.739 One representation considers that the development boundary should be drawn more loosely in order to provide greater opportunities for more modest developments. The current strategic allocations and defined development boundary have been drawn to meet Barnstaple’s housing need over the Plan period as identified through the SHMA and the distribution strategy as set out in Policy ST08: Scale and Distribution of New Development in Northern Devon. Identifying larger strategic extensions to Barnstaple will inevitably extend the development boundary which will enable other ‘developable’ sites to be considered for additional housing. Also, the Plan supports neighbourhood plans so long as they are in accordance with the spatial strategy and spatial vision for Barnstaple. The required strategic level of growth will be delivered through the Local Plan unless it can be demonstrated that additional housing growth is required by the local community in Barnstaple, in which case a neighbourhood plan would be supported in principle that could allocate additional housing sites currently outside the development boundary.

2.740 Paragraph 154 of the NPPF requires that ‘local plans should be aspirational but realistic’ and paragraph 157 requires local plans to ‘allocate sites to promote development and provide detail on form, scale, access and quantum of development’. The delivery of housing in Barnstaple through site allocations is based on a realistic assessment of each site based on the SHLAA (2013) and detailed master planning work on certain sites allocated within the plan where planning applications or pre-application discussions are currently being considered by the Council. The strategy does not identify minimum or maximum housing numbers to be achieved but is flexible in so much as it will not prevent higher housing numbers being delivered if a well designed scheme is presented that will help meet the spatial vision for Barnstaple to 2031 and deliver the specific development requirements as set out in the housing policies for Barnstaple. As such, the spatial strategy for Barnstaple delivering approximately 3,900 dwellings through specific strategic and non-strategic site allocations is not contrary to the requirements of the NPPF. The overall level of growth in the town is reviewed as part of Policy ST08.

2.741 Barnstaple Town Council is concerned that local communities are threatened with high house numbers being imposed upon existing residential areas, and that such developments do not take in to account the views of local residents. It is considered the spatial vision and development strategy

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

for Barnstaple has been prepared in direct engagement with the local community through consultation on options and previous draft plans, including consultation with local stakeholders, residents and, the Town Council. The vast majority of housing sites in Barnstaple have been submitted in areas subject to allocations within the Plan to help meet the needs of Barnstaple as the sub-regional centre. However, it is accepted that a small number of applications outside the development boundary have been submitted by developers based on the fact North Devon does not have ‘a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide 5 years worth of housing against housing requirements in the Plan’ as required by paragraph 47 of the NPPF.

2.742 Development of brownfield land is supported by the NPPF and the reuse of previously developed land is a key aspect of delivering sustainable development (paragraph 17 – Core planning principles). The Plan supports housing development on previously developed land such as Anchorwood Bank (Policy BAR12), which will deliver approximately 240 houses (amended proposal) as well as the non-strategic contribution of approximately 200 dwellings, which equates to approximately 12% of the overall requirement of about 3,900 dwellings in Barnstaple over the Plan period. This figure would appear to be relatively low but North Devon and Torridge, due to its rural nature, have a very limited supply of previously developed sites that can be redeveloped for housing, particularly in Barnstaple where approximately 25% of the built up area and most available brownfield sites are within an indicative flood zone where houses are considered a more vulnerable use and should be directed away from such areas. The contribution from previously developed land is recognised as a policy objective within Policy ST01: Principles of Sustainable Development.

2.743 In addition to the housing proposed for Barnstaple in the Local Plan, additional housing sites have been promoted. These sites have been proposed mainly by Planning Agents on behalf of the landowner. The promoted sites have been fully assessed by the SHLAA Panel and have been listed below with an indication of the SHLAA Panel’s conclusions as to developability. The address for each site can be cross-referenced on the list of promoted sites (above).

SHLAA Reference Panel Decision

SHA/BAR/074 Developable

SHA/BAR/067 Developable

SHA/BAR/068 Developable

SHA/FRE/132 Developable

SHA/BAR/053 Developable

SHA/BAR/054 Developable

SHA/BAR/055 Developable

SHA/BAR/308 Not Currently Developable

SHA/FRE/138 Developable

SHA/PWE/119 Developable

SHA/FRE/314 Developable

Table 2.12

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

2.744 A representation has promoted a site north of Windsor Road, Bradiford (SHA/BAR/308) that has been considered by the SHLAA Panel as ‘not currently developable’, mainly around development on the lower slopes being less well related to the existing town and having greater impact on the undeveloped character of the valley. This land is more useful for SUDS and open space for development higher up the slopes. Unless circumstances change on this site and where such changes have been re-assessed by the SHLAA Panel, then there is no further commentary on its inclusion within the Plan.

2.745 In terms of the remaining sites, the Panel indicated that they are all considered developable in principle. Some have been or are currently subject to decisions on planning applications or on appeal, the strategy for Barnstaple has already been established through community consultation and alternative sites have been through a robust assessment including sustainability appraisal prior to publication of the draft Local Plan. Recent permissions can be counted as commitment so it is not considered necessary to allocate these additional sites.

2.746 However, Barnstaple is a highly sustainable location and could deliver a higher proportion of housing growth considering its sub-regional status. This issue has been discussed above as there are objections to the fact Bideford is delivering more housing than Barnstaple. Opportunities for growth would assist in strengthening the town’s existing role, although this must be balanced against the need to protect the surrounding green hills and the fact that approximately 25% of urban Barnstaple is within an indicative flood zone. The growth strategy for the settlement has been agreed and any additional housing sites outside the development boundary will be considered against other policies in the Plan.

Other Matters

2.747 A study is currently investigating existing flood defences along the River Taw. Also, there is an inconsistency with paragraph 10.12 and Table 10.1 (Housing Supply for Barnstaple 2011-2031); paragraph 10.12 should refer to 3,810 dwellings for consistency with Table 10.1 which refers to 3,885 dwellings. However, with the proposed changes agreed, paragraph 10.12 and Table 1 should both read 3,978. This change should also be reflected within Policy ST08.

2.748 Amendment to the prefix to the housing numbers is recommended to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of” through Policy ST08: Scale and Distribution of New Development in Northern Devon.

2.749 The capacity of Tews Lane, Roundswell has increased from 300 to 350 (see Policy BAR03). The figures in Table 10.1 need updating to reflect additional non-allocated developable sites and a corrected figure for unimplemented consents (50 rather than 46 dwellings).

Conclusion

2.750 Several issues were raised through representations received, but none are considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan. However, a main change is proposed to clarify wording and intentions of a particular paragraph or the strategy.

Agreed Actions

1. The following are agreed as Main Changes to Policy BAR: a. Amend the spatial vision for Barnstaple by adding additional text to second paragraph to read: “..... The town centre will be revitalised and expanded to promote a healthy and vibrant town

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

centre to support its vitality, viability and economic prosperity, including a vibrant and diverse evening economy...... ” b. Amend criteria (a) of Policy BAR and Policy ST08 to show Barnstaple will deliver approximately 3,885 a minimum of 4,139 dwellings over the Plan period, with consequent changes to paragraph 10.12 and Table 10.1. c. Amend criterion (b) of Policy BAR to read “provision of new site allocations of approximately 3,058 3,183 dwellings and non-allocated developable sites of approximately 395 501 dwellings. d. Amend criterion (c) to read “urban extensions to the south and south-east of Barnstaple to accommodate approximately 1,600 1,770 new dwellings....” e. Amend criterion (d) to read “provision of approximately 26 21.6 hectares of land for economic development ...... ” Also amend Table 10.2 and paragraph 10.13 accordingly. f. Amend criterion (l): “protection of the green hilltops around the town that contribute to Barnstaple’s setting and character and retention of the open land between the town and surrounding villages to help to maintain their separate identities”. g. Amend criterion (o) of the strategy to be more explicit in terms of recognising the need for enhanced primary and secondary education provision through the expansion of the existing school. Criterion (o) would read “social and community facilities required to support new development including enhanced primary and secondary provision through the expansion existing schools and improved early years and youth provision within Barnstaple.” h. Add new criterion (r) “support for initiatives to improve and mitigate against any adverse harm to water quality in the rivers and estuary”. i. Consequent changes to Policy ST08. j. Delete criterion (q).

2. The following are agreed as Main Changes to read:

a. Add additional text to paragraph 10.9 (The Future) to read ...... and visitors. ‘The role of Roundswell as a District Centre will be enhanced to meet the needs of the local community’. b. Amend paragraph 12.12 to reflect these higher housing numbers with a change from “approximately 3,810” to “a minimum of 4,139”.

3. The following additional non-allocated developable sites being added to Table 10.1 and amending other sites are agreed as Main Changes:

a. Add Land at Trayne Farm, Pilton West for 80 dwellings with a relevant footnote to indicate the principle of planning permission has been agreed subject to a s106 agreement being signed. b. Add Former Glove Factory for 11 dwellings. c. Add Borough Arms, Forches for 11 dwellings. d. Add Tile Centre, 113 Boutport Street for 6 dwellings. e. Add Bryan House, Pilton Street for 5 dwellings. f. Amend St. Johns Garden Centre from 42 to 44; g. Amend Land west of Old Torrington Road from 53 to 44; h. Amend Garden adjacent to Wayside from 8 to 1 dwelling; i. Amend Westacott Urban Extension (BAR01) from 850 to 950 dwellings; j. Amend Larkbear (BAR02) from 750 to 820 dwellings; k. Amend Tews Lane (BAR03) from 300 to 350 dwellings; l. Amend South of Hospital (BAR06) from 100 to 105 dwellings; m. Amend Glenwood Farm (BAR09) from 160 to 170 dwellings; n. Amend Anchorwood Bank (BAR12) from 350 to 240 dwellings;

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

2.751 Whilst amending the totals accordingly.

4. The following are agreed as Main Changes to Table 10.2 for employment allocations: a. Amend Westacott Urban Extension (BAR01)from 10ha to 5ha; b. Add Glenwood Farm, Roundswell (BAR09) for 0.8 ha; c. Amend South of A39, Roundswell (BAR10) from 6.5ha to 6.1ha.

2.752 Whilst amending the totals accordingly.

5. The following is agreed as a Main Change: a. Amend paragraph 10.13 from approximately 26 to 21.6 hectares.

Comments made in response to Policy BAR01: Westacott Strategic Extension and the associated supporting text.

Total Number of Responses 133

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 24 35

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ 67

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 3 61

Table 2.13

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy BAR01: Westacott Strategic Extension and supporting text plp number

Putting a new roundabout at Landkey will not change the direction or volume of 2526 traffic or create a 'new' gateway to the town. The new development will not create a distinctive sense or place and quality of life but adversely impact on the existing qualities of the place. Development will not reduce carbon emissions but increase them through extra cars and it will not enhance ecosystems.

Secondary Access Through Westacott Park / Castle Park Road/A361

Linking BAR01 to existing Whiddon Valley will increase traffic onto Rose Lane 43, 147, 7, 197, Roundabout. Westacott Road is the main road to the primary school; children will 97, 156, 732, be put at increased risk from more traffic. Access must be via Landkey Roundabout 17 2529, 269, not Whiddon Valley. The proposed vehicular link should be removed. Additionally 2, 6, 40, 45, 28, in objection to the site: the children’s play space and adjacent amenity green 54, 32, 30, 38, space will be lost reducing the opportunity for children’s play and have negative 21, 46, 41, 29, well being/health implications. the existing park retained and a cycleway into 37, 39, 44, 48, Castle Park Industrial Estate provided.; local views should be taken account of 49, 50, 53, 167, and the green space retained. Provide a secondary route on to A361 near 92, 95, 63, 86, Banbury’s / Actavis. Amend final sentence of para 10.18 - Using the word should 62, 72, 90, 69, 70, 87, 91, 67,

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

instead of must or will gives the developers the scope to not build the 85, 89, 96, 110, replacement play area for logistical or financial reasons. Consider changing the 196, 171, 747, word to either of the latter two. 201, 195, 194, 261, 262, 240, 308, 307, 508, 415, 467, 480, 649, 708, 772, 1095, 1192, 1193, 1385, 1392, 1488, 2449, 2427, 2400, 2399, 2420, 2450, 2609, 2501, 2430, 2559, 2563, 2567, 2568, 2570, 2573, 2575, 2578, 2579, 2580, 2581, 2582, 2708, 2571, 2588, 2590, 2592, 2593, 2594, 2595, 2596, 2598, 2599, 2602, 2603, 2605, 2606, 27, 31, 42, 52, 231, 353 (Police), 699, 719, 724

The park at Westacott Road is a vital part of community for which it is a focal 47, 51 point; don’t take it away. Put the road at the end of Castle Park Road, which will not affect community.

If a secondary access is to be established through existing public open space, a 1270 (DCC) specific policy reference should be added to require enhanced replacement provision as part of a transport scheme. Add an explicit policy requirements: for the development to provide replacement public open space, at an enhanced level, as part of the mitigation of the access route. Beneficial for the supporting text to describe the kind of improvements that could be provided as a result of the relocated public open space.

General Access

Objection to BAR01 on grounds of congestion, access, safety concerns, affect 282, 352 on existing community & road infrastructure. (Police)

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Policy BAR01(3)(a): refers to provision of a roundabout to provide the primary 1270 (DCC) vehicular access; while likely to be a roundabout, it could be a compact grade-separated junction; flexibility should be introduced to accommodate any type of appropriate junction. Policy BAR01(3)(a): refer to ‘an improved junction’ instead of a ‘roundabout’

Stated as requiring improvements to Landkey junction but no indication as to how 2411 this would be funded. Consider the comprehensive development of the large site, thought to be in multiple ownerships, likely to be a significant challenge, exacerbated by the need to secure funding and joint delivery of junction improvements.

Jobs & Infrastructure

Questions whether the existing infrastructure will cope with the new housing in 97, 40 terms of congestion, school capacity etc and there are no jobs for the residents of the new houses.

Support some economic development as part of proposal but 10ha is an over 596 allocation and would result in over supply. Propose an amendment to this section of the policy to say the vision is for approximately 10 hectares of land for economic development, however, with justification, if the land has not been built out within a reasonable period of time, then some other viable uses could be proposed. Would like further justification that the existing car park and change facility is utilised efficiently, questions need for two in Barnstaple.

Existing sewerage infrastructure must be upgraded to cope with this level of 2613 development in the Newport area of Barnstaple.

Existing medical facilities will not be able to cope. 2529

Question the rationale for a new primary school and its delivery potential. 85

There needs to be jobs created in order for there to be a need for the proposed 1095 housing.

Housing

Affordable homes proposed should be assessed in terms of viability in light of 596 sustainable water strategy measures.

We have highlighted the sustainability credential of Landkey above in relation to 2661 references within this policy. We consider that the effect of this policy is to ‘pull’ Landkey into Barnstaple as a sub-regional centre with the consequent focus for growth. Landkey increasingly looks a sustainable centre for growth by operation of this policy.

The development density requires review 43

High priority should be given to development on the Eastern part of Barnstaple 2732 (FPC) to ease congestion south of the Taw and provide access to the motorway.

Biodiversity

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

The County Wildlife site should be protected and the features for its designation 2002 (NE) maintained.

Flooding

New building in Barnstaple will put existing buildings at increased flood risk. Coney 76, 86 Gut has been breached by flash floods; greenfield development will further feed the water course.

General

Delete Policy BAR01 and include within the policy for green wedges (BAR22) 2452

Questions raised at previous consultation have not been answered. Matt Steart 61 declared an interest in SHA/LAN/374 Westacott Heights Barnstaple. Please can you declare what his interest is?

No provision is made for allotments. A green buffer along Westacott Lane should 43, 712 be provided between existing and proposed development. The developer must provide a replacement park.

Brownfield sites need to be developed first before greenfield as this is more 1095, 31 sustainable.

The diagrammatic plans within the two sets of summary leaflets are inconsistent. 2429

Additional Land

Proposed alterations to BAR01 from landowners; The area marked as 1 on the 596 plan shows a woodland known as Longclose Wood, which is currently used by the public for recreational purposes at the choice of the landowner. They would be happy for this area to be designated as open space within the Westacott Strategic Extension, which would assist in the provision of open space within the Extension proposed. The area marked as 2 on the plan is additional land that should be considered to form part of the Extension within this plan period. The land measures 5.50 hectares and both landowners would like to put it forward to be included within this policy. Request that land is re-measured – should be 72 ha. Disagree with figure of 850 dwellings – should be 1359, taking into account additional land.

Site Proposals

Land at Westacott (SHA/LAN/419 & SHA/LAN/417) 596

Land at Waytown, Goodleigh Road (Various) 889

Table 2.14

Additional Information

C106606 : Residential Development, Land at Westacott Heights

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

C110783 : Town & Country Planning Act (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 - Screening Opinion In Respect Of Proposed Residential Development, Land at Goodleigh Road, Waytown.

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.753 There would appear to be some support for the development as a whole, although there is an overriding concern with regard the secondary vehicular access through Westacott Park on to Westacott Road. In 2013, it was considered a secondary route was important to ensure the site remains safe to access, permeable and accessible for all users, including the emergency services. The resilience of safe access is best secured by an alternative vehicular access. The ‘Manual for Streets’ (March 2007) states ‘the length of cul-de-sacs or the number of dwellings have been used by local authorities as criteria for limiting the size of a development served by a single access route. Authorities have often argued that the larger the site, the more likely it is that a single access could be blocked for whatever reason. The fire services adopt a less numbers-driven approach and consider each application based on a risk assessment for the site, and response time requirements’. Further engagement with Devon and Somerset Fire Service may be required in order to justify the existing highway strategy for this site.

2.754 Further to the consultation responses to the draft Local Plan in January 2013, the Councils requested additional information from DCC as local highway authority with regard to the proposed vehicular access arrangements for Policy BAR01. In April 2014, DCC produced the additional evidence which showed that ‘based on the anticipated number of houses and jobs on the site there must be a minimum of two vehicular access points to the site to enable the network to function in a resilient manner. With only one access there would be no choice of route for drivers forcing all vehicles to converge at the same point; this is a current issue for residents in Whiddon Valley and we will seek to improve the situation in connection with this development’. At that point, the route through the existing park was the only achievable option which DCC confirmed, although it was recognised the loss of the existing park was a concern but the opportunity to provide alternative provision was readily available as part of the development.

2.755 However, since the consultation process in June 2014, the Councils have identified the owner of the employment site off Castle Park Road, west of Westacott Lane adjacent to the development site. The landowners have indicated a willingness to encourage economic regeneration and in principle, they would discuss release of the above land to the Council or another party. There is another stakeholder here – the occupier (Tritech) – and the company would only proceed on the basis that they were in agreement and that they could be relocated. However, it has also been indicated that after a recent meeting the tenant do need more space so the timing may be good. Although it is unlikely the site will deliver housing, the landowner has formally submitted a SHLAA proforma to demonstrate the land is available and the Panel indicated the site is developable to deliver an alternative vehicular access in to the strategic urban extension to Barnstaple (BAR01) including extensive landscaping, albeit with zero capacity for housing. This change is supported by DCC highways.

2.756 With this additional land being put forward that could deliver the secondary vehicular access on to Westacott Road, it is considered that the Councils have three options:

·1·. Option 1 – Retain the proposed vehicular access through Westacott Park as the sole secondary access on to Westacott Road, this would not require any amendment to the Plan.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

·2·. Option 2 – Include the additional land promoted off Castle Park Road within Policy BAR01 and propose this route as the sole secondary access on to Westacott Road and remove the route through Westacott Park, which would require a change to the Plan. ·3·. Option 3 - Include the additional land promoted off Castle Park Road within Policy BAR01 and propose this route and/or the route through Westacott Park to ensure a more flexible policy approach that will facilitate either route as the secondary access on to Westacott Road. Neither site would be able to ransom the development, which would require a change to the Plan.

2.757 A main change is proposed to paragraph 10.17 to delete reference to the vehicular access having to be delivered through Westacott Park which would allow a degree of flexibility in terms of delivery of this secondary access road and hopefully remove a number of objections from the local community (Option 3). The change will also include an amendment to Policies Map 1 to include the existing industrial units within allocation BAR01 and alternative vehicular routes, as well as paragraph 10.18 if the existing park still delivers the new road.

2.758 The response from DCC is noted regarding the provision of a roundabout to provide the primary vehicular access. It is accepted that flexibility could be introduced to accommodate any type of appropriate junction which could include a roundabout or a compact grade-separated junction. Criterion 3(a) should be amended accordingly.

2.759 It is accepted that a development of this size will require the provision of major infrastructure in order to minimise the impact on existing infrastructure in Barnstaple such as schools, transport, sewerage, flooding, medical facilities etc. However, it is considered unreasonable for a development to make significant upfront payments to pay for infrastructure before houses are sold since this would undermine viability. Policy ST23: Infrastructure will require developments to provide or contribute towards the timely provision of infrastructure made necessary by the specific and/or cumulative impact of those developments either through on-site provision or an off-site contribution. The phasing and delivery issues should be resolved through negotiation as part of any future planning application on this site. Therefore, it is not an issue for the Local Plan to address directly.

2.760 The Plan currently proposes approximately 10 ha of land for economic development on this site with a further 16 ha of employment land in and around Barnstaple. However, with the current oversupply of land for economic development in the Plan, it may be necessary to reduce the current allocation to 5 ha, an approach supported in principle by the ‘Employment Land Review – April 2014’. The Plan can only provide the opportunity for employment growth in northern Devon based on the evidence of future need. It will be for the Councils’ Economic Strategy and key partners for both North Devon and Torridge to deliver the employment growth and job creation over the plan period to 2031. Detailed master planning work with the developer and local community will determine the most appropriate layout for the development.

2.761 The eastern side of Barnstaple, around Whiddon Valley is located within a ‘Critical Drainage Area’ (CDA), where the EA require that all new development should provide measures to reduce current rainfall runoff rates. Criterion (h) and the supporting text recognise this fact by requiring development to deliver a sustainable water strategy that manages surface water runoff through water storage and SUDS in combination with tree planting to reduce the risk of flooding along the Coney Gut and elsewhere in Barnstaple.

2.762 It is not accepted that the density of development requires a review. The adopted SHLAA methodology (March 2014) advocates a gross to net site size ratio of 50% within a CDA. The total site area of the Westacott extension is approximately 80 hectares (gross), therefore this leaves a net developable area for housing of about 40 hectares, in recognition of the site being within a critical drainage area where higher standards of dealing with surface water is required. With an overall

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

requirement to deliver approximately 850 dwellings as well as key physical and green infrastructure, this equates to a density of about 21 dph across the whole site, although some of the housing areas will have higher densities which will be similar to parts of the adjoining housing development on Whiddon Valley. The potential reduction in employment land (10 ha to 5ha) also facilitates additional housing capacity on site. This is considered to be an acceptable form of development that will deliver an appropriate landscaping scheme, retain existing site features and protect the setting of the important listed building at Acland Barton. However, it is not considered the site should deliver 1,359 dwellings as proposed by the representation acting on behalf of the landowners, although it is accepted the land south-east of East Acland, excluding land west of the extensive tree belt through the site (approximately 4.3 ha gross - 2.15 ha net), could be included within BAR01 and would deliver approximately 64 additional dwellings (@30 dph). It is also proposed to include the existing woodland known as Longclose Wood which is currently used by the public for recreational purposes and could be formalised to deliver some additional land for recreational open space. Both sites have been fully considered as developable by the SHLAA Panel.

2.763 As discussed above, if the Councils were to agree to reduce the area of land proposed for economic develop at Westacott then this could facilitate the delivery of a further 75 dwellings (5 x 50% = 2.5 ha x30dph) over and above the additional land discussed above. With these additional sites being considered for housing, this could provide an additional 139 dwellings gross although a more realistic figure of 100 dwellings is proposed taking the total delivery to 950 dwellings. The site has been fully considered as developable by the SHLAA Panel.

2.764 The delivery of affordable housing in both North Devon and Torridge is an issue for the whole Plan to recognise and will be considered further in Policy ST08 (Scale and Distribution of New Development in Northern Devon). There is an acceptance that viability is a key factor of delivering sustainable development and therefore the Plan and any future planning application will consider any viability issues at that time. The issue that the allocation of this site brings Landkey into Barnstaple as a sub-regional centre with the consequent focus for growth has already been considered as part of the Landkey chapter and the site promotion off Birch Road / Acland Road.

2.765 Natural England wish to ensure the county wildlife site should be protected and the features for its designation maintained. It is accepted criterion 2(f) should be amended to make reference to protect and enhance Acland Wood County Wildlife Site.

2.766 A small number of representations have stated the proposed development does not provide allotments and that a green buffer along Westacott Lane should be provided between existing and proposed development. It is accepted a development of this scale in this location could provide allotments and the new housing should not have an adverse impact on existing housing at Whiddon Valley. Criterion 1(e) already requires the development to provide community facilities and green infrastructure which could include allotments, although it is considered that such detail will form part of any future master plan and planning application on the site. Also, Policy DM01: Amenity Considerations would ensure development would not significantly harm the amenities of any neighbouring occupiers or uses.

2.767 Issues around the development of brownfield sites before greenfield sites has been discussed as part of the Policy BAR: Barnstaple Spatial Vision and Development Strategy. The representations that have highlighted the inconsistency between the diagrammatic plans and the two sets of summary leaflets have been discussed as part of Policies Map 1.

2.768 Land off Goodleigh Road, to the north and south is relatively well related to existing housing development and could provide a potential extension to Policy BAR01 on the eastern edge of Barnstaple. The land to the south of Goodleigh Road (plp889) is visually prominent from a number

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

of vantage points, mainly to the east of the town but could form part of an enlarged Westacott strategic extension if required. Development of land to the north of Goodleigh Road around Tollgate Cottage (plp1505), over an above that already granted planning permission (51 dwellings) is elevated and could also have an adverse impact on the landscape setting of the town as well as the Grade II listed Gorwell House. The sites are not liable to flooding and subject to careful design considerations to minimise the impact on the landscape setting and historic environment. It is considered that neither of these sites should be allocated and included within a revised development boundary. The indication from the Panel was that they are considered developable in principle.

Other Matters

2.769 Criteria (i) and (j) should be deleted to avoid duplicating Policy ST05 which has been amended to include the principles of sustainable design and construction, including a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, to reflect the Housing Standards Review.

Conclusion

2.770 Several issues were raised through representations received, but none are considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan. The third option for an additional alternative access along Castle Park Road should be included. However, main changes are proposed to clarify wording and intentions of a particular paragraph or the strategy.

Agreed Actions

1. The following are agreed as Main Changes to Policy BAR01:

a. Amend criterion 1(a) to read “approximately 850 950 dwellings, the size and tenure of which will be reflective of local needs”. b. Amend criterion 1(b) to reduce employment land to approximately 5 ha from 10 ha for economic development. c. Amend Table 10.2 and paragraph 10.16 accordingly. d. Delete criteria 2(i) and 2(j). e. Amend criterion 2(f) to read “enhance and make connections to the existing network of local and strategic green infrastructure through and around the site, including the protection and enhancement of Acland Wood county wildlife site and provision of new footpaths cycleways, public open spaces, wildlife corridors and sport and recreation facilities”. f. Amend criterion 3(a) to read as follows. “provide a roundabout i mprovements at the Landkey junction on the A361 to deliver the primary vehicular access to the development and provide a new vehicular link between the development and Westacott Road.”

2. The following are agreed as Main Changes:

a. Amend paragraph 10.16 to read “Development of a strategic extension to the east of the town will be undertaken comprehensively. In addition to about 950 850 dwellings comprising a mix of house types...... ” with consequent changes to policy BAR and ST08. b. Amend Paragraph 10.17. Amended wording should read “The principal vehicular access to the site will be through an improvement to the existing Landkey junction on the A361, which will provide an active and attractive gateway to the development and the town. Land adjacent to the A361 should be safeguarded for any future improvements in accordance with Policy ST10(1): Transport Strategy. The Council consider the new junction should be in the form of a roundabout although alternative solutions may be considered acceptable where highway safety and the operational effectiveness of the strategic road network can be clearly demonstrated ...... A new

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

road through the site will link to Westacott Road through the existing public open space, which will provide improved links between Whiddon Valley and the North Devon Link Road (A361), helping to alleviate congestion at the Rose Lane (Tesco) roundabout. At least one of the alternative routes shown on Policies Map 1 will be delivered. The new road through the existing park should be well designed and sympathetic to the remaining open space surrounding area with appropriate landscaping and planting to help screen the new route from surrounding residential properties and contribute toward the green infrastructure network. If the secondary access is delivered through the existing industrial units on Castle Park Road then the development will be required to relocate the current occupier (or future successor) within the area of land proposed for economic development together with the provision of additional car parking to serve the remaining units on the existing industrial estate as part of a comprehensive traffic management plan...... ” c. Amend second sentence of paragraph 10.18. Amended wording could read “The existing planting along the southern boundary should be retained and enhanced to screen the development from the A361 as well as contributing to the green infrastructure network including the protection and enhancement of Acland Wood County Wildlife Site ”. d. Amend final sentence of Paragraph 10.18. Amended wording could read “...... If a The replacement play area is needed then it should be provided as close as possible to the existing play area to serve the residents of Whiddon Valley and be delivered prior to the loss of the existing park if required to provide the new road link”. e. Amend Policies Map 1 to include some additional developable land for open space and housing as well as the industrial units off Castle Park Road within the allocation BAR01 which could provide the alternative vehicular route through to Westacott Road.

Comments made in response to Policy BAR02: Larkbear Strategic Extension and the associated supporting text.

Total Number of Responses 9

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 3 ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 2 3

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 2 1

Table 2.15

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy BAR02: Larkbear Strategic Extension and supporting text plp number

It is important to have land available to extend the car park for the college and a 744, 2731 direct link onto the Western Bypass to service the Larkbear development and not (FPC) one dedicated to buses.

Concerned over highway arrangements and impact on traffic volumes. 1388

Amend the wording of Policy BAR02 to better reflect the impending planning 2459, 2223 permission for this site.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Allocation provides for a significant amount of employment floorspace as part of 2412 development. Redevelopment of Petroc a key element, adding to the complexity and raising issue of deliverability if organisation changes course. Proposals require early delivery of key transport infrastructure which is likely to require significant up-front costs.

Propose after the word comprehensively add: "with a view also to the needs of the 310 existing communities on the West side of Barnstaple"

Add the sentence: "Legally binding agreements to identify and restrict land use to each of these specific community infrastructure projects will form part of planning permission conditions." after the sentence ending "..recreation facilities."

In the final sentence, replace "210 place" with "420 place" and add "with 52 place nursery provision" after the words "primary school" and delete the words " with sufficient land safeguarded for its future expansion".

Devon and Cornwall Police not supportive of proposal. Access arrangements need 355 (Police) urgent review.

Student parking will still be an issue at Petroc unless park and ride and other similar 2441 schemes are enhanced. Existing problems will only be offset elsewhere.

Paragraph supported as it relates to a critical element of the walking and cycling 1275 (DCC) infrastructure to support the overall strategy for managing development transport impacts across Barnstaple.

Table 2.16

Additional Information

54762 : Outline Application For The Erection Of Up To 820 Dwellings & Associated Works (Amended Description, Plans & Documents), Land at Larkbear. Approved subject to S106

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.771 The support from DCC is noted and welcomed with regard the walking and cycling infrastructure through the site to support the overall strategy for managing development transport impacts across Barnstaple.

2.772 The site has an in principle outline planning permission for approximately 820 dwellings so a number of the issues raised are no longer relevant and would have been considered as part of the planning applications 54762. However, a small number of representations have expressed concern the policy does not reflect the planning permission, particularly in terms of housing numbers. It is also considered the additional wording proposed by one representation to the supporting text would not add any benefit to the Plan as it is too prescriptive.

2.773 The SHLAA panel previously considered this site to be developable in principle. Due to the site being within a identified critical drainage area, the agreed SHLAA methodology considered the gross to net site size ratio be reduced to 50% (in the absence of more detailed information), thereby reducing the potential capacity to 750 dwellings, which informed the capacity of the Local Plan. However, the outline planning application 54762 has been approved in principle for up to 820 dwellings.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

As part of this approval the Environment Agency considered the approved layout delivered the necessary level of SUDS in order to deliver up to 820 dwellings which satisfied the additional CDA requirements which are now applicable to developments in this area of Barnstaple. The SHLAA panel has subsequently endorsed an increased potential site capacity of 820 dwellings. Therefore, it is considered the capacity of this site should be increased to 820 dwellings in line with the planning approval as CDA matters have been resolved in principle with the EA.

Other Matters

2.774 Criteria (i) and (j) should be deleted to avoid duplicating Policy ST05 which has been amended to include the principles of sustainable design and construction, including a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, to reflect the Housing Standards Review.

Conclusion

2.775 Several issues were raised through representations received, but none are considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan. However, main changes are proposed to clarify wording and intentions of a particular paragraph or the strategy.

Agreed Actions

1. The following are agreed as Main Changes: a. Amend Policy BAR02 (1a) and supporting text 10.21 to read “approximately 750 820 dwellings, .....” with consequent amendments to Policy ST08. b. Delete criteria 2(i) and 2(j) of Policy BAR02. c. Amend paragraph 12.21 from ‘about 750 dwellings’ to ‘approximately 820 dwellings’.

Comments made in response to Policy BAR02a: Old Torrington Road, Roundswell and the associated supporting text.

Total Number of Responses 1

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” ~ ~

Table 2.17

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy BAR02a: Old Torrington Road, Roundswell and supporting text plp number

The design of development at BAR02a should be prepared in consultation with Devon 1276 County Council, to ensure the bridge design and housing development integrates (DCC) appropriately.

Table 2.18

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Additional Information

56232 : Erection Of 47 Dwellings Together With Associated Site & Access Works (Amended Description & Plans), Brynhyfryd, Old Torrington Road. Approved 28/5/14

58003 : Non-Material Amendment To Planning Application 56232 To Allow Different Colour Bricks & Clarification Of Front Door & External Railings Colour, Brynhyfryd, Old Torrington Road. Approved 17/9/14

58004 : Approval Of Details In Respect Of Discharge Of Condition 14 (External Works, Site Layout, Highways & Drainage Details) Attached To Planning Permission 56232, Brynhyfryd, Old Torrington Road. Approved 07/11/14

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.776 The northern part of the site has a planning permission for approximately 47 dwellings (56232), which is currently under construction. The southern part of the site is proposed for approximately 50-60 dwellings. It is accepted that if DCC have the capital funding to develop a pedestrian footbridge over the A39 from the new garden centre site to the Old Torrington Road area then this could be reflected in Policy BAR02a.

Other Matters

2.777 Criteria (c) and (d) should be deleted to avoid duplicating Policy ST05 which has been amended to include the principles of sustainable design and construction, including a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, to reflect the Housing Standards Review.

Conclusion

2.778 A single issue has been raised through representations received, but is not considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan, the detail of which is now considered within Policy BAR10 as the position of DCC has now changed.

Agreed Action

1. The following is agreed as a Main Change to Policy BAR2a:

a. Delete criteria 2(c) and 2(d).

Comments made in response to Policy BAR03: Tews Lane, Roundswell and the associated supporting text.

Total Number of Responses 7

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” ~ 1

Table 2.19

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy BAR03: Tews Lane, Roundswell and supporting text plp number

Support is given for the allocation of Policy BAR03 as the site is suitable and 944 deliverable. Parts 2 (d) (e) (f) and (g) are considered unnecessary and should be removed as they duplicate other proposed policies in the plan or areas of regulation.

The site has planning permission which includes provision for a new primary school; 1277 (DCC) DCC is considering this option, along with the potential for locating the primary school at Larkbear (Policy BAR02). Delivering a primary school, early years and children’s centre base is a priority for the County Council.

Concern over increase in traffic congestion. 1483

Avoid impacts on the geological SSSI and the County Wildlife Site should be 2003 (NE) protected and the features for its designation maintained.

Number of issues relating to the site that are considered likely to lead to delivery 2413 of fewer dwellings and risk delay or failure of delivery: Contains Fremington Clay Pits which are safeguarded within Minerals Plan and a designated SSSI; adjacent to Wildlife site; and Within Critical Drainage Area (CDA).

Consider access via employment land at BAR10 to allow the junction to serve the 1278 Park & Ride/Park & Change site and BAR10 sites in combination. A compact grade separated junction would also function as a safer walking and cycling access to sites south of the A39 and Brynsworthy.

Site Proposals

Land at Higher Gorse Claypits 93

Table 2.20

Additional Information

53881 : Outline Application For Residential Development Comprising 350 Dwellings, A Primary School & Associated Public Open Space & Infrastructure, Land west of Tews Lane. Approved 24/10/14

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.779 The site has outline planning permission for approximately 350 dwellings so a number of the issues raised are no longer relevant and would have been considered as part of the planning application 53881. Support for the policy is noted although there is some concern there is some duplication with other proposed policies in the plan or areas of regulation. It is accepted these strategic development principles are set out in Part One strategic policies, but they help to provide confirmation of the design requirements for this strategic urban extension. Similar policy requirements are included within other large allocations for North Devon’s main towns.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

2.780 These policy requirements for North Devon are considered to promote sustainable design and development, in accordance with the plan’s objectives but set out additional design guidelines. Whilst this site already has outline planning permission, these design requirements will be relevant when future reserved matters applications are submitted and considered. However, it is accepted these policy aspirations may duplicate other policy objectives in the Plan (ST05) and could be deleted from all site specific policies for major developments in North Devon.

2.781 The policy already recognises the site to be within a CDA, and the capacity of the site has been reduced through the SHLAA, although it must be noted there is an extant planning permission.

2.782 The comments from DCC are noted with regard the proposed new site for a primary school. It is accepted the Tews Lane site has an extant planning approval for a school but the preferred location in the Local Plan is to deliver the school on Larkbear (BAR02).

2.783 Natural England seeks to avoid impacts on the geological SSSI and the County Wildlife Site and these designations should be protected and features maintained. It should be noted that criterion 2(d) of policy and paragraph 10.31 already requires development to ‘avoid or mitigate any impact on the adjacent county wildlife site and Site of Special Scientific Interest’. Therefore, the Plan has no need to provide additional wording in response to Natural England’s representation.

2.784 In addition to the housing proposed in Policy BAR03 in the Local Plan, an additional housing site has been promoted on land to the north of the Old Bideford Road and west of Tews Lane (BAR03) at Higher Gorse Claypits, adjacent to the existing development boundary (see also BAR09). The SHLAA Panel considered this site to be ‘not currently developable’ for a number of reasons including the land forming part of a geological SSSI, tree preservation order, County Wildlife Site, Flood Zone and mineral extraction area. It also forms part of the mineral safeguarding area within the Minerals Local Plan. It is considered the only possible developable area is to the north of the site adjacent to SHLAA site SHA/FRE/129 although this area has an extant planning permission for the extraction of minerals. Therefore, it is not proposed that this site be included within the Plan to deliver housing during the period to 2031.

Other Matters

2.785 Despite outline planning permission for 350 dwellings, the SHLAA Panel reduced the potential site capacity to approximately 300 dwellings due to the site being within a identified Critical Drainage Area, in accordance with the agreed SHLAA methodology of gross to net site size ratio be reduced to 50% (in the absence of more detailed information).

2.786 The planning agent has indicated through a recently returned monitoring form that the site will deliver 350 dwellings, with the first 50 being completed in 2016 / 2017. Consideration must also be given to the fact the site has an extant planning permission for a new primary school although a new school is more likely to be delivered on the Larkbear site. Consequently, the site will have the potential to deliver more housing in any case (approximately 20-30 dwellings). The capacity of this site could be increased from 300 to 350 dwellings.

2.787 Criteria (f) and (g) should be deleted to avoid duplicating Policy ST05 which has been amended to include the principles of sustainable design and construction, including a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, to reflect the Housing Standards Review.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Conclusion

2.788 A number of issues have been raised through representations received, but none are considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan. However, main changes are required to clarify wording and intentions of this policy.

Agreed Actions

1. The following is agreed as Main Changes to policy BAR03: a. Amend paragraph 1(a) from 300 to 350 dwellings, with consequent changes in paragraph 10.30, BAR, Table 10.1, paragraph 10.12 and Policy ST08 and supporting paragraphs. b. Delete criteria 2(f) and 2(g) of Policy BAR03.

Comments made in response to Policy BAR04: Mount Sandford Green and the associated supporting text.

Total Number of Responses 4

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” ~ ~

Table 2.21

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy BAR04: Mount Sandford Green and supporting text plp number

In relation to part (2): 767 (BTC)

(c) access from the link-road is crucial to this development and needs to be thought through. A secondary access to the Landkey Road for public transport and emergency vehicles is to be favoured, as is, a single entrance and exit from and to the link-road.

(f) (g) The promise of eco/passive-housing will render this development particularly attractive to a significant demographic of first-time buyers.

(b) The provision for potential new business units and opportunities with a lean towards hi-tech is another highly attractive aspiration.

Policy BAR04 (2)(c): no feasibility study conducted for a new bridge, the sought 1279 (DCC) links may be achievable using existing Landkey Road bridge, accepting less convenient for access to Fairacre Avenue.

Policy BAR04 (3)(a): the primary access should be through an improved junction 1280 (DCC) at the Portmore roundabout. DCC has significant concerns relating an entirely new junction for this site.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Site segregation through separate access points does not allow for site permeability 1281 (DCC) and forces users of smaller residential area to use the Landkey Road via Newport to access the A361. Traffic impacts within Newport are also not assisted. Permeability and a through route would allow for self-regulating route choice.

Site Proposals

No additional land was promoted

Table 2.22

Additional Information

54923 : Outline Application For Mixed Use Development Comprising of 250 Passivhaus Dwellings Together With 2.8 Ha Innovation Park (Further Amended Plans & Information), Land west of Portmore Golf Course (known as Mount Sandford Green). Approved 18/08/14

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.789 The response from the Town Council is noted although it does not affect the current policy wording. The site has an outline planning permission for approximately 250 dwellings so a number of the issues raised are no longer relevant and should have been considered as part of the planning application 54923.

2.790 It is accepted the approved scheme does not include a dedicated new bridge over the A361 to Fairacre. A link is more likely to be achieved using the existing Landkey Road bridge. It is proposed to slightly amend criterion 2(c) and paragraph 10.35 by removing reference to ‘over the A361’ and add reference to ‘or improved’. Criterion 3(a) is already flexible in that it seeks a new junction on the A361 to deliver the primary vehicular access to the development, which is further supported by Policies map 1 which shows a vehicular access through the site from Portmore roundabout to Landkey Road.

Other Matters

2.791 Officer change proposed to criterion 2(h) of Policy BAR04 to recognise the need to safeguard the historic setting of listed buildings at Whiddon and not a single listed building.

2.792 Criteria (f) and (g) should be deleted to avoid duplicating Policy ST05 which has been amended to include the principles of sustainable design and construction, including a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, to reflect the Housing Standards Review.

Conclusion

2.793 A number of issues have been raised through representations received, but none are considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan. However, main change is required to clarify wording and intentions of a particular paragraph or the strategy.

Agreed Actions

1. The following are agreed as Main Changes to Policy BAR04:

a. Amend criterion 2(c) of Policy BAR04: “enhance and make connections to the existing network of local and strategic green infrastructure through and around the site, including provision of new or improved pedestrian and cycle links over the A361 to Fairacre Avenue”. b. Amend Policy BAR04 on Map 1 to remove the bridge symbol over the A361 to Fairacre Avenue.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

c. Delete criteria 2(f) and 2(g). d. Amend criterion 2(h) to read “safeguard the historic setting of the listed buildings at Whiddon”. e. Amend text of paragraph 10.35 by deleting reference to route of new footbridge over the A361. “The site’s connectivity to existing services and facilities north-west of the site will be enhanced by provision of new or improved pedestrian and cycle links over the A361 to Fairacre Avenue, together with a permeable network of streets, footpaths and cycleways through the development to enhance green infrastructure links.

Comments made in response to Policy BAR05: Westaway Plain and the associated supporting text.

Total Number of Responses 10

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 1 2

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ 4

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1 2

Table 2.23

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy BAR05: Westaway Plain and supporting text plp number

Update the map relating to BAR05; a recently granted application has reshaped 33, 81, 1532 BAR05 to exceed the current northern boundary. Failure to do so could result in a substantial increase in the site’s housing yield than the plan has assessed is appropriate.

Remove land south of Westaway Plain. It is an environmentally sensitive area, 107 supporting wide biodiversity and providing amenity value. Cannot see how development would enhance the CWS; concerned at: the loss of hedgerows, an excessive scale of development which would result in higher than local density levels and potential negative impacts from increased school traffic if Pilton School capacity is not enhanced to meet the generated educational needs.

Objects to BAR05. Considerable improvement would be required to the road 628, 1462, infrastructure of Pilton and surrounding area in order to support the proposed 933 development. The centre of Pilton is designated a conservation area and the nature of the road network within it would make it extremely unlikely that any serious improvement could be achieved.

For Policies BAR05 it should be an essential requirement that the highways and 784 (BTC) flooding issues relating to development of these policies be addressed.

Recommend following addition to criterion (b): retain and enhance existing 1532 hedgerows and provide strategic green infrastructure on the northern part of the site as identified on Policies Map 1; flexible consideration of the northern extent of development will be required through the development management process.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

The hedges along the lane part of the designated county wildlife site (CWS) contain 2006 (NE) features which may support the adjoining SSSI and Greater Horseshoe bats. Development immediately adjacent to the CWS may have a detrimental effect on the SSSI. Bullet point 3 should clearly state the entirety of the hedge should be retained with no breaks for linkage and that light spill onto the hedge will be avoided.

We support this allocation as an appropriate location for growth, but consider that 2663 the northern boundary of the allocation, as set out in figure 15.2 should relate to definable features and moved north. We have no particular detailed comment on the policy requirements as much of this will be addressed in the eventual development management process. We are slightly confused by reference in supporting text referring to outcomes of the viability assessment and would welcome input into this process as one of the developers with a significant landholding within the allocation.

Proposed that wording is included within the Policy BAR05 to ensure that planning 2734 obligations towards off-site community facilities are equitable and proportional to the level of development proposed at each site to encourage comprehensive development.

Table 2.24

Additional Information

56685 : Outline Application For The Erection Of Up To 115 Dwellings, Provision Of Associated Parking, Road & Drainage Infrastructure, Public Open Space, Landscaping & Pedestrian Links (All Matters Reserved Except For Access) (Amended Details), Land off Northfield Lane. Approved subject to S106

56396 : Erection Of 42 Dwellings, Incidental Open Space, Balancing Pond & Associated Works (Amended Plans & Description), Land off Northfield Lane. Approved subject to S106

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.794 The support for the housing allocation on BAR05 is noted and welcomed. The site has an in principle planning permissions for approximately 150 dwellings so a number of the issues raised are no longer relevant and should have been considered as part of the planning applications 56685 and 56396. The extent of the housing allocation at BAR05 should reflect more accurately the in principle planning permissions.

2.795 The response from Natural England is noted. Criterion 3(a) already requires separate vehicular accesses to Westaway Plain from land either side of Shearford Lane, without any vehicular link through Shearford Lane. This is further clarified in paragraph 10.39 which identifies Shearford Lane as a County Wildlife Site and recognises its importance in the local biodiversity network that should be retained and enhanced without being breached to link the allocated sites on either side. However, it is accepted paragraph 10.39 could add some additional text to ensure the external lighting is designed to minimise light pollution on the CWS.

2.796 The development of this site is neither within nor visible from the Pilton conservation area. It is accepted that there may be an impact on the existing road network within Pilton conservation area however, the movement of motor vehicles in and around Barnstaple is not for the Plan to control.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

All the Plan can do is provide the opportunities and infrastructure for modes of transport other than by the private car, such as improved public transport, cycle / pedestrian links. It cannot force the residents of the new houses to use the alternative options once delivered.

2.797 Policy ST23: Infrastructure will require developments to provide or contribute towards the timely provision of infrastructure made necessary by the specific and/or cumulative impact of those developments either through on site provision or an off site contribution. These issues should be resolved through negotiation as part of current planning applications. Therefore, it is not an issue for the Local Plan.

2.798 Land south of Westaway Plain is not allocated as part of Policy BAR05; this element was removed when the Plan was published in June 2014. However, it should be noted the site is within the defined development boundary where the principle of housing is acceptable. The site is identified on table 10.1 as a non-allocated developable site “west of Youings Drive”.

Other Matters

2.799 Criteria (f) and (g) should be deleted to avoid duplicating Policy ST05 which has been amended to include the principles of sustainable design and construction, including a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, to reflect the Housing Standards Review.

Conclusion

2.800 A number of issues have been raised through representations received, but none are considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan. However, main changes are required to clarify wording and intentions of a particular paragraph or the strategy.

Agreed Actions

1. The following are agreed as Main Changes to Policy BAR05: a. Amend the extent of Policy BAR05 on Map 1 to better reflect the area of land with an in principle planning permission for housing. Additional land will be included in the development boundary and land removed will revert to being outside the development boundary. b. Delete criteria 2(f) and 2(g). c. Amend paragraph 10.39 by adding: “External street lighting will need to be designed to minimise light pollution on the county wildlife site”

Comments made in response to Policy BAR06: South Of North Devon Hospital and the associated supporting text.

Total Number of Responses 7

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ 4

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” ~ ~

Table 2.25

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy BAR06: South Of North Devon Hospital and supporting text plp number

Objection to BAR06 as sites nearby (Trayne Farm) will be developed there is not 59, 259, 260, a need for additional housing. BAR06 should not be developed because: 263

1. The site is rich in biodiversity. 2. The integrity of the leat, hedgerows and the private road would be placed in jeopardy. 3. The role of the current land ownership in maintaining and safeguarding these natural assets would become a burden on the public. 4. The existing community will suffer unnecessary loss of amenity. 5. Existing dwellings to the south will incur increased flood risk.

Redraw the boundary of BAR06 to the line north of the leat.

Proposed that wording is included within the Policy BAR06 to ensure that planning 1500 obligations towards off-site community facilities are equitable and proportional to the level of development proposed at each site to encourage comprehensive development.

Building in the North of Barnstaple has a number of practical obstacles that suggest 1463 such proposals are unsuitable. The addition of 340 dwellings will result in a considerable increase in the number of vehicle movements along North Road. Instead of protecting the heritage and the conservation area the plan will result in more traffic through totally unsuitable areas that were never intended to cope with the volume proposed.

For Policies BAR06 it should be an essential requirement that the highways and 787 (BTC), flooding issues relating to development of these policies be addressed. Objects to 950, 402 over-development of BAR06 due to flood risk issues.

Table 2.26

Additional Information

57503 : Erection Of 105 Dwellings With Associated Car Parking, Public Open Space & Infrastructure (Amended Plans). Decision pending

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.801 It is accepted the whole site forms part of the wider biodiversity network as described in the ‘Report on the identification of local nature conservation sites and biodiversity networks in North Devon’ with the existing site boundaries identified as a ‘key network feature’ being areas of species rich grassland, double hedgerows, ponds and belts of woodland. Whilst the site is proposed for approximately 100 dwellings, the Plan is seeking to retain and enhance the key biodiversity areas including the Mill Leat and boundary hedgerows rather than lose the amenity value of the whole area.

2.802 A number of responses raised concerns about flood risks, particularly to those dwellings on the south side of the development. Criterion (2b) already requires a sustainable water strategy to incorporate SUDS and manage surface water runoff to avoid increasing the risks of flooding along

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Old Mill Leat, River Yeo and elsewhere in Barnstaple. Paragraph 10.42 also recognises the leat passing east-west through the site where there development will be required to provide a green buffer alongside the leat to reduce surface water run-off and provide an enhancement to existing biodiversity networks in the area. In combination with Policy ST03: Adapting to Climate Change, no further changes are considered necessary.

2.803 The Plan makes it clear at paragraph 10.41, ‘the main vehicular access will be from a new junction on the A39 (North Road) in the north-west corner of the site. There can be no vehicular or pedestrian access to Lower Raleigh Road or Pitt Lane which is a private road’ so it is not accepted the use of the private road is in jeopardy from development of this site. However, in view of this and the fact the current planning application (57503) is not providing a vehicular link to the housing allocation south of the leat, it may no longer be accessible and it is appropriate to delete the housing allocation on this part of the site but retain the site within the development boundary.

2.804 Policy ST23: Infrastructure will require developments to provide or contribute towards the timely provision of infrastructure made necessary by the specific and/or cumulative impact of those developments either through on site provision or an off site contribution. These issues should be resolved through negotiation as part of current planning applications. Therefore, it is not an issue for the Local Plan.

2.805 The development of this site is neither within nor visible from the Pilton conservation area nor does it impact on any other heritage assets such as listed buildings. The movement of motor vehicles in and around Barnstaple is not for the Plan to control. All the Plan can do is provide the opportunities and infrastructure for modes of transport other than by the private car, such as improved public transport, cycle / pedestrian links. It cannot force the residents of the new houses to use the alternative options once delivered.

Other Matters

2.806 Criteria (c) and (d) should be deleted to avoid duplicating Policy ST05 which has been amended to include the principles of sustainable design and construction, including a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, to reflect the Housing Standards Review.

Conclusion

2.807 A number of issues have been raised through representations received, but none are considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan. However, main changes are required to clarify wording and intentions of a particular paragraph.

Agreed Action

1. The following are agreed as Main Changes to policy BAR06: a. Amend the extent of Policy BAR06 on Map 1 to exclude land south of the leat from the housing allocation. Land removed will remain in the development boundary. b. Delete criteria 2(c) and 2(d).

Comments made in response to Policy BAR07: North Lane, Bickington and the associated supporting text.

Total Number of Responses 3

Yes No

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” ~ ~

Table 2.27

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy BAR07: North Lane, Bickington and supporting text plp number

Development of this site will be highly visible from the Tarka Trail on both sides of 1110 the estuary but especially from the east and should not be included.

Objects to BAR07 on a number of site specific issues which impact on the 1508 deliverability of the allocation. The site lies partially within the conservation area and close to a number of listed buildings and non-designated heritage assets. The proposed development will have a significant impact upon the character, appearance and setting of the conservation area (CA) and setting of the listed buildings (LB) and other heritage assets. Concerns raised on the submitted ecology work and survey effort as well as the access arrangements for the site for vehicles and drainage. There are better sites for development around Bickington which would have significantly fewer impacts arising from development.

Support the policy intention of providing high quality homes in this location as 1776 believe character could favour those able to deliver inward investment. Consider that to deliver stated policy aims, off-site affordable housing provision should be accepted.

Table 2.28

Additional Information

56351 : Hybrid Application For (A) Part Demolition Of Tremar, Erection Of 15 Residential Units, Associated Community Benefits Together With Associated Highway Works & (B) Outline Application For Residential Development Of Up To 50 Units. Approved subject to S106

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.808 There is some support for Policy BAR07 and the delivery of high quality homes. The site has an in principle planning permission for 65 dwellings, including the provision of on-site affordable housing so a number of the issues raised are no longer relevant and should have been considered as part of the planning application 56351.

2.809 However, with regard to the specific concerns noted above, the policy and supporting text have been framed to ensure ‘the ridge to the north of this site is an important landscape feature defining the southern edge of the valley enclosing the Taw estuary. Development will be restricted to the southern side of this ridge and should not intrude above the skyline when viewed across the estuary from the north’. It is also recognised ‘the eastern part of the site including the site access is within Bickington conservation area and adjacent to listed buildings in North Lane. The development should conserve and enhance the area’s heritage assets in accordance with Policy ST15: Conserving Heritage Assets and criterion (2f) of Policy BAR07.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Other Matters

2.810 Criteria (d) and (e) should be deleted to avoid duplicating Policy ST05 which has been amended to include the principles of sustainable design and construction, including a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, to reflect the Housing Standards Review.

Conclusion

2.811 A number of issues have been raised through representations received, but none are considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan.

Agreed Action

1. The following is agreed as a Main Change to Policy BAR07: a. Delete criteria 2(d) and 2(e).

Comments made in response to Policy BAR08: Former School site, Roundswell and the associated supporting text.

Total Number of Responses 3

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” ~ ~

Table 2.29

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy BAR08: Former School site, Roundswell and supporting text plp number

Recommend that the eastern part of BAR08 be designated a nature / wildilfe area 385 as a sanctuary in the middle of all the new housing development

Amend BAR08 (3)(a) to Permit vehicular access from Old Bideford Road and Old 1126 (NPS) Torrington Road provided that no through link for vehicles is created;

the words ‘along the northern boundary’ should be omitted from BAR08(3)(b);

Amend BAR08(4) to state The development will not be commenced until an alternative suitable site for a primary school within the Roundswell/Bickington area has been secured.

While previously safeguarded for a new primary school, the land east of Sainsbury’s 1282 (DCC) and Roundswell community centre is not appropriate for education provision.

Table 2.30

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Additional Information

2.812 Proposal BAR12 (Roundswell School) – North Devon Local Plan, Adopted July 2006.

2.813 Paragraph 12.101 - A new primary school for both infants and juniors will be required at Roundswell to cater in particular for the redevelopment of Anchorwood Bank. Although the school is not identified in Devon County Council’s capital programme, it is their intention to build it once pupil numbers justify its need and there is sufficient funding. Given the open space deficiencies that exist in this part of the town, the playing field that will be associated with the primary school should be available for general use by the local community. Vehicular access will be solely from the Old Bideford Road although bus, pedestrian and cycle links should also connect onto the Old Torrington Road.

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.814 There is broad support for residential development here provided that a suitable alternative school site can be identified and delivered. DCC now claim the land east of Sainsbury’s and Roundswell community centre is not appropriate for education provision but have also confirmed through representation that development will not commence until an alternative suitable site for a primary school within the Roundswell/Bickington area has been secured. However, there is some inconsistency between criterion 4 of Policy BAR08 and the supporting text within paragraph 10.46. It is agreed a change is made to the policy and paragraph to better reflect the policy position.

2.815 Such alternative provision has been identified through the planning applications at Tews Lane (BAR03) and Larkbear (BAR02). DCC have suggested a change to the policy wording in criterion (4) to delete the word ‘provided’ and replace with the word ‘started’. Such a change is not considered inappropriate and would not alter the direction of the policy.

2.816 DCC have also suggested BAR08 (3)(a) should be amended to permit vehicular access from Old Bideford Road and Old Torrington Road provided that no through link for vehicles is created; also the words ‘along the northern boundary’ should be omitted from BAR08(3)(b). It is recommended that such a change is acceptable in principle within the supporting text as it is still considered appropriate for the principal access to be off Old Bideford Road which provides better linkages to the main highway network (A3125). In order to allow a degree of flexibility to the policy in terms of delivery of the cross-town cycle route, it is accepted that criterion 3(b) could delete the wording ‘along the northern boundary’.

2.817 The whole site forms part of the wider biodiversity network as described in the ‘report on the identification of local nature conservation sites and biodiversity networks in North Devon’ with the western part identified as a ‘key network feature’. Paragraph 10.49 already requires ‘enhancement of existing hedgerows is required along the northern site boundary to contribute to and extend the local green infrastructure network’ whilst also seeking retention of the extensive tree / hedge belt along the southern boundary which may also provide an area for nature / wildlife. It is not considered the Plan should seek to designate the eastern part of the site as a nature / wildlife area as a sanctuary in the middle of all the new housing development.

Other Matters

2.818 Alternative education provision has been identified through the planning applications at Tews Lane (BAR03) and Larkbear (BAR02). The Councils’ preference is to deliver the new school as part of the Larkbear development.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

2.819 Criteria (b)and (c) should be deleted to avoid duplicating Policy ST05 which has been amended to include the principles of sustainable design and construction, including a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, to reflect the Housing Standards Review.

Conclusion

2.820 A number of issues have been raised through representations received, but none are considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan. However, main and minor changes are required to clarify wording and intentions of a particular paragraph or the strategy.

Agreed Actions

1. The following is agreed as Main Changes to Policy BAR08: a. Amend wording of criterion 3(b) to read “provide a footpath and cycle link along the northern boundary between Old Bideford Road and Old Torrington Road to contribute towards delivery of the cross-town cycle route”. b. Amend wording to criterion 4 of Policy BAR08 to read “The development will not be commenced until an alternative suitable site for a primary school within the Roundswell / Bickington area has been provided started within the Larkbear site (BAR02)”. c. Delete criteria 2(b) and 2(c).

2. The following are agreed as Main Changes: a. Add new wording to paragraph 10.46 to read “...... Once a new primary school has been provided started as part of this urban extension, then this site at Roundswell will no longer be required for a new primary school”. b. Add new wording to paragraph 10.47. The new wording could read “...... The principal vehicular access should be from Old Bideford Road, although a secondary access could be provided off Old Torrington Road as long as it would not create a vehicular link through the site. A new footpath and cycleway will be provided along the northern boundary between Old Bideford Road and Old Torrington Road to extend the green infrastructure network through Roundswell and contribute to the provision of a cross-town cycle route across Barnstaple (Policy BAR20b).

Comments made in response to Policy BAR09: Glenwood Farm and the associated supporting text.

Total Number of Responses 6

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 1 ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 1 ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1 ~

Table 2.31

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy BAR09: Glenwood Farm and supporting text plp number

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Concerned that the housing allocation BAR09 comes right to the edge of Rooks 14 Bridge Cover. Objects to the policy as it may affect the well-being of the bees and also there is the danger of bee stings if too many people are in the vicinity.

The Devon Waste Plan identifies a site at Brynsworthy Environment Centre for 1288 (DCC) strategic energy recovery development. Any heat generated at the energy from waste facility could serve local development proposals including that at BAR09 and BAR10.

Concern over increase in traffic congestion. 1484

Support Policy BAR09. 1778, 2106

Site Proposals

Land at Higher Gorse Claypits 94

Table 2.32

Additional Information

55479 : Outline Application For A Mixed Use Development Comprising Up To 1,394 Square Metres Of Employment Use & Up To 92 Open-Market & Affordable Dwellings, With A New Access At The Junction Between Old Bideford Road & Tews Lane & Associated Modifications To The Brynsworthy Lane Junction With Old Bideford Road, Glenwood Farm, Old Bideford Road, Roundswell. Approved 23/06/14

57727 : Reserved Matters Application For Residential Development Of 86 Dwellings, Roads,Open Space, Landscaping & Infrastructure (Outline Planning Permission 55479), Glenwood Farm, Old Bideford Road, Roundswell. Approved 11/12/14

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.821 The support for Policy BAR09 is noted and welcomed, although there are a number of concerns regarding the policy. Devon County Council through their adopted Devon Waste Plan (December 2014) would be responsible for identifying any energy from waste facility in the Roundswell area. A site around the Brynsworthy Environment Centre is being proposed (Policy W6A), which would provide opportunities for district heating to be incorporated within nearby developments. DCC have requested that future developments here includes infrastructure to facilitate and proactively encourage potential for district heating to take place. It is accepted the supporting text to Policy BAR09 could recognise that ‘where opportunities exist, the Plan will encourage the necessary infrastructure to support a district heating network to serve the existing and proposed development in the Roundswell area’.

2.822 In addition to the housing identified in Policy BAR09 in the Local Plan, an additional housing site has been promoted on land to the north of the Old Bideford Road and west of Tews Lane (BAR03) at Higher Gorse Claypits, adjacent to the existing development boundary. The site has been proposed by the landowner but the SHLAA Panel assessed it as ‘not currently developable’for a number of reasons including the land forms part of a geological SSSI, TPO, County Wildlife Site, Flood Zone and mineral extraction area. It is considered the only possible developable area is to the north of the site adjacent to SHLAA site SHA/FRE/129 although this area has an extant planning permission for the extraction of minerals. Therefore, it is not recommended this site be included within the Plan to deliver housing during the period to 2031.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

2.823 One representation is concerned the housing allocation BAR09 comes right to the edge of Rooks Bridge Covert and it may affect the well-being of the bees and also there is the danger of bee stings if too many people are in the vicinity. However, whilst bees are not a protected species, they are recognised as being important for pollination. The housing allocation is proposed to the edge of a relatively large coppice of trees on the western boundary so it is considered there is adequate separation between the proposed housing and bee hives.

Other Matters

2.824 Approval of Details has been granted on the eastern part of the site for 86 dwellings whereas the SHLAA (SHA/FRE/126) indicated the site would deliver approximately 70 dwellings due to the land being within the ‘critical drainage area’. Therefore, housing delivery may be exceeded on this allocation, despite the issues around ‘critical drainage’ it would be appropriate to increase slightly the capacity of the site to deliver approximately 170 dwellings in total.

2.825 Criteria (f) and (g) should be deleted to avoid duplicating Policy ST05 which has been amended to include the principles of sustainable design and construction, including a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, to reflect the Housing Standards Review.

Conclusion

2.826 A number of issues have been raised through representations received, but none are considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan. However, main change is required to clarify wording and intentions of a particular paragraph or the strategy.

Agreed Actions

1. The following are agreed as Main Changes to Policy BAR09: a. Amend Policy BAR09 (1a) to read “approximately 160 170 dwellings, .....” b. Make consequent changes in paragraph 10.50, Table 10.1 and Policy ST08. c. Delete criteria 2(f) and 2(g). d. Add criterion (c) for approximately 0.8 hectares of employment land with a consequent change to Table 10.2. e. The following is agreed as a Main Change to paragraph 10.50 with new wording to read “w here opportunities exist, the Plan will encourage the necessary infrastructure to support a district heating network to serve the proposed development at Glenwood Farm, Roundswell”.

Comments made in response to Policy BAR10: Roundswell Business Park and the associated supporting text.

Total Number of Responses 7

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” ~ 1

Table 2.33

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy BAR10: Roundswell Business Park and supporting text plp number

The new garden centre site should be zoned as part of BAR10. 5 hectares of land 623 to the south of the A39 to the B3232 towards Torrington has an extant planning approval for a retail garden centre and is thus identified as an acceptable development site to complete the comprehensive and integrated development of the four quadrants around this strategic roundabout/junction.

Policy BAR10 should continue to allocate the site south of the A39 for 15ha of high 1015 (NDC) quality business campus as the evidence used as the basis of the reduction from 15ha to 6.5ha was based on modelling that focused on historic trends, and didn't 1125 (NPS) sufficiently anticipate the scale of future demand. 1286 (DCC)

Consider the A361 access referenced in BAR09 to be delivered through BAR10, 1284 (DCC) allowing the junction to serve the Park & Ride/Park & Change site and BAR10 sites in combination. A compact grade separated junction would also function as a safer walking and cycling access to sites south of the A39 and Brynsworthy; DCC are currently undertaking feasibility work on this option.

The Devon Waste Plan identifies a site at Brynsworthy Environment Centre for 1290 (DCC) strategic energy recovery development. Any heat generated at the energy from waste facility could serve local development proposals including that at BAR09 and BAR10.

Update paragraph 10.55; the referenced improvements are complete. 1283 (DCC)

Site Proposals

Land east of B3232 Torrington, Roundswell 623

Land west of BAR10 1125 (NPS)

Table 2.34

Additional Information

46453 : Erection Of Garden Centre, Restaurant & Formation Of Associated Access & Car Parking (Environmental Statement) (Amended & Additional Information), Land North of Clanton, Roundswell. Approved 16/08/13

57389 : Variation Of Condition 2 (Approved Plans ) Attached To Planning Permission 46453 To Allow For Change Of Design, St Johns Garden Centre, Roundswell. Approved 11/08/14

58011 : Approval Of Details In Respect Of Discharge Of Condition 6 (Suds Drainage) Attached To Planning Permission 57389, St Johns Garden Centre, Roundswell. Approved 12/09/14

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.827 It is accepted the site to the south of the A39 to the east of B3232 towards Torrington has an extant planning approval for a retail garden centre and is thus identified as an acceptable development site. However, it is not considered necessary to identify the site on Policies Map 1 as permission has already been granted and there is already an oversupply of land for economic development in the Plan, which would only add further complication to this fact.

2.828 The potential oversupply of employment land across northern Devon, as set out in Policies ST08 and ST11 has warranted a need to reduce employment allocations in the Plan. In order for the Plan to be robust, it must be based on sound evidence. The ‘Northern Devon Housing & Employment Study – April 2014’ recognises that ‘economic growth in Northern Devon was below average relative to other parts of the county and the region in the pre-recession period and that the area has been hit hard by the recession. There is also evidence that the economy has been reinforcing around lower value sectors over this period’. This is not helped by growth in the sub-region’s population over the past decade being focussed on older age groups, with the strongest growth in groups aged over 50.

2.829 The Employment Land Review (ELR) identified a need for a maximum of around 60 hectares (B - Business uses and sui-generis) of employment land provision in northern Devon, although additional evidence has suggested a figure of around 70-75 hectares including non-Business uses. Based on the demand evidence, the ELR has concerns regarding the delivery of 48 hectares of employment land taking place over the plan period to 2031 in Barnstaple (January 2013). In the publication draft Local Plan the level of employment growth in Barnstaple was reduced to 26.2ha. The ELR does consider it appropriate to prioritise employment land provision around Barnstaple, and in particular Roundswell Business Park, including recognition that the new roundabout south of the business park will help the delivery of land to the south of the A39. However, unless there is robust evidence that would demonstrate the scale of future demand is different to that outlined in the ELR, then this will need to be produced to justify an alternative position on the allocation of employment land. Due to the current oversupply of land for economic development, the Plan should not support additional employment being proposed.

2.830 However, the supporting text should provide some additional wording to recognise that development at Roundswell Business Park, within the Ward of Bickington and Roundswell will capitalise on enhanced levels of assistance offered by the Assisted Area status. If the allocated site south of the A39 were to be developed out during the early part of the plan period and the local economy were to dictate the need for additional land for economic uses at Roundswell, an extension would be supported including appropriate structural landscaping along the eastern boundary. Any additional land should be accessed through the existing land proposed under BAR10 (south of the A39) to the new roundabout on the A39.

2.831 Devon County Council through their adopted Devon Waste Plan (December 2014) would be responsible for identifying any energy from waste facility in the Roundswell area. A site around the Brynsworthy Environment Centre is being proposed (Policy W6A), which would provide opportunities for district heating to be incorporated within nearby developments. DCC have requested that future developments here include infrastructure to facilitate and proactively encourage potential for district heating to take place. The supporting paragraph 10.53 already recognises that ‘where opportunities exist, the Plan will encourage the necessary infrastructure to support a district heating network to serve the existing and proposed development in the Roundswell area’.

2.832 It is accepted the works to improve the roundabout at the Roundswell junction on the A39 have now been completed. Therefore, paragraph 10.55 should be deleted from the Plan as it serves no purpose.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Other Matters

2.833 Although not subject to a representation within the Barnstaple chapter, one representation suggested under Policy ST12 (plp2498), that Sainsbury’s supermarket and adjoining retail / community facilities at Roundswell should be designated as a ‘District Centre’. The North Devon and Torridge ‘Retail and Leisure Study’ (September 2012) provides the following definitions:

2.834 Town Centres – “in many cases, they will be the principal centre or centres in a local authority’s area. In rural areas they are likely to be market towns and other centres of similar size and function as important service centres, providing a range of facilities and services for extensive rural catchment areas”.

2.835 District Centre – “will usually comprise groups of shops often containing at least one supermarket or superstore, and a range of non-retail services, such as banks, building societies and restaurants, as well as local public facilities such as a library”.

2.836 Local Centres – “include a range of small shops of a local nature, serving a small catchment. Typically, local centres might include, amongst other shops, a small supermarket, a newsagent, a sub-post office and a pharmacy. Other facilities could include a hot-food takeaway and launderette. In rural areas, large villages may perform the role of a local centre”.

2.837 The Retail and Leisure Study indicates that “It is considered that the main out-of-centre retail parks, particularly Atlantic Village and Seven Brethren, do not currently have a range of town centre uses, including pharmacists, hairdressers etc, and therefore do not meet the definition of a district centre. If the Councils consider that these out-of-centre retail parks should become district centres then they should plan for a more balanced mix of town centre uses at these locations. However, this should not be to the detriment of the vitality and viability of town centres.”

2.838 Roundswell does not fit precisely within the definition of either a district or local retail centre. It was previously considered there may be some scope in identifying Roundswell as a retail centre in some form as long as it would not have an adverse impact on Barnstaple town centre. In considering the above criteria, Roundswell Retail Park could be identified as a ‘district centre’.

2.839 The Full Councils of Torridge and North Devon District Councils agreed to reduce the extent of the District Centre to the east of the A3125.

Conclusion

2.840 A number of issues have been raised through representations received, but none are considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan. However, main changes are required to clarify wording and intentions of a particular paragraph or the strategy.

Agreed Actions

1. The following are agreed as Main Changes to Policy BAR10:

a. Define the extent of Roundswell as a District Centre. b. Show park and change symbol (bus) on proposed Roundswell business park (BAR10). c. Amend the extent of land south of the A39 for economic uses to approximately 6.9 ha (gross), including an area of approximately 0.8 ha for the park and change facility and land to deliver structural landscaping along the principal site boundaries. Amend Table 10.2 and Policy BAR10(2) and paragraph 10.54 accordingly as well as the corresponding change to Policy ST08.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

2. The following are also agreed as Main Changes: a. Paragraph 10.54 should read “Land to the south of the A39 and west of the B3232 is identified for a business campus including offices, research and development, high technology uses and a park and change facility. A total of approximately 6.1 hectares of land is proposed for economic development with an additional 0.8 hectares for the park and change facility, with development confined to the lower slopes.” b. Delete paragraph 10.55. “ The Roundswell junction on the A39 is a key junction on the local road network but is already congested at peak times. Additional traffic generation will require its improvement to deliver increased capacity. Development adjoining this roundabout must not compromise the opportunity of junction improvements to be delivered, so land south of the roundabout is safeguarded to facilitate improvements of this junction”. c. Add new wording to replace paragraph 10.55 to read “D evelopment at Roundswell Business Park, within the Ward of Bickington and Roundswell, will capitalise on enhanced levels of assistance offered by the Assisted Area status. If the site south of the A39 were to be developed out during the early part of the plan period and the local economy were to dictate the need for additional land for economic uses at Roundswell, an extension would be supported including appropriate structural landscaping along the northern boundary subject top other policies within the local plan. Any additional land should be accessed through the existing land proposed under BAR10 (south of the A39) linking to the new roundabout on the A39.” d. Add new wording to paragraph 10.54. “Development must safeguard the opportunity for the provision of a future pedestrian footbridge over the A39 towards Roundswell Business Park to the north.” Also, “...... Barnstaple from the A39. The development should be designed to complement its landscape setting and provide a transitional boundary between the development and adjacent countryside that reflects the local landscape character.”

Comments made in response to Policy BAR11: Queen Street / Bear Street and the associated supporting text.

Total Number of Responses 3

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” ~ ~

Table 2.35

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy BAR11: Queen Street / Bear Street and supporting text plp number

BAR11 remains a major ingredient for the regeneration of the town centre: together 768 (BTC) with the development of the Strand, providing a counterbalance to the High Street and Green Lanes. The town centre should becoming traffic free, priority to pedestrians, together with a 20 mph speed limit around the town, more Park and Change options, cycle lanes, racks and storage, with affordable and reliable public transport.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Note that the area has been covered by several iterations of policy supporting 1779 redevelopment focussed on retail but that it remains undeveloped. Consider that retail led scheme is inappropriate and a residential scheme with cultural / leisure element is more likely to secure development on key site and would also add to the town centre vitality.

This site should positively link directly to the existing town centre. Green Lanes 1935 should be recognised for its ability to provide net additional floor space over the plan period. The policy should strengthen references and requirements for the new development and ensure it does not seek to compete or undermine the existing role of the primary retail frontage.

Table 2.36

Additional Information

2.841 Proposal BAR6 (Town Centre Expansion) – North Devon Local Plan, Adopted July 2006.

2.842 12.75 The site bordering Queen Street, Bear Street and Alexandra Road incorporates a large area of surface and multi storey car parking and the post office sorting depot. This site provides the main opportunity for new retail, commercial, community and leisure development in the town centre. It is considered particularly suitable for a supermarket of up to 1,000 sq metre net sales as part of a mixed retail, commercial and leisure scheme. New public toilets should also be incorporated into the retailing units due to the lack of facilities in the town. There is also scope for residential development above the ground floor level in the form of flats, particularly along the frontage of Alexandra Road. Any redevelopment scheme must also incorporate a range of quality parking provision that could be underground, decked or a combination of both. Access arrangements onto the site will need to incorporate a bus route. Contributions may also be sought towards providing a bus real time information system.

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.843 The strategic site provides an opportunity for town centre expansion to accommodate additional retail floorspace and other town centre uses over the plan period. There is broad support for development here to enhance the town centre’s sub-regional role. The Retail and Leisure Study identifies a need for 21,557 sqm comparison and 2,967 sqm convenience net floorspace in Barnstaple over the plan period. The recent planning permission at Anchorwood Bank (55809) will deliver some of the convenience floorspace, but a lot of additional comparison floorspace (serving northern Devon as a whole) is required over the plan period.

2.844 In view of the site being within the town centre, as defined on the Policies Map, there is no need to assess impact upon the town centre as part of any proposals (NPPF paragraph 24). The intention of the policy is to deliver a retail development on this site that will support and complement the vitality and viability of the town centre and not to undermine the existing role of the primary retail frontage.

2.845 Paragraph 10.60 of the Plan recognises the importance of Green Lanes to provide net additional floor space over the plan period. The paragraph states ‘provision of additional retailing and services within the town centre will be supported to meet the future needs of the town where they enhance the vitality and viability of the town centre. The town centre core area and primary shopping

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

frontage are identified on Policies Map 1. The primary frontage is focused along the High Street, Greens Lanes and Butchers Row, where Policy DM19: Town Centres, will seek to retain its attractiveness to shoppers’.

2.846 Policy BAR11 already requires the redevelopment of this site to include improved connectivity with existing shopping frontages on the High Street, Boutport Street and with Barnstaple bus station. Paragraph 10.58 establishes that links between the development and the High Street along Butchers Row will support the enhanced connectivity and continuity between the two areas.

2.847 Policy BAR11 is flexible and is framed so that it will facilitate a mix of town centre uses that supports the vitality and viability of the town centre, including residential on the upper floors. However, it is not accepted this strategic town centre site should be driven by a residential led development with ancillary retail / cultural and leisure uses as the primary focus should be to deliver retail led development as supported by the ‘Retail and Leisure Study – April 2012’.

Conclusion

2.848 A number of issues have been raised through representations received, but these are not considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan.

Agreed Action

1. No change to Policy BAR11 of the Local Plan is agreed in response to the issues raised through consultation.

Comments made in response to Policy BAR12: Anchorwood Bank and the associated supporting text.

Total Number of Responses 4

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 1 ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ 2

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” ~ 1

Table 2.37

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy BAR12: Anchorwood Bank and supporting text plp number

The Devon and Cornwall Police will currently not support this proposal. Concerns 357 (Police) submitted as part of 2013 consultation have been ignored. A full review of access proposals needed.

Concerned at development on an area subject to flood risk and the potential for 771 (BTC) element of the site to developed in an organic manner; consider that the Oliver building should be retained as a multi-purpose shared space and the essential elements of the proposal should be comprehensively delivered and be coincidental.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

The site will not accommodate 350 dwellings. It will accommodate a maximum of 1014 220.

Policy considered unsound as a town centre sequential approach has not been 1936 undertaken, the Retail and Leisure study does not endorse the site and an impact assessment has not been produced.

Table 2.38

Additional Information

55809 : Hybrid Application For: (A) Full Application For A Retail Food Store (Use Class A1) Of 6,820 Sqm Gross With A Petrol Filling Station & Access; (B) Outline Application For Up To 350 Dwellings (Use Class C3); Hotel Of Up To 60 Beds (Use Class C1); Employment (Use Class B1) Space Of Up To 4,000 Sqm Gross Floorspace; Community Facilities (Use Class D1) Of Up To 200 Sqm; Convenience Retail/Service (Use Class A1 & A2) Of Up To 1,000 Sqm; Restaurants/Cafes (Use Class A3) Of Up To 1,300 Sqm; Public House (Use Class A4) Of Up To 400 Sqm; Hot Food Takeaway (Use Class A5) Of Up To 400 Sqm; Leisure Uses (Use Class D2) Of Up To 1,000 Sqm; Together With; (C) All The Associated Infrastructure Including Removal Of Contamination, Increasing Ground Levels, Roads, Footpaths, Cycleways, Drainage (Including Attenuation Works), Flood Defence Works, Landscaping, Nature Conservation, Public Open Space, Utilities & Vehicle Parking Also Including Demolition Of Buildings With The Exception Of The Oliver Building. Raleigh Works (Anchorwood Bank), Taw Wharf. Approved 14/03/14

57798 : Approval Of Details In Respect Of Discharge Of Conditions 5 / 6 (Remediation Method Statement), 8 (Construction Environmental Management Plan) & 10 (Construction Noise Report) Attached To Planning Permission 55809, Raleigh Works (Anchorwood Bank), Taw Wharf. Approved 19/01/15

57908 : Approval Of Details In Respect Of Discharge Of Conditions 3 (Phasing Programme), 4 (Electricity Cables), 7 (Traffic Management Plan) & 11 (House Sparrow Accommodation) Attached To Planning Permission 55809, Raleigh Works (Anchorwood Bank), Taw Wharf. Approved 03/02/15

57975 : Reserved Matters Application For Phase 1. Planning Conditions 34 Reserved Matters. Condition 35 Service Residential Land, Riverside Promenade, On Site Flood Defences, Nature Conservation Area, Means Of Access And Associated Works. Condition 36 Flood Defence Works. Condition 38 Landscape Proposals. Condition 39 Levels (Part Discharge) (Outline Planning Permission 55809). Approved 29/01/15

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.849 The objection regarding whether this site should provide retail floorspace outside the defined town centre as a town centre sequential approach has not been undertaken is noted. It is not accepted the retail and leisure study does not endorse the site as paragraph 7.4.9 states ‘there is potential to provide new retail and leisure floorspace as part of the redevelopment of the Leaderflush and Shapland site’. In any event, planning permission has been granted for retail floorspace (ASDA) and the permission is currently being implemented.

2.850 The Town Council comments are noted. Whilst this site is at risk of flooding, the flood defence works and off-site works approved as part of the planning application upstream from the Long Bridge to the Iron Bridge would preclude the flooding of the site from water that has circumvented on-site

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

defences. The Environment Agency had no outstanding objections to the application and it supports criteria 2(b) and 2(d) relating to flood alleviation measures and balancing ponds to control surface water runoff.

2.851 The comments from the Police are also noted with regard to access. However, in view of the Council’s decision to approve the latest planning application (55809) including for a new foodstore, the representations discussed above are no longer considered relevant.

2.852 Criterion 2(a) already requires the ‘Oliver Buildings’ to be retained and converted, whilst paragraph 10.64 recognises they could be used for residential, community, tourism or commercial uses. The Council are currently consulting on the extension to the Barnstaple Town Centre Conservation Area to include the Leaderflush and Shapland factory buildings, associated workers’ housing on Sticklepath Terrace and the Old Slaughterhouse (Halfords). Bringing these buildings into the conservation area gives them protection against demolition and ensures new development takes them into account, and is sympathetic to the prevailing character and appearance of the conservation area. Now that planning permission at Anchorwood Bank has been granted, it is considered that an extension is timely and, whilst not preventing redevelopment of the Leaderflush and Shapland site, it will ensure that a much larger part of Barnstaple’s history is protected.

2.853 The site has been fully assessed by the SHLAA Panel. The original conclusion from the Panel was that the site is considered developable in principle for 350 dwellings based on the site having an allocation within the Plan as well as an extant planning permission (55809) for this number of houses, although it is accepted that achieving this number of units would be in the form of flats. However, the developer of part of the site has indicated that through further master planning work, the whole site can only deliver up to 220 units of mainly houses (plp1014) or possibly 240. The developer has control over Parcel A and they are looking to deliver about 120 dwellings. The Norris metals property was sold to Chelverton prior to 2007 and sits in the middle of Parcel B. No one is likely to develop parcel B until acquisition of the Norris premises is agreed. However, Parcel B is also only likely to deliver approximately 120 dwellings. Review of this additional information by the SHLAA Panel endorse that this site would only deliver approximately 240 dwellings. Therefore, a change to the Plan is proposed to reduce the housing numbers likely to be delivered on this site, predominantly as houses rather than flats.

Other Matters

2.854 The new pedestrian and cycle bridge over River Taw (paragraph 10.65) will no longer be along the approximate route of the former railway bridge. It is now likely to be straight across the river to/from Queen Anne’s Heritage Centre. There are a number of heritage assets along the Strand, including the town centre conservation area and numerous listed buildings including the heritage centre, the setting of which should be protected from any new footbridge and development to the south of the Taw.

Conclusion

2.855 A number of issues have been raised through representations received, but none are considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan. Reducing the overall capacity to reflect numbers likely to be delivered will strengthen the soundness of the plan. However, changes are required to clarify wording and intentions of the strategy.

Agreed Actions

1. The following are agreed as Main Changes to Policy BAR12:

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

a. Amend wording of criterion (1a) to Policy BAR12 and supporting text at paragraph 10.62 to read “approximately 350 240 dwellings, the size and tenure of which will be reflective of local needs”. b. Make consequent changes to Table 10.1 and Policy ST08.

2. The following are also agreed as Main Changes:

a. Delete the wording “along the approximate route of the former railway bridge” from paragraph 10.65. b. Add new wording to paragraph 10.65 “The design of the new pedestrian and cycle bridge over River Taw must protect and enhance the historic setting of the conservation area and listed buildings along The Strand”. c. Add new text to paragraph 10.64 to read “...... The character and appearance of the conservation area and setting of the historic assets of the Longbridge and Old Slaughterhouse (Halfords) will be protected under Policy ST15: Conserving Heritage Assets. d. Amend the route of the proposed new pedestrian and cycle bridge on Policies Map 1 over River Taw towards Queen Anne’s heritage centre.

Comments made in response to Policy BAR13: Seven Brethren and the associated supporting text.

Total Number of Responses 3

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” ~ ~

Table 2.39

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy BAR13: Seven Brethren and supporting text plp number

Add a reference referring to the potential for re-instating the Barnstaple to Bideford 773 (BTC) railway service as a commuter / tourist route.

There is lack of clarity in Policies BAR13 and BAR14. Within BAR13 it mentions the 1937 potential to develop retail and the supporting text indicates the need to apply the sequential test. It is erroneous to allocate a site for retail use before the need has been identified or a sequential test applied. Reference to this in paragraph 10.55 should be removed. Until such time as a robust, evidence base indicates otherwise, and a sequential test has been successfully applied, the proposed allocation of unrestricted retail floor space should be removed from Policy BAR13 in its entirety.

Action is required to address the traffic conditions through the Severn Brethren site, 2518 (BTC) especially the exit from the ‘Lidl’ site and the entrance/exit to the station for cars and pedestrians.

Table 2.40

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.856 The response from the Town Council regarding the potential for re-instating the Barnstaple to Bideford railway service as a commuter / tourist route is noted. The Plan should only include development proposals that will be delivered during the plan period to 2031, there is no evidence to suggest a proposal to reinstate the former rail line between Barnstaple and Bideford is a viable option, there is no capital funding to deliver it and it is not currently being pursued by a developer, unlike the Lynton-Barnstaple route reinstatement proposed under Policy BAR16. However, the Plan would not preclude the line’s reinstatement as Policy ST10(1g): Transport Strategy seeks to safeguard routes and explore opportunities for the reuse and reinstatement of former railway lines. It is not considered that further reference should be made in Policy BAR13 or supporting text.

2.857 Policy BAR13 and supporting text recognises the traffic issues and conflict with pedestrians and cyclists around the transport interchange facilities at the railway station but not around the surrounding highway network serving the retail areas of Seven Brethren. Paragraph 10.67 states ‘ the configuration of car parking, dropping off and picking up points for buses, coaches and taxis around Barnstaple railway station causes conflict between users. Improvements to the configuration of transport interchange facilities will provide a safer approach to and from the station, as well as a more attractive and accessible gateway to the town. Redesign around the station will also facilitate a safer and more attractive approach towards the town centre for pedestrians and cyclists’. It is accepted the policy and supporting text could make reference to the need for improvements to the existing highway network in the area.

2.858 The reference to paragraph 10.55 in this context is incorrect as this relates to Policy BAR10 (Roundswell business park) and not Policy BAR13.

2.859 The NPPF is clear that Plans should ‘promote competitive town centre environments and set out policies for the management and growth of centres over the plan period’ (paragraph 23). It should be noted that this focus of town centre expansion is embedded within Policy BAR11: Queen Street / Bear Street, an approach supported by the ‘Retail and Leisure Study 2012’. The report advocates a need of comparison floorspace and leisure requirements for North Devon of approximately 29,000m2 to 2032, where approximately 75% of that need will be developed in Barnstaple on town centre and edge of centre locations.

2.860 Land at Seven Brethren comprises a mix of uses including retail and leisure; the NPPF supports main town centre uses on appropriate edge of centre sites that are well connected to the town centre where suitable and viable town centre sites are not available. As noted above, the most appropriate site for town centre expansion (BAR11) has been allocated for additional retail and leisure uses and to meet the need in North Devon over the Plan period, appropriate edge of centre sites such as Seven Brethren are considered acceptable in principle to meet some of the additional comparison need but should be directed towards the Station Road area, closest to the town centre.

2.861 It must also be noted that any retail or leisure uses proposed on this site will be judged on its own merits. However, in accordance with the sequential approach as set out in the NPPF, it will be on the basis of ‘town centre first’ for new retail and leisure provision. After available town centre sites, edge of town centres sites and only then to out of centre locations. In accordance with Policy DM20, should a retail use on this site be proposed it will be subject to the sequential approach and if the floorspace threshold of 250m2 is exceeded, the development will be required to undertake an impact assessment on the town centre. Therefore, it is not considered necessary to remove the retail proposals from the Plan.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Other Matters

2.862 There are several heritage assets adjoining Seven Brethren, including the town centre conservation area along the Longbridge and across the Taw, as well as listed buildings including the Old Slaughterhouse (Halfords) and the Longbridge, the settings of which should be protected.

Conclusion

2.863 A number of issues have been raised through representations received, but none are considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan. However, changes are required to clarify wording and intentions of a particular paragraph or the strategy.

Agreed Actions

1. The following is agreed as a Main Change to Policy BAR13:

a. Amend wording to criterion (2) to Policy BAR13: “Improvements to the highway network and transport interchange facilities at Barnstaple railway station and surrounding area will enhance this gateway to the town and facilitate a more attractive and accessible approach for pedestrians and cyclists towards the town centre”.

2. The following are also agreed as Main Changes:

a. Add new text to paragraph 10.66 to read “...... The character and appearance of the adjacent conservation area and setting of the historic assets of the Longbridge and Old Slaughterhouse (Halfords) will be protected under Policy ST15: Conserving Heritage Assets. b. Add new text to paragraph 10.67 to read “The configuration of car parking, dropping off and picking up points for buses, coaches and taxis around Barnstaple railway station as well as vehicular traffic movements in the surrounding area causes conflict between users. Improvements to the configuration of transport interchange facilities and surrounding highway network will provide a safer approach to and from the station, as well as a more attractive and accessible gateway to the town. Redesign around the station will also facilitate a safer and more attractive approach towards the town centre for pedestrians and cyclists. c. Add new wording to paragraph 10.68. “...... cycle route across Barnstaple (Policy BAR20b). Such a link could include an underpass at the western end of the Longbridge where feasible and viable”. d. Add new wording to paragraph 10.67 to read “...... gateway to the town. To improve Seven Brethren’s role as an important transport hub and interchange, opportunities will be explored for a freight depot in close proximity to the existing train station”.

Comments made in response to Policy BAR14: Evans Transport and the associated supporting text.

Total Number of Responses 3

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 1 ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ 1

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1 ~

Table 2.41

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy BAR14: Evans Transport and supporting text plp number

BAR14 should be designated as light industrial use only. 789 (BTC)

This policy needs to clarify which leisure uses are acceptable for the site. It should 1938 also make it clear that any development coming forward does not undermine the town centre.

Evans Transport site in various uses. Amend description to read 'commercial, 425 employment, wholesale, retail and leisure uses'.

Table 2.42

Additional Information

52842 : Erection Of A Building Measuring 5,398 sq.m (Class A1), Creation Of New Access & Associated Car Parking, Petrol Filling Station, Servicing Provision & Landscaping. Withdrawn

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.864 The response from Barnstaple Town Council is noted. The Plan already proposes the site for new / enhanced employment uses, which could include light industrial employment. However, considering the site’s strategic location on the Braunton Road and A361 (downstream bridge) at a key junction within the town, it was considered the site could deliver regeneration benefits to this part of town by allowing commercial and leisure uses subject to flooding issues being resolved and there being no significant impact on the existing uses within the town centre. It is not considered necessary for the Plan to specify the type of leisure uses that would be acceptable on this site as it would be considered overly restrictive, which is not an approach advocated by the NPPF.

2.865 Any leisure uses proposed on this site will be judged on its own merits and its potential impact on the town centre. However, in accordance with the sequential approach as set out in the NPPF, it will be on the basis of ‘town centre first’ for new retail and leisure provision. After available town centre sites, edge of town centres sites and only then to out of centre locations. In accordance with Policy DM20, should a leisure use on this site be proposed it will be subject to the sequential approach and if the floorspace threshold of 2500m2 is exceeded, the development will be required to undertake an impact assessment on the town centre.

2.866 As the Plan has a current oversupply of land for economic uses based on the evidence within the ‘Employment Land Review – April 2014’ it is likely a number of sites proposed for economic uses will have to be removed rather than allocate additional sites over and above the employment uses already associated with this site. It is accepted the existing site may include various uses but it is not considered necessary for the Plan to be amended to allow commercial, employment, wholesale, retail and leisure uses on this site for the reasons outlined above, particularly in terms of new retail uses.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Conclusion

2.867 A number of issues have been raised through representations received, but is not considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan.

Agreed Action

1. No change to Policy BAR14 of the Local Plan is agreed in response to the issues raised through consultation.

Comments made in response to Policy BAR15: Land South of Braunton Road and the associated supporting text.

Total Number of Responses 0

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” ~ ~

Table 2.43

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy BAR15: Land South of Braunton Road and plp number supporting text

No comments received

Table 2.44

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.868 No comments have been received.

Other Matters

2.869 A study is currently investigating the need for and cost of improved flood defences along the River Taw.

Conclusion

2.870 No issues have been raised through representations received, and as such there is no threat to the soundness of the local plan.

Agreed Action

1. No change to Policy BAR15 of the Local Plan is agreed as no issues have been raised through consultation.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Comments made in response to Policy BAR16: Lynton and Barnstaple Railway and the associated supporting text.

Total Number of Responses 10

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 4 ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 4 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 6 ~

Table 2.45

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy BAR16: Lynton and Barnstaple Railway and supporting text plp number

Support Policy BAR16 774 (BTC), 419, 420, 421, 422

There are detailed environmental, engineering and financial reasons why the railway 745 will never be constructed in its entirety. The plan should not continue to support the reinstatement of the Lynton and Barnstaple railway. Policy BAR16 should be deleted or if not, then modified in accordance with these submissions.

The Lynton to Barnstaple railway is not considered deliverable and the safeguarding 1016 (NDC) of a relatively large brownfield site for related uses is considered restrictive. The redevelopment of this previously developed site should be more flexible.

Any works within the flood risk areas or which affect the leat will need to be support 900 (EA) by a detailed FRA. The station area is located within flood zone 3a, and any buildings may need to be designed to be resilient to flooding.

ENP welcomes amendments to the policy (clause 2) and paragraph 10.74 in relation 2349, 2350 to comments submitted to the Draft Local Plan. (both ENPA)

Table 2.46

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.871 A number of issues have been raised concerning Policy BAR16 including some support for the proposal which is noted and welcomed. The support from Exmoor National Park Authority with regard to the additional wording added to criterion 2 of Policy BAR16 and paragraph 10.74 following previous consultation is also noted and welcomed.

2.872 The response from the EA is noted. It is accepted that parts of the former route and land at Pilton Causeway, required for a new railway station including a ticket office, locomotive store, ancillary buildings and car parking is within a indicative flood zone where proposals to reinstate the former use will require a detailed FRA. Although the Plan should be read as a whole, a cross reference should be added to the supporting text to cross refer to Policy ST03.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

2.873 The response from the Council’s Economic Development Manager is noted as is the representation regarding the Plan should not continue to support the proposal as the scheme is not deliverable. However, it is considered there is a deliverable business case for this development which is actively being pursued, with economic benefits for the town once delivered. It is accepted there could be some flexibility in terms of the site requirements on land east of Pilton Causeway although without detailed plans at this stage to assess the needs of the new railway in terms car parking and ancillary buildings it is not considered appropriate to reduce this allocation which could prejudice any future proposals. Also, as the site is in an area of extreme risk of flooding, housing would not be acceptable.

Conclusion

2.874 A number of issues have been raised through representations received, but are not considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan. However, a change is required to clarify wording and intentions of a particular paragraph or the strategy.

Agreed Action

1. The following is agreed as a Main Change:

a. Add new text to end of paragraph 10.73 to read “Development will be required to provide a detailed flood risk assessment in accordance with Policy ST03 to ensure development does not raise public safety issues”.

Comments made in response to Policy BAR17: Petroc and the associated supporting text.

Total Number of Responses 3

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” ~ 1

Table 2.47

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy BAR17: Petroc and supporting text plp number

BAR17 is within a CDA and this needs to be reflected in the Local Plan. 899, 2519 (both EA)

Omit the Brannams land from the education allocation. The owners wish the land 582 to be for A1,A2, B1,B2,B8, D1 and D2 use.

Table 2.48

Additional Information

C110887 : Erection Of Renal Unit.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

58689 : Erection of satellite renal dialysis unit & associated works. Approved 19/02/15

58308 : of satellite renal dialysis unit & associated works. Approved 19/12/14

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.875 The response from the Environment Agency is noted. It is accepted Petroc is within the CDA and reference should be made to this fact within the supporting text of Policy BAR17.

2.876 One representation has suggested the former Brannams Pottery site should be removed from the education allocation (BAR17) as the current landowner has the aspiration to redevelop the site for A1, A2, B1, B2, B8, D1 and D2 uses. It is accepted the current use of the former Brannams site includes a number of uses not related to education purposes. Therefore, the former Brannams Pottery site should be reduced to reflect the area occupied by Petroc from Policy BAR17 on Policies Map 1.

Conclusion

2.877 A couple of issues were raised through representations received, but none are considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan. However, main changes are required to clarify wording and intentions of a particular paragraph or the strategy.

Agreed Action

1. The following is agreed as a Main Change to Policy BAR17: a. Amend the extent of notation BAR17 on the former Brannams Pottery site, including the addition of Leisureline House (Petroc Hair Academy) as part of BAR17 on Policies Map 1.

2. The following are agreed as Main Changes to Policy BAR17: a. Amend paragraph 10.77 by adding text to recognise Petroc is within a critical drainage area: “The area around Petroc is within a critical drainage area. Development at Petroc will be required to incorporate a comprehensive sustainable drainage scheme that reduces the rate of surface water runoff and does not increase flood risk elsewhere in Barnstaple in accordance with Policy ST03: Adapting to Climate Change and Strengthening Resilience. A comprehensive sustainable drainage scheme should be integrated within the provision of green infrastructure that will be required to incorporate additional water storage areas to be created, creating linkages with existing biodiversity networks in the area”. b. Amend second sentence of paragraph 10.76 to read ‘Petroc has two separate campuses at Sticklepath and Oakwood Close, the latter being within the Roundswell District Centre Brannams ....

Comments made in response to Policy BAR18: Park Community School and Pilton Academy and the associated supporting text.

Total Number of Responses 4

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ 1

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” ~ ~

Table 2.49

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy BAR18: Park Community School and Pilton Academy and plp number supporting text

Transport access for the school is an established problem. Given significant 776 (BTC) development in the locality there is an opportunity to provide a terminal for buses and a link across the leat to the existing cycle-path entrance to the school and Abbey Road.

Objects to the siting of a new park and change facility south of Park community 1227, 963 school.

The second sentence should be removed as the traffic management for Chaddiford 761 (BTC) Lane is Devon County Councils' responsibility.

Table 2.50

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.878 Barnstaple Town Council have suggested deleting the second sentence of paragraph 10.79 as it is the responsibility of DCC. It is accepted the implementation of any traffic management measures around Chaddiford Lane and the surrounding highway network will be the responsibility of DCC to implement. However, the local community have identified the issues around traffic congestion in the area, especially during peak times as a particular problem. Therefore, it is considered important to retain the sentence ‘any expansion must include appropriate traffic management measures in order to reduce congestion on Chaddiford Lane and the surrounding highway network during peak times’ in order to ensure delivery.

2.879 The Town Council have also suggested that given the current traffic problems in Chaddiford Lane, the opportunity to provide a terminal for buses and a link across the leat to the existing cycle-path entrance to the school and Abbey Road should be explored. If Pilton Academy was to expand and, as part of that expansion, there was a proposal put forward as advocated by the Town Council then the policy or supporting text would not preclude this method of traffic management in order to deal with long established traffic problems in the area of Chaddiford Lane. However, it is not necessary to make this a policy requirement.

2.880 A small number of representations have been received objecting to the proposed ‘park and change’ facility to the south of Park Community School. The Plan currently recognises the car park west of Park Community School accommodates Barnstaple’s first park and change facility. However, in order to expand the school, paragraph 10.78 also recognises the land is required to deliver new and enhanced secondary education facilities to meet the educational needs of a growing population and land to the south of the school is identified for a new, larger, relocated park and change facility to promote opportunities for sustainable transport into the town centre.

2.881 The proposed allocation for a ‘park and change’ facility at Park Community School is not a new proposal within the draft Plan as it is currently within the adopted Local Plan (July 2006). Therefore, if DCC had the necessary capital funding available to implement the extension to the existing park and ride at Newport then it would be acceptable in principle under the adopted development plan.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

DCC have not expressed there is no longer a requirement for a ‘park and change’ facility in Newport. Therefore, if the school were to expand on to the existing facility then there will be a requirement to relocate to the proposed new site. This allocation should not be deleted from the Plan.

Conclusion

2.882 Several issues were raised through representations received, but none are considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan.

Agreed Action

1. No change to Policy BAR18 of the Local Plan is agreed in response to the issues raised through consultation.

Comments made in response to Policy BAR19: Local Green Spaces and the associated supporting text.

Total Number of Responses 8

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 5 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 4 2

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 6 ~

Table 2.51

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy BAR19: Local Green Spaces and supporting text plp number

Concern that land north of Bickington and Sticklepath currently subject to planning 319, 489 application. Inclusion of land in SHLAA at odds with policy BAR19 and has resulted in opportunistic applications. No development should be allowed in this area.

Objects to inclusion of Portmore Golf Park within BAR19(1). It is the Council's 524 responsibility to provide green space and not private landowners.

Strongly support the strategy safeguarding and protecting the green hills around 429, 431, 491 the town, thereby providing an enhanced network of green infrastructure.

Of particular importance to be protected from development is the area covered by Policy BAR19, para 3: Land between the Tarka Trail and the A361 north-west of Bradiford Water and land south of the Tarka Trail to the north of Bickington and Sticklepath, as shown on Policies Map 1.

Support Policy BAR19, subject to: that any housing proposals on the South Bank 777 (BTC) within the ‘Green Wedges’ ( BAR22 ) and overlooking BAR20e, are subject to visual impact review on the amenity of the SSSI estuary.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Little possibility of green infrastructure enhancement due to land largely being in 427 private ownership. To implement policy the council need finance and land. Amend the development boundary in respect of planning application 57310.

Site Proposals

Land west of Oakland Park South, Barnstaple (SHA/FRE/314) 427

Table 2.52

Additional Information

57310 : Outline Application For Residential Development, Access , Drainage & Landscaping, Land west of Oakland Park South, Barnstaple. Pending Decision

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.883 A number of issues have been raised concerning Policy BAR19 and the new or improved green spaces proposed including some support for the strategy which is noted and welcomed. Particular support has been recognised for land between the Tarka Trail and the A361, north-west of Bradiford Water and the land south of the Tarka Trail and north of Bickington and Sticklepath in response to the proposed development pressure in the area west of Oakland Park South (current planning application 57310). It is accepted this land is in private ownership and opportunities to deliver an enhancement to green infrastructure may be limited, most likely to be delivered through development elsewhere. However, it must be recognised that this area of land north of Bickington is a prominent green backdrop when viewed from the north which is particularly important to the setting of the Taw and Torridge estuary SSSI. Future developments in the Bickington area will be required to contribute towards the delivery of improved green infrastructure links to the Tarka Trail. There is also support for the strategy of safeguarding and protecting the green hills around the town, thereby providing an enhanced network of green infrastructure.

2.884 A representation has objected to the inclusion of Portmore Golf Club as a local green space, as it is perceived to be the Council's responsibility to provide green space and not private landowners. It is accepted the Council will generally provide and maintain public open spaces but it should be noted the designation of a local green space is not necessarily an area of public open space and it does not have to be within public ownership. Paragraph 77 of the NPPF makes it clear that a Local Green Space designation will not be appropriate for most green areas or open space. The designation should only be used:

where the green space is in reasonably close proximity to the community it serves; where the green area is demonstrably special to a local community and holds a particular local significance, for example because of its beauty, historic significance, recreational value (including as a playing field), tranquillity or richness of its wildlife; and where the green area concerned is local in character and is not an extensive tract of land.

2.885 It is considered the Portmore Golf Course does meet these criteria as the site is well related to the local community it serves, it has a recreational value as it is the only golf course in Barnstaple and the land is relatively self contained that provides an important ‘green lung’ protecting the individual identities of Barnstaple and Landkey on the eastern edge of the town between the A361 and the Class C Landkey Road. However, the policy does not preclude development on the golf course but

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

it would be supported where it would enhance opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation, it contributes to enhancing the local biodiversity network and protects the site’s open character and minimises visual impact.

Other Matters

2.886 The community woodland at Yeo Valley has recently been designated as a Local Nature Reserve.

Conclusion

2.887 Several issues were raised through representations received, but none are considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan. However, minor changes are required to clarify wording and intentions of a particular paragraph.

Agreed Actions

1. The following are agreed as Main Changes to Paragraph 10.81: a. Amend Paragraph 10.81 to read as follows: “The community woodlands at Whiddon Valley and Yeo Valley, which are both in public ownership, provide important contributions to the green infrastructure network on the eastern side of Barnstaple in terms of their biodiversity and recreational value. The Yeo Valley community woodland is a designated Local Nature Reserve. Any future designation of these woodlands at Whiddon Valley as a Local Nature Reserves will be supported, subject to appropriate proposals for management of identified biodiversity value. A proposed footpath on the eastern side of Barnstaple will improve connectivity between these sites (Policy BAR20c). b. Amend Policies Map 1 to show Yeo Valley community woodland as a Local Nature Reserve (purple butterfly).

Comments made in response to Policy BAR20: Strategic Green Infrastructure Links and the associated supporting text.

Total Number of Responses 9

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ 4

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” ~ ~

Table 2.53

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy BAR20: and supporting text plp number

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Improvements to the footpath between Bishops Tawton and Rock Park need to be 965 made to allow cyclists and dog walkers to safely use the path together. Attention needs to be given to farming, conservation and flooding measures. Specify how these improvements can be balanced sustainably to ensure protection for the local environment.

Objects to the footpath / cycle link to Bishops Tawton. 1223

There is no justification for the policy to be changed or development boundary to 751 be moved. The existing bridleway from Ellerslie Lane crosses the land already and almost reaches the Tarka Trail at the bottom of the field. It will only need to be extended a short distance to be connected at a point probably outside of the area, subject of planning application 57310. The proposed link to the Tarka Trail from Lynhurst Avenue via the roadway down past the farm likewise requires only a short extension and is outside of the proposed application area anyway.

Support for Policy BAR20, on the basis that it is undertaken on a comprehensive 778 (BTC) basis. Suggestion of an extension to the cycle route at Chestwood via the railway bridge over Venn Stream to Newbridge with a return via lanes/tracks to Gunn to Roundswell. An extended reference to Rock Park is also proposed indicating the potential of facility.

Support Policy BAR20 and Figure 10.1 regarding the cross town cycle route 2677, 2679 incorporating links from Landkey to Barnstaple and beyond.

This cycle route goes through County Survey wildlife corridors and areas. This route 968 needs to enhance wildlife habitats and biodiversity.

Objection to the proposed footpath as land is owned by 4 different farmers and 260, 314 requires a provision of a bridge over the River Yeo. An alternative route from NDDH to the south of Frankmarsh wood is proposed and provided on map via email. The route uses the following existing footpaths:

North Road to Raleigh Footpath to Raleigh Meadow Footbridge and footpath to Longmeadow Drive Footway to the end of Weirside Way Existing track to south of Frankmarsh Wood

The current proposal is unsound for the following reasons:

1. The Local Plan route is not deliverable in the foreseeable future due to the absence of a bridge 2. The opportunity to make a footpath route using any railway crossing is beyond any foreseeable timescale. 3. The cost in terms of compensation and infrastructure is avoidable. 4. Interference with farming that will result can be substantially avoided. 5. A PROW exists now to connect NDDH and Frankmarsh woods from which point the route can connect to the Local Plan route. 6. The Local Plan route seriously interferes with our home, property and quality of life in a way that can be avoided without detriment to the interests of other people or the intended benefit foreseen in the Plan.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Site Proposals

Alternative footpath route using existing PROW & estate roads 260

Table 2.54

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.888 A number of issues have been raised concerning Policy BAR20 and the new or improved GI proposed including some support for the strategy which is noted and welcomed.

2.889 The intention of Policy BAR20c was to provide a countryside footpath link from the Whiddon Valley area to the NDDH utilising the existing greenfields to the east of the town. However, two representations have been received from landowners around Raleigh to the north-east of Barnstaple who object to the proposed footpath link through their land for a number of reasons stating the route is not deliverable in the foreseeable future due to the absence of a bridge, the opportunity to make a footpath route using any railway crossing is beyond any foreseeable timescale, the cost in terms of compensation and infrastructure is avoidable, the interference with farming that will result can be substantially avoided. Also, a PROW exists now to connect NDDH and Frankmarsh woods from which point the route can connect and the route seriously interferes with our home, property and quality of life in a way that can be avoided without detriment to the interests of other people or the intended benefit foreseen in the Plan.

2.890 It is accepted that if the land for the proposed new footpath as identified on Policies map 1 (BAR20c) around Raleigh is not available and therefore the route may not be deliverable, it is proposed to identify an alternative route utilising existing PROWs and footpaths through the existing housing estates. However, it would still be considered desirable to deliver a PROW from Yeo Valley LNR north to Frankmarsh Wood and then to utilise the existing track heading westward to Weirside Way.

2.891 It is recognised the proposed new cycle / footpath route may go through areas that are considered to have some wildlife interest such as ‘Key Network Features’ or wider ‘Biodiversity Networks’. However, the precise detail of safety of users and design of the proposed route is not for the Plan to resolve it will be for the County Council as the likely public body who will implement the route and be responsible for the long term maintenance. As the Plan must be read as a whole, there are other policies development must consider when dealing with safety, wildlife, biodiversity, flooding and conservation issues. The route proposed is considered to be deliverable during the Plan period as the proposed extensions to existing routes are within sites that will deliver new development so delivery is certain. Should the County Council or local community seek the delivery of other proposed routes that are not currently identified, then other policies in the Plan would not preclude additional routes being provided.

2.892 The aspirational route along the eastern bank of the Taw between Rock Park and Bishops Tawton is still an important strategic link. It reiterates the route proposed in the adopted local plan (Proposal BAR16). Any route along the Tarka Line would need to be delivered in consultation with Network Rail, who have not objected to this policy.

Other Matters

2.893 The new pedestrian and cycle bridge over River Taw will no longer be along the approximate route of the former railway bridge, as considered under representations to Policy BAR12. Wording would be amended accordingly.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Conclusion

2.894 Several issues were raised through representations received, but none are considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan. However, main changes are required to clarify wording and intentions of a particular paragraph or the strategy.

Agreed Actions

1. The following is agreed as Main Changes to Policy BAR20:

a. Amend Policies map 1 to show an alternative route for the new footpath link around the eastern side of Barnstaple between the Hospital and Westacott. There are no consequent changes proposed to Policy BAR20 or the supporting text. b. Amend paragraph 10.86 to delete the wording “along the approximate route of the former railway bridge”. c. Add new wording to paragraph 10.86: “The design of the new pedestrian and cycle bridge over River Taw must protect and enhance the historic setting of the conservation area and listed buildings along The Strand”.

Comments made in response to Policy BAR21: Flood Management Strategy and the associated supporting text.

Total Number of Responses 0

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” ~ ~

Table 2.55

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy BAR21: Flood Management Strategy and plp number supporting text

No comments received -

Table 2.56

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.895 No comments have been received.

Other Matters

2.896 A study is currently investigating the need for and cost of improved flood defences along the River Taw.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Conclusion

2.897 No issues have been raised through representations received; as such there is no threat to the soundness of the local plan.

Agreed Action

1. No change to Policy BAR21 of the Local Plan is agreed as no issues have been raised through consultation.

Comments made in response to Policy BAR22: Green Wedges and the associated supporting text.

Total Number of Responses 6

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 2 ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 1 2

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 2 ~

Table 2.57

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy BAR22: Green Wedges and supporting text plp number

Support for the green wedge between Bickington and Fremington also restricting 742, 2730 any development along this green area. (FPC)

779 (BTC), 1395

Objects to the inclusion of Policy BAR22. At no previous stage in the local plan 1507 process has the potential for a Green Wedge been proposed and there is no such designation in the adopted local plan. From examination of the evidence base the following studies have been undertaken which are dated and do not reflect the need for a Green Wedge:

· Joint Landscape Character Assessment for North Devon & Torridge Districts (2010); · Creation and Enhancement: The Development of an Open Space Strategy for North Devon (2001); and, · Barnstaple Town Study (2011).

The SHLAA is clear that the wider sites located within the gap between Barnstaple and Fremington are developable and would not result in coalescence with Fremington. Even if a Green Wedge was to be taken forward there has been no assessment of individual parcels of land, with the exception of the SHLAA, to assess whether they would actually harm the gap.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Delete Policy BAR01 and include within the policy for green wedges (BAR22). 2453

The policy and supporting text should be amended to allow small scale development 635 that assists in or is related to the delivery of the cross-town cycle route (Policy BAR20(b)) between Fremington, Bickington and Landkey.

Site Proposals

Land west of Mead Park, Bickington (SHA/FRE/132) 1507

Table 2.58

Additional Information

56492 : Erection Of 59 Dwellings, Associated Highway & Landscape Works Together With Provision Of Community Open Space & Associated Infrastructure, Land at Mead Park, Bickington. Refused 29/7/14 (Appeal Decision Pending)

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.898 The support for Policy BAR22 (Green Wedge) from both Barnstaple Town Council and Fremington Parish Council is noted and welcomed. There have also been a number of objections to the policy and it is accepted the Green Wedge policy did not form part of the consultation draft (January 2013). However, in consultation with the local community there was a clear desire to safeguard the locally important open undeveloped gaps between Barnstaple and its surrounding villages (Fremington and Landkey).

2.899 The extent of Policy BAR22 between Barnstaple and Fremington has been defined by the distinct built up areas of both settlements and their identified development boundaries. Although the NPPF does not contain a specific reference to green wedges, paragraph 1 of the NPPF makes it clear that the Framework ‘sets out the Government’s requirements for the planning system only to the extent it is relevant, proportionate and necessary to do so. It provides a framework within which local people and their accountable councils can produce their own distinctive local and neighbourhood plans, which reflect the needs and priorities of their communities’. Green wedges are a useful local planning tool used within North Devon which is consistent with the NPPF.

2.900 Green wedges do not seek to restrict the overall amount of development, but aim to ensure that as urban development extends, open land is incorporated within it preserving and enhancing links between urban areas and the countryside. Bullet points 7 and 8 of paragraph 157 states that Local Plans should ‘identify land where development would be inappropriate, for instance because of its environmental significance; and contain a clear strategy for enhancing the natural, built and historic environment’. Green wedges are a tool that will help to achieve this in North Devon by facilitating the positive management of land by helping to shape growth and improve the quality of life of residents.

2.901 The identification of green wedges will help to protect the separate identities of these communities within and around the urban area of Barnstaple that will face growth pressures. To prevent coalescence of settlements, the Plan recognises the importance of the open land between these separate settlements to help maintain their separate identities, protect their landscape settings and avoid the creation of continuous development. Any incursions into the Green Wedge would erode the physical separation and thereby could be seen to weaken its strategic function.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

2.902 Although not identified on the policies maps, within the current adopted local plan there is a clear recognition in paragraph 3.16 that ‘The villages of Fremington and Yelland are within the Area of Economic Activity and are reasonably self sufficient. Together they function as a Local Centre with access to a wide range of employment opportunities and facilities in view of their location west of Barnstaple. Despite these strengths, the growth opportunities are constrained by the visual quality and wildlife value of the Taw Estuary, localised flooding from the Fremington Stream and the need to retain their character and local distinctiveness. For these reasons, further development will be generally restricted and aimed at meeting the social or economic needs of the local community’. Therefore, it is not accepted that the principle of a green wedge to prevent coalescence between Barnstaple and Fremington is new to the development plan as such a policy presumption has existed since July 2006.

2.903 It is accepted the SHLAA Panel have identified a number of sites west of Bickington to be developable in principle but the SHLAA is a technical report and does not allocate any new sites for development, nor does it grant planning permission. It identifies suitable and available land and buildings with potential to deliver future housing; it is for the local community and the Council to identify areas of growth to meet housing need in the Plan.

2.904 One representation has suggested the policy should be amended to allow small scale development that assists in or is related to the delivery of the cross-town cycle route (Policy BAR20(b)) between Fremington, Bickington and Landkey. The policy has been framed in a way that will support development where it would not lead to or contribute towards the coalescence of the individual settlements; such development could support the delivery of the cross town cycle route. However, as the green wedges identify land outside the defined development boundaries of Barnstaple, Landkey and Fremington, it is unlikely housing would be acceptable unless it meets a small scale affordable need and would not erode the rural gap.

2.905 Issues around the deletion of the urban extension at Westacott (Policy BAR01) and the inclusion of the land within the green wedge have been discussed under Policy BAR01.

Conclusion

2.906 Several issues were raised through representations received, but none are considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan.

Agreed Action

1. No change to Policy BAR22 of the Local Plan is agreed in response to the issues raised through consultation.

Comments made in response to Map 1 Barnstaple (Policies Map)

Total Number of Responses 4

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 2 ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 1 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 2 ~

Table 2.59

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Summary of Issues

Comments on Map 1 Barnstaple (Policies Map) plp number

Support for the allocation of green infrastructure on the policies map, particularly 658 the land west of Oakland Park South, Bickington and improved footpath links from Bickington to the Tarka Trail which appear to follow existing boundaries and footpaths.

The 3 fields to the east of Acland Road (bridge crossing the A361) should be 637 removed as they play no active role in delivering the aims of Policy BAR22. In terms of prevent the linking of Landkey with the Westacott extension only the fields to the west of Acland Road need to be included as part of the green wedge.

Appropriate to include the entire parcel of land shown on the attached plan, all of 1634 which falls within the control of our client and is available for development. The current proposed settlement boundary appears to follow the Environment Agency flood map but clients own detailed survey work has demonstrated that a wider area is developable. The land which is at risk of flooding could be allocated as green space now, though we would suggest that more detailed site specific assessment is required to determine the exact extent of the area at increased risk of flooding. Extend development boundary to include land between Pill Lane and A361.

The policies map has been misleading through both consultation processes. The 2612 first consultation has shown the road through the park, which received widespread objections but the second consultation shows the road had been removed. This is misleading.

Site Proposals

Land south of Pill Lawn & west of Bishop’s Tawton Road (SHA/BAR/076) 1634

Table 2.60

Additional Information

C109892 : Erection Of 32 Dwellings, Land at Pill House, Bishop’s Tawton Road, Barnstaple. Decision pending

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.907 The support for Policy BAR19(3) and the improved footpath links to the Tarka Trail (BAR20a), as identified on Policies map 1, west of Oakland Park South is noted and welcomed.

2.908 A representation has expressed concern the three fields east of Acland Road (bridge crossing the A361) should be removed from Policy BAR22 as they play no active role in delivering the aims of the policy in terms of preventing the coalescence of Landkey with the Westacott extension as only the fields to the west of Acland Road need to be included as part of the green wedge. It is considered important to retain these fields within Policy BAR22 due to the development pressures to the north-east of Landkey.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

2.909 In terms of the land south of Pill Lane and whether the whole SHLAA promotion (SHA/BAR/076) should be included within the defined development boundary is not considered to be justified. The information provided by the EA on indicative flood zones would suggest the site is bisected by a flood plain which has warranted the land to the north-east, adjacent the existing housing to be included within the development boundary as this is on higher land outside the area at risk of flooding. It is accepted the land in the south-west corner is outside the flood zone but in order to gain a vehicular access in to this part of the site it would require a road through the flood zone and any development would be divorced from existing development . Where development may be considered acceptable in a flood zone, paragraph 102 of the NPPF will require the ‘Exception Test’ to be passed where

it must be demonstrated that the development provides wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh flood risk, informed by a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment where one has been prepared; and a site-specific flood risk assessment must demonstrate that the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall.

2.910 Both elements of the test will have to be passed for development to be allocated or permitted. Therefore the whole site should not be included within the development boundary for Barnstaple and the land within the flood zone should remain as green space outside the boundary, an approach supported by the SHLAA panel.

2.911 One representation has criticised the Plan for being misleading in terms of the proposed vehicular access road through Westacott Park (Policy BAR01). It is considered that such a claim is unfounded as all publication versions of the Local Plan (January 2013 and June 2014) have shown a vehicular access through Westacott Park linking to the A361 at the Landkey junction. It is considered the objector has been confused by the supporting information leaflets which were provided as part of the published Plan as an illustrative version in order to show the local community where the areas for housing and economic development are proposed. It is accepted the published leaflet in January 2013 identified a route through the park at Westacott but in June 2014 this route was not shown. However, it should be noted that this showed the indicative route for a new or improved cycleway / pedestrian route and not the vehicular route. More detail has been provided under consideration of Policy BAR01.

Other Matters

2.912 The Council’s Economic Development Manager has indicated the Barnstaple Town Centre Core Area should be extended to include the Cattle Market car park, excluding the Castle Mound Scheduled Ancient Monument and the row of existing properties between Cross Street and Holland Street in order to provide the opportunity for future expansion of the town centre. Such a change would be appropriate as the current car park is considered to be one of the main areas for shoppers to park for the town centre and would help to bring The Strand area in to the retail core of the High Street. Such inclusion would also provide a new gateway in to the town centre from the west of the river once the new footbridge is delivered from the development at Anchorwood Bank and ‘Prudence’ is located along the banks of the River Taw.

Conclusion

2.913 A number of issues were raised through representations received, but none are considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan. However, main changes are required to clarify wording and intentions of a particular paragraph or the strategy.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Agreed Actions

1. The following are agreed as Main Changes to Policies Map 1 of the Local Plan:

a. Amend Policies Map 1 to show an alternative route for the new footpath link around the eastern side of Barnstaple between the Hospital and Westacott. b. Amend extent of BAR17 from the former Brannams Pottery site on Policies Map 1. c. Define the extent of Roundswell Retail Park as a District Centre. d. Extend the extent of the town centre core area to include the library and car park together with the Cattle Market car park and row of existing properties between Cross Street and Holland Street. Town Strategies: Bideford

Comments made in response to Policy BID: Spatial Vision and Development Strategy and supporting text:

Total Number of Responses 20

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - 5

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - 5

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 2 2

Summary of Issues

Comments on Bideford Policy BID and supporting text plp number

Support from the Highway Agency on the development focus at Barnstaple and 1311(HA) Bideford, suggests the key aims for the towns should be similar: seek to improve public transport, traffic management and to tackle congestion and air quality.

Support for the strategy to focus growth at Bideford; ensure Objectively Assessed 946, 2062 Needs are meet for housing and other development. Appropriate that growth is focused in the most sustainable locations.

Support the planned developments focus at Bideford and direction of growth to the 2110 south west, but question the sought avoidance of prejudice to valued environments; alternative wording proposed: the assets of the town and surrounding hinterland will be taken into account when delivering development”.

Add reference to water quality within Strategy to recognise Water Framework 901(EA) Directive issues including water body classified as poor.

Question if the flood risk sequential test been appropriately applied with regard to 901(EA) the Regeneration Framework.

Welcome the reference to Critical Drainage Areas and at 10.139 the reference that 901(EA) regeneration sites will be shaped by flood risk.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Not enough developable land within the urban area of Bideford to meet growth 2064 requirements; large mixed use sites with connections to the town are therefore required.

Winsford Park as part of the western urban extension will provide for housing and 2065 a range of uses and create opportunities for improved nature conservation thereby achieving the spatial strategy objectives.

Investigate the possibility of reopening the Bideford- Barnstaple rail link. 2516(BTC)

Emphasis on housing, provide more employment and leisure, avoid Bideford 22502(BTC) becoming a satellite of Barnstaple.

Inadequate infrastructure to be linked with housing growth. 2505(BTC)

Provide more employment and leisure opportunities before more housing. 2508(BTC)

Objection to the overall level of housing for Bideford. 2722

Support inclusion of the vocational centre; clarification of courses to be provided, 1294 (DCC) through discussion local education providers is however required.

Site Proposals

Include sites to the north of Abbotsham Road, presented as deliverable that could 587 meet identified housing needs and contribute to meeting a land supply short fall.

Additional housing is required in support of economic growth, a substantial area 626, (75 ha) to the south of Bideford is proposed to address the suggested short fall. The site was identified as developable by the SHLAA and it provides an opportunity to facilitate a downstream bridge. Additional land is further required consequent of high density assumptions applied to allocated sites.

Land at Elmscott farm is presented as available and deliverable for housing and 1456 other uses, development would connect with BID05 and BID09 to compete the town’s southern boundary.

Look at building at Mount Pleasant and beyond. 2550

Include a site at Willow Creek /Pillhead Copse within the development boundary, 576 the site is promotes for civic amenity use with a waste transfer/recycling facility.

Amend the development boundary to include a site at Northdown Road, considered 532 better than some allocated sites.

Extend the development boundary to include a site to the south of Clovelly Road 279 that would provide for a range of uses including housing to meet needs over the level identified on allocated sites and development would allow for a road link between Clovelly Road and the Abbotsham Roundabout.

Proposed housing site to the west of Warmington Farm. 458

Delete the Policy BID01 allocation and replace with an alternative on land around 2492 Bowden Farm and Upcott.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.914 A limited range of comments have been provided in response to the Bideford Spatial Vision and Development Strategy. Issues raised in relation to the scale, phasing and location of new housing, employment and infrastructure together with community service levels were generally addressed in response to the previous round of consultation. Other than in matters specific to individual policy areas, which are discussed below, the evidenced position has not altered and thus it is not considered necessary to amend the Local Plan in respect of the overall strategy for Bideford.

2.915 Comment is provided both in support and objection to the scale and location of housing growth. The level of housing planned for Bideford is required not only as a contribution to the area’s Objectively Assessed Needs, but as a necessary component to achieve the vision for the town. Housing growth is required to rebalance the local housing market, including increasing the availably of affordable housing and to maintain and increase employment and service levels. The level of planned growth reflects Bideford’s status as a strategic centre.

2.916 The Environment Agency welcomes the reference to Critical Drainage Areas, but seeks additions to the Strategy to ensure the appropriate consideration of water quality impacts arising from the proposed housing and employment growth for Bideford. The Environment Agency seeks reference within the Strategy and supporting text to recognise the Water Framework Directive and in particular to take account of a local water body being classified as poor. This is an issue raised in relation to numerous settlements. Part (f) of Policy ST03 already seeks the adoption of effective water management including water quality improvements. Additionally, Policy DM02 provides for environmental protection including safeguards around the pollution of surface and ground water. As the Plan needs to be read as a whole, rather than incorporate additions to each individual settlement Policy, it is proposed that additional supporting text is added to Policies ST03 and DM02, as a minor modification, to reference the Water Framework Directive and the need for development to ensure that water quality is not adversely impacted and opportunities for improvements sought.

2.917 The Environment Agency questions if the Bideford Regeneration Framework referenced at BID(1)(e) has been subject to a flood risk sequential test. The site development detail of the Regeneration Framework is not subsequently reflected in Policy BID07, the purpose of the reference is to secure development to achieve the document’s regeneration objectives. The regeneration sites and the specified uses take account of the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (level 2) and as indicted in the supporting text to Policy BID07, will be shaped by flood risk, In relation to which Policy ST03: Adapting to Climate Change and Strengthening Resilience will apply.

2.918 The wording of the Spatial Vision is questioned in respect of the “avoidance of prejudice to valued environments” alternative wording is proposed:” the assets of the town and surrounding hinterland will be taken into account when delivering development”. It is considered appropriate to maintain this position which relates to “valued environmental assets” (as defined in the Glossary, which have recognised value through designation) and will be protection on the basis of Policy ST14: Enhancing Environmental Assets. The comment is not considered to raise any challenge to the Local Plan in respect of soundness.

2.919 Bideford Town Council has again sought the investigation of re-opening the Bideford to Barnstaple rail link. The Local Plan through its strategic Transport Policy ST10 provides for the safeguarding of routes and exploring opportunities for the reuse and reinstatement of former railway lines and paragraph 4.63 provides for the reinstatement of the referenced route to be explored. However in the absence of certainly regarding delivery of such a scheme during the lifetime of the Local Plan there is no basis on which a proposal for such can be included within the Local Plan. The comment is not considered to raise any challenge to the Local Plan in respect of soundness.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

2.920 Devon County Council in response to the Local Plan have provided continued support for additional secondary school provision which as set out in Policy BID05 is provided for through a proposal for a vocational centre. In response to questions raised as to the continuing need for a vocational centre and the delivery for such, Devon County Council have confirmed that there is no longer a need for the vocational centre and that additional secondary school capacity can be achieved through the Route 39 School, if provided, or expansion to Bideford College. No change is recommended to the Spatial Development Strategy, which refers generally to the need to expand education capacity at primary and secondary levels. The vocational centre will be subject to further discussion with Policy BID05.

Site Proposals

2.921 A number of sites are presented as additional and alternative housing and mixed use development sites together with a site for a for civic amenity use with a waste transfer/recycling facility. The prompted sites, other than the site at Northdown Road (plp 532) and east of Warmington Farm (plp 458) were considered and discounted in determining the spatial development strategy for Bideford. It is not considered necessary to revisit these sites in the absence of any variation to the evidence base which established the development strategy provided for in the Local Plan.

2.922 The site to the east of Warmington Farm has not been subject to assessment through the Strategic Housing Land Availably Assessment process or to Sustainability Appraisal, such assessments may result in the identification of constraints that would limit or preclude residential development. It is not appropriate to allocated sites without certainty as to developability.

2.923 The site at Northdown Road has been assessed in part (the southern part of the site) through the Housing Land Availably Assessment, but was considered to be not currently developable on the basis that availably was not known; in all other respects the site was considered suitable in principle.

2.924 The site (plp 532) is now presented through consultation on the Publication Local Plan as available for development. The site has not been subject to Sustainably Appraisal as a result of the “not currently available” outcome of the Strategic Housing Land Availably Assessment. It can be accepted that the southern portion of the site holds a good relationship to the build form of the town and subject to Sustainably Appraisal testing could present a suitable housing site. The sites absence from the Local Plan as a housing allocation is not however considered to represent a soundness challenge, on which basis no change to the Local Plan is recommended.

2.925 The scale and location of housing in Bideford will contribute to the delivery of the Spatial Vision for the town and make a necessary contribution to objectively assessed needs and demands. In the interests of soundness it is not considered necessary to increase further the supply of housing.

Other Matters

2.926 Consequential amendments to the Bideford Spatial Development Strategy result from recommended amendments to: Policy BID03: Land adjoining Manteo Way and BID05: Extension to Caddsdown Business Park, which impacts on the overall stated housing numbers and the scale of employment development planned at Caddsdown. Amendment to the pre-fix to the housing numbers is additionally recommended to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of” through Policy ST08: Scale and Distribution of New Development in Northern Devon.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Conclusion

2.927 A range of comments have been made against the Bideford Spatial Vision and Development Strategy, most of which relate to the scale, composition and location of development together with suggested additional or alternative allocations for housing. These matters have generally been subject to previous consideration; no new issues or evidence suggests the need to respond through change to the Local Plan. The issues raised on all matters are additionally not considered to constitute a soundness or legal compliance challenge.

2.928 A Minor change is recommended to add clarity to Policies ST03 and DM02 to reference the Water Framework Directive and water quality.

Agreed Actions

1. To undertake Main Changes to Policy BID, the associated supporting text and tables consequential of agreed Main Changes to Policies ST08, BID03 and BID05. 2. The following is an agreed Minor Change:

a. the addition of supporting text to Policies ST03 and DM02 to reference the Water Framework Directive and the need for development to ensure that water quality is not adversely impacted and opportunities for improvements sought.

Comments made in response to Policy BID01: Bideford West Urban Extension and associated supporting text:

Total Number of Responses 13

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 4 -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 1 4

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 4 -

Summary of Issues

Comments on Bideford BID01: Bideford West Urban Extension and supporting text plp number

Support for Policy and the sites delivery at an early stage in the plan period; it 2072,526 provides an opportunity for new development to positively relate to the existing settlement though a new neighbourhood area. Winsford Park will make a significant contribution to housing needs and provide for a range of associated uses within linked green infrastructure.

Support the spatial Vison but object to the sought comprehensive development; 2067 amend to comprehensibly planned to reflect the realities of bringing the site forward.

Objection to Policy BID01: overstretch services and cause traffic a problem, the 2492 (BTC) site is poorly related to the existing settlement and removes a green buffer between Bideford and Abbotsham. Alternative sites should replace the BID01 site.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Remove the employment allocation on Moreton Woods, allocate for residential; 280 employment could result in a conflict with neighbouring dwellings.

Remove the reference to Atlantic Park as the location for commercial and 2113, 210, employment development within the strategic allocation. Providing 10 hectares for 2119 economic development is inappropriate, if the level of employment land is required provide such on a suitable and market attractive site, such as BID09. The Housing and Employment Study does not justify a level of more than 60 hectares.

The mature trees, hedging and marshy areas should be retained to protect important 435,334 Green Infrastructure and support biodiversity. Amended policy text provided.

Add to the education requirement “early years provision” and a “children’s centre (DCC)1291 base” with the 420 place primary school, which should be provided early within the plan period.

Amend Policy BID01 (1)(a) to provide for “at least” not “approximately” with regard 2112 to the scale of housing development.

Policy BID01 (2) are only guiding principles; the Local Plan should avoid prescription. 2121

The detail of materials and access arrangements should be a matter for Development 2119 Management.

Additional Information

2.929 Torridge District Council has received a planning application for the majority of the site subject to Policy BID01, 1/1015/2014/OUTM: Outline Planning for the construction of up to 750 dwellings including affordable housing, 50 bed care facility, a local centre, a primary school, new highway infrastructure including new accesses onto Abbotsham Road and the A39, areas of formal open space, green space and landscaping, drainage and attenuation infrastructure (Use Classes A1-A5, C2, C3 and D1).

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.930 Comments in support and objection to Policy BID01 have been received, the majority in objection relate to the detail of the policy.

2.931 Comment is made that the sought comprehensive development is not achievable. It is recognised that the site is in more than a single ownership and that part of the site already benefits from an extant consent, on which basis the achievability of comprehensive development would be prejudiced. Policy BID01(2)(a) requires development to be achieved on a comprehensive basis in accordance with an agreed masterplan, the intention is to ensure the site is developed in an integrated manner to ensure the delivery of all site requirements to achieve the vision for the Bideford West Urban Extension. Having regard to the need for the site to be fully developed and the nature of the generated infrastructure that would be required from the site it is considered necessary to continue to require the site to be viewed as a whole. It is recognised that clarification of the policy intent should be provided. The recommendation is made to clarify the policy intention, to provide a consistency of approach across the Local Plan and in the interest of ensuing deliverability of the policy, which would be a matter subject to a soundness challenge.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

2.932 Bideford Town Council again seeks the deletion of Policy BID01. The issues raised relate to the: relationship of the site to the town, the adequacy of infrastructure, including impacts on the highway network, the loss of the undeveloped gap between Bideford and Abbotsham and the impact on the North Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. To support the proposed deletion an alternative site is proposed to the south east of Bideford. The site of Policy BID01 was determined to have the potential to be comprehensively developed by the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment under references SHLAA/BID/1/7/9 and ABS/2/6. The site is considered to be well related to the existing built form of the town, which will be enhanced by future development planned to the south of Clovelly Road. The site is well placed with regard to the proximity of employment and services around Clovelly Road and improved links to the town will ensure wider accessibility to other facilities and the town centre. It is accepted that development of the site will have an impact on the landscape and the undeveloped area between Bideford and Abbotsham Village will be reduced. Nevertheless, the site is considered suitable for development and is required with regard to the contribution to the housing supply to meet identified needs and demands. While an alternative site has been proposed, the site subject to Policy BID01 is preferable with regard to its relationship and achievable connectively to the town, landscape and biodiversity impacts, the suitability and achievability of highway access, known deliverability and the potential timescale within which the respective sites could contribute to the housing supply.

2.933 It is suggested that the employment allocation on Atlantic Park (Moreton Woods) is removed, entirely and in part (the western element) and that housing is alternatively provided for. The basis for the proposed adjustment to the allocation (plp 280) is a conflict with neighbouring dwellings, which is not accepted. In providing for bordering uses care (on the basis of Policy DM01: Amenity Considerations) will be taken to ensure the interests of existing and future occupants are not prejudiced. It is additionally suggested (plps 210, 2113 and 2119) that the scale of the provided employment development is inappropriate having regard to the level of need identified in the Employment and Housing Study(GL Hearn 2014) and that if it is required it should be located on a site attractive to the market. Atlantic Park is regarded as an important contributor to the vision for Bideford in adding to the area focus of commercial and employment activity around Atlantic Village, and the Business Parks at Clovelly Road and Caddsdown. It is not accepted that the site is not attractive to the market place having regard to current on site activity to implement planning consents for a range of serviced based operations and with consulting having been undertaken for further development within the site for retail and service activities. With regard to quoted 60 hectares of employment land recommended in the Employment and Housing Study, such is based on the relativity narrow range of B use classes, not the full range of opportunities enabled on employment allocations in accordance with the related NPPF definition. The Employment Land Review (GL Hearn 2014) described the site as being in a good quality location, recognising the relationship with comparable uses and suggested the site could be developed within 5 years. The issues raised are not considered to represent a soundness challenge, no change to the Local Plan is recommended.

2.934 Policy BID01 includes a requirement for a 420 place primary school. Devon County Council in response to the Publication Local Plan seeks further education provision associated with the primary school in the form of early year’s provision and a children’s centre. Account must be taken of educational needs as identified by the education authority, to do otherwise could result in future generated needs being unmet. The NPPF is clear in that Local Plans should be “positively prepared”, which requires objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements to be met, to do otherwise could result in a soundness challenge to the Local Plan.

2.935 It is suggested that the development principles set out in Policy BID01(2) should not be prescriptive and that matters such as access arrangements and the detail of materials should be a matter for Development Management. The development principles are considered necessary to secure a development which not only meets identified needs but is responsive to site specific

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

requirements, and to ensure the component elements are delivered to achieve the vision for the site. The issues raised by the comments (plp219 and 2121) are not considered to represent a soundness challenge.

2.936 It is suggested (plp 435 and 334) that mature trees, hedging and marshy areas should be protected from development. Green Infrastructure is an important element of the development requirements for the Western Extension to Bideford, as stated in the vision for the site. Working with and enhancing existing assets is recognised as a key consideration in bringing the site forward, as reflected in Policy BID01 (2)(c) and referenced in paragraph 10.113. Such matters will additionally be addressed through the application of the Strategic and Development Management policies of the Local Plan. The issue raise by this comment is not considered to represent a soundness challenge.

2.937 Amendment to Policy BID01 (1)(a) is sought (plp2112) to provide for “at least” not “approximately” with regard to the scale of housing development. The housing yields attributed to housing focused allocations are derived from the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, which is considered to provide a realistic assessment of potential development capacity. The housing yields attributed to each allocation provides only an approximation of yield based on an agreed methodology. The yield is not regarded as either a maximum or minimum; the level of development secured will be a matter for the application of site specific and Development Management policies. Flexibility will be applied to the scale of housing development to ensure the overall objectives for the site are delivered through a high quality development. It is not considered appropriate to amend Policy BID01 to require the stated housing yield to be a minimum level, the term “approximately” is considered appropriate to prefix housing yields on allocated sites. The issue raise by this comment is not considered to represent a soundness challenge, no change to the Local Plan is recommended.

Conclusion

2.938 The comments in response to the draft Publication Policy BID01, which allocated a 71 hectare site for a housing, community and economic uses, raise a range of issues. The issues raised with regard to: a reduction in the scale of employment development, providing for a housing yield on an “at least basis” and the detail of Green Infrastructure provision are not considered to present a soundness challenge to the Local Plan.

2.939 Amendment to the Local Plan, having regard to a potential soundness challenge, is recommended to clarify that the site should be comprehensively planned and that further education capacity will be added to the on site infrastructure requirements.

Agreed Actions

1. The following are agreed as Main Changes to Policy BID01, with associated supporting text revisions: a. amend Policy BID(1)(c): integrated social and community infrastructure, including a 420 place primary school with early years provision and a children’s base, with associated sports and play …… b. amend Policy BID01(2): The site will be developed in accordance with the following site specific development principles This strategic extension will be developed in accordance with a comprehensive master plan to deliver the following site specific development principles; c. The development to be carried out in a comprehensive basis in accordance with the requirements and provisions of an agreed master plan; (renumber the following requirements).

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Comments made in response to Policy BID02: Cleave Wood and associated supporting text:

Total Number of Responses 3

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 3 -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 2 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 3 -

Summary of Issues

Comments on Bideford Policy BID02: Cleave Wood and supporting plp number text

Support for the allocation (part site owner). 439

The mature trees on site should be retained. 348

Flood risk concerns on the site. 2493(BTC)

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.940 Support for the development of the site is noted.

2.941 With regard to the comment on mature trees on site, it is recognised that there are a number of large trees and mature hedgerows that form internal and external boundaries to the site, there are however no TPO’s within the site. It will not always be possible to retain unprotected trees and hedgerows through development. The Local Plan through Policy DM04: Design Principles will seek to secure development that delivers good design, including the retention and integration of landscape features and biodiversity. The issue raise by this comment is not considered to represent a soundness challenge.

2.942 The issue of flood risk associated with the site subject to Policy BID02 is recognised in the supporting text at paragraph 10.117, which states that the areas subject to flood risk should be avoided in providing for the required vulnerable uses and that sustainable drainage systems will be required to ensure the rate of surface water runoff does not increase flood risk in accordance with Policy ST03: Adapting to Climate Change and Strengthening Resilience. The issue raise by this comment is not considered to represent a soundness challenge.

Conclusion

2.943 The comments made in response to Policy BID02: Cleave Wood, which allocates a 13 hectare site for housing and a range of community uses, does not raise issues that are considered to challenge the soundness of the Publication Local Plan.

Agreed Actions

1. No change to Policy BID02: Cleave Wood or the associated supporting text.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Comments made in response to Policy BID03: Land at Manteo Way and associated supporting text:

Total Number of Responses 2

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 1 -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 1 -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1 -

Summary of Issues

Comments on Bideford Policy BID03: Land at Manteo Way and supporting text plp number

Objection to the requirement to comply with the Saltrens Development Brief. The 633 brief requires for strategic recreation provision to be provided on part of the site, which in part is sought for housing.

The recreational area (1)(b)) must be linked to the housing development and 2794(BTC) safeguarded against future development.

Additional Information

2.944 The allocation comprises a number of sites which have been subject to assessment through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. A change of circumstance from the finalisation of the SHLAA report now requires an adjustment to the allocation BID03. Site SHA/BID/84 (Land north of Venn off Manteo Way) can no longer be considered to be deliverable or developable. The site owner has recently confirmed that the site is no longer available for development and wishes this position to be recognised at the next review of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment.

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.945 Having regard to the extent of deliverable sites within the allocation, it is considered necessary to amend the site area to exclude the site of SHA/BID/84, which is now known not to be available for development. The site is located to the north west of the allocation and can be removed from the allocation without prejudice to adjoining sites. It is considered necessary in the interests of soundness to amend the site area to which Policy BID03 applies.

2.946 The comment from Bideford Town Council is noted; Policy BID03 seeks to deliver strategic open space and recreation facilities. The Policy currently provides that development should come forward in accordance with the Saltrens (East the Water) Development Brief, which identifies the location of a range of uses within the site including an area for playing pitches. Maintaining the requirement for the allocated site to be comprehensively development in accordance with the Saltrens Development Boundary would not be possible with the exclusion of the site SHA/BID/84, it is therefore recommended that the requirement is deleted from Policy BID03. This should not however alter the requirement for the allocation to deliver 2.5 hectares for open space and recreation facilities which should be located to the north west of the site. For certainty, as to the location of the required open

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

space and recreation facilities, it is recommended that the siting of this use be defined on Policies Map 2 and referenced at Policy BID03(1)(b) to reflect such provisions as provided for in the Saltrens Development Brief.

2.947 Comment is also made that the development of the site subject to Policy BID03 should not be directed by the Saltrens Development Brief. The purpose of removing the link to the development brief is to allow for part of the identified recreation site to come forward for housing. It is accepted that development of the allocated site could be delivered without direction from the Saltrens Development Brief, as such could not be achieved with the loss of the site SHA/BID/84. It is not however considered prudent to allow housing on the area which the development brief determined suitable for recreation use and at a scale necessary to provide for the areas strategic needs.

Conclusion

2.948 The comments made in response to Policy BID03 are focused on the requirement for and location of open space and recreation facilities within the allocation. There is considered to be no soundness challenge raised by the comments. It is however recommended that the Local Plan is revised to remove the requirement for the site to be developed in accordance with the Site Development Brief, as a consequence of the recommended loss of the site SHA/BID/84 and that Policy BID03 (1)(b) is amended to define the siting of the required open space and recreation facilities, which should be reflected in Polices Map 2. The recommended amendments are considered necessary with regard to deliverability and clarity.

Agreed Actions

1. The following are agreed as a Main Changes to Policy BID03, with associated supporting text revisions:

a. amend Policies Map 2 to exclude the site SHA/BID/84 from the site subject to Policy BID03; b. amend Policies Map 2 to identify a 2.5 hectare site for Green Infrastructure within the BID03 allocation; c. amend Policy BID03 (1): Land adjoining Manteo Way, extending to 18 17 hectares …. d. amend Policy BID03 (1) (a): approximately 240 215 dwellings, providing a mix of housing types …. e. amend Policy BID03 (1)(b): a 2.5 hectare site to the east of Manteo Way for open space and recreation facilities. f. amend Policy BID03 (2)(a): development to be carried out in a comprehensive basis in accordance with the requirements and provisions of the Saltrens (East the Water) Development Brief, as part of a wider comprehensive scheme of development; g. undertake consequential changes to housing supply figures to take account of the reduced yield from Policy BID03.

Comments made in response to Policy BID04: South of east the Water and associated supporting text:

Total Number of Responses 2

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - -

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” - -

Summary of Issues

Comments on Bideford Policy BID04: South of East the Water and supporting plp number text

Expansion of primary school requirement to 420 pupil places as a result of existing 1292(DCC) pressures on primary schools and demographic change.

With the Town Councils preferred development to the south of Bideford, BI04 forms 2496 (BTC) a more rounded development. A new BID01 and BID04 should partially fund a third crossing. BID04 should also provide 4 hectares with the school to provide parking, playing fields and a doctor’s surgery.

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.949 Policy BID04 includes provision for a 210 place primary school with nursery and a children’s centre. Devon County Council, in response to the Publication Local Plan have sought to increase the size of the required new primary school as a result of existing pressures and demographic change which indicates the future need for more school places. Account must be taken of educational needs as identified by the education authority, to do otherwise could result in future generated needs being unmet. The NPPF is clear in that Local Plans should be “positively prepared”, which requires objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements to be met, if this issue is not addressed the Local Plan could be subject to a soundness challenge. It is recommended that the required new primary school be increase from 210 places to 420 places.

2.950 The comments from Bideford Town Council are noted, which in respect of an opportunity to secure a third river crossing in connection with a presented alternative development site to the proposed western extension (Policy BID01) have ben previously been considered and discounted. It is not recommended to allocate a housing focused development to the south of Bideford (plp 2492) and there is no prospect, as stated by Devon County Council, that strategic transport infrastructure on such a scale will be delivered within or beyond the plan period.

Other Matters

2.951 The majority of the allocated site falls within the East the Water Critical Drainage Area, as defined by the Environment Agency. In such areas higher standards are required than average with regard to drainage management through SUDS.

2.952 The Environment Agency describes the flooding issues at Bideford East as: “the surface water drainage systems of East the Water has numerous known flooding issues, with the main problems along Torrington Street and the roads leading to this area. The Nutterberry Stream also has problems near the electrical depot and Torrington Street. We are also aware of some Sewer flooding that may be exacerbated by heavy rainfall”. For clarity and consistency across the Local Plan it is recommended that Policy BID04 is amended to include a requirement for enhanced on site management of surface water and drainage so as not to increase flood risk on the site and beyond.

2.953 A further revision to Policy BID04 is recommended to achieve a consistency of reference relating to the requirement for the site to be developed in a comprehensive manner. A standard approach has been provided elsewhere in the Local Plan and it is considered appropriate to amend Policy BID04 to reflect this approach.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Conclusion

2.954 There are few comments raised in response to the draft Publication Policy BID04, which allocates a 34 hectare site for housing with a new primary school.

2.955 It is considered necessary to positively respond to Devon County Council’s (education) representation. The County Council seek an enhancement of education provision, to increase the requirement for a 210 to 420 place primary school. The Local Plan is required to address identified infrastructure needs on which basis a main change to the Local Plan is recommended.

Agreed Actions

1. The following are agreed as Main Changes to Policy BID04, with associated supporting text revisions:

a. amend Policy BID04(1)(b):a 210 420 place primary school, including nursery and a children’s centre; b. amend Policy BID04(2): The site will be developed in accordance with the following site specific development principles The site will be developed in accordance with a comprehensive master plan to deliver the following site specific development principles; (a) The development to be carried out in a comprehensive basis in accordance with the requirements and provisions of an agreed master plan; (renumber the following requirements). c. amend Policy BID04, add within (2): provide a sustainable water strategy that reduces water usage, manages surface water runoff through water storage and sustainable drainage systems to reduce the risk of flooding on the site and beyond at East the Water.

Comments made in response to Policy BID05 Extension to Caddsdown Business Park and associated supporting text:

Total Number of Responses 4

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1

Summary of Issues

Comments on Bideford Policy BID05: Extension to Caddsdown Business Park and plp number supporting text

Policy is contrary to ST02 (b): relating to conserving and enhancing natural built and 972 historic environment. Objection to the allocation on the grounds of pollution, visual amenity, loss of green space, negative impact on hydrology, increase use of country lanes.

Condition support, on the basis that a vehicular link is proposed between the allocation 1470 and Elmscott Farm, to allow for an integrated development.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

The employment site should be developed in advance of other phases of housing. 2545

The area will link well with the Town Council’s preferred growth area. 2509 (BTC)

Additional Information

2.956 In response to a questions relating to the need for and delivery potential of the vocational centre provided for in Policy BID05, Devon County Council provided the following: “Devon County Council do not require the vocational centre … vocational centres (also known as Studio Schools) are normally brought forward by FE/University and employers to deliver a specific offer either to support local or national skills. Devon County Council therefore cannot take this forward.

2.957 In general we think there will be a need for additional secondary provision over the plan period given the level of housing proposed however this is dependent on Route 39 and whether it relocates to Bucks Cross and how popular it is. We also have the option to expand existing provision at Bideford College if required.

2.958 A supplement to the above was provided that the vocation centre had been encouraged District Council on the basis that such could be facilitated through the allocation of land and potential pump priming funding. It was suggested that the allocation should be retained.

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.959 Support for the site is noted together with the comment relating to a vehicular link. The Policy provides for vehicular connectively to be achieved to the adjoining sites by the formation of a distributor route. The comment is not considered to present a soundness challenge; no change to the Local Plan is recommended.

2.960 The comment from the Town Council is noted; the referenced “preferred growth area” is not however subject to an allocation or recommended as a change to achieve such. The comment is not considered to present a soundness challenge; no change to the Local Plan is recommended.

2.961 It is suggested that employment sites should be phased to be delivered in advance of housing. The Local Plan does not seek to link employment and housing land release. A positive approach to delivery is provided in meet both housing and economic needs. To impose restrictions on the delivery of housing would conflict with the positive planning approach required by the National Planning Policy Framework. The comment is not considered to present a soundness challenge; no change to the Local Plan is recommended.

2.962 The comment regarding the natural and built environment is noted and such has been previously considered in preparing the Publication Local Plan. Such interests are recognised and care will be required to ensure natural assets are not lost or adversely impacted as a result of development. It is accepted that there will be an impact on the nature of the landscape and views onto the site, particularly from the south; the impact of which will require management. The Policy provides for strategic landscaping measures to ensure that development respects the sensitivity of the exiting landscape setting. Within this context the draft Local Plan must meet the areas employment needs and the site of the allocation is recognised as suitable for the intended purpose. The comment is not considered to present a soundness challenge; no change to the Local Plan is recommended.

2.963 With regard to the vocational centre, Devon County Council have indicated that such a facility is not required to meet future secondary school needs, which was the basis for its inclusion in the Local Plan. It is recognised that a vocational centre would be beneficial but in the absence of need

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

or any identified means of delivery there is no basis to include the centre as a requirement in the Local Plan. In the interest of providing a deliverable Local Plan it is recommended that the requirement for a vocational centre within the Caddsdown Business Park is deleted. Retaining the vocational centre could result in a soundness challenge.

Other Matters

2.964 An imbalance exists between planned housing and employment growth, with a current significant over provision of employment land, as evidence by the North Devon and Torridge Housing and Employment Study (GL Hearn 2014). A review has been undertaken to identify opportunities to rebalance housing and employment levels, both in terms of reducing the scale of allocated employment land and increasing the provision of housing. This review is set out in detail in the report which considers the changes necessary to Policy ST08.

2.965 Responding to the recognised need to reduce the scale of employment land allocated, it has been identified that there is scope to reduce the scale of employment land allocated for development through Policy BID05: Extension to Caddsdown Business Park. The Policy currently allocates about 12 hectares of land for economic development, although the site area extends to a larger area, as an extension to Caddsdown Industrial estate. The allocation comprises a number of field parcels and upon review, it is considered that the area to the south of Farm Road which amounts to about 8 hectares could be developed in isolation of the eastern field parcels and still provide for an appropriate extension to the existing industrial estate. In doing so, the contributing employment supply from the allocation can be reduced by 4 hectares. It is worth noting that the reduced site area reflects the extent of the allocation in the Consultation Draft Local Plan.

Conclusion

2.966 The comments received in response to Policy BID05 are not considered to raise issues of soundness and thus no consequential changes are recommended. It is however considered necessary to delete the requirement to provide a vocational centre in the absence of need and a delivery mechanism. Additionally to contribute to an equilibrium positon with regard to planned housing and employment levels it is recommended that the employment allocation is reduced by 4 hectares to avoid an oversupply of employment land.

Agreed Actions

1. The following are agreed as Main Changes to Policy BID05, with associated supporting text revisions: 2. a. delete Policy BID05 (1)(c): a vocational centre; b. amend the lead-in sentence of Part (1) of Policy BID05 to read: “Land to the south of the Caddsdown Industrial Park, extending to about 15 11 hectares and as defined on Policies Map 2 is allocated for economic development that includes:”, c. amend Part (1)(a) to read: approximately 12 8 hectares of land for economic development focused on BI, B2 and B8 uses as appropriate to the site and its wider context, ensuring that there is a mix of unit size to enable businesses to start up and expand; d. amend the first sentence of paragraph 10.130 to read: ‘Land south of the Caddsdown Industrial Park has been identified as a site for employment development. The site area is about 15 11 hectares, with an 12 8 hectare component proposed for economic development.”. e. amend Policies Map 2 to depict a reduced allocation for BID05 (covering only the parcels to the south of Farm Road of the existing allocation) and to reflect a revised development

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

boundary excluding the part of BID05 no longer allocated for development (i.e. the eastern field parcels of the existing allocation); and f. amend Table 10.4 Employment Land Supply for Bideford Extension to Caddsdown Business Park - BID05: 12 8 and consequently Policy ST08 as a result of a reduced employment land contribution at Bideford.

Comments made in response to Policy BID06: and associated supporting text:

Total Number of Responses 2

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” - -

Summary of Issues

Comments on Bideford Policy BID06: Bideford Port: and supporting text plp number

Explore new storage areas in and around the Bideford, allow Bideford Port to expand. 2546 (BTC) Allow the Port to expand. 2511(BTC)

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.967 The comment from Bideford Town Council in response to Policy BID06 is noted. The need for additional storage facilities to support the operation of Bideford Port has been investigated through the Torridge Estuary Study. The Study recognised that the lack of storage would be a constraint to future expansion but it also determined that in the current absence of anticipated future growth there is no need for new storage facilities.

2.968 Policy BID06 seeks to safeguard the continued operation of Bideford Port, the need for the Port to expand in response to future market demands has not been established. The Local Plan through Policies ST11: Delivering Employment and Economic Development and DM12: Employment Development in Towns and Villages provides support for economic development that could enable new storage facilities to be provided if required.

Conclusion

2.969 The comment made in response to Policy BID06: Bideford Port does not raise issues that are considered to challenge the soundness of the Publication Local Plan.

Agreed Action

1. No change to Policy BID06: Bideford Port or the associated supporting text.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Comments made in response to Policy BID07: Bideford Regeneration Sites and associated supporting text:

Total Number of Responses 3

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1

Summary of Issues

Comments on Bideford Policy BID07: Bideford Regeneration Sites and plp number supporting text

Protect the SSSI biodiversity interests in the adjoining waterfront. 2011

Question the “enhanced gateway’ to New Road and if housing is appropriate on the 2547 (BTC) wharfs at East-the-Water.

Add Westcombe Depot to the list of regeneration sites. 329

Additional Information

2.970 The East the Water Wharfs site is subject to an outstanding planning application: 1/0578/2014/FULM for a mixed use development comprising of 52 residential units, approximately 763 sq. metres of retail / commercial development, open space, car parking, marina (including manager’s accommodation) and associated development.

2.971 Potential development interests have suggested to Torridge District Council that market conditions have improved to an extent that would make redevelopment of the Kinsley Road site, (formerly identified as a regeneration site in the draft Consultation Local Plan) deliverable.

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.972 The comment made with regard to the SSSI is noted, where such matters are relevant the general polices of the Local Plan will seek to protect valued environmental assets through ST14: Enhancing Environmental Assets. No soundness risk is considered to be raised by this comment; no change to the Local Plan is consequently made.

2.973 Bideford Town Council have commented on three of the regeneration sites, with regard to the New Road sites (Policy BID07 (e) and (f)) in respect of the “enhanced gateway’ and in relation to the wharfs (Policy BID07 (a)). The issues raised have been previously discussed in the peroration of the Publication Local Plan. The North Road allocations are vacant and underused open sites; the District Council seeks to enable development on the sites to increase the attraction of the entrance into Bideford, which is the objective for the sites. On the wharfs site a planning application has been made for a mixed use development including 52 dwellings; the housing component of the site being an essential part of the development mix which enables the site in viability terms to be delivered. The

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

achieved housing yield will also contribute to the housing supply for Bideford, which is necessary to meet assessed needs and demands. No soundness risk is considered to be raised by this comment; no change to the Local Plan is consequently made.

2.974 It is suggested that Westcombe Depot is added to the regeneration sites subject to Policy BID07.The inclusion of the Westcombe Depot site within Policy BID07 has previously been considered and discounted. The site is in use as the District Council’s operational services depot, with no identified plans for relocation during the lifetime of the Local Plan. Furthermore, the Strategic and Development Management Policies of the Local Plan would seek to safeguard the site as an employment asset. The site is also located within an area subject to flood risk. The Level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) (2010) identified that the site was vulnerable to flooding. The recommendation from the SFRA, was that while recognising the opportunities for redevelopment and flood risk reduction there are other developable sites in Bideford at lower risk of flooding. Only if the Sequential and Exception Test is passed should allocation be achieved. With the presence of developable sites at lower risk of flooding the site would be challenged to pass the Sequential Test. The site is included within the development boundary for Bideford on which basis the principle of redevelopment could be accepted subject to the resolution of issues raised through the application of Local Plan policies. No soundness risk is considered to be raised by this comment; no change to the Local Plan is consequently made.

Other Matters

2.975 The Bideford Regeneration Framework identified a number of previously developed sites in and around Bideford Town Centre for redevelopment to improve the functionality and viability of the town centre. While the uses proposed for each site has been subject to review to take account of the consequences of flood risk, the objectives of the Regeneration Framework remain relevant and have thus been carried forward through the Local Plan.

2.976 The regeneration sites were allocated for redevelopment in the draft North Devon and Torridge Core Strategy, the draft Local Plan (2013) and currently the Publication Local Plan (2014). One of the sites, at Kingsley Road (including the football ground) was not included as an allocation in the Publication Local Plan on the basis that site investigations had determined that the site could not be brought forward as a result of viability considerations. It is suggested that market conditions have improved to the point that the site has redevelopment potential during the lifetime of the Local Plan. It is recognised, as indicated in the Bideford Regeneration Framework that the appropriate redevelopment of the Kingsely Road site could delivery benefit to the town centre. However, no evidence has been provided that demonstrates a revised position with regard to the sites deliverability. It is important that all aspects of the Local Plan can be shown to be achievable, without which the Local Plan will could be found unsound. It is not considered prudent to include the Kingsley Road site as a regeneration site as defined by Policy BID07 having regard to the test of soundness.

Conclusion

2.977 The comments made in response to Policy BID07: Bideford Regeneration Sites do not raise issues that are considered to challenge the soundness of the Publication Local Plan.

Agreed Action

1. No change to Policy BID07: Bideford Regeneration Sites or the associated supporting text. .

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Comments made in response to Policy BID08: Former Bideford to Appledore Railway and associated supporting text:

Total Number of Responses 9

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 3 -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 1 3

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 2 1

Summary of Issues

Comments on Bideford Policy BID08:Former Bideford to Appledore Railway and plp number supporting text

Amend the route to take it along the south of the Kenwith Nature Reserve, to reduce 428, 471, environmental damage, avoiding sensitive wildlife and landscape areas. The proposed 1225, 1479, route along the old railway line would be expensive to deliver given the nature of the 2050 area of scrub and marsh land.

Support for the policy but the route should avoid existing woodland and marsh areas. 842

Clarify in the supporting text that the route’s role as a utility route, especially within 1295(DCC) Bideford and to provide support for connecting routes to/from development sites.

Support for the enhanced cycleway as far as Westward Ho! 2548(BTC)

2514(BTC)

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.978 The indicated support for Policy BID08 is noted, as are the comments made with regard to route of the trail. The route is however largely determined by the extent of the former railway as provided by Devon County Council. It is recognised that the trail’s route extends into the Kenwith Nature Reserve. It is however, worth noting that Natural England has not objected Policy BID08. No soundness risk is considered to be raised by this comment; no change to the Local Plan is consequently made.

2.979 The comment from Devon County Council is noted. The relationship between the strategic route sought through Policy BID08 and the pedestrian and cycle routes to be delivered as result of development is however not clear. The trail has no connecting relationship to any allocated sites. A useful addition to the text could however be provided to clarify its purpose. No soundness risk is considered to be raised by this comment.

Other Matters

2.980 There is an inconsistency to the terminology used between the Policy BID08 and the supporting text, correction is required to refer to the route as a trail.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Conclusion

2.981 The comments made in response to Policy BID08: Former Bideford to Appledore Railway do not raise issues that are considered to challenge the soundness of the Publication Local Plan. For clarification purposes a minor change is recommended to be added to the supporting text of Policy BID08.

Agreed Actions

1. No Main Change to Policy BID08: Former Bideford to Appledore Railway. 2. The following are agreed Minor Changes:

a. amend paragraph 10.141: Such trails provide benefits in terms of health, the economy and well being. Journeys may be for recreation and tourism as well as providing for local utility purposes; and b. amend paragraph 10.141, replace, proposed cycle route with proposed trail…

Comments made in response to Policy BID09 South of Clovelly Road and associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 10

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 2 2

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - 5

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1 3

Summary of Issues

Comments on Bideford Policy BID09: South of Clovelly Road and supporting text plp number

Support for Policy BID09. 528

Support is Policy BID09 with an amendment to 1(b) to give flexibility to the delivery 947 of community infrastructure having regard to developments on nearby sites. Revise to: ‘necessary integrated social and community infrastructure, based on identified need and provision being made elsewhere in the town."

Surface water drainage on this proposal should be managed by a suitably designed 902(EA) SUDS scheme.

Impossible to prevent prejudice between housing and framing activity, existing 142, 622 farming operations resulting in smells and noise will not be adequately mitigated against. Land appears to have been designated with out regard for the operation of High Park Farm.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Agree with the proposal relating to the closure of Road with a new road 142 provided through the estate.

Objection to BID09: contrary to ST02 (b): relating to conserving and enhancing 977 natural built and historic environment. Objection to the allocation on the grounds of: pollution, visual amenity, loss of green space, negative impact on hydrology, in crease use of country lanes.

Objection due to concerns: proper emphasis on environmental considerations, 2267 countryside and landscape protection has not been given, visual impact, wildlife issues, an over allocation of housing and employment land at Bideford providing an imbalance between Bideford and Barnstaple. Bideford allocation should be reduced. Delete the BID09 allocation and reduce the scale of the employment provision at Caddsdown. Questions the Local Plans soundness on the basis of the development land strategy in the context of the overall strategic approach.

Employment should be phased before housing. 2515 (BTC)

The allocations BID01 and BID09 should be looked at holistically and comprise 2080 complimentary infrastructure. A comprehensive view should be taken of both sites.

Additional Information

2.982 The majority of the site subject to Policy BID09 is subject to an outstanding planning application (at 17th November 2014): 1/0039/2014/OUTM - Outline planning application for up to 550 Dwellings on 13.77ha of land, up to 1.5ha of commercial use land (Use classes A2, A3, A4, A5, B1, C1, D1, D2) and a 1.9ha primary school or up to 50 dwellings, as well as highway access, public open space and other associated infrastructure. All matters reserved other than primary access.

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.983 A limited number of comments have been received in response to Policy BID09, which are in support and object to the principle and detail of the allocation to the south of Clovelly Road.

2.984 While supporting Policy BID09, it is suggested (plp 947) that flexibility is required with regard to the sought infrastructure requirements and that regard should be given to development that is planned for on other sites, significantly BID01. The scale of development across policy areas BID01 and BID09 are substantial, from which a significant scale of infrastructure is required in support of the associated housing development. The specified requirements are considered appropriate for the respective sites having regard to both the generated needs and the physical form and location of each. Having regard to the scale of development on each site it is appropriate that each site provides for a range of social and recreation infrastructure. Consideration has been given to the strategic contributions to be delivered across the site, significantly the 420 place primary school with early years provision and a children’s base and the highway improvements that will be generated from the sites’ combined traffic generation. No soundness risk is considered to be raised by the comments; no change to the Local Plan is consequently made.

2.985 The Environment Agency suggests that surface water drainage on the proposal should be managed through a SUDS scheme. The principle is accepted and the use of SUDS will be secured through the application of Policy ST03: Adapting to Climate Change and Strengthening Resilience.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

A reference to SUDS within Policy BID09 is considered unnecessary on the basis that the vast majority of the site fall outside the Bideford Critical Drainage Area. No soundness risk is considered to be raised by the comments; no change to the Local Plan is consequently made.

2.986 The comments in objection to the principle of development are noted. The site has however been assessed as suitable and available through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment and provides a necessary contribution to identified housing needs and demands. It is accepted that the nature of the area will be subject to change as a consequence of development, but such will be managed through the Strategic and Development Management Policies of the Local Plan, which will include the safeguarding of natural assets and ensuring biodiversity gains where necessary. Such interests are recognised and care will be required to ensure natural assets are not lost or adversely impacted as a result of development. The Local Authorities duties in respect of protected species and sites are well defined through the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 and will be accordingly executed.

2.987 In objecting to the allocation of BID09 (plp 2267), in addition to on site concerns, the overall scale of development planned for Bideford is suggested to be excessive. The quantum of housing and employment land is considered necessary to meet objectivity assessed needs and to secure delivery of the vision for the town. Alternative locations would be required in Bideford if the sites to the south of Clovelly Road (BID09 and BID5) were deleted as allocations, both site are considered to be suitable for the intended uses and through developer progression are known to be available.

2.988 Bideford Town Council (plp 2515) suggests that employment should be phased before housing. The introduction of such a constraint would not provide positive planning to address housing needs and the Local Plan would be found to be flawed in respect of soundness; the required five year land supply could not be achieved. Furthermore, as provided for in the North Devon Housing and Employment Study (GL Hearn 2014), not all future employment will be delivered on traditional employment sites, and the delivery of housing will be a source of employment growth both directly and indirectly. The referenced Study is also clear that as a result of demographic change nearly 11,200 dwellings are required to support a static level of employment. Housing growth is required to maintain existing levels of employment as a result of an aging population and more housing is required above the level required by population growth to support the Council’s aspirations for economic growth above historically achieved rates. No soundness risk is considered to be raised by the comments; no change to the Local Plan is consequently made.

2.989 Concern is raised with regard to the potential conflict between the proposed housing on the site of Policy BID09 and the operational farm (High Park Farm) to the south west of the allocation. It is suggested (plps 142 and 622) that the two uses are incompatible given the creation of noise and smell from the farm. This point was previously raised in response to the draft allocation in the consultation draft Local Plan 2013. No change was subsequently made to the Local Plan having regard to opinion from the Council’s Environmental Protection Team that the presence of the dairy farm should not represent a fundamental barrier to housing within Policy BID10 (now BID09). Additionally, specific activities may require a reasonable “buffer zone” such as livestock sheds, noisy plant, slurry pits etc. but it should be possible to manage this by controlling the proximity of new dwellings”.

2.990 The majority of the site is now subject to an outline planning application for a mixed use development including 550 dwellings. In the consideration of the planning application it is recognised that noise has been raised as an issue that needs to be addressed to make the development acceptable and avoid any prejudice to the neighbouring use. Accepting the issues raised through the application process the site remains to be regarded as suitable for development, with the recognition that mitigation measures may be required. The presence of a noise issue on an adjoining site is not

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

considered to fundamentally prejudice the site for development purposes. However, with recognition of the potential sensitivities between High Park Farm and the adjoining allocated site it is recommended that Policy BID09 is amended to reference mitigation measures required to avoid prejudicial conflict between the existing agriculture and future residential uses.

Other Matters

2.991 For consistency of Local Plan terminology, it is considered appropriate to reflect the recommended reference to comprehensive development as provided for in Policy BID01.

Conclusion

2.992 The comments made in response to Policy BID09: South of Clovelly Road raise a range of issues, the majority of which are not consider to challenge the soundness of the Publication Local Plan. Revision to Policy BID09 is considered necessary with regard to clarify that mitigation measures will be required to ensure the future compatibility of the housing focused allocation with the existing and adjoining farming operation. Additionally In the interest of consistency across the Local Plan amendment is recommended with regard to development being required to be delivered in a comprehensive manner.

Agreed Actions

1. The following are agreed Main Change to Policy BID09 with associated supporting text revisions:

a. amend Policy BID09 (2): The site will be developed in accordance with the following site specific development principles The site will be developed in accordance with a comprehensive master plan to deliver the following site specific development principles; (a) The development to be carried out in a comprehensive basis in accordance with the requirements and provisions of an agreed master plan; (renumber the following requirements).; and b. add to BID09(2) following (b) with subsequent renumbering: noise and odour mitigation measures as necessary to avoid a prejudicial impact on the future operation of High Park Farm.

New Policy BID10: Bideford Clovelly Road

2.993 Policy BID10 is a new policy; it was not included in the Publication Local Plan (June 2014) and thus not subject to consultation.

Consideration of New Policy

2.994 An employment site on the Clovelly Road Industrial Estate, Bideford is not currently protection for future employment use. The site, as shown on the attached map is fully within the built form of the settlement and forms an important corner site to the Clovelly Road Industrial Estate.

2.995 The site, which is subject to an extant planning permission, forms part of the Bideford employment land supply, as detailed in Table 10.4, the site is approximately 1.2 hectares; it is serviced in respect of access onto the site and represents the last significant area of undeveloped land at the Industrial Estate. The site has not however been identified on the Policies Map, which is an omission which represents an inconsistency within the Local Plan. To ensure the site is appropriately safeguarded for employment use it is recommended that the site is allocated for economic development and that the Policies map is revised to reflect the intended use.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Agreed Action

2.996 The following are agreed Main Change to the Local Plan:

1. Amend the Local Plan to include an additional policy with associated supporting text:

Policy BID10: Bideford Clovelly Road.

Land at the Clovelly Road Industrial Estate, extending to about 1.2 hectares and as defined on Policies Map 2 is allocated for economic development. The site will be developed in accordance with the following site specific development principle:

(a) vehicular access to be provided from the Clovelly Road Industrial Estate Road.

2. New supporting text:

The Clovelly Road Industrial estate is a strategic employment site with good accessibility to the strategic road network. The industrial estate together with Caddsdown Business Park, including its planned expansion and Atlantic Park provide an important commercial hub in support of the future growth of Bideford.

A site of 1.2 hectares, at the Clovelly Road Industrial estate is allocated for economic development, the achievement of which will complete the industrial estates development other than if undertaken as a result of intensification or redevelopment. The site is prominently located on a significant corner plot of the industrial estate which fronts onto Clovelly Road. The prominence of the site provides an opportunely for commercial uses which would benefit from a visible presence.

3. Amend Policies Map 2 to include Policy BID10 as applicable to the Clovelly Road Industrial Estate.

Town Strategies: Braunton and Wrafton

Comments made in response to Policy BRA: Braunton and Wrafton Spatial Vision and Development Strategy and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 12

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 1 2

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 1 2

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 3 ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on Braunton and Wrafton Spatial Strategy BRA: and supporting text plp number

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Land at Velator is in a sustainable location adjacent to the existing residential 791 development, well related to Braunton village centre. The technical constraints to development (flood risk, ecology, strategic landscape and access) can be successfully overcome through the delivery of a comprehensive scheme for new housing and open space uses.

Land to the north of Braunton should be included within the development boundary. 603 It is in sustainable location in relation to the village centre and is not within the floodplain.

Scope to extend the development boundary to include land around Chivenor Cross. 971, 312 The developable land in the area could be: Chivenor Business Park, Holders Nursery, Land north east of Chivenor Cross roundabout and Land to the south east of Chivenor Cross roundabout. The area has good sustainable transport connections.

The inclusion of sub-paragraph (k) is supported. SWW will need to confirm the 904 (EA) availability and adequacy of the sewer system and treatment facilities and work required to accommodate new development.

There is a risk in focussing on delivery of housing in one area of Braunton as if this 1858 large urban extension does not come forward as envisaged then this will have an impact on the delivery of much needed homes. Allocation of an additional site is needed to boost the supply of housing and to increase competition and choice. Land is being put forward between Boode Road and Ash Road which is well related to the existing built up area and no known constraints that could impede development.

Land east of South Park, Lower Park Road, Braunton should be included within the 2448, 2577 plan. It is easily deliverable, provides a sustainable site for housing and can be delivered at an early stage of the plan to meet a serious shortfall in housing supply. Community engagement has previously identified this land as one of the preferred site options for Braunton. It is a short walk to the primary school, community college and all weather sports facilities. It is easily deliverable without major infrastructure works and two spur roads already lead to the site boundaries. Highway issues could be resolved with a simple traffic calming scheme. This site would not significantly impact on the existing air pollution problem. We suggest that there is no issue to 'demonstrably outweigh the benefits' of developing this site. There is a serious deficit in the 5 year housing land supply. This site would make a significant contribution to meet this shortfall.

22 acres of land to the east of the village of Wrafton with road frontage to the A361 2444 Barnstaple to Braunton Road. Both commercial and residential planning permission to the south of the A361 between Wrafton and Chivenor, with these consents it would seem land to the north is eminently suitable for a potential development. There is a developer who has expressed interest in developing the site and the houses could be delivered in the near future with adequate open spaces and access off the A361 which would not effect the flow of traffic through Braunton.

Wrafton is separate from Braunton. As a separate village Wrafton needs to define 2706 its own development boundary and to determine its own appropriate level of growth.

Table 10.5 Housing Supply for Braunton & Wrafton

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

The proposed housing set out in the table for Braunton in our opinion are unlikely 2446 to be deliverable in the near future through economic reasons or their reliance on third parties to enter in to co-operation agreements and negotiate terms for those sites to be developed.

The unimplemented commitments of 86 dwellings include 22 dwellings at Velator 2576 Road. The planning consent for that site is for affordable housing as an ‘exceptions site’ which was first granted over 10 years ago. The permissions have never been implemented and it is highly likely on this basis that the current consent is unviable. Any proposal for market housing would almost certainly attract an objection from the Environment Agency given that the site is within the floodplain of the Velator Pill. We believe that the commitments figure in the Plan should not include these 22 dwellings and their inclusion to date indicates that the figure may be even more unreliable.

Site Proposals

Land at Velator Close, Exeter Road, Braunton (SHA/HPU/100) 791

Land off Corilhead Road, Braunton (SHA/BRA/154) 603

Land at Chivenor Cross (various SHLAA sites including HPU/095, HPU/471, 971, 312 HPU/475)

Land off Boode Road, Braunton (SHA/BRA/532) 1858

Field East of South Park, Lower Park Road, Braunton (SHA/BRA/108) 2448, 2577

Lands Part Wrafton Glebe, (SHA/HPU/099) 2444

Additional Information

C108329 : Residential Development, Land East of South Park, Braunton. Response sent.

58119 : Erection Of 12 Open Market & 4 Affordable Dwellings, BMX Track & School Learning Facility With Associated Roads, Infrastructure & Planting, Land Off Velator Close, Braunton. Decision Pending

56266 : Erection Of 12 Open Market & 4 Affordable Homes, Bmx Track & School Learning Facility With Associated Roads, Infrastructure & Planting (Additional Information & Amended Plans), Land Off Velator Close, Braunton . Refused 15-5-14

53145 : Extension Of Time Limit For Implementation Of Planning Permission 40693 For Erection Of 22 Affordable Dwellings, Land adj. 86 Velator Bridge, Braunton. Approved 3-5-12

54108 : Variation Of Condition 2 (Approved Plans), 13 (Garaging & Vehicle Parking) & Deed Of Variation To The S106 Agreement Attached To Planning Permission 53145 To Provide 12 Affordable & 11 Open Market Dwellings, Land adj. 86 Velator Bridge, Braunton. Approved 12-12-12

57649 : Variation Of Condition 2 (Approved Plans), 13 (Garaging & Vehicle Parking) Attached To Planning Permission 54108 To Provide 12 Affordable & 11 Open Market Dwellings (Amended Plans), Land adj. 86 Velator Bridge, Braunton. Approved subject to S106.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.997 A range of responses to the Braunton & Wrafton spatial strategy have been submitted, mainly around the promotion of additional housing sites in order to meet need.

2.998 It is accepted that Braunton is physically separated from Wrafton by a strategic green space.

2.999 However, functionally Braunton has strong links with surrounding villages including Knowle, Heanton Punchardon and Wrafton and it acts as a significant local service centre providing local shopping, education, healthcare, work, leisure and community facilities to those surrounding settlements. It would justify Wrafton being considered in conjunction with Braunton as complementary settlements, which could accommodate a proportion of their combined growth. The settlement hierarchy assessment (Dec 2012) identified neither Heanton Punchardon nor Chivenor as qualifying as Villages due to deficiency of community facilities. Consequently, Policy ST06 does not recognise Heanton Punchardon or Chivenor as identified settlement that can accommodate additional growth due to their limited services and facilities.

2.1000 Braunton and Wrafton is identified as a Main Centre in Policy ST06 that will support appropriate levels of growth that will increase the capacity of all towns to meet their own needs and those of surrounding communities where such is sought through the local vision. Braunton and Wrafton is proposed to contribute about 12% growth over the plan period, compared to higher housing growth strategy for the other recognised Main Centres in northern Devon. Consequently, compared to other Main Centres, Braunton and Wrafton has a lower level of housing growth, but it is not considered inadequate because Braunton and Wrafton have a number of landscape and environmental constraints. Issues include extensive flood risks, the great field and air quality concerns in the village centre that restrict development potential and justify a lesser number of housing being allocated. However, it is accepted that a number of the promoted sites are outside the recognised constraints of Braunton & Wrafton which could provide some additional housing if required.

2.1001 Due to these environmental constraints, housing development has been focussed in the other Main Centres of North Devon (Ilfracombe and South Molton) who wish to promote growth as well as in Barnstaple which is within the same housing sub-market as Braunton & Wrafton.

2.1002 Additional housing sites have been promoted, mainly by Planning Agents on behalf of the landowners. The promoted sites have been fully assessed by the SHLAA Panel and have been listed below with an indication of the SHLAA Panel’s recommendation. The address for each site can be cross-referenced on the list of promoted sites (above).

SHLAA Reference Panel Decision

SHA/HPU/100 Not Currently Developable

SHA/BRA/154 Not Currently Developable

SHA/HPU/095 Not Currently Developable

SHA/BRA/532 Not Currently Developable

SHA/HPU/471 and SHA/HPU/475 Developable

SHA/BRA/108 Developable

SHA/HPU/099 Developable

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

2.1003 A number of representations have promoted sites that are considered by the SHLAA Panel as ‘not currently developable’, mainly around reasons of flood risk and highway concerns. Also, the site off Velator Close (SHA/HPU/100) raises concerns that the land provides an important open landscape setting between Braunton and Wrafton and further development would erode this strategic gap. Unless circumstances change on these sites and where such changes have been re-assessed by the SHLAA Panel, then there is no intention to provide any further commentary on their inclusion within the Plan.

2.1004 In terms of the potential for land around Chivenor Cross (SHA/HPU/095, HPU/471 and HPU/475), it has been expressed previously that Chivenor has relatively few services and facilities which would justify the housing growth at Chivenor, although it is accepted that Policy BRA01 may set a precedent of merging these two separate settlements. BRA01 is a relatively self-contained site with clear defensible boundaries whereas development to the north would potentially erode the rural gap between Wrafton and Heanton Punchardon village. It is considered that additional housing west of Chivenor and north of A361 is not required during the Plan period unless it can be fully justified that this land will best meet the spatial strategy and vision for Braunton and Wrafton compared to Policy BRA01, which has the benefit of an outline planning permission for 150 dwellings and approximately 8 ha of land for economic uses. Other promoted sites closer to Braunton could provide some additional housing growth in more sustainable locations if required by the local community. The overall strategy for Braunton and Wrafton is in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, which underpins the NPPF.

2.1005 In terms of the remaining sites, the recommendation from the SHLAA Panel was that they are considered developable in principle. Whilst the additional promoted sites are developable, the strategy for Braunton & Wrafton has already been established through community consultation and alternative sites have been through a robust assessment prior to publication of the draft Local Plan. It is not considered necessary to allocate these additional sites. Additional residential development within the village is permitted where it meets the requirements of Policy ST19 (Affordable Housing on Exception Sites).

2.1006 A small number of representations have expressed concern that Table 10.5 will not deliver what is relied upon within plan period and additional housing sites will be required in Braunton & Wrafton to meet the level of need proposed in the Plan. The representations have indicated that the figures of 97 (commitments) and 64 (non allocated developable sites) cannot be relied upon. It is considered the existing commitments (97) are deliverable as these are sites already within the planning system which are either under construction or with an extant planning permission, where a discounting rate has already been applied. In terms of unimplemented planning permissions, the figure is 46 and not the 86 as indicated by the representation.

2.1007 As noted above under ‘Additional Information’, in December 2012 the site at Velator for 22 dwellings has been approved through a deed of variation to the S106 Agreement attached to planning permission 53145 to provide 12 affordable & 11 open market dwellings (23 units) in recognition of the need to address issues around flooding and viability. Therefore, as the site has an extant planning permission for 23 dwellings, a form of development that is now viable in principle, it is considered the site is justified as being identified as an unimplemented commitment. Also, it is worth noting that the unimplemented commitments have already had a 15% non-implementation discount applied to reflect that not all sites with planning permission will be delivered. This level of discount rate is not considered unreasonable but a realistic approach to non-implementation endorsed by the SHLAA panel.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

2.1008 The LPA is satisfied the other non allocated developable sites have been tested through the SHLAA Panel and are consider developable within the Plan period. Unless evidence is presented that would indicate some or all of the sites are not developable, the current recommendations from the SHLAA Panel are considered up to date and relevant.

2.1009 The response from the Environment Agency supporting recognition within the spatial strategy to improve and mitigate against any adverse harm on water quality in the rivers and estuary (criterion k) is noted and welcomed. SWW have confirmed the current availability and adequacy of the sewer system and treatment facilities. The need for improvements arising from the recent planning permission at Chivenor were resolved through the planning application. Policy ST23: Infrastructure will require other developments to provide or contribute towards the timely provision of infrastructure made necessary by the specific and/or cumulative impact of those developments either through on-site provision or an off- site contribution. It is therefore considered the issue of capacity of the sewer system and treatment facilities should be resolved through negotiation as part of any future planning application(s). It is not an issue for the Local Plan.

Other Matters

2.1010 Braunton has recently prepared a ‘Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP)’. The report was prepared by the consultancy Jacobs who modelled the Braunton valley to establish the issues and likely costs of any future works. It is recommended the Plan should make reference to the flooding issues in Braunton and Wrafton in the ‘Spatial Vision and Development Strategy’ as well recognition of the SWMP within paragraph 10.155.

2.1011 Criterion (j) should be deleted to avoid duplicating Policy ST05 which has been amended to include the principles of sustainable design and construction, including a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, to reflect the Housing Standards Review.

2.1012 Amendment to the pre-fix to the housing numbers is recommended to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of” through Policy ST08: Scale and Distribution of New Development in Northern Devon.

2.1013 The figures in Table 10.5 need updating to reflect an additional non-allocated developable site (Westmead) for 4 dwellings and a corrected figure for unimplemented consents (50 rather than 46 dwellings).

Conclusion

2.1014 Several issues were raised through representations received, but none are considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan. However, a main change is proposed to clarify wording and intentions of the strategy.

Agreed Actions

1. The following are agreed as Main Changes to Policy BRA:

a. Amend Criterion (g) of the strategy to be more explicit in terms of recognising the need for improved linkages between Braunton and . Amended wording could read “support for initiatives that provide opportunities for new tourism, leisure and recreation facilities including improved cycle and pedestrian linkages between Braunton and Saunton”.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

b. Add new criterion (k) to recognise the flooding issues in Braunton and Wrafton. New criterion to read “enhancement of existing flood defences and associated flood risk mitigation measures to address flooding issues in the villages”. c. Delete criterion (j).

2. Undertake the following Main Changes: a. Add Westmead to Table 10.5 as a identified non allocated developable housing sites. b. Update the figure for unimplemented commitments in Table 10.5. c. Amend criterion (a) of Policy BRA to reflect these higher housing numbers with a change from “approximately 382” to “a minimum of 390”. d. Amend criterion (b) of Policy BRA from 64 to show 68 non allocated developable sites. e. Amend paragraph 10.159 and Policy ST08 and associated tables consequential of the above agreed Main Changes.

3. The following is agreed as a Minor Change to paragraph 10.155 by adding: a. Existing flood risks will be addressed through enhancement of existing flood defences, including through the surface water management plan.

Comments made in response to Policy BRA01: Wrafton South Eastern Extension and the associated supporting text:

Total Number of Responses 3

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 1 ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” ~ ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy BRA01: and supporting text plp number

Generally supports Policy BRA01 : Wrafton South Eastern Extension but objects to 98 part of the site being proposed for a park and change facility.

BRA01 – Wrafton South Eastern Extension. I broadly support the proposal to 1389 concentrate Braunton’s new houses in this single area, rather than a more piecemeal approach. However I am extremely concerned that the impact on local roads, which are already greatly over-capacity, has not been sufficiently mitigated.

Object that the allocation covers a vast area and would result in the urbanisation of 1901 an extensive area of open countryside, well outside the defined limits of development. The A361 already operating close to capacity.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Additional Information

55214 : Outline Application For Employment-Led Mixed Use Development Including Access & Phase 1 Link Road With All Other Matters Reserved, Comprising: Employment Development Up To 2.24 Hectares For B1 Business Use & Up To 5.98 Ha For B2/B8 General Industrial, Storage & Industrial Use; Residential Development Up To 150 Dwellings; 400 Sqm Multi-Purpose Hub Comprising A1, A3, A5, D1 & D2 Uses; Roundabout With A361, Access Roads & On-Site Vehicle, Cycle & Pedestrian Circulation Routes; Park & Ride Car Park; Open Space & Hard / Soft Landscape & All Associated Infrastructure Works, Land at Chivenor Cross, South-East of Wrafton, Chivenor. Approved 9-10-14

58319 : Approval Of Details In Respect Of Discharge Of Condition 6 (List Of Exempt Infrastructure & Site Preparation Works ) Attached To Planning Permission 55214. Decision Pending

58321 : Application For Approval Of Details Discharge Of Condition 10 (Engineering Details- Traffic Island & Controlled Crossing) & Condition 11 (Engineering Details - Spine Road & Highway Drains) Attached To Planning Permission 55214, Land at Chivenor Cross, South-East of Wrafton, Chivenor. Decision Pending

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.1015 The support in relation to Policy BRA01 is noted and welcomed, although the representations have expressed concern regarding the proposal for a ‘park and change facility’, the potential impact on the local highway network and the urbanisation of an extensive area of open countryside.

2.1016 The principle of a strategic development on this site is considered acceptable as the proposal meets the ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’, a fundamental principle of the NPPF. The NPPF also states at paragraph 52, ‘the supply of new homes can be best achieved through planning for larger scale development, such as new settlements or extensions to existing villages and towns’ and ‘LPAs should consider whether such opportunities provide the best way of achieving sustainable development’. Delivering a comprehensive mixed use development through Policy BRA01 will help to deliver serviced employment land and the necessary physical and community infrastructure required in the village. It is not considered the development of this site would be ‘urbanisation of an extensive area of open countryside, well outside the defined limits of development’ but a strategic urban extension along a principal highway with good connectivity to the Tarka Trail and well related to the main built up areas of Braunton & Wrafton. It also avoids alternative sites vulnerable to flood risks and impacts on the air quality of Braunton village centre.

2.1017 The Braunton & Wrafton Spatial Vision and Development Strategy recognises the current traffic issues within the centre of Braunton by seeking to improve traffic management in order to reduce congestion and improve air quality in Braunton village centre, which is further clarified in criterion (h) of the strategy. It is considered that part of the solution to address traffic issues along the A361 corridor from Braunton to Barnstaple was to develop part of Policy BRA01 to a ‘park and change’ facility in order to facilitate use of existing public transport links in to Braunton village centre and for access to the Tarka Trail. Criterion 3(c) of Policy BRA01 also seeks to establish new footpath and cycleway access points on to the Tarka Trail to facilitate increased use of non-car modes in to the village centre. It is not accepted that such a facility is not appropriate to be delivered as part of Policy BRA01.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Other Matters

2.1018 The first criterion 1(c) should be amended to 1(b). Criteria (f) and (g) should be deleted to avoid duplicating Policy ST05 which has been amended to include the principles of sustainable design and construction, including a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, to reflect the Housing Standards Review.

Conclusion

2.1019 Several issues were raised through representations received, but none are considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan.

Agreed Actions

1. Deletion of criteria (f) and (g) are agreed as Main Changes.

2. The following is agreed as a Minor Change. a. first criterion 1(c) should be amended to 1(b).

Comments made in response to Policy BRA02: Wrafton Glebefield and the associated supporting text:

Total Number of Responses 1

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” ~ ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy BRA02: and supporting text plp number

The site at Wrafton Glebefield has been allocated for residential development in 2574 previous local plans (over a period likely to exceed 30 years) without a deliverable planning permission ever being granted. The requirement for the access to the housing site to share the access to Perrigo Pharmaceutical Company, has proven to be an insurmountable constraint during this time. The evidence points overwhelmingly to there being far too much uncertainty over the delivery of this site and its proposed allocation fails the tests of soundness.

Additional Information

52823 : Extension Of Time Limit For Implementation Of Outline Planning Permission 28208 - Extension To Existing Industrial Premises (Amended Plans In Relation To Highway/Junction Works Only). Approved 21/12/12

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.1020 The site at Wrafton Glebefield has been reviewed by the SHLAA Panel and considered to be developable in principle for approximately 50 dwellings. However, there is concern regarding viability and deliverability due mainly to the required access arrangements to the site over Rectory Close Cross. The Plan is clear that any new access onto the A361 would increase the existing number of junctions on this busy section of the main road so development should seek to improve the existing junction at Rectory Close Cross to accommodate any increased traffic generation. This general principle has previously been supported at appeal under planning application 31743. As noted above, the Plan is not specific as to how the junction with Rectory Close Cross should be upgraded, therefore alternative solutions to meet the highway authority’s requirements would be facilitated. It is considered the issue around access will need to be agreed between the respective developer(s) of BRA01, Perrigo and the Church Commissioners in order to deliver an appropriate highway solution. No amendment to the Local Plan is required.

Conclusion

2.1021 This representation is not considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan.

Agreed Action

1. No change to Policy BRA02 of the Local Plan is agreed in response to the issues raised through consultation.

Comments made in response to Paragraph 10.166 – Chivenor Business Park

Total Number of Responses 1

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” ~ ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on Paragraph 10.166 – Chivenor Business Park plp number

Concerned that Chivenor Business Park is recognised as being suitable for 2304 un-neighbourly uses. We are rejecting poor quality and dirty businesses, they will be all gone, please keep up the standards we wish to achieve and promote use as a desirable centre, not undesirable.

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.1022 It is accepted the current owner of Chivenor Business Park has aspirations to upgrade the existing site and premises. Such an aspiration for the business park is recognised by paragraph 10.166 where it states ‘proposals that enhance business opportunities or the attractiveness of the site will be supported with enhanced levels of assistance offered by the Assisted Areas status’. However, the supporting text in the plan also encourages unneighbourly types of business uses which may not foster the aspiration to create a high quality business park. Whilst unneighbourly uses could

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

still be located at Chivenor Business Park, if considered acceptable by the landowner, such provision should not be encouraged through the Local Plan and such uses would be judged on a range of alternative sites on their own merits alongside amenity considerations (Policy DM01) as part of any future planning application.

Conclusion

2.1023 A single issue has been raised through representations received, but is not considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan. However, a minor amendment is required to paragraph 10.166 to delete unneighbourly uses.

Agreed Action

1. The following is agreed as a Minor Change to Paragraph 10.166: a. The amended paragraph 10.166 should read ‘Chivenor Business Park is occupied by a range of industrial uses. The site is potentially suitable for unneighbourly types of business uses requiring a location relatively isolated from residential properties, although it remains in close proximity to properties on RMB Chivenor. The business park has a degraded appearance and requires environmental enhancement, as well as improvements to the existing narrow site access from the A361 which crosses over the Tarka Trail. Proposals that enhance business opportunities or the attractiveness of the site will be supported with enhanced levels of assistance offered by the Assisted Area status.’

Comments made in response to Paragraph 10.169 – Village Centre

Total Number of Responses 1

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” ~ ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on Paragraph 10.169 – Village Centre plp number

The popular Saunton Sands beach and Hotel still does not have a bus shelter or 2434 anything to assist people crossing the busy road to the bus stop. How many decades should it take to resolve this and why wasn’t it done 20+ years ago? There has been an increase in car parking in Croyde in recent years, accessed inevitably via Braunton. At Braunton a Nitrogen Dioxide problem area has been declared but the council seems to have no intention of doing anything progressive about it. In Braunton there is often inbound congestion from Barnstaple but there does not appear to have been any investigation of installing a bus lane to allow the buses to get past the queuing traffic.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.1024 As noted above in response to Policy BRA01, the Braunton and Wrafton Spatial Strategy already recognises the need to improve traffic management and air quality in Braunton village centre, which is further referenced at paragraph 10.169. Detailed proposals to overcome these issues should also be considered as part of the ‘Air Quality Management Plan’ in consultation with Devon County Council as the local highway authority. The Plan makes it clear that any proposals to improve traffic management and circulation within and around the village to help address air quality issues will be supported in principle.

2.1025 Part of the solution to overcome poor air quality in the village centre, as identified previously by Braunton Parish Council, is to consider a bypass to the south of the village as a potential longer-term option, which could include a bus lane. Such local support has been recognised in paragraph 10.169 of the Plan although there is concern that any scheme is unlikely to be deliverable without an identified capital funding stream. If the Air Quality Management Plan favours this approach then its deliverability and funding would need to be clarified.

2.1026 Any future proposal for a bypass through the Great Field would have an adverse impact on its historic integrity. However, it is not considered the existing road network through the village centre could facilitate a dedicated bus lane to pass the queuing traffic, due mainly to the existing tight street pattern and surrounding heritage constraints.

2.1027 The response regarding the lack of a bus shelter near Saunton Beach or anything to assist people crossing the busy road to the bus stop is noted. Whilst this level of detail is not for the Local Plan to resolve it should be noted that Policy ST10 (Transport Strategy) would support ‘developing quality public and community transport networks (and supporting infrastructure) within and between Barnstaple and Bideford and the networks linking these centres to northern Devon’s main towns and

2.1028 rural communities’ (criterion 2(b)) and ‘maximising safety on transport networks through improvements to physical infrastructure design’ (criterion 3(f)). It is considered that this type of infrastructure provision would be delivered by the local highway authority or parish council. Therefore, the Local Plan should not address this matter.

Conclusion

2.1029 The spatial strategy and the policies would not be unsound if a Braunton bypass is not delivered, but identifying support reflects local aspirations. The issues raised through the representations received are not considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan.

Agreed Action

1. No change to Paragraph 10.169 of the Local Plan is agreed in response to the issues raised through consultation.

Comments made in response to Policy BRA03: Local Green Spaces and the associated supporting text:

Total Number of Responses 2

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” ~ ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy BRA03: and supporting text plp number

Supports the protection of the Braunton Great Field within Policy BRA02(2), but in 99 order to protect the area, some provision will need to be made to restrict vehicle traffic along the lanes around the Great Field.

There is a contradiction between Policy BRA (2) and paragraph 10.169 regarding 1296 (DCC) the protection of Braunton Great Field. Construction of a bypass to the south west of the village is likely to have an impact upon the AONB and Braunton Great Field. Great weight should be given to the protection of the Great Field and any substantial impact upon it significance should be “wholly exceptional” - as per para 132 of the NPPF. In addition to environmental impacts delivering a bypass is not likely to be viable; DCC does not consider providing a bypass within Braunton a realistic option during this plan period.

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.1030 The support for the protection of Braunton Great Field is noted and welcomed although the Plan cannot restrict vehicle traffic along the lanes around the Great Field. The routes around the Great Field are minor collector roads owned and maintained as public highway by DCC. Paragraph 10.171 makes it clear that Braunton Great Field is not protected by any formal statutory protection or heritage designation but is nationally important as one of the few remaining medieval open field systems. The potential closure or restriction over the public highway around the field system would be considered unrelated to the site’s designation and would provide no benefit.

2.1031 The reference made by DCC to paragraph 132 of the NPPF is noted. The paragraph states ‘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. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. Although the Great Field has no formal statutory protection or heritage designation the Plan does recognise its national importance as one of the few remaining medieval open field systems. Paragraph 132 continues ‘as heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification’.

2.1032 Whilst the Plan supports in principle the local community’s desire for a bypass to the south-west of the village, at no point does it advocate that such a route should go through the existing Great Field as it has been recognised previously that would have an adverse impact on its historic integrity. It is also accepted that the delivery of a bypass is not likely to be deliverable or viable without identified capital funding streams from DCC. However, by recognising the local community support for a bypass in the Plan will allow the opportunity to explore all potential options to achieve a bypass for Braunton to help address the air quality issues in the village centre, including the potential to improve traffic circulation over existing highways.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Conclusion

2.1033 Several issues were raised through representations received, but none are considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan.

Agreed Action

1. No change to Policy BRA03 or supporting text of the Local Plan is agreed in response to the issues raised through consultation.

Comments made in response to Paragraph 10.175

Total Number of Responses 2

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” ~ ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on Paragraph 10.175 plp number

There should be a footpath/cycleway from the football pitch at Lobb, directly to 638, 1320 Braunton Burrows and the beach beyond. At some point it would join/cross the coastal footpath. Cycle link suggested between Saunton and Braunton connecting to the Tarka Trail.

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.1034 Paragraph 10.175 already recognises support for opportunities to improve pedestrian and cycle links between Braunton and Wrafton, Braunton Burrows and Saunton Beach avoiding the main road. This is further supported by Policy ST10: Transport Strategy (criterion 2(d)) which seeks to ‘develop quality strategic recreational routes and local pedestrian, cycle and bridleway networks and further integration and enhancement of the public rights of way network’. The identification of a suitable route and provision of new or improved cycle / pedestrian routes would be led by the local highway authority. This issue is already considered under responses to Policy BRA: Braunton and Wrafton Spatial Vision and Development Strategy, with a recommendation to amend criterion (g) by ‘including improved cycle and pedestrian linkages between Braunton and Saunton’. This complements existing wording within paragraph 10.75.

Conclusion

2.1035 A single issue was raised through representations received, but none are considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan.

Agreed Action

1. No change to Paragraph 10.175 of the Local Plan is agreed in response to the issues raised through consultation.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Comments made in response to Map 3 Braunton and Wrafton (Policies Map)

Total Number of Responses 2

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” ~ ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on Map 3 Braunton and Wrafton (Policies Map) plp number

Map shows a proposal currently being discussed with Natural England, Environment 1315 Agency and Biosphere as to how the transformation of Velator marshes into an enhanced biodiversity area / wildfowl reserve can be supported by appropriate supporting development i.e. some kind of eco-tourism attraction.

Suggested cycle link between Saunton and Braunton connecting with Tarka Trail. 1322

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.1036 Land at Velator, west of the river Caen and RMB Chivenor, is proposed for a wildfowl and wetland area that would not require a change to the existing development boundary. The site has good access to the Tarka Trail and and would provide a new tourism facility enhancing biodiversity in the area and improving green infrastructure links. The ancillary uses incorporating a visitor centre and reserve centre / accommodation would be considered under policies ST13: Sustainable Tourism, DM17: Tourism and Leisure Attractions and DM18: Tourism Accommodation. The general principle of the proposal is supported and recognised in paragraph 10.176 under green infrastructure. Such a proposal would be acceptable under existing policies without needing the site to be formally allocated. No map change is considered necessary.

2.1037 As discussed previously, a new cycle / pedestrian link between Saunton / Braunton and the Tarka Trail is already supported in the Plan. It is not considered necessary to identify a proposed route in order to allow a degree of flexibility on delivery. No map change is considered necessary.

Conclusion

2.1038 Two issues were raised through representations received, but neither is considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan.

Agreed Action

1. No change to Map 3 Braunton and Wrafton (Policies Map) of the Local Plan is agreed in response to the issues raised through consultation.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Town Strategies: Fremington and Yelland

Comments made in response to Policy FRE: Fremington and Yelland Spatial Vision and Development Strategy and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 10

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ 2

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ 2

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 2 ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on Fremington and Yelland Spatial Vision and Development Strategy plp number FRE: and supporting text

Fremington/Yelland rightly a Local Centre. Land at Barn Park should be within 599 the development boundary and could meet identified housing.

Land at Sampson Close should be within the development boundary. It would be 602 able to meet the identified housing need for the village and contribute to the identified shortfall in the 5 year housing land supply.

The Fremington primary school is at capacity with expansion potential. If current 1298 (DCC) planning applications and proposed growth is achieved it will be difficult to accommodate pupils within the existing school, even taking possible expansion into account.

Disappointed with strategy - not taking into account residents views. Nearly all 1531 the residents of Fremington and Yelland are against the building of houses or Industrial units on the unspoiled (so far) estuary area North of the B3233.

Consider that the reliance on non-strategic / non-allocated sites to deliver 25% 1803 of housing requirement in Fremington is inappropriate, as delivery is uncertain and could result in under deliver against housing target. Advocate the identification of sites capable of delivering potential shortfall including site South of Wesway (see plan).

Paragraph 10.180. Emphasise the cumulative effect of development on SSSI bird 2016, 2024 assemblages and require developers to include over-wintering bird surveys with (NE) applications. Amend FRE (d): roosts outside the SSSI boundary should be protected.

2428

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

The latest version of the Plan does not identify the site for any particular function or allocation for any development type. However, in the Joint Core Strategy Pre-Publication, January 2010 the land that is the subject of the proposals was part of a much larger site for development.

There is concern as to whether the strategic policies of the adopted Local Plan can deliver or meet i) the housing needs of the District and ii) objectives of national planning policy as contained in the NPPF particularly given the current position regarding housing land supply. The key is to establish where development may best be accommodated to address the deficiency in terms of housing land supply. This must be balanced against whether the proposal contributes towards creating sustainable patterns of development.

It is clear that West Yelland has a close relationship with the villages of Fremington and Instow which has a range of services and facilities and is within close proximity to Barnstaple which is the key urban centre in North Devon. That being the case then it considered appropriate to assess whether the site in question is suitable. The Council has previously identified this site for development as part of a much wider scheme. It must have determined that it was suitable.

Supports the current development boundary around West Yelland which excludes 2419, 2425 land to the north of the B3233.

Table 10.7 Housing Supply for Fremington and Yelland

Agree that settlement of Fremington/Yelland is of sufficient size and benefits from 2560 a range of services so as to be allocated a specific housing allocation of 426 over the Plan period (the only local centre to be so). The majority of this total allocation is for 277 dwellings at the former Fremington Army Camp (Policy FRE01). The remainder of the 426 are proposed to come forward from a small number of other non-allocated development sites.

One of these sites is the Strongvox controlled site at the Green, Fremington (Local Plan ref Land adj. The Green, Chilpark) which is expected to deliver some 18 units over the Plan period. This site was considered favourably by the SHLAA for a total of 21 units. We agree with this assessment and consider that the site has strong sustainable credentials and is a site that can be brought forward and delivered within the next 5 years.

We consider that Fremington is a highly sustainable location and is worthy of its higher level of growth when compared to other Local Centres across the plan area. It is considered the overall allocation at Fremington could be increased further as there are further opportunities for growth within the existing settlement limits that if brought forward would assist in strengthening the village’s existing role as a local centre which offers education, employment, recreation and community facilities.

Site Proposals

Land at Barn Park Road, Fremington (SHA/FRE/398) 599

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Land off Sampsons Plantation, Fremington (SHA/FRE/397) 602

Land South of Westaway, Old School Lane, Fremington ( SHLAA SHA/FRE/146) 1803

Land adjacent the B3233, West Yelland (SHA/FRE/151) 2428

The Green, Chilpark, Fremington (SHA/FRE/188) 2560

Table 2.61

Additional Information

58192 : Erection Of 14 Bungalows Including Landscaping, Provision Of Parking and A Vehicular and Pedestrian Access. The Green, Chilpark, Fremington. Pending Decision

57571 : Erection Of 17 Residential Dwellings Including 5 Affordable Units, Together With Parking, Access and Landscaping. Land South of Barn Park Road, Fremington. Withdrawn 23-9-14

50265 : Outline Application For 43 Dwellings Together With Associated Access, Parking and Landscaping (Amended Drawings and Red Outline). Land South of Yelland Road (Sampsons), Fremington. Pending Decision

57663 : Outline Application For Up To 135 Dwellings Plus Infrastructure Including The Creation Of A Vehicular Access To B3233, Provision Of Open Space, Landscaping, Allotments, Ponds and Other Associated Development – All Matters Reserved Except Access (Amended Details Received Relating To A Revised Position For The Access, Associated Drawings And A Further Addendum To The Environmental Statement). Land adjacent the B33233, West Yelland. Pending Decision

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.1039 A range of responses to the Fremington and Yelland spatial strategy have been submitted, mainly around the promotion of additional housing sites in order to meet need.

2.1040 Devon County Council are concerned that the current housing growth proposed for Fremington and Yelland will take the existing primary school over capacity and to alleviate this some expansion will be required. DCC are concerned over proposed housing growth through current planning applications extant permissions and the potential impact these developments may have on the primary school if all are approved. Policy ST23: Infrastructure will require developments to provide or contribute towards the timely provision of infrastructure made necessary by the specific and/or cumulative impact of those developments either through on-site provision or an off-site contribution. These issues should be resolved through negotiation as part of current planning applications. However, it is accepted that criterion (l) of the spatial strategy should include reference to “enhanced primary education provision through the expansion of the existing school”.

2.1041 Natural England is concerned that the cumulative effect of growth in Fremington and Yelland will have an adverse impact on the bird population along the Taw and Torridge Estuary. In their opinion the Plan should recognise the need for developers to include over-wintering bird surveys with applications. As the Plan should be read as a whole, it is considered there is adequate protection afforded to biodiversity value of existing habitats within Policies ST09 (Coast and Estuary Strategy) and ST14 (Enhancing Environmental Assets) which seek to protect and enhance the natural environment. This requirement is too specific for the Local Plan to include. The Wildlife Trigger List submitted with all planning applications requires sites over 0.1 hectares to provide an ecological assessment, which would assess potential impacts on roosting birds. These issues should be resolved

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

through negotiation as part of current and future planning applications. However, it is accepted that criterion (d) of Policy FRE could recognise the importance of, and need to protect, sites for roosting birds between the estuary and the B3233.

2.1042 One representation is concerned that Policy FRE does not take in to account the views of local residents. Whilst this may be the view of this particular individual, it is considered the spatial vision and development strategy for Fremington and Yelland has been prepared with extensive engagement in direct partnership with the local community including through consultation with the Parish Council and previous public consultation. The Plan does not allocate land for housing north of the B3233; the current application at West Yelland has been submitted beyond identified sites and the proposed development boundary based on the fact North Devon does not have ‘a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide 5 years worth of housing against housing requirements in the Plan’ as required by paragraph 47 of the NPPF. The lack of a 5 year land supply is not disputed. It should also be noted that two representors have supported the exclusion of any housing development north of the B3233. It is accepted that Policy FRE02(2) does allocate approximately 8 hectares of employment land, although with the current oversupply of land for economic uses in the Plan, this site could be deleted.

2.1043 In the draft Core Strategy for northern Devon (2010), West Yelland was identified as an option for growth in order to help meet some of Barnstaple’s needs required by the draft RSS for the South West incorporating Proposed Changes; a housing requirement of 10,900 in North Devon with a high requirement for the greater Barnstaple area (7,200 dwellings). The draft RSS has been revoked by the Secretary of State (20th May 2013) and the evidence that underpinned the housing requirement is now considered out of date. The Local Plan has identified 16,469 dwellings for North Devon and Torridge and the SHMA is currently being reviewed with more up-to-date population projections. The delivery of housing across both North Devon and Torridge will be considered further under responses to Policy ST08 (Scale and Distribution of New Development in Northern Devon).

2.1044 Fremington village has a range of services and community facilities whereas Yelland has relatively few, which would justify the housing growth being allocated towards Fremington and not Yelland. Fremington also has the large previously developed army camp site, which has an extant planning permission for 277 dwellings, approximately 65% of the required housing growth proposed for Fremington and Yelland. West Yelland’s previous proposed growth, which had been proposed through the draft Core Strategy, would have delivered a new focus for community facilities and would have facilitated Yelland becoming more sustainable but this growth strategy is not one that is supported by the local community. It is considered the overall strategy for Fremington and Yelland is in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, which underpins the NPPF.

2.1045 In addition to the housing proposed for Fremington and Yelland in the Local Plan, including the current site allocation at the former army camp, additional housing sites have been promoted on behalf of the landowner. The promoted sites have been fully assessed by the SHLAA Panel are listed below with an indication of the SHLAA Panel’s recommendation. The address for each site can be cross-referenced on the list of promoted sites (above).

SHLAA Reference Panel Decision

SHA/FRE/146 Not Currently Developable

SHA/FRE/151 Developable

SHA/FRE/188 Developable

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

SHA/FRE/397 Developable

SHA/FRE/398 Developable

2.1046 One representation has promoted a site to the south of Westaway (SHA/FRE/146) that has been considered by the SHLAA Panel as ‘not currently developable’, mainly around highway concerns along Old School Lane. A site ‘not currently developable’ should not be identified.

2.1047 In terms of the remaining sites, the Panel’s assessment was that they were all ’developable’ in principle. Whilst the additional promoted sites are developable, and several have been or are currently subject to decisions on planning applications, the strategy for Fremington and Yelland has already been established through community consultation and alternative sites have been through a robust assessment prior to publication of the Local Plan. Additional residential development within Fremington and Yelland is permitted where it meets the requirements of Policy ST19 (Affordable Housing on Exception Sites).

2.1048 A representation has expressed support for Table 10.7 to the recognition of The Green, Chilpark as a non allocated developable site to meet some of the housing supply for Fremington and Yelland during the Plan period. The representation has also indicated that the site will deliver housing within the next 5 years, which is further supported by a current planning application for 14 dwellings being considered (58192). They also consider Fremington and Yelland to be a highly sustainable location worthy of its higher level of growth when compared to other Local Centres across the plan area. It is considered the overall allocation at Fremington could be increased as there are further opportunities for growth within the existing settlement limits that if brought forward would assist in strengthening the village’s existing role as a local centre which offers education, employment, recreation and community facilities.

2.1049 It is recognised at paragraph 4.9 of the Plan that Fremington and Yelland can deliver significant sustainable growth by virtue of their location between Barnstaple and Bideford and the availability of strategic sites; the settlements are consequently included in the Town Strategies section of the Local Plan, although Fremington and Yelland is identified as a Local Centre in Policy ST07. However, Fremington and Yelland is considered a Main Town in terms of its growth strategy as it is already providing a higher level of housing growth than that implied by its status as a Local Centre; this level of growth recognises its sustainable location and one of the largest brownfield sites in North Devon (former Fremington Army Camp).

2.1050 Whilst it is accepted that Fremington is located in a sustainable location that could accommodate more housing if required, the growth strategy for the settlement has been agreed and any additional housing sites outside the development boundary will be considered against other policies in the Plan.

Other Matters

2.1051 Criteria (f) and (g) should be deleted to avoid duplicating Policy ST05 which has been amended to include the principles of sustainable design and construction, including a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, to reflect the Housing Standards Review.

2.1052 Amendment to the prefix to the housing numbers is recommended to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of” through Policy ST08: Scale and Distribution of New Development in Northern Devon.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Conclusion

2.1053 Several issues were raised through representations received, but none are considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan. However, a main change is proposed to clarify wording and intentions of a particular paragraph or the strategy.

Agreed Actions

1. The following are agreed Main Changes to Policy FRE: a. Amend criterion (l) of the strategy by adding “and enhanced primary education provision through the expansion of the existing school”. b. Amend criterion (d) of the strategy to recognise the need for protecting bird roosts outside the SSSI. Amended wording to read “enhancement of the environmental green buffer and protection of the open landscape character between Fremington, Yelland and the Taw-Torridge estuary in order to support local green infrastructure and biodiversity networks including protection of bird roosting areas adjoining the SSSI with improved access to the Tarka Trail. c. Delete criterion (f) and (g). d. Add new criterion (m) “support for initiatives to improve and mitigate against any harm to water quality in the estuary”. e. Amend criterion (a) to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of” 426 dwellings.

2. The following is agreed as a Main Change to paragraph 10.186: a. Amend “about” to “a minimum of” 426 dwellings.

Comments made in response to Policy FRE01: Fremington Army Camp and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 3

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 1 ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 1 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1 ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy FRE01: and supporting text plp number

Not averse in principle to redevelopment. Sites historic value needs to be assessed 1226 (EH) and assets safeguarded.

Support principle of development. Access arrangements unacceptable. 1390

To be positively prepared, the Local Plan requires amendment such that both 775 Policy FRE01 and paragraph 10.189 specifically identify or refer to the former military buildings to be retained for community use, as described in the planning permission, namely Building 60 and the Miniature Range Building.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Additional Information

53147: Residential Development Of 277 Dwellings With Associated Public Space, Affordable Housing, Recreational Facilities, Landscaping and Access following the Demolition of Existing Buildings, and the Refurbishment of 2 Former Military Buildings for Community Uses (Amended Plans and Supporting Documents) (Further Amended Information Relating To Changes To Key Buildings, Character Area 2 and Signalised Junction (Additional Plans Regarding Amended Access Plans and Road Safety Audit). Appeal Allowed July 2013

56690: Approval Of Details In Respect Of Discharge Of Condition 21 (Play Area) and 26 (Roads, Footpath, Verges, Visibility Splays) attached to planning permission 53147 (APP/X1118/A/12/2188898). Decision Pending

57519: Variation Of Condition 2 (Approved Plans) Attached To Planning Permission 53147 (APP/X1118/A/12/2188898) To Allow For Minor Alteration To Access Road (Military Road) (Additional Information). Approved 24-10-14

57565: Application For A Non-Material Amendment To Planning Permission 56690 (APP/X1118/A/12/2188898) In Respect Of An Additional 3 Parking Spaces To South Of The Development. Approved 24-06-14

58362: Application For Approval Of Details Reserved by Condition in Respect of Discharging of Conditions 3 (Phasing), 4 (Construction Management Plan), 6 (Ground Investigation), 21 (Lap and Leap), 23 (Lighting Strategy), 25 (Engineering Works), 26 (Construction Details) attached to planning permission 57519. Decision Pending

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.1054 The general support for the development from the representations is noted, although it is accepted there have been some concerns raised around protection of the heritage assets and access arrangements. Planning permission has now been granted for the erection of 277 dwellings including necessary infrastructure, open spaces and community facilities. It is considered appropriate to retain the policy in case alternative or amended applications are submitted.

2.1055 The issue regarding the objection from English Heritage is noted. However, Policy FRE01(2b) has already been strengthened to recognise the site’s heritage assets to ensure any development retains the listed buildings and protects their setting on site whilst ensuring protection of the character and appearance of the conservation area. A cross reference to Policy ST15 (Conserving Heritage Assets) has already been added to paragraph 10.189. The relevant detail on how this very important issue would have been resolved through negotiation as part of the planning application (53147) which was allowed on appeal. If any amended scheme is submitted then the existing policy FRE01 and heritage policies elsewhere in the plan would consider any potential impact on the heritage assets. It is also worth noting that the allocation of sites within the Local Plan was partly informed by the Council’s in house ‘Heritage Assets Assessment’ evidence base which identified and assessed the particular significance of the heritage asset that may be affected by the proposal and appropriate criteria included to avoid or mitigate against any harm to the heritage asset as advocated by the NPPF. It is accepted the supporting text at paragraph 10.189 could make reference to the military buildings to be retained as part of the planning approval 53147.

2.1056 Whilst access concerns formed a fundamental part of the planning application, the development was approved at appeal by the Planning Inspectorate who considered the existing access route was acceptable subject to traffic management measures being delivered. However, it

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

should be noted that paragraph 10.190 includes some appropriate wording that would allow a suitable alternative option for vehicular access to the site if the developer were to consider other access arrangements.

Other Matters

2.1057 Criterion (i) should be deleted to avoid duplicating Policy ST05 which has been amended to include the principles of sustainable design and construction, including a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, to reflect the Housing Standards Review.

Conclusion

2.1058 Several issues were raised through representations received, but none are considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan. However, a main and minor change is proposed to clarify wording and intentions of a particular paragraph or the strategy.

Agreed Action

1. The following are agreed Main Changes to final sentence of paragraph 10.189: a. Amended wording to: “The retention of these buildings (Building 60 and Miniature Range Building) will retain a reference to the site’s former use as a military training camp and barracks and retain their re-use for community purposes”. b. Delete criterion (i).

Comments made in response to Policy FRE02: Yelland Quay and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 2

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 1 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” ~ ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy FRE02: and supporting text plp number

Site has been allocated for employment and leisure use for a number of years. A 512 mixed use scheme will help to deliver a viable proposal and secure regeneration. The land identified directly to the south of the Tarka Trail and within the same ownership as the Quay site would be a logical inclusion within the local plan. A mixed use scheme will help to deliver a viable proposal that could deliver something for everyone and create a new social hub along the tarka trail with fantastic sustainable links to Barnstaple and Bideford. Promote the following wording added to the FRE02 "To allow enabling development and enabling works to secure the future and regeneration of Yelland Quay"

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Policy FRE02 (1)(a) revise to protect SSSI designation; the employment designation 2029 (NE) must not conflict with the SSSI designation through avoidance of significant disturbance to birds, including impacts on the important food source from the mussel beds on the foreshore.

Site Proposals

East Yelland Power Station for Mixed Use Development 512

Additional Information

C109571 : Redevelopment of Site. Pending Decision

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.1059 The response from Natural England is noted. Paragraph 10.193 already recognises the site is situated to the north of the Tarka Trail adjacent to the Taw-Torridge estuary Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), an area of national importance for the large number of wildfowl and waders that use the estuary and adjacent land, particularly in winter and on migration in spring and summer. This is already recognised in the supporting text. However, it is accepted that criterion (a) of Policy FRE02 could be made more explicit in terms of recognising the need to protect the biodiversity value of the SSSI. It is also proposed to add additional wording to Policy FRE to recognise “support for initiatives to improve and mitigate against any harm to water quality in the estuary”.

2.1060 Should a planning application be submitted on this site then biodiversity impact would be a key issue and Natural England would be a key consultee. Therefore, it is not considered necessary to reference Natural England’s standing advice in the supporting text of the Plan.

2.1061 One representation has promoted the site for a mixed use development which is considered will assist in the delivery of a viable proposal and secure regeneration of this previously developed site. It is accepted the Yelland Quay site has remained largely derelict for a number of years despite the fact that it has been allocated for redevelopment in previous development plans and in order to deliver a viable scheme on this site then some form of enabling development may be required. Additional wording should be included to clarify that some enabling development to secure the future regeneration of Yelland Quay for water compatible economic uses would be supported where it would not conflict with other strategic policies in the Plan.

2.1062 The representation also proposes that the land proposed for economic uses under Policy FRE02(2) be deleted with alternative land promoted through this representation being proposed within the Plan. The alternative site is partly within flood zones 2 and 3. However, with the current oversupply of land for economic uses in the Plan, the land south of Tarka Trail site could be deleted without any alternative site allocation.

Other Matters

2.1063 There is an inconsistency of wording between Policy FRE02(2) and Policy ST08. The employment allocation in Policy FRE02 is proposing approximately 8 ha whereas paragraph 10.187 and Policy ST08 refer to approximately 7 ha of employment land for Fremington which is the correct figure.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Conclusion

2.1064 Several issues were raised through representations received, but none are considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan. However, a main change is proposed to clarify wording and intentions of a particular paragraph of the strategy.

Agreed Actions

1. The following are agreed as Main Changes to Policy FRE02 of the Local Plan: a. Amend Policy FRE02 (1a) to read “buildings and structures sited and designed to minimise their impact on the landscape setting of the estuary and avoid any harm to the protected biodiversity value of the Site of Special Scientific Interest.

2. The following are agreed as Main Changes to Policy FRE02: a. Delete employment allocation south of Tarka Trail (FRE02(2)) b. Delete paragraphs 10.187 and 10.196. c. Amend Policies Map 4 to delete site. d. Amend paragraph 10.197 to recognise the access is now to a single site.

3. The following Minor Change is agreed to paragraph 10.193: a. Any redevelopment of Yelland Quay should avoid harm to the area’s biodiversity value (Policy ST14: Enhancing Environmental Assets).

4. A Main Change to paragraph 10.194 is agreed to indicate: Businesses that service and support water compatible employment uses would be appropriate here and could facilitate a hub for water-based industries, or marine engineering to support off-shore renewable technologies . Policy FRE02 will allow limited enabling development sufficient only to deliver a viable comprehensive regeneration of Yelland Quay incorporating water compatible economic uses, where it would not conflict with other strategic policies in the Local Plan and where the viability justification of any enabling development has been demonstrated clearly..

Comments made in response to Paragraph 10.198 to Paragraph 10.202

Total Number of Responses 1

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” ~ ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on Paragraph 10.198 to 10.202 plp umber

It is noted that Policy FRE03 has been deleted but support is given to the retention 906 (EA) of paragraphs 10.198 to 10.202 on Green Infrastructure.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.1065 The response from the Environment Agency is noted and welcomed.

Conclusion

2.1066 A single issue has been raised through representations received, but is not considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan.

Agreed Action

1. No change to Paragraphs 10.198 to 10.202 of the Local Plan are proposed in response to the issues raised through consultation.

Town Strategies: Great Torrington

Comments made in response to Policy GTT: Spatial Vision and Development Strategy and supporting text.

Total Number of Responses 21

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 2 8

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 1 11

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 4 4

Summary of Issues

Comments on Great Torrington Policy GTT and supporting text plp number

The strategy for the town is not evidence based, sustainable or deliverable 241

The town will not become increasingly self reliant in respect of food retail, as 675 inadequate provision is made to stem the outflow of expenditure.

Reference to the scale of growth and how planned levels relate to sustaining the 2131 town as a local centre.

Additional facilities sought for the town. 862

Highway infrastructure improvements required to manage increased traffic 885 movements generated by development.

Reduction in housing numbers with phasing to deliver brownfield sites first. 721

The Spatial Strategy is not supportive of new or expanding business. 150

Add a GTT reference to water quality to take account of Water Framework Directive. 908(EA)

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

SWW need to confirm the availability and adequacy of sewer system and treatment 908(EA) facilities and any work required from new development.

The sewerage system much be upgraded to accommodated planned growth 1384(GTTC)

Add detail on the type and size of property, including for the elderly and single 1382(GTTC) person households.

GTT (1): Replace “modest “with reference to: sustaining Torrington’s role as a key 2133 local service centre and meeting future needs.

Objection to the reference “self containment and self sufficient” in respect of 2128 deliverability and how such could be measured.

GTT (f): to enable regeneration on the Creamery site to be actively pursed housing 2179, 2081 should be included in the list of proposed uses.

Support the “at least” prefix to the housing supply, allowing flexibility to deliver on 2134 site beyond those allocated and committed by extant consents.

New Site Proposals

To address a local 28 dwelling shortfall, allocate a site north of Clavesford Road 266 for 58 dwellings.

Additional housing site to the south of the Great Torrington to the west of GTT05: 520 North of Burwood Lane

Allocate Sydney Street Car Park and adjoining land for convenience retail 676, 676

Regeneration policy for the abattoir, provide for housing and employment to allow 2327 the site to be brought in to productive use.

Allocate land at South Street Car Park for housing in place of the GTT04 allocation 152 at Dartington Fields.

Additional information

2.1067 A planning application for a “foodstore (sales area 1,678 square metres) and re-modelling of adjacent car park” has been submitted to Torridge District Council, the decision on which is outstanding (at 27th October 2014).

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.1068 It is suggested (plp 214) that the spatial and development strategy for Great Torrington is not evidence based. This positon is not accepted; the basis for the strategy including Sustainability Appraisal was set out in the January 2013 Local Plan, further explanation of which is not considered necessary within the Publication Local Plan.

2.1069 Issues in relation to the town’s strategy with regard to: the scale and location of new housing and employment, infrastructure and service levels were addressed in response to the previous round of consultation. Other than in respect of the consideration of the former creamery site, which is discussed below, there is no indication that the evidenced position has altered and thus it is not considered necessary to amend the Local Plan in the interest of soundness.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

2.1070 A respondent seeks an amendment to GTT (1) to remove the reference to a “modest” scale of development with a suggested amendment that relates to sustaining the town’s role as a local service centre and meeting future needs. It can be accepted that the scale of development is not modest on which basis it is considered that the reference is deleted. The suggested amendment in respect of inserting “sustaining the town’s role” is not considered necessary having regard to Policy ST06: Spatial Development Strategy for Northern Devon’s Strategic and Main Centres, which sets the context for development in such settlements. With regard to meeting local needs, it is considered appropriate to add such a reference to achieve a consistency of policy phrasing throughout the Local Plan. The recommended changes are considered to be of a minor nature.

2.1071 The objection to the text “self-containment, self-sufficient” within the Vision with regard to deliverability is noted. The means by which the Vision can be achieved is provided through the related development strategy. While accepting the aspirational nature of the Vision it is not considered unrealistic for the town to increase its degree of self sufficiency as a result of planned growth. The issue raised is not considered to raise a soundness challenge on which basis no amendment is recommended.

2.1072 The Town Council seek an expanded reference to the type of housing that should be provided for through development. Policy ST17: A Balanced Local Housing Market, establishes the need for all new residential development to reflect the needs of present and future generations and Policy GTT (1)(b), provides that all the communities housing needs should be met through development, which as required will include housing for the elderly and single households. It is not considered necessary to amend the Local Plan in the interest of soundness; Policies ST17 and GTT reflect NPPF paragraph 50 in planning for a mix of housing to meet the needs of different groups in the community.

2.1073 A respondent indicates that highway improvements are required to manage increased traffic movements. Where highway improvements, either on or off-site, are necessitated by development these will be required as part of development proposals. Policy ST10: Transport Strategy and Policy DM05: Highways, provides that both strategic and site specific highway improvements necessitated by development are secured. It is not considered necessary to amend the Local Plan in the interest of soundness in relation to this matter.

2.1074 There is a call to reduce the housing numbers and to phase the release of sites on the basis of brownfield first. All of the town based strategies within the Local Plan take account of developable brownfield sites where they have been identified and are considered appropriate for redevelopment over the lifetime of the Plan. The supply of developable brownfield sites in Great Torrington is limited. The Strategic Housing Market Assessment update ( Housing Vision 2013) and Northern Devon Housing and Employment Study (GL Hearn 2013) identifies the overall quantum of housing need that must be planned for, in the context of which there is no basis to reduced the housing supply in Torrington. It is not considered necessary to amend the Local Plan in the interest of soundness in relation to this matter.

2.1075 Representation on behalf of the owner of the former creamery site is made to affect an amendment to Policy GTT (1)(f) that would introduce housing as an accepted use delivered though redevelopment. The consideration of housing on this site is discussed through Policy GTT01; it is recommended that the development focus for the site is altered from employment, leisure and recreation to housing on the basis that the Local Plan in this respect is not “effective” by means of being unrealistic with regard to deliverability. It is recommended that GTT (1)(f) is amended to refer to redevelopment of the former creamery site without reference to the range of uses; with the detail of planned uses being established in Policy GTT01.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

2.1076 Comment is made on the considered inadequacy of convenience retail provision in Torrington, in response to which the allocation of the South Street Car Park is sought. The proposed allocation and the need for such were previously considered in preparing the Publication Local Plan. The North Devon and Torridge Retail and Leisure Study (Peter Brett Associates, 2012) indicates a limited requirement for additional convenience retail provision in Torrington (a combined requirement for Great Torrington and Holsworthy equating to only 1000 sqm of floorspace). Circumstances, including the evidenced position, have not altered to necessitate a review of the Local Plan in respect of the retail allocations; no soundness or legal compliance challenge is considered to be raised. Further consideration of the referenced points is not required to allow the draft Local Plan to progress to Submission.

2.1077 A respondent suggest that the strategy is not supporting of new or expanding business. The strategy is considered to provide a supporting framework for economic development, including providing for the maximum level of economic growth through new site allocation advocated by the Employment Land Review (GL Hearn 2014). In addition to site allocations, Policy ST11: Delivering Employments and Economic Development, provides a flexible and supportive approach that seeks to deliver quantitative and qualitative improvements in job opportunities across the plan area. The Local Plan provides the framework for existing and new business growth; some of the sought additions such as: grant opportunities and business rate free periods are however outside its scope. The issue raised is not considered to raise a soundness challenge on which basis no amendment is recommended.

2.1078 The Environment Agency seeks the consideration of water quality impacts arising from the proposed housing and employment growth for Great Torrington. The Environment Agency seeks reference within the Strategy and supporting text to recognise the Water Framework Directive and in particular to take account of a local water body being classified as poor. This is an issue raised in relation to numerous settlements. Part (f) of Policy ST03 already seeks the adoption of effective water management including water quality improvements. Additionally, Policy DM02 provides for environmental protection including safeguards around the pollution of surface and ground water. It is proposed that additional supporting text is added to Policy ST03 and DM02, as a minor change, to reference the Water Framework Directive and the need for development to ensure that water quality is not adversely impacted and opportunities for improvements sought.

2.1079 The comments in relation to the adequacy of the sewerage network and treatment facilities are noted. Similar issues were addressed in response to the previous round of consultation and there is no indication that the position has altered. It is not considered that the Local Plan needs to be amended in relation to this matter. Part (3) of Policy ST23 ensures that development can only occur where necessary off-site infrastructure improvements are facilitated.

Site Proposals

2.1080 A number of sites were presented as additional and alternative housing sites together with the suggestion that the Sydney Street Car Park should be allocated for retail and the abattoir for a mix of housing and employment.

2.1081 All the presented housing sites were previously considered in preparing the Publication Local Plan and other than the site to the west of GTT05: North of Burwood Lane, were discounted as not developable as a result of consideration through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. The sites: north of Clavesford Road, the abattoir and South Street Car Park (for housing) have been assessed as not suitable for the proposed housing use.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

2.1082 The site to the west of the site subject to Policy GTT05 (North of Burwood Lane), was assessed to be developable by the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHA/GTT/07.) However, it has been previously considered when establishing the spatial and development strategy for Great Torrington in the draft Local Plan2013 at which time the site was discounted.

2.1083 Circumstances, including the evidenced position, have not altered to necessitate a review of the Local Plan in respect of Great Torrington’s development strategy and no soundness or legal compliance challenge is considered to be raised. Further consideration of the town’s housing allocations is not required to allow the draft Local Plan to progress to Submission.

2.1084 With regard to the allocation of Sydney Street with adjoining land for retail use, such has again been previously considered and discounted in establishing the current spatial and development strategy for Great Torrington. The North Devon and Torridge Retail and Leisure Study (Peter Brett Associates, 2012) indicates a limited requirement for additional convenience retail provision in Torrington (combined requirement of only 1000 sqm of floorspace for Great Torrington and Holsworthy). Circumstances, including the evidenced position, have not altered to necessitate a review of the Local Plan in respect of the sought retail allocation; no soundness or legal compliance challenge is considered to be raised. Further consideration of the referenced points is not required to allow the draft Local Plan to progress to Submission.

Other Matters

2.1085 In the interest of clarity it is recommended that the Vision refers only to “self sufficiency” on the basis that there is no clear distinction between the two phrases: self containment, self sufficient. The recommended change is considered to be of a minor nature.

2.1086 Consequential amendment to the Great Torrington Spatial Development Strategy resulted from recommended amendment to: Policy GTT01: The Former Creamery Site, which impacts on the overall stated housing numbers. Amendment to the pre-fix to the housing numbers is additionally recommended to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of” through Policy ST08: Scale and Distribution of New Development in Northern Devon.

Conclusion

2.1087 Arrange of comments have been made against the Great Torrington Spatial Vision and Development Strategy, most of which relate to the scale, composition and location of development together with suggested additional or alternative allocations for retail and housing. These matters have been subject to previous consideration; no new issues or evidence suggests the need to respond through change to the Local Plan. The issues raised on all matters other than in relation to the former creamery site are not considered to constitute a soundness or legal compliance challenge.

2.1088 A main change is proposed with regard to the nature of uses required from the redevelopment of the former creamery site. It is considered that the current policy position is undeliverable on the basis that the required mix of uses with a focus on recreation, leisure and employment would prejudice the sites proposed redevelopment. To maintain the policy positon provided by GTT(f) would risk the Local Plan being found unsound as it would not be effective by means of deliverability.

2.1089 A number of minor changes are recommended in the interests of providing clarity and improving consistency within the Local Plan.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Agreed Actions

1. The following are agreed as a Main Change to Policy GTT, with associated supporting text revisions: a. amend Policy GTT(1)(f): regeneration opportunities will be actively pursued, including at the former creamery site to the south west of the town, development of which will have a focus on employment, leisure and recreation uses:; b. amend Policy GTT(1)(b), the associated supporting text and tables to reflect agreed Main Changes to Policies ST08 and GTT01.

2. The following are agreed as Minor Changes: a. amend the Spatial Vision: Great Torrington will develop as a self-contained, self-sufficient local service centre with a vibrant, independent retail and employment offering…..; b. amend GTT(1): Over the period to 2031, the Local Plan will enable a modest scale of growth growth of high quality development and supporting infrastructure, to meet the needs within Great Torrington and its supporting area, that will positively contribute to the delivery of the spatial vision …; and c. amend the supporting text to Policy ST03 and Policy DM02, to reference the Water Framework Directive and the need for development to ensure that water quality is not adversely impacted and that opportunities for improvements sought.

Comments made in response to Policy GTT01: The Former Creamery Site and associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 10

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - 2

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - 2

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 2 -

Summary of Issues

Comments on Great Torrington Policy GTT01 and supporting text plp number

A positive policy approach is required to bring forward the site; the housing element 153, 265, of 30 dwellings is too low to enable the site to be brought forward having regard 2181, 2070, to site constraints. Housing should be recognised as a substantial contributor to 2074, 2076. the sites regeneration. The SHLAA identifies a housing capacity of 106 units.

Support for the extension of the site [to the north west]. 2181

The need for comprehensive development is not helpful; a phased delivery would 153 be preferable.

The flood risk associated with the Creamery site (paragraph 10.215) needs to 909(EA) explicitly outline the impacts on redevelopment options.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Amend GTT01(2) (d) addition of a requirement for strategic landscape measures 2032(NE) to respect adjoining biodiversity interests (as well as landscape)

The site should be exempt from requiring affordable housing delivery; maintaining 2079 the requirement will increase the overall housing numbers to achieve viability.

Site Proposal

Increase the site area to include a site north of Highbridge House. 2077

Additional Information

2.1090 Pre-application discussions have commenced with the site owner on a draft scheme. The draft proposal reflects the intent of the comments submitted to the Publication Local Plan in respect of making an adjustment to the balance of sites uses to have a focus on housing. The presented justification for the draft proposal relates to the site delivery costs; housing being required as the main component to bring the site forward. A viability assessment is promised to support the proposed mix of site uses; at 27th October this has not be received by Torridge District Council.

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.1091 The focus of received comments, provided on behalf of the site owner, is that the housing yield of 30 dwellings, referenced in paragraph 10.215 is insufficient to bring the site forward having regard to its extraordinary delivery costs. It is presented that the sought emphasis on employment, leisure and recreation cannot be maintained as a realistic development proposal on the former creamery site.

2.1092 It has been accepted, in the Publication Local Plan that the site has exceptional development costs associated with its former use, which requires enabling development to bring the site forward. The longevity of the sites redundancy with its former sought reuse for employment (provided for in the Torridge District Local Plan) adds support to the position that without enabling development the site will continue to remain vacant. With regard to increasing the scale of housing above 30 dwellings, such is considered necessary to provide a realistic prospect of the delivery. It is considered unrealistic to maintain the current policy position that seeks the majority of the site to deliver employment, leisure and recreation uses. This component of the draft Publication Local Plan could be subject to justified challenge on the basis that it is not effective in respect of delivery. Amendment to Policy GTT01is proposed to provide a housing focused development with employment and leisure/recreation uses.

2.1093 An extension to the policy site area is proposed, on land to the north of Highbridge House. The adjustment is sought on the basis that the extended area would aid the deliverability of the GTT01 allocation having regard to the exceptional development costs on the former creamery element of the site. The proposed extension is not within the Great Torrington Commons and it has been assessed to be developable through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. In the interest of increasing the redevelopment potential of the former creamery site it is considered appropriate to extend the area subject to the GTT01 allocation to include the site north of Highbridge House.

2.1094 If a housing focus is accepted and the site is extended to include land to the North of Highbridge House, it is appropriate to increase the housing yield attributed to the GTT01 allocation. The Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment identified a potential yield of 140 dwellings for the proposed GTT01 allocation, which is considered a justified level to attribute to the extended site. While accepting the need to refocus the development on the site, it is considered appropriate to maintain a requirement for employment on the site together with leisure/recreation at a strategic scale.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

2.1095 The Northern Devon Housing and Employment Report (GL Hearn, November 2013) identifies the scale of housing growth that is required over the plan period in individual sub-areas, so as to maintain a stable employment workforce. For the Great Torrington sub-area the Report identifies that housing growth of 980 dwellings is required to maintain a stable workforce (principally as a result of an aging population). Adding the potential housing yield from the former creamery site would make a significant contribution to providing a housing level that would better support a stable workforce. If the proposal to increase the site’s housing to 140 dwellings is accepted, the overall housing supply for Great Torrington would increase from 499 to 609 dwellings.

2.1096 Comment is made that requiring the site to be comprehensively developed is “not helpful”, the suggestion of a phased approach is offered as an alternative. The nature and complexity of the site, together with the need for employment and leisure/recreation uses to be delivered with housing, justifies the required comprehensive development. Additionally, the allocation has (to the west) and is proposed (north of Highfield House)to be extended beyond the former creamery site to increase site viability, it is important that these more easily developed site elements support and are integrated with the more challenging components of the allocated site. . The sought amendment is not considered necessary to resolve any matters of soundness, no change to the Publication Local Plan is recommended.

2.1097 Natural England seek an amendment to Policy GTT01(2)(d) that would protect the biodiversity in the adjacent county wildlife sites; the proposed policy amendment is considered necessary with regard to NPPF (paragraph 11).

2.1098 The Environment Agency seeks an amendment to paragraph 10.215, to expand upon the reference to the flood risk on GTT01. An explanation of the consequences of flood risk is considered unnecessary having regard to the requirements of Policy ST03: Adapting to Climate Change and Strengthening Resilience. Proposals brought forward under Policy GTT01 would be subject to the provisions of that Policy and this is considered to adequately address this matter. As such an amendment is not considered necessary to resolve any matters of soundness.

2.1099 The suggestion that there should be an established position that any development on the GTT01 should be exempt from an affordable housing contribution is discounted having regard to NPPF paragraph 50 (local planning authorities are required to: plan for a mix of housing based on current and future demographic trends, market trends and the needs of different groups in the community).Policy ST18: Affordable Housing on Development Sites will be applied to market housing sites and as set out in paragraph 7.27, it will be a matter for developers to provide a robust financial justification to support any proposal which falls below the established requirement. The sought amendment is not considered necessary to resolve any matters of soundness, no change to the Publication Local Plan is recommended.

Conclusion

2.1100 The draft Publication Policy GTT01, with a focus on delivering recreation/leisure and employment is no longer considered to be developable over the lifetime of the Local Plan. As such, the proposal would not accord with the provisions of the NPPF which require the Plan to be effective and deliverable over its period. Failures to address the issues raised in relation to this Policy in respect of deliverability are considered likely to result in a risk to the soundness of the Local Plan.

Agreed Actions

1. The following are agreed Main Changes to, Policy GTT01 and the associated supporting text:

1.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

a. extend the area subject to Policy GTT01 to include land north of Highfield House, as identified in plp2077 and adjust the development boundary to reflect the extended allocation; b. amend the scope of Policy GTT01 providing for the comprehensive redevelopment of the site with a focus on housing, with an indicative level of 140 dwellings, with strategic recreation provision and employment to meet local needs; c. amend GTT01 (2) (d): strategic landscaping measures to ensure the development respects the sensitivity of the existing landscape setting and adjoining biodiversity interest; and d. undertake consequential changes to housing supply figures to take account of the increase yield from Policy GTT01.

Comments made in response to Policy GTT02: East of Hatchmoor and associated supporting text:

Total Number of Responses 3

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - 2

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - 3

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1 1

Summary of Issues

Comments on Great Torrington Policy GTT02 and supporting text plp number

Policy support subject to the addition of a development principle requiring adequate 35 environment screening along B3227.

No evidence to support the employment allocation, the site should be protected from 2342 development due to environmental impacts. The sensitivity of nearby uses (care home) would also have operation consequences for any employment use on the allocation.

The site should be retained in agricultural use, brownfield sites should be used in 317 preference to greenfield sites.

Additional Information

2.1101 The western element of the allocation has an extant planning consent for a new production factory and offices, extending to 2.10 hectares (0009/2013/FULM). The expectation had been that the site would be developed and occupied by a local business through relocation following the redevelopment of the existing business site. The business is however now relocating to Bideford and thus the short term delivery of a new employment site is no longer anticipated.

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.1102 The scale and location of the employment allocation is supported by the Northern Devon Employment Land Review (GL Hearn April 2014), which provides the evidence to justify Policy GTT02.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

2.1103 The need for, and suitability of the site subject to the allocation, together with the development principles in respect of landscape have been previously considered in preparing the Publication Local Plan. Circumstances, including the evidenced position, have not altered to necessitate a review of the Local Plan in respect of this matter and no soundness or legal compliance challenge is considered to be raised. Further consideration of the referenced points is not required to allow the draft Local Plan to progress to Submission.

Conclusion

2.1104 The comments in response to the draft Publication Policy GTT02, which allocates a 4 hectare site for employment, are considered not to raise any issues that challenge the soundness of the Local Plan.

Agreed Action

1. No change to Policy GTT02 or the associated supporting text.

Comments made in response to Policy GTT03: Hatchmoor Common Lane and associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 7

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 1 2

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 1 2

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 2 1

Summary of Issues

Comments on Great Torrington Policy GTT03 and supporting text plp number

Support the allocation. 642

Existing infrastructure insufficient and proposed infrastructure unrealistic, the scale 34 of the allocation should be reduced to include only the western element.

Relocate the site for housing to a more sustainable location, to south of Great 151 Torrington. Capacity at the existing school will become available with the vacation of early years centre; no need to provide another school.

Poor site for a new school, all primary school needs can be met on the site of the 1386 existing primary school. The demand created by the proposed level of housing is (GTTC) insufficient to support a new school.

No reference to the site’s flood risk, a 10-70m strip to the north of the site is at risk 911(EA) of flooding, clarification of which is required.

Early years provision and a children’s centre base is required to be provided with 1299 (DCC) the new primary school.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Potential of conflict between the proposed housing and existing employment uses. 2348 Not sensible or sustainable to provide a second primary school in the proposed location.

Additional Information

2.1105 The site owner of the south eastern element of the allocation has submitted a preliminary enquiry to Torridge District Council for a housing development that would also secure the sought improvements to Hatchmoor Lane.

2.1106 Comment from DCC (Education) on 20th October 2014: “After consideration of the comments made, Devon County Council maintains its strategic position that an additional primary school will be required to mitigate the growth planned for the town. The proposed 500 dwellings for the town can expect to produce an additional 125 primary pupils in the area. Cohorts of known children already living in the area, already exceed the Planned Admission Number at the primary school of 70 places. The cohort for 2015 is 84 and the cohort for 2016 is 86. These figures do not include any inward migration into the town nor any new children from current development. When we factor into account the impact of approved but unimplemented consents, the current primary school already has a shortfall of 16 places. ” and with regard to capacity at the existing primary school: DCC “have just expanded the primary school by x1 classroom to support the existing demand, however, the School and the Local Learning Community are of the view that the school cannot be expanded further without a detrimental impact on existing provision due to lack of space. The school is already a large primary with a current net capacity of 490 places.”

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.1107 A comment suggests that the scale of the allocation should be reduced. The housing yield from Policy GTT03 makes a necessary contribution to meeting local housing needs and the assessed needs and demands of Torridge District. The site has been assessed as suitable and available for housing through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. The comments made in relation to the need for the site and its suitability has been previously considered in preparing the Publication Local Plan. Circumstances, including the evidenced position, have not altered to necessitate a review of the Local Plan in respect of these matters and no soundness or legal compliance challenge is considered to be raised. Further consideration of the referenced points is not required to allow the draft Local Plan to progress to Submission.

2.1108 The majority of comments, including from the Town Council relate to the provision of a new primary school, suggesting both that it would be poorly located and that there is no need for a new school having regard to the potential capacity and extension opportunities provided by the existing primary school. Devon County Council (Education) sought the inclusion of the new primary school having regard to projected pupil numbers and the expansion limitations of the existing primary school and now additionally seeks early years provision and a children’s base with the new primary school.

2.1109 Account must be taken of educational needs as identified by the education authority, to do otherwise could result in future generated needs being unmet. The NPPF is clear in that Local Plans should be “positively prepared”, which requires objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements to be met, to do otherwise could result in a soundness challenge to the Local Plan. The education authority have been clear in that the future educational requirements for Great Torrington cannot be met though an expansion of the existing school and that to meet future generated education needs of Great Torrington a new primary school is required. It is considered necessary to maintain the requirement for an additional new school in Great Torrington and to add the sought related early years provision and a children’s base.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

2.1110 In addition to the principle of the requirement for a new school comment is provided that it is poorly located. The location of the new primary school is considered acceptable with regard to sustainability considerations, it will provide a new facility in an area of housing growth and there are no alternative development sites that could support the delivery of a new primary school.

2.1111 The Environment Agency seeks reference to the flood risk on the allocated site. The issue of flood risk is addressed through Policy ST03: Adapting to Climate Change and Strengthening Resilience, but in the interest of clarity and for consistency it is considered appropriate to add a reference within the supporting text to Policy GTT03 to the existence and location of flood risk within the allocated site.

Conclusion

2.1112 The comments in response to the draft Publication Policy GTT03, which allocates a 7.3 hectare site for housing with a new primary school, raise a range of issues. The comments, relating to the need for and location of the primary school are not considered to represent a soundness challenge and thus no change is recommended.

2.1113 It is considered necessary to positively respond to Devon County Council (education), which seeks a further enhancement of education provision on the basis that the Local Plan needs to address identified infrastructure needs; a main change to the Local Plan is recommended.

2.1114 In response to the Environment Agency’s request for the policy to reflect on site flood risk an amendment is recommended but having regard to the established strategic requirement of Policy ST03, such is considered to be minor in nature.

Agreed Actions

1. The following is agreed as a Main Change to Policy GTT03, with associated supporting text revisions:

a. amend Policy GTT03(1)(b): provision for a 210 place primary school with early years provision and a children's base.

2. The following agreed as a Minor Change:

a. amend paragraph 10.222; add a locational reference to on site flood risk.

Comments made in response to Policy GTT04: Adjacent to Dartington Fields and associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 1

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1 -

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Summary of Issues

Comments on Great Torrington Policy GTT04 and supporting text plp number

The Dartington Fields site is unsustainable, a replacement allocation for housing 152 should be provided at South Street Car Park

Additional Information

2.1115 The site is subject to a preliminary enquiry for a housing development scheme that relates to the entirety of the allocated site.

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.1116 The only comment in response to Policy GTT04 seeks its deletion with a replacement site being provided on the South Street Car Park. The Strategic Housing Land Assessment considered the site adjacent to Dartington Fields to be a developable housing site with a potential development capacity of 57 dwellings, against which the South Street Car Park was not considered developable, with the following conclusion.

“The site is not considered to be currently developable. Whilst the site could physically support residential development, the site is currently in active use as the principle public car park supporting the town centre. As such, the site is not deemed to be available for development and any proposals would need to be subject to robust justification that parking provision is not currently required, or likely to be required in the furfure, furthermore, there is no indication that the site is likely to be released for development from its current use” (North Devon and Torridge SHLAA 2013).

2.1117 Circumstances, including the evidenced position, have not altered to necessitate a review of the Local Plan in respect of these matters and no soundness or legal compliance challenge is considered to be raised. Further consideration of the referenced points is not required to allow the draft Local Plan to progress to Submission.

Conclusion

2.1118 The comment made in response to Policy GTT04 does not raise issues that are considered to challenge the soundness of the Publication Local Plan.

Agreed Action

1. No change to Policy GTT04 or the associated supporting text.

Comments made in response to Policy GTT05: North of Burwood Lane and associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 47

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 25 6

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 1 29

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 21 9

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Summary of Issues

Comments on Great Torrington Policy GTT05: and supporting text plp number

Support for the allocation, which is necessary to deliver new housing for the town. 851

Support for the allocation subject to: Burwood Lane access only from the north – 36 no vehicle access from the south, access to Donnacroft recreation area environmental screening for properties on Burwood Lane and pedestrian access provided to Burwood Road.

Support allocation subject to flexibility on access arrangements; refer to the need 521 for appropriate new junction(s) and off site highway improvements.

No objection to the allocation, but concerned at the two way road system and the 64, 2111 resultant loss of trees and hedgerow. The site should be accessed from the rugby end of the road.

Objection to the loss of mature trees and hedges; if development is to proceed, 498 widen the road only from Hatchmoor Road.

Objection to proposed road widening, as it would: ruin hedgerows, impact on wildlife, 707, 60, 111, increase traffic volumes and congestion at Blue Coats School at peak times, impact 233, 235, on safety, increase noise air pollution and result in the loss of a lane that is well 236, 238, used for recreation. Development would negatively impact on existing local 389, 511, residents. More suitable sites are already allocated (GTT02, GTT03 and GTT04). 513, 665, Lack of services, infrastructure (sewerage capacity, education capacity, drainage) 2102, 2157, and employment to support the proposed housing allocation. The field is of historic importance and should not be built on. 2209, 234, 237, 2210, 71, 109, 142, 309, 387, 2091, 2123, 2155, 2184

An alternative route through Hoopers Way should be used to access the site. 73, 66, 303, 74, 65, 678, 2160

An alternative access to the Burwood site would be preferable: through Hoopers 693, 2214 Way, Pathfields or Burwood Lane joining Hatchmoor Road (B3227). Hunters Wood could also be used as an access point in preference to Burwood Lane.

Objection to proposed road widening, it would: ruin hedgerows, impact on wildlife, 2161 increase traffic volumes and congestion at Blue coasts at peak times, increase noise air pollution and result in the loss of a lane that is well used for recreation. If housing required, use the Creamery Site as a replacement to the site subject to Policy GTT05.

Concerned at the provided housing not addressed local housing needs. 2125

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.1119 Support for the allocation subject to Policy GTT05 is noted.

2.1120 A range of issues are raised regarding the need for the site subject to Policy GTT05 and matters relating to the adequacy of infrastructure, employment and service provision to support the planned growth. These matters have been previously addressed through establishing the vision and spatial strategy for Great Torrington.

2.1121 Circumstances, including the evidenced position, have not altered to necessitate a review of the Local Plan in respect of these matters and no soundness or legal compliance challenge is considered to be raised. Further consideration of the referenced points is not required to allow the draft Local Plan to progress to Submission.

2.1122 The majority of comments received in response to the allocation relate to the proposed access arrangements. The points made seek: clarification that the proposed access improvements will take place from Burwood Lane to the north, that alternative access points should be required and that a flexible approach to the point of access should be taken. With regard to the proposed access from Burwood Lane, concerns are also raised regarding the considered consequences of the widening of Burwood Lane, which would be necessary to secure an appropriate access to the allocated site.

2.1123 It is recognised that to achieve an appropriate access to the site, highway improvements will be required to Burwood Lane and at the junction of Burwood Lane and B3227/Hatchmoor Road. Burwood Lane will require widening which will result in the loss of existing trees and hedgebanks. The loss of trees and hedgebanks will be subject to management at the time of a planning application; as necessary such features will be required to be retained or provided as part of a scheme of development. The allocated site has been assessed as part of a wider site through the Strategic Housing Land Availably Assessment (SHA/GTT/7) as developable. As part of this process Devon County Council (Highways) identified the need for Burwood Lane to be widened and upgraded, it was recognised that to do so would necessitate additional third party land. While recognising the raised concerns, the GTT05 allocation is considered to represent a developable housing site that is anticipated to come forward during the lifetime of the local plan.

2.1124 A number of representations suggest that the access arrangements should be amended to provide for alternative points of access and to confirm that the improvement of Burwood Lane would extend from B3227/Hatchmoor Road. It is accepted that clarification with regard to the part of Burwood Lane the requires improvement would be a useful addition to the Local Plan, as has been suggested in comment, this should be provided from B3227/Hatchmoor Road to the site. A range of alternative points of access have been suggested, which are not considered suitable as the primary access by Devon County Council (Highways), such could however if demonstrated to be adequate provide a secondary access. In the interests of flexibility it is suggested that Burwood Lane is referenced as the primary access for GTT05. No further amendment to Policy GTT05 is recommended.

2.1125 It is suggested (plp 2161) that if housing is required the former creamery site should be alternatively used. The former creamery site is allocated to achieve its redevelopment and is subject to a recommendation to increase the housing yield to avoid a challenge that the Local Plan is not effective in respect of delivery. The potential increase in housing delivery from the former creamery site should not however be taken as an opportunity to reduce or remove other draft allocations. The overall housing supply in Great Torrington falls short of the level that evidence (Housing and Employment Study GL Hearn Nov 2013) suggests is required to support a stable workforce. This point is also relevant to the comments which suggest more suitable sites are already allocated; all

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

the draft housing allocations are required to meet future housing needs. The sought amendment is not considered necessary to resolve any matters of soundness, no change to the Publication Local Plan is recommended.

2.1126 Concern is raised (plp 2125) that the housing provided through the allocation will not address local housing needs. Policy GTT05 provides that the dwellings provided should be of a type, size and tenure which reflect local needs. The Local Plan seeks to secure new housing that meets objectively assessed needs and demands, which relates not only to the overall quantum of housing, but the nature and form of accommodation to meet the varying needs of the area’s communities over the plan period. This approach is set out in Policy ST17: A Balanced Housing Market and Policy ST18: Affordable Housing on Development Sites.

Conclusion

2.1127 The comments in response to the draft Publication Policy GTT05, which allocates a 2.5 hectare site for housing, raise a range of issues with a focus on the highway improvements required to bring the site forward. While the issues raised are not considered to represent a clear soundness challenge, amendment is recommended to improve clarity and add some flexibility to aid site delivery.

Agreed Actions

1. The following is an agreed Main Change to Policy GTT05, with associated supporting text revisions: a. Amend Policy GTT05(2)(a): the primary highway access to be achieved through the formation of a new junction onto Burwood Lane at B3227/Hatchmoor Road and the provision of off-site highway improvements as necessitated by development.

Policy GTT06: Local Green Spaces

2.1128 No consultation comments were received in response to Policy GTT06 (including supporting text).

2.1129 No main or minor changes are identified as other issues; no areas of change, correction or clarification are sought in respect of Policy GTT06.

Agreed Action

1. No change to Policy GTT06 or the associated supporting text.

Comments made in response to Policy GTT07: East of School Lane and associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 4

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” - -

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Summary of Issues

Comments on Great Torrington Policy GTT07: and supporting text plp number

The scale of proposed development results in inefficient land use of 18dph. Absence 2135 of evidence to support housing requirement from the site. Local needs could not be underprovided for if the sites development potential is not achieved.

The proposed access arrangements are recognised as the favoured option in respect 2140, 2137 of highway suitability, but the delivery of the eastern part of the site is thus dependent on third party agreement could negatively impact on deliverability. A more flexible approach is sought which provides for the formation of any required junction(s) and highway improvements as necessary to access the GTT07 site - without reference to the point of access. An access appraisal is provided in support of the proposal.

The development principles set out in GTT07 (2) should not be taken as prescriptive. 2139

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.1130 Comments raised in response to Policy GTT07 are not concerned with the principle of development but the detail of the site yield and access arrangements. The site yield is based on the development potential provided by the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, which in the absence of a commitment through an extant planning consent has been used to provide a standardised approach to attribute site yields to allocated housing sites. It is not considered necessary in the interests of soundness to amend Policy GTT07 to increase the attributed site yield. It is worth noting that the attributed yields are not considered to be a target and such are prefixed by “about”.

2.1131 Representation was also made on behalf of the land owner that the requirement for access to be secured from School Lane could impact on the site’s delivery potential. It is recognised that access from School Lane is the optimum position, but that maintaining this requirement could prejudice the timing and development of the eastern part of the site (to the east of Bests Lane). In the interests of demonstrating flexibility and to improve deliverability it is consider appropriate to allow for the eastern element of the site to be independently accessed if appropriated access arrangements can be made. It is recommended that Policy GTT07(2)(a) is amended to introduce flexibility to the access arrangements, removing the requirement for access to be provided only from School Lane.

2.1132 It is suggested that the development principles set out in GTT07 (2) should not be prescriptive; the development principles are considered necessary to secure a development which not only meets housing needs but is responsive to site specific requirements. The issue raise by this comment is not considered to represent a soundness challenge.

Conclusion

2.1133 The comments in response to the draft Publication Policy GTT07, which allocates a 3.6 hectare site for housing, raise a range of issues. The soundness of the Local Plan is considered to be challenged only in respect of the existing access arrangements, on which basis amendment is recommended in the interests of improved deliverability.

Agreed Actions

1. The following is agreed as a Main Change to Policy GTT07, with associated supporting text revisions:

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

a. amend Policy GTT07(2)(a): the primary highway access to be achieved through the formation of new junction(s) onto school Lane and the provision of off-site highway improvements as necessitated by development.

Comments made in response to inset Policies Map 5: Great Torrington

Total Number of Responses 1

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1

Summary of Issues

Comments on Great Torrington inset Policies Map 5: Great Torrington plp number

Designate the Sydney House Car Park and adjoining land for convenience retailing 680 and extend the town centre boundary.

Additional information

2.1134 A planning application is pending consideration for a foodstore (sales area 1,678 sqm) and remodelling of adjacent car park on the site subject to the representation.

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.1135 Amendment is sought to the town centre boundary to accommodate a new retail allocation on Sydney House Car Park. The proposed designation and new allocation was previously considered in preparing the Publication Local Plan. The North Devon and Torridge Retail and Leisure Study (Peter Brett Associates, 2012) indicates a limited requirement for additional convenience retail provision in Torrington (a combined requirement for Great Torrington and Holsworthy equating to only 1000 sqm of floorspace) and recommends no change to the town centre boundary. Circumstances, including the evidenced position, have not altered to necessitate a review of the Local Plan in respect of the extent of the town centre boundary and retail allocation; no soundness or legal compliance challenge is considered to be raised. Further consideration of the referenced points is not required to allow the draft Local Plan to progress to Submission.

Conclusion

2.1136 The comment made in response to Policies Map 5: Great Torrington does not raise issues that are considered to challenge the soundness of the Publication Local Plan.

Agreed Action

1. No change to Policies Map 5: Great Torrington.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Town Strategies: Holsworthy

Comments made in response to Policy HOL Spatial Strategy and Development Strategy and associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 4

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 2 -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - 2

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1 1

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy HOL Holsworthy Spatial Strategy and supporting text plp number

No provision for post-16 education enhancement 1

No provision to improve highway network in and around the town 1

No definition of ‘housing to meet local needs’ 1

The potential impact of the significant scale of proposed growth on water quality 912 (EA) needs to be fully considered. Add reference to water quality within Strategy to recognise Water Framework Directive issues including water body classified as poor.

Seek confirmation on the adequacy of sewerage network and treatment facilities, 912 (EA) or works required, to accommodate new development.

Strategy doesn’t make allowance for developable brownfield sites within the town 1679 (referencing a particular brownfield site cited below).

Site Proposals

Propose inclusion of brownfield site within town for delivery of 20 dwellings 1679

Consider Holsworthy Biogas Plant should be identified as an employment site with 168 adjacent land allocated for employment development

Additional Information

2.1137 Information has been received from land owners to indicate that a significant proportion of the site allocated for housing under Policy HOL03 (covering the extent of Mole Valley Farmers and former Cornwall Farmers) will not be available for housing development over the lifetime of the Plan.

2.1138 A review of the components of Table 10.10 has highlighted the need to amend the housing commitments figure from 215 to 226 dwellings.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.1139 The Environment Agency seeks additions to the Strategy to ensure the appropriate consideration of water quality impacts arising from the proposed housing and employment growth for Holsworthy. The Environment Agency seeks reference within the Strategy and supporting text to recognise the Water Framework Directive and in particular to take account of a local water body being classified as poor. This is an issue raised in relation to numerous settlements. Part (f) of Policy ST03 already seeks the adoption of effective water management including water quality improvements. Additionally, Policy DM02 provides for environmental protection including safeguards around the pollution of surface and ground water. As the Plan needs to be read as a whole, rather than incorporate additions to each individual settlement Policy, it is proposed that additional supporting text is added to Policy ST03 and DM02, as a minor modification, to reference the Water Framework Directive and the need for development to ensure that water quality is not adversely impacted and opportunities for improvements sought.

2.1140 The comments in relation to the adequacy of the sewerage network and treatment facilities are noted. Similar issues were addressed in response to the consultation on the Pre-Publication Draft of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan and there is no indication that the position has altered. No objection has been received from South West Water to indicate that the proposed development could not be realised over the plan period. Part (3) of Policy ST23 ensures that development can only occur where necessary off-site infrastructure improvements are facilitated. This would encompass the provision of sewerage and treatment facilities. As such, it is not considered that the Plan needs to be amended in relation to this matter.

2.1141 A respondent indicates that the plan contains no provisions to bring the highway network in and around the town ‘up to standards’. There are no indications that there are highway capacity or network deficiencies in the locality. Where highway improvements, either on or off-site, are necessitated by development these will be required as part of development proposals, in accordance with the site specific requirements identified in individual site allocation policies, or through the topic based Strategic (ST) and Development Management (DM) policies, recognising that the Local Plan needs to be read as a whole.

2.1142 A respondent highlights that the Plan makes no provision for the enhancement of post-16 education provision within the town. No such requirement has been identified from the local education authority (Devon County Council) in their educational infrastructure plan and there has been no indication that plans for such provision, which would require specific enabling through the Local Plan, are being pursued by any party. As the Local Plan can only incorporate proposals where there is a reasonable prospect of delivery, such provisions are not directly included within the Plan. A reference to support expanded educational capacity and early years provision is already provided within the Spatial Strategy for Holsworthy. Should proposals be forthcoming in the future, Policy ST22 would allow for appropriate provision to be enabled.

2.1143 There is a call to make an allowance for developable brownfield sites within the Local Plan towards the delivery of housing. All of the town based strategies within the Local Plan already seek to take account of developable brownfield sites where they have been identified and are considered appropriate for redevelopment over the lifetime of the Plan. However, within Holsworthy the supply of such sites is limited.

2.1144 A respondent is concerned that the statement ‘housing to meet local needs’ within the Holsworthy strategy is not defined and questions the scope of this ‘inclusive’ statement. Policy ST17: A balanced Local Housing Market requires all new residential development to contribute towards the creation of sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities by providing housing that reflects the needs

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

of present and future generations, and that proposals will respond to specific local circumstances when considering the scale and mix of housing provided. It also requires that housing reflects the characteristics of the local housing sub-market. The supporting text to Policy ST17 goes on to state that proposals should have regard to up-to-date evidence on housing need when defining the housing mix to be provided by development proposals. Reflecting that the Plan needs to be read as a whole, it is considered that, the provisions of ST17 adequately address the concerns regarding the statement ‘housing to meet local needs’. As such, no amendments to the Plan are considered necessary to address the representation.

2.1145 The site identified through the consultation for inclusion within the Plan (SHA/HOL/23) was dismissed following the previous round of consultation (dlp1640) as its availability was not known at that stage. Whilst the SHLAA now identifies that the site is potentially developable for housing, it is conditional on the demonstration that the current active uses, as a petrol filling station and workshop, are no longer required. It is not considered appropriate to allocate a site within the Local Plan for the delivery of housing when it is currently offering local services. As such, it is not recommended to take the site forward for inclusion within the Local Plan. Should the site become available for redevelopment during the lifetime of the Local Plan, proposals will be considered on their merits.

2.1146 A site incorporating the biogas plant and adjoining agricultural land to the north of Holsworthy is promoted for inclusion within the Plan as an additional employment site, with an emphasis of building upon the particular opportunities presented from the biogas plant. Whilst the potential positive aspects of this proposal are noted, as are the unique opportunities arising from the biogas plant, it is not considered appropriate to extend the scope of employment allocations identified within the Plan at this stage. The scale of employment proposals within the Plan already exceed the minimum growth levels specified within the Employment and Housing Study (GL Hearn). The existing portfolio of employment opportunities identified for Holsworthy through the Local Plan is considered to be sufficient. Any additional employment provision in and around Holsworthy would require a matched uplift in dwelling provision to deliver an increased workforce. This is not considered appropriate, nor sustainable, given the proportionately significant scale of housing growth already planned for the settlement. Furthermore, at this stage the site has not been subject to robust appraisal in terms of potential social, economic or environmental impacts or benefits, and given the site’s greenfield nature and relative isolation from the principal built form of the settlement it is considered that there is scope for proposals to cause harm.

2.1147 Information has been received from land owners indicating that a significant proportion of the land covered by Proposal HOL03: Land South of Under Lane – Phase II will not be available for residential development over the Plan period. It was anticipated that the agricultural related retail premises on the brownfield part of the site (SHA/HOL/49) would relocate to the Agri-business Park enabled through policy HOL01 during the lifetime of the Plan, freeing up the site for residential redevelopment. It has now been confirmed that Mole Valley Farmers are seeking to remain on the site, consolidating onto an expanded site taking in the former Cornwall Farmers premises. As such, the brownfield elements of the site will no longer be available for housing development over the lifetime of the Plan. The remaining greenfield element of the site is not deemed to be developable in isolation, with appropriate highway access only being deliverable through either the now unavailable elements of HOL03 to the east, or via Derriton Road to the west, but only if developed in association with an additional greenfield parcel of land (SHA/HOL/07).

2.1148 As there is no longer a reasonable prospect of the site as a whole coming forward for development over the Plan period it is recommended that Policy HOL03, as it stands, is deleted from the Plan. The removal of Policy HOL03 from the Plan will result in a net reduction of 65 dwellings

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

from the identified future housing provision for Holsworthy. As a result, it is necessary to consider the wider impacts of the loss of this proposal on the development strategy for the town and the wider Plan area. In doing so, it is necessary to consider:

1. Whether the existing strategy for the town and wider Plan remains sound once subject to the loss of the proposal; 2. what reasonable alternatives should be considered to address any potential issues arising, including consideration of whether:

a. it is necessary, and possible, to replace the lost allocation with one or more alternative sites; and b. it is necessary to amend or remove any of the other existing proposals.

2.1149 The Northern Devon Housing and Employment Report (GL Hearn, November 2013) identifies the scale of housing growth that is required over the period 2011-2031 in individual sub-areas, so as to maintain a stable employment workforce. For the Holsworthy sub-area, comprising the town and its hinterland, the Report identifies that housing growth of 747 dwellings is required to maintain a stable workforce. The level of housing growth currently enabled for Holsworthy through the Plan is 650 dwellings, with over 100 additional dwellings enabled across the wider hinterland; providing for a level sufficient to meet the minimum requirements across the sub-area. Reflecting the removal of housing proposed for delivery through HOL03, housing growth for Holsworthy enabled through the Local Plan would reduce to 575 dwellings, resulting in a short-fall across the sub-area from the level considered necessary to maintain a stable workforce.

2.1150 The need to replace the lost scale of housing is further reinforced by the scale of economic growth being enabled for Holsworthy through the Local Plan, with an extension to Dobles Lane Industrial Estate (HOL04) and the provision of an Agri-business Park (HOL01). Equally, it is necessary to recognise that, being a sustainable settlement capable of accommodating housing growth, Holsworthy has a role to play in ensuring that Torridge as a whole can deliver the scale of housing required to meet its Objectively Assessed Need. It is however; also necessary to recognise that Holsworthy is a relatively small market town and that proportionately, the planned scale of housing growth is significant in relation to the size of the existing settlement.

2.1151 To conclude, on balance it is considered appropriate to seek to introduce alternate proposals within the Local Plan to deliver housing of a scale approximate to that lost through the removal of HOL03, and to potentially offer a modest increase, so as to deliver a level of planned housing growth across the sub-area that exceeds that required to provide a stable workforce.

2.1152 The SHLAA provides the principal source of evidence from which potential alternative housing sites may be identified. A review of the North Devon and Torridge SHLAA identifies three parcels of land in and adjoining Holsworthy that could be potentially developable for housing over the lifetime of the Plan. A fourth option has been identified as a result of representations received through the consultation on the Publication Draft of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan. It should be noted that the fourth option has not been subject to assessment through the SHLAA, nor considered through the Sustainability Appraisal and that such assessments may result in the identification of constraints that would limit or preclude residential development. The four site options are summarised in Table 1: Potential Site Options.

Table 1: Potential Site Options

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

SHLAA Reference Site Address Area Potential Dwelling Yield relative to Draft (ha) Site Yield Local Plan (+/-) (dwellings)

Option 1 - South East Extension with potential capacity of 239 dwellings (+174 dwellings)

Option 1(A) Land between Windmill 17.52 200 +135 Road and Waterloo SHA/HOL/12 Road

Option 1(B) Colesmill Riding Stables, 4.07 39 -26 Colesmill SHA/HOL/3

Option 2 - South West Extension with potential capacity of 61 dwellings (-4 dwellings)

Option 2(A) Land south of Viaduct 1.35 28 -37 (OS 9243 / 9230), SHA/HOL/7 Derriton Road

Option 2(B) Land north of Sewage 1.76 33 -32 Works, Derriton Road SHA/HOL/41

Option 3 - North West Extension with potential capacity of 81 dwellings (+16 dwellings)

SHA/HOL/13 Land north of Trewyn 9.52 81* +16 House

Option 4 - North East Extension with potential capacity of 14 dwellings (-51 dwellings)

Plp148 Land north of HOL05 0.39 14 -51

Table 2.62

* Reduced from yield attributed within SHLAA, reflecting removal of areas subject to flood risk / subject to safeguarding for quarry and adjustment for part of site already subject to delivery of 20 dwellings under existing Policy HOL10.

Option 1

2.1153 Option 1 presents a substantial greenfield extension to the south east of the town, potentially delivering a yield of 200 – 239 dwellings, dependant upon whether the element at Colesmill Riding Stables in included (SHA/HOL/3). The nature of the site is as such that development would only be realistically achievable and acceptable on a comprehensive basis, delivering a significant urban extension and significantly increasing the scale of housing proposed for delivery in and around the town. Its inclusion would realise an uplift in dwelling numbers for Holsworthy of 135 – 174 units over the level currently proposed for delivery in the Plan. Whilst the site is identified as being potentially

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

developable, the site lies separated from the principal built form of the town by a watercourse lying within a deep wooded valley. Principal highway and footway access would be remote from the town. The site is not considered to integrate well into the existing fabric of the town and is subject to potentially significant landscape and townscape sensitivities. Furthermore, the Grade II listed heritage asset - Holsworthy Viaduct intersects the site and comprehensive residential development could have an adverse impact on its setting.

Option 2

2.1154 Option 2 incorporates the greenfield element of the site currently allocated for residential development under Policy HOL03 (SHA/HOL/41) along with an additional adjoining greenfield parcel to the west (SHA/HOL/7). Together they would potentially deliver a yield of around 61 dwellings, leading to a net reduction of only four dwellings over that provided for in the current strategy. The option offers the advantage of delivering a dwelling yield close to that achieved through HOL03, makes use of part of the existing allocation, and delivers in close geographical proximity to the lost elements of HOL03, in a location close to the town centre. However, the additional parcel of land (SHA/HOL/7) adjoins the Grade II* listed heritage asset - Derriton Viaduct and comprehensive residential development has the potential to adversely impact on the setting of it; although the SHLAA advises that mitigation would be possible. Furthermore, whilst the site adjoins the existing built form, it is very rural in nature and the development itself along with the necessitated highway works have the potential to realise a significant adverse impact on the character of the locality.

Option 3

2.1155 Option 3 comprises land to the north west of the town (SHA/HOL/13) and offers the potential to deliver a net additional yield of approximately 81 dwellings, a net increase of 16 dwellings over the level established in the draft Plan. The broad location of the site was previously identified as the preferred location for housing growth within the Pre-publication Core Strategy (Policy COR21). The site abuts two of the existing sites identified for residential development within the current draft of the Plan (HOL09 and HOL10) and the land owner has promoted an extension of these sites through the consultation on the Publication Draft of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan (plp277/278) that takes in part of this option. The site offers the opportunity to deliver strategic highway improvements, which previously had support from Devon County Council as the Highways Authority, by offering an element of a route linking Rydon Road and Trewyn Road. The site delivers the opportunity to encompass the residential development proposed under Policies HOL09 and HOL10, resulting in a likely improvement to the layout, form and benefits of development that could be achieved from those sites. The site is part of a minerals safeguarding area however a consultation response from the Minerals Authority in relation to the consideration of the site within the SHLAA indicates that residential development on the majority of the site could be achieved subject to appropriate design, layout and landscaping whist supporting the potential future operation of the quarry. In doing so, the response from the minerals authority advises that residential development should not be enabled on the north west field parcel of the SHLAA site that contains the quarry. The site is greenfield in nature but it is considered to sit well in the landscape, have minimal wider landscape issues and offers good connectivity to the existing built form.

Option 4

2.1156 Option 4 offers a small extension to the site proposed for residential development under Policy HOL05 of the current draft of the Plan. The application of the endorsed development assumptions from the SHLAA suggest that the proposed extension could potentially offer a modest increase of 14 dwellings to the yield currently attributed to HOL05. As noted above, the site has not however been subject to assessment through the SHLAA, nor been considered through the

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Sustainability Appraisal process, however on initial inspection, it seems to be free of significant constraints. The site is generally level, bound and screened within the landscape by mature hedgerows and trees and integrates well into the wider extent of land proposed for allocation under Policy HOL05. As such, not withstanding the need to carry out a thorough appraisal, it is considered that the site is likely to be developable for housing over the Plan period. The site will not however contribute a scale of housing sufficient to address the shortfall arising from the loss of HOL03, either on it’s own or in combination with the other identified options.

Recommended Site

2.1157 On balance, it is considered that Option 3 provides the most appropriate site to take forward for inclusion within the Local Plan. The site delivers the scale of residential development necessary to replace that lost as a consequence of the deletion of the site subject to draft Policy HOL03 and offers a slight uplift in yield that helps to ensure that the strategy for Holsworthy and the Plan as a whole remains sound. In doing so, the proposed development would offer the opportunity to deliver strategic highway benefits and provide a scale of development capable of being effectively master-planned and able to support delivery of a range of supporting infrastructure. The site is considered to offer an acceptable landscape, townscape and heritage impacts, integrates well into the existing built form and offers the opportunity to improve the form of development delivered through exiting proposals on sites HOL09 and HOL10 The extent of the site recommended to be taken forward for allocation does differ from the SHLAA site – SHA/HOL/13, in that it excludes the north west field parcel in which the quarry is located, along with a strip of land adjoining the watercourse at the western boundary. As such, the resultant dwelling yield differs slightly from that specified within the SHLAA.

Conclusion

2.1158 A number of recommended changes are considered necessary to address matters of soundness. A significant proportion of site HOL03 is no longer considered to be available for development and as such the proposal would no longer be considered developable. This would result in the policy being likely to be unsound by virtue of failing to be effective. The loss of Policy HOL03 has consequential implications on the soundness of the strategy for Holsworthy and the wider Local Plan. The recommended changes are considered to adequately address the identified issues that may impact on the soundness of the Plan.

Agreed Actions

1. The following agreed Main Changes to the Local Plan:

a. delete content of Policy HOL03 and associated supporting text along with removal of spatial extents of Policy HOL03 on Policies Map (Map 6); b. insert new Policy ‘HOL03’ to deliver residential development to the north west of Holsworthy, covering the principal extent of SHLAA site (SHA/HOL/13) and incorporating the spatial extents of Policies HOL09 and HOL10 and to include the following site specific elements:

i. provision of about 130 dwellings, the types, sizes and tenures of which will be reflective of local needs; ii. retention and enhancement of existing hedgerows and provision of strategic green infrastructure on the western part of the site and to the northern boundary to facilitate the integration of the site into the wider landscape; iii. formation of new junction onto Rydon Road to deliver the primary highway access with secondary access on to Trewyn Park Road and Trewyn Road;

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

iv. Provision of an element of distributor link road from the newly formed junction on to Rydon Road onto the northern site boundary to enable the future delivery of a strategic highway link between Rydon Road and Trewyn Road; v. proposals to avoid or mitigate any adverse impacts on the adjacent County Wildlife Site (to western boundary); vi. proposals to be supported by the provision of a sustainable water strategy, reflecting that the site lies within a Critical Drainage Area and the adjacent watercourse is subject to Water Framework Directive issues; and vii. safeguarding the opportunities for the future operation of the quarry located to the north west of the site by not enabling housing development by supporting appropriate highway access to the quarry and providing appropriate transitions, landscaping and planting between the housing and potential quarrying areas to ensure no statutory nuisance is likely to be raised from future quarry operations.

c. define extent of new Policy ‘HOL03’ on Policies Map (Map 6); d. delete content of Policy HOL09 and associated supporting text along with removal of spatial extents of Policy HOL09 on Policies Map (Map 6); e. delete content of Policy HOL10 and associated supporting text along with removal of spatial extents of Policy HOL10 on Policies Map (Map 6); f. consequential changes necessitated through the deletion of Policy HOL03, HOL09, HOL10 and the insertion of new site proposal Policy ‘HOL03’, to the Holsworthy Strategy (HOL), Policies Map (Map 6), Policy HOL02 and wider spatial strategy; and g. amendment to the development boundary for Holsworthy to remove the greenfield element of site HOL03 (western part) and to take in the extents of the Policy proposed in Part (1)(b) above (as shown on attached Maps).

2. The following are agreed Minor Changes to the Local Plan

a. Addition of supporting text to Policies ST03 and DM02 to reference the Water Framework Directive and the need for development to ensure that water quality is not adversely impacted and opportunities for improvements sought.

Comments made in response to Policy HOL01 and associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 2

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” - -

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy HOL01 and supporting text plp number

Pollution prevention measures need to be incorporated into the proposal. 913 (EA)

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Add reference to the use of SUDS within Critical Drainage Area for development 2710 (EA) proposals.

Additional Information

2.1159 The Livestock Market element of the proposal has now been built and is operational (1/0893/2011/FULM).

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.1160 The Environment Agency calls for reference to be added to the Plan to ensure that pollution prevention measures are incorporated into the proposal. It is considered that Policy DM02: Environmental Protection adequately addresses this matter and as such amendments are not considered necessary to resolve any matters of soundness. However, to add clarity to the Plan, it is considered that a minor modification, cross-referencing policy DM02, could be made to the supporting text for the benefit of clarity.

2.1161 Given that the proposal site lies within a Critical Drainage Area, the Environment Agency seeks the addition of references to the use of SUDS to manage flood risk. Flood management requirements for development, including provisions for development in Critical Drainage Areas, are set out through Policy ST03: Adapting to Climate Change and Strengthening Resilience. Proposals brought forward under Policy HOL01 would be subject to the provisions of that Policy and the strategic policy is considered to adequately address this matter. As such amendments are not considered necessary to resolve any matters of soundness. However, to add clarity to the Plan, it is considered that a clause could be added to the Policy (and referenced in supporting text), through a major modification, to require the provision of a sustainable water strategy, including the management of surface water run-off through SUDS. Additionally, it is recommended that an additional clause is added to Policy HOL, through a major modification, to recognise that the town lies within a Critical Drainage Area and that development proposals for sites that lie within it will need to incorporate enhanced Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems.

2.1162 The livestock element of the proposals has been built and is now operational. This does offer the opportunity to rationalise the Policy and remove elements of the Policy associated to the Livestock market. Such amendments are not considered necessary on the basis of soundness and are not therefore considered necessary to be taken forward at this stage.

Conclusion

2.1163 The submissions put forward through the consultation are not considered to identify any matters that would form a risk to the soundness of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan. A number of major and minor amendments are recommended in the interests of clarity and improving the legibility and readability of the Plan.

Agreed Actions

1. The following are agreed Major Changes to the Local Plan:

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

a. add clause to Policy HOL to recognise that the town lies within a Critical Drainage Area and that development proposals for sites that lie within it will need to incorporate enhanced Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems ; and b. add a clause to Part (2) of Policy HOL01 and commentary to supporting text, citing that proposals should be supported by the provision of a sustainable water strategy and to recognise that the site lies within a Critical Drainage Area.

2. The following are agreed as Minor Changes to the Local Plan:

a. add a statement to supporting text requiring the livestock market proposals to incorporate pollution prevention measures in line with the requirements of Policy DM02.

Comments made in response to Policy HOL02 and associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 2

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” - -

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy HOL02 and supporting text plp number

Support criteria (e) – preserving / enhancing Conservation Area and setting 1243 (EH)

Add reference to the use of SUDS within Critical Drainage Area for development 2711 (EA) proposals.

Additional Information

2.1164 Proposal for residential development on adjoining site and subject to Proposal HOL03 are no longer considered developable over the Plan period as the land is no longer considered available for development.

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.1165 Support from English Heritage regarding the provisions of Clause (e) preserving / enhancing the Conservation Area and its setting is noted.

2.1166 Given that the proposal site lies within a Critical Drainage Area, the Environment Agency seeks the addition of references to the use of SUDS to manage flood risk. Flood management requirements for development, including provisions for development in Critical Drainage Areas, are set out through Policy ST03: Adapting to Climate Change and Strengthening Resilience. Proposals brought forward under Policy HOL02 would be subject to the provisions of that Policy and the strategic policy is considered to adequately address this matter. As such amendments are not considered necessary to resolve any matters of soundness. However, to add clarity to the Plan, it is considered that a clause could be added to the Policy (and referenced in supporting text), through a major

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

modification, to require the provision of a sustainable water strategy, including the management of surface water run-off through SUDS. Additionally, it is recommended that an additional clause is added to Policy HOL, through a major modification, to recognise that the town lies within a Critical Drainage Area and that development proposals for sites that lie within it will need to incorporate enhanced Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems.

Other Matters

2.1167 Proposals for residential development on the adjoining site, currently enabled under Policy HOL03, are no longer considered developable over the lifetime of the Plan. Recognising that integrated and holistic development was sought across the two sites, some consequential amendments are necessary to Policy HOL02 to recognise the loss of HOL03. In particular, Part (2)(d) of Policy HOL02 was required to provide adequate highway access to serve the residential development on HOL03. Whilst residential development is not now proposed on site HOL03, it is considered appropriate that development enabled through HOL02 should continue to deliver highway proposals adequate to service future comprehensive residential development on the adjoining site. A minor wording change is recommended to this part of the policy and associated supporting text at paragraph 10.260 to remove reference to HOL03 and rather reference the delivery of appropriate highway access to service potential future comprehensive residential development on land adjoining the western boundary.

2.1168 The submissions put forward through the consultation are not considered to identify any matters that would form a risk to the soundness of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan. A number of major and minor amendments are recommended in the interests of clarity and improving the legibility and readability of the Plan.

Agreed Actions

1. The following are agreed as Major Changes to the Local Plan:

a. Add clause to Policy HOL to recognise that the town lies within a Critical Drainage Area and that development proposals for sites that lie within it will need to incorporate enhanced Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems. b. Add a clause to Part (2) of Policy HOL02 and commentary to supporting text, citing that proposals should be supported by the provision of a sustainable water strategy and to recognise that the site lies within a Critical Drainage Area.

2. The following are recommended as Minor Changes to the Local Plan:

a. Amend Part (2)(d) of Policy HOL02 and paragraph 10.260 to remove reference to residential development on HOL03 and refer instead to safeguarding future highway access to potential future residential development on adjoining land to the west.

Comments made in response to Policy HOL03 and associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 4

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - -

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” - -

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy HOL03 and supporting text plp number

Support for proposal, noting the positive benefits that it can deliver. 103, 276 (land owner for part of site)

Add reference to the use of SUDS within Critical Drainage Area for development 2712 (EA) proposals.

Support criteria (d) – preserving / enhancing Conservation Area and setting 1244 (EH)

Additional Information

2.1169 Information has been received to indicate that a significant proportion of the site allocated for development under Policy HOL03 (the extent of Mole Valley Farmers and former Cornwall Farmers) will no longer be available for housing development over the lifetime of the Plan.

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.1170 As noted above, and in consideration of the wider strategy for Holsworthy under Policy HOL: Holsworthy Spatial Vision and Development Strategy, information has been received from one of the land owning interests to indicate that the significant proportion of the site, subject to Policy HOL03, and under their control will no longer be available for residential development over the lifetime of the Plan. Comprehensive consideration of this matter is given in the response provided to Policy HOL and in the interests of brevity it is not replicated here. The outcome however is that the site allocated for development under Policy HOL03 is no longer considered developable over the lifetime of the Plan and as such the Policy could not be considered effective and the Policy is therefore no longer considered appropriate for inclusion in its current form.

2.1171 Not withstanding the above, it is prudent to give due regard to the consultation responses provided in relation to the Policy. The support from English Heritage regarding the provisions of Clause (d) preserving / enhancing the Conservation Area and its setting are welcomed and noted.

2.1172 Given that the proposal site lies within a Critical Drainage Area, the Environment Agency seeks the addition of references to the use of SUDS to manage flood risk. Flood management requirements for development, including provisions for development in Critical Drainage Areas, are set out through Policy ST03: Adapting to Climate Change and Strengthening Resilience. Proposals brought forward under Policy HOL03 would be subject to the provisions of that Policy and the strategic policy is considered to adequately address this matter. As such amendments are not considered necessary to resolve any matters of soundness. However, to add clarity to the Plan, it is considered that a clause could be added to the Policy (and referenced in supporting text), through a major modification, to require the provision of a sustainable water strategy, including the management of surface water run-off through SUDS. Additionally, as noted in relation to other Policies it is recommended that an additional clause is added to Policy HOL, through a major modification, to recognise that the town lies within a Critical Drainage Area and that development proposals for sites that lie within it will need to incorporate enhanced Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Conclusion

2.1173 The site subject to Policy HOL03 is no longer considered to be developable for the proposals put forward through the Local Plan, over the lifetime of the Plan. As such, the continued inclusion of the proposal would not accord with the provisions of the NPPF, which require the content of the Plan to be effective and deliverable over its lifetime. Therefore, failure to address the issues raised in relation to this Policy are considered likely to result in a risk to the soundness of the Plan and as such amendments are proposed to address the matters arising.

Agreed Actions

1. The following are agreed as Main Changes to the Local Plan:

a. delete Policy HOL03 and associated supporting text and remove the spatial extents of Policy HOL03 on Policies Map (Map 6). b. amendment to the development boundary for Holsworthy to remove the greenfield element of the site (western part) (as shown on attached Maps); and c. add clause to Policy HOL to recognise that the town lies within a Critical Drainage Area and that development proposals for sites that lie within it will need to incorporate enhanced Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems.

2. The following are recommended as Minor Changes to the Local Plan:

a. consequential changes necessitated through the deletion of Policy HOL03 to the wider Plan including Policy HOL: Spatial Vision and Development Strategy, HOL02 and wider Spatial Strategy.

Comments made in response to Policy HOL04 and associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 2

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” - -

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy HOL04 and supporting text plp number

Site has element of functional floodplain that will require special consideration and 914 (EA) may affect layout / design.

Add reference to the use of SUDS within Critical Drainage Area for development 2713 (EA) proposals.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.1174 The Environment Agency highlight that part of the site lies within the functional floodplain that will require special consideration that might impact on the layout and or design of proposal on the site. This is noted. Policy ST03: Adapting to Climate Change and Strengthening Resilience sets out provisions to ensure that proposals pay appropriate regard to flood risk. These strategic policy elements are considered to appropriately address this matter and as such no amendment is considered necessary to Policy HOL04 or the associated supporting text.

2.1175 Given that the proposal site lies within a Critical Drainage Area, the Environment Agency seeks the addition of references to the use of SUDS to manage flood risk. Flood management requirements for development, including provisions for development in Critical Drainage Areas, are set out through Policy ST03: Adapting to Climate Change and Strengthening Resilience. Proposals brought forward under Policy HOL04 would be subject to the provisions of that Policy and the strategic policy is considered to adequately address this matter. As such amendments are not considered necessary to resolve any matters of soundness. However, to add clarity to the Plan, it is considered that a clause could be added to the Policy (and referenced in supporting text), through a major modification, to require the provision of a sustainable water strategy, including the management of surface water run-off through SUDS. Additionally, as noted in relation to other Policies it is recommended that an additional clause is added to Policy HOL, through a major modification, to recognise that the town lies within a Critical Drainage Area and that development proposals for sites that lie within it will need to incorporate enhanced Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems.

Other Matters

2.1176 An imbalance exists between planned housing and employment growth, with a current significant over provision of employment land, as evidence by the North Devon and Torridge Housing and Employment Study (GL Hearn 2014). A review has been undertaken to identify opportunities to rebalance housing and employment levels, both in terms of reducing the scale of allocated employment land and increasing the provision of housing. This review is set out in detail in the report which considers the changes necessary to Policy ST08.

2.1177 Responding to the recognised need to reduce the scale of employment land allocated, it has been identified that there is scope to reduce the scale of employment land allocated for development through Policy HOL04: West of Dobles Lane Industrial Estate.

2.1178 The Policy currently allocates about 4.5 hectares of land for economic development, as an extension to Dobles Lane Industrial estate. The allocation comprises two distinct field parcels and upon review, it is considered that the northern parcel could be developed in isolation of the southern one and still provide for an appropriate extension to the existing industrial estate. In doing so, the allocation could be reduced to approximately 2.1 hectares. Retaining the northern parcel enables the spine road from the existing industrial estate to be extended to serve the allocation, something that would not be possible if the southern parcel was alternatively retained. The current Policy requires that proposals extend the existing spinal estate road, Tamar Road, to serve the development and also connect it through to Trewyn Road to the west through the formation of a new junction. The latter being part of a longer term aspiration to provide an alternative highway route connecting the west and north of the town which avoids traffic needing to enter the centre of the town.

2.1179 Recognising that the southern field parcel would continue to form a logical extension to the industrial estate it is recommended that provisions are placed within the policy to ensure that appropriate highway access into this field parcel is safeguarded. Allied to this, whilst it is still considered appropriate to require the development to extend the existing spine road to serve the development

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

of a reduced allocation, it is considered that the requirement to deliver a new junction onto Trewyn Road could be prohibitively expensive given the scale of employment development that could be realised from the reduced allocation and hence jeopardise the deliverability of the allocation. To this end, it is recommended that the Policy is revised to remove the requirement to provide a new junction onto Trewyn Road and rather introduce provisions to require the extension of the spine road through the site to connect to the southern boundary, hence safeguarding opportunities for the future development of the southern field parcel and long term connectivity to Trewyn Road.

2.1180 It is worth noting that reducing the size of the allocation to 2.1 hectares brings the proposal into line with the findings of the Employment Land Review which considered that around 2 hectares of employment land provision would be appropriate as an extension to Dobles Lane Industrial Estate, to accommodate general Class B uses.

Conclusion

2.1181 The submissions put forward through the consultation are not considered to identify any matters that would form a risk to the soundness of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan. A number of major and minor amendments are recommended in the interests of clarity and improving the legibility and readability of the Plan.

Agreed Actions

1. The following are agreed as Major Changes to the Local Plan:

a. add clause to Policy HOL to recognise that the town lies within a Critical Drainage Area and that development proposals for sites that lie within it will need to incorporate enhanced Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems; and b. add a clause to Part (2) of Policy HOL02 and commentary to supporting text, citing that proposals should be supported by the provision of a sustainable water strategy and to recognise that the site lies within a Critical Drainage Area. c. amend the lead-in sentence of Part (1) of Policy HOL04 to read: ‘Land to the west of Dobles Lane Industrial Estate, extending to about 4.5 2.1 hectares and as defined on Policies Map 6, is allocated for economic development that includes:’. d. amend Part (1)(b) to read: ‘(b) an extended spinal estate road, connecting River Tamar Way to the southern boundary of the allocated site Trewyn Road , appropriate to serve the proposed development, safeguard future opportunities for the delivery of economic development on the adjoining field parcel to the south and to form part of a future highway link to Trewyn Road.’. e. amend the first sentence of paragraph 10.264 to read: ‘A site of about 4.5 2.1 hectares is allocated for the provision of economic development to the west of the existing Dobles Lane Industrial Estate.’. f. amend paragraph 10.266 to read: ‘The site principally comprises open farmland and forms part of the final element strip of open land that separates the existing industrial estate from Trewyn Road. Development proposals will be expected to deliver an extended spinal estate road, continuing River Tamar Way, through the site, to the southern boundary of the allocated site. In doing so, the new highway will be appropriate to serve the proposed development whilst safeguarding opportunities to deliver appropriate highway access to serve potential future economic development on the adjoining field parcel to the south of the allocation and to form part of a distributor route connecting Dobles Lane, via River Tamar Way to and culminating in the formation of a new junction onto Trewyn Road. In doing so, development will The intention in the longer term is to complete a new distributor route, supporting improved highway connectivity within and around the town.’.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

g. amend Policies Map 6 to depict a reduced allocation for HOL04 (covering only the northern field parcel of the existing allocation) and to reflect a revised development boundary excluding the part of HOL04 no longer allocated for development (i.e. the southern field parcel of the existing allocation)` ;and h. amend Policy ST08, associated supporting text and Table 10.11 to reflect reduced employment provision arising from revised allocation HOL04.

Comments made in response to Policy HOL05 and associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 3

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 1 -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 1 -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1 -

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy HOL05 and supporting text plp number

Suggest inclusion of additional land to extend allocation and propose development 148 boundary is amended to reflect extension.

Add reference to the use of SUDS within Critical Drainage Area for development 2714 (EA) proposals.

Support proposal and recognise the need to link delivery of HOL05 and HOL06 to 1902 (land deliver appropriate infrastructure and ensure gateway is provided. owner)

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.1182 The support offered for the proposal from the land owner interests is noted and the recognition of the need for HOL05 and HOL06 to be considered collectively is welcomed.

2.1183 Given that the proposal site lies within a Critical Drainage Area, the Environment Agency seeks the addition of references to the use of SUDS to manage flood risk. Flood management requirements for development, including provisions for development in Critical Drainage Areas, are set out through Policy ST03: Adapting to Climate Change and Strengthening Resilience. Proposals brought forward under Policy HOL05 would be subject to the provisions of that Policy and the strategic policy is considered to adequately address this matter. As such amendments are not considered necessary to resolve any matters of soundness. However, to add clarity to the Plan, it is considered that a clause could be added to the Policy (and referenced in supporting text), through a major modification, to require the provision of a sustainable water strategy, including the management of surface water run-off through SUDS. Additionally, as noted in relation to other Policies it is recommended that an additional clause is added to Policy HOL, through a major modification, to recognise that the town lies within a Critical Drainage Area and that development proposals for sites that lie within it will need to incorporate enhanced Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

2.1184 A small parcel of greenfield land is promoted as an extension to the allocation for residential development advocated through Policy HOL05. Full consideration to the potential for the allocation of this extension is offered earlier in this report in relation to Policy: HOL and the discussion in relation to opportunities to replace the dwelling yield lost through the removal of Policy HOL03. In the interests of brevity, the full consideration of the site is not replicated here. Whilst it is accepted that the parcel of land might form a logical extension to the allocation, it is not considered necessary to extend the extent of the site allocation.

Conclusion

2.1185 The submissions put forward through the consultation are not considered to identify any matters that would form a risk to the soundness of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan.

Agreed Actions

1. The following are agreed as Major Changes to the Local Plan:

a. add clause to Policy HOL to recognise that the town lies within a Critical Drainage Area and that development proposals for sites that lie within it will need to incorporate enhanced Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems; and b. add a clause to Part (2) of Policy HOL05 and commentary to supporting text, citing that proposals should be supported by the provision of a sustainable water strategy and to recognise that the site lies within a Critical Drainage Area.

Comments made in response to Policy HOL06 and associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 5

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” - -

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy HOL06 and supporting text plp number

Site has element of functional floodplain that will require special consideration and 915 (EA) may affect layout / design.

Add reference to the use of SUDS within Critical Drainage Area for development 2714 (EA) proposals.

Support proposal and recognise the need to link delivery of HOL05 and HOL06 to 1908 (land deliver appropriate infrastructure and ensure gateway is provided. owner)

Proposals should require either off-site recreation / sports provision OR off-site 1908 (land footpath link and not both as this would not be financially viable. owner)

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Policy needs to ensure that the adjacent County Wildlife Site is protected. 2033 (NE)

Suggested that part of the site outside of the proposed development boundary 2126 may comprise a former rubbish dump.

Additional Information

2.1186 The footpath proposed for delivery through Part (2)(b) is not over adjacent land as stated but rather contained within site boundary. This is a drafting error that arose following late changes made to the boundary to respond to the Critical Drainage Area designation and the consequential need to enable more flexibility within the allocation to accommodate enhanced SUDS.

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.1187 The support offered for the proposal from the land owner interests is noted and the recognition of the need for HOL05 and HOL06 to be considered collectively is welcomed.

2.1188 Representation on behalf of the land owners considers that to provide contributions towards off-site recreation and sports provision (clause (2)(a)) and also deliver a footpath link over adjoining land (clause (2)(b)) would render proposals unviable. The representation goes on to note that they assume that the policy seeks the land over which the footpath runs to be provided as open space. They advocate that amendment is made to the policy to establish an either/ or position in relation to these requirements.

2.1189 The policy is not currently explicit about the requirement for the land which the footpath crosses to be provided as open space, although this was the intent of the policy. The requirement for off-site provision was introduced to the Policy when the extent of the site was limited to the area within the development boundary and the site was relatively constrained. Given that a significant parcel of additional land is now subject to the Policy, and potentially capable of providing on-site green infrastructure provision, it is considered that continuing to explicitly seek financial contributions towards off-site provision is unnecessary. In doing so, it should however be recognised that if site constraints be such that recreation requirements cannot be met in full, then off-site provision may still be required. In any case, proposals would be subject to the requirements of Policy DM10: Green Infrastructure Provision that set out the nature and extent of green infrastructure provision that would be expected to support residential development proposals.

2.1190 There is no evidence presented at this stage to indicate that the burden of the two clauses would render the development unviable, although it is accepted that should such evidence be forthcoming then the risk to deliverability of the site could impact on the soundness of the Plan. It is accepted that the removal of the explicit requirement for off-site provision would potentially improve the deliverability of proposals, introduce flexibility and allow the appropriate mechanisms for delivery of green infrastructure to be considered as proposals are developed.

2.1191 On this basis, it is recommended that clause (2)(a) and relevant supporting text which seeks financial contributions towards off-site recreation and sports provision is deleted. Furthermore, it is advocated that clause (2)(b) and associated supporting text be amended through major changes to reflect that land outside of the development boundary, but within the extent of the allocation, should deliver accessible green infrastructure provision incorporating a footpath link.

2.1192 The Environment Agency highlight that part of the site subject to proposal HOL06 lies within the functional floodplain that will require special consideration and might impact on the layout and/ or design of proposal on the site. This is noted. The parts of the site subject to flood risk fall to the

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

eastern extents of the site in the valley adjacent to the watercourse. The proposed development boundary for Holsworthy has been positioned in such a way as to constrain the potential built form of development on HOL06, recognising the unsuitability of the eastern elements to support built development. In doing so, it directs the built form away from the part of the site subject to flood risk. In any extent, Policy ST03: Adapting to Climate Change and Strengthening Resilience sets out provisions to ensure that proposals pay appropriate regard to flood risk. These strategic policy elements are considered to appropriately address this matter and as such no amendment is considered necessary to Policy HOL06 or the associated supporting text.

2.1193 Given that the proposal site lies within a Critical Drainage Area, the Environment Agency seeks the addition of references to the use of SUDS to manage flood risk. Flood management requirements for development, including provisions for development in Critical Drainage Areas, are set out through Policy ST03: Adapting to Climate Change and Strengthening Resilience. Proposals brought forward under Policy HOL06 would be subject to the provisions of that Policy and the strategic policy is considered to adequately address this matter. As such amendments are not considered necessary to resolve any matters of soundness. However, to add clarity to the Plan, it is considered that a clause could be added to the Policy (and referenced in supporting text), through a major modification, to require the provision of a sustainable water strategy, including the management of surface water run-off through SUDS. Additionally, as noted in relation to other Policies it is recommended that an additional clause is added to Policy HOL, through a major modification, to recognise that the town lies within a Critical Drainage Area and that development proposals for sites that lie within it will need to incorporate enhanced Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems.

2.1194 Natural England highlight that the site subject to the Policy lies adjacent to a County Wildlife Site and they seek to ensure that it is afforded appropriate protection. Policy DM08: Biodiversity and Geodiversity seeks to protect and enhance biodiversity. It is considered that the provisions of this Policy offer the appropriate safeguards to ensure that the adjacent County Wildlife Site is protected form any unacceptable harm arising from proposals enabled through Policy HOL06. As such amendments are not considered necessary to resolve any matters of soundness. However, to add clarity to the Plan, it is recommended that a clause is inserted to Part (2) of Policy HOL06, along with the provision of appropriate supporting text to the Policy, as a series of minor amendments, to state that proposals need to avoid or mitigate any adverse impacts on the adjacent County Wildlife Site.

2.1195 A respondent raises concerns that part of the site comprises a former rubbish dump. A review of information held in relation to the location of historic landfills has not identified any such features within or adjoining the extent of HOL06, and no such concern was raised by the Minerals and Waste authority (Devon County Council) when advice was sought on the suitability of the site for housing through the SHLAA. As such, whilst the concerns are noted, there is no verifiable information available to indicate that a historic landfill is present on the site and that residential development would be precluded on this basis. To this end, no change to the Plan is recommended in relation to this matter.

Conclusion

2.1196 A series of major changes are recommended to the Policy, in relation to the open space, recreation and footpath provision, to introduce flexibility to the Policy, recognise a drafting error and in doing so, address potential soundness issues regarding the effectiveness of the policy. A number of further major and minor changes are recommended in the interests of readability.

Agreed Actions

1. The following are agreed as Major Changes to the Local Plan:

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

a. add clause to Policy HOL to recognise that the town lies within a Critical Drainage Area and that development proposals for sites that lie within it will need to incorporate enhanced Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems; b. add a clause to Part (2) of Policy HOL06 and commentary to supporting text, citing that proposals should be supported by the provision of a sustainable water strategy and to recognise that the site lies within a Critical Drainage Area; and c. delete Part (2)(a) regarding provision of financial contribution towards off-site enhancements to recreation and sports provision; d. add a clause to Part (2) of Policy HOL06 and commentary to supporting text, citing that proposals should avoid or mitigate any adverse impacts on the adjacent County Wildlife Site; e. amend Part (2)(b) of Policy HOL06 to state “provision of green infrastructure across eastern part of site that lies outside of development boundary and delivery of a footpath linking the residential development to Waterloo road;”; f. amend depiction of Policy HOL06 on Policies Map to identify extent of policy area which is outside of development boundary as Green Infrastructure (green), rather than Housing (pink).

2. The following is agreed as Minor Changes to the Local Plan:

a. Amend first sentence of paragraph 10.273 to state: “Responding to the aspiration to connect the town to the countryside as set out in the spatial vision, the site will deliver a new footpath as a Public Right of Way over adjacent land to link the residential development to Waterloo Road, following the indicative route identified on the Policies Map.”.

Comments made in response to Policy HOL07 and associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 2

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” - -

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy HOL07 and supporting text plp number

Site has element of functional floodplain that will require special consideration and 916 (EA) may affect layout / design.

Add reference to the use of SUDS within Critical Drainage Area for development 2716 (EA) proposals.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Additional Information

2.1197 The footpath proposed for delivery through Part (2)(e) is not over adjacent land as stated but rather contained within site boundary. This drafting error arose following late changes made to the site boundary to respond to the Critical Drainage Area designation and the considered need to enable more flexibility within the allocation to accommodate enhanced SUDS.

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.1198 The Environment Agency highlight that part of the site subject to proposal HOL07 lies within the functional floodplain that will require special consideration and might impact on the layout and/ or design of proposal on the site. This is noted. The parts of the site subject to flood risk fall to the eastern extents of the site in the valley adjacent to the watercourse. The proposed development boundary for Holsworthy has been positioned in such a way as to constrain the potential built form of development on HOL07, recognising the unsuitability of the eastern elements to support built development. In doing so, it directs the built form away from the part of the site subject to flood risk. In any extent, Policy ST03: Adapting to Climate Change and Strengthening Resilience sets out provisions to ensure that proposals pay appropriate regard to flood risk. These strategic policy elements are considered to appropriately address this matter and as such no amendment is considered necessary to Policy HOL07 or the associated supporting text.

2.1199 Given that the proposal site lies within a Critical Drainage Area, the Environment Agency seeks the addition of references to the use of SUDS to manage flood risk. Flood management requirements for development, including provisions for development in Critical Drainage Areas, are set out through Policy ST03: Adapting to Climate Change and Strengthening Resilience. Proposals brought forward under Policy HOL07 would be subject to the provisions of that Policy and the strategic policy is considered to adequately address this matter. As such amendments are not considered necessary to resolve any matters of soundness. However, to add clarity to the Plan, it is considered that a clause could be added to the Policy (and referenced in supporting text), through a major modification, to require the provision of a sustainable water strategy, including the management of surface water run-off through SUDS. Additionally, as noted in relation to other Policies it is recommended that an additional clause is added to Policy HOL, through a major modification, to recognise that the town lies within a Critical Drainage Area and that development proposals for sites that lie within it will need to incorporate enhanced Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems.

Other Matters

2.1200 In response to a drafting error, it is necessary to revise the wording of Part (2)(e) and paragraph 10.276 to recognise that the required footpath link is not over adjacent land, but rather across part of the site subject to allocation. In doing so, it is also considered prudent, in the interests of legibility and readability, to simplify those elements. The policy is not currently explicit about the requirement for the land which the footpath crosses to be provided as green infrastructure, although this was the intent of the policy. It is advocated that clause (2)(e) and associated supporting text be amended through major and minor changes to reflect that land outside of the development boundary, but within the extent of the allocation, should deliver green infrastructure provision including the delivery of a footpath link.

Conclusion

2.1201 The submissions put forward through the consultation are not considered to identify any matters that would form a risk to the soundness of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan. A number of major and minor changes are recommended in the interests of readability.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Agreed Actions

1. The following are agreed as Major Changes to the Local Plan:

a. add clause to Policy HOL to recognise that the town lies within a Critical Drainage Area and that development proposals for sites that lie within it will need to incorporate enhanced Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems; b. add a clause to Part (2) of Policy HOL05 and commentary to supporting text, citing that proposals should be supported by the provision of a sustainable water strategy and to recognise that the site lies within a Critical Drainage Area; and c. amend Part (2)(e) of Policy HOL07 to state “provision of green infrastructure across eastern part of site that lies outside of development boundary and delivery of a footpath linking the residential development to Waterloo road;”; and d. amend depiction of Policy HOL07 on Policies Map to identify extent of policy area which is outside of development boundary as Green Infrastructure (green), rather than Housing (pink).

2. The following is agreed as a Minor Changes to the Local Plan:

a. amend second sentence of paragraph 10.276 state: “Responding to the aspiration to connect the town to the countryside as set out in the spatial vision, the site will deliver a new footpath as a Public Right of Way over adjacent land to link the residential development to Waterloo Road, following the indicative route identified on the Policies Map.”.

Comments made in response to Policy HOL08 and associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 1

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” - -

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy HOL08 and supporting text plp number

Propose amended wording for Policy to refer to ‘route of the former railway’ and 324 ‘recreational multi-use route’.

Table 2.63

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.1202 The Devon Countryside Access Forum have proposed an amended wording for the policy, advocating that it includes reference to the ‘route of the former railway’ rather than simply ‘route’ and ‘recreational multi-use route’ in place of ‘trail’. Following engagement with Devon County Council, it is not proposed to make changes to the policy in this respect. Whilst the route will principally follow the route of the former railway, it is possible that it will deviate in places. As such it is not considered

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

appropriate to reference this directly within the Policy. It is suggested however, that for clarity, a minor amendment is made to the supporting text to the Policy to recognise that the route principally follows that of the former railway.

2.1203 With respect to the second proposed amendment, it is considered that ‘trail’ is the appropriate expression and that the addition of ‘recreational’ is not appropriate as it could also potentially facilitate ‘utility / commuting’ trips as well as recreational ones. As such, no amendment is considered necessary to Policy HOL08 or the associated supporting text.

Conclusion

2.1204 The submissions put forward through the consultation are not considered to identify any matters that would form a risk to the soundness of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan.

Agreed Action

1. No Major Changes to Policy HOL08. 2. The following is agreed as a Minor Change to the Local Plan:

a. Amend paragraph 10.277 to state that the route principally follows the route of the former railway – “…and east towards , principally following the route of the former railway line, is safeguarded…”.

Comments made in response to Policy HOL09 and associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 2

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” - -

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy HOL09 and supporting text plp number

Add reference to the use of SUDS within Critical Drainage Area for development 2717 (EA) proposals.

Support proposal but identify need for a link to be provided through allocated site 277 (land to link, in the future, to HOL10. owner)

Additional Information

2.1205 The additional allocation proposed to replace the housing lost through the removal of site HOL03 would lie adjacent to site HOL09. There is scope for the extent of HOL09 and the development principles to be incorporated into a wider allocation.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.1206 The recommended removal of Policy HOL03 from the Plan on the basis that it is no longer available for residential development and the resultant recommendation to include the parcel of land (SHA/HOL/13) adjacent to HOL09 as a new residential development proposal, raises the opportunity to rationalise and consolidate the proposals in and around Holsworthy. In doing so, it is recommended that the extent of Policy HOL09, along with HOL10, is incorporated into a new policy area for a wider parcel of residential development. Whilst this change is not considered necessary on a soundness basis, it is considered that consolidation of Policy offers the opportunity to deliver a better form of development across the sites in question, simplifies the Plan and provides for an improved balance of housing and employment within the housing sub-area (as discussed in relation to Policy HOL). To this end, it is recommended that major changes are made to the Plan, to delete Policy HOL09, associated supporting text and the spatial extent of the Policy on the Policies Map and for the site extent and principles of development to be incorporated into a new site allocation incorporating the extent of SHLAA site SHA/HOL/13 and existing draft Local Plan Policies HOL09 and HOL10.

2.1207 Not withstanding the above, it is prudent to give due regard to the consultation responses provided in relation to the Policy. Given that the proposal site lies within a Critical Drainage Area, the Environment Agency seeks the addition of references to the use of SUDS to manage flood risk. Flood management requirements for development, including provisions for development in Critical Drainage Areas, are set out through Policy ST03: Adapting to Climate Change and Strengthening Resilience. Proposals brought forward under Policy HOL07 would be subject to the provisions of that Policy and the strategic policy is considered to adequately address this matter. As such amendments are not considered necessary to resolve any matters of soundness. However, to add clarity to the Plan, it is considered that a clause could be added to the Policy (and referenced in supporting text), through a major modification, to require the provision of a sustainable water strategy, including the management of surface water run-off through SUDS. Additionally, as noted in relation to other Policies it is recommended that an additional clause is added to Policy HOL, through a major modification, to recognise that the town lies within a Critical Drainage Area and that development proposals for sites that lie within it will need to incorporate enhanced Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems.

2.1208 Representation on behalf of the land owner offering support to the proposal in noted. The representation goes on to seek amendment to the Policy to require the delivery of highway links through the site to enable the connectivity through future development to the residential development to the north / west and then on to site HOL10. It is not considered that such an amendment is necessary to resolve any matters of soundness but it is considered to be a reasonable proposition that would result in an improved built form. It is worth noting however that the recommended consolidation of the Policy into a wider allocation would address the concerns raised in relation to this matter.

Conclusion

2.1209 The submissions put forward through the consultation are not considered to identify any matters that would form a risk to the soundness of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan. A number of major and minor changes are recommended to simplify the Plan and offer the opportunity to the delivery of improved development.

Agreed Actions

1. The following are agreed as Main Changes to Policy HOL09: 2.

a. delete content of Policy HOL09 and associated supporting text along with removal of spatial extents of Policy HOL09 on Policies Map (Map 6);

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

b. insert new Policy to deliver residential development to the north west of Holsworthy, covering the principal extent of SHLAA site (SHA/HOL/13) and incorporating the spatial extents of Policies HOL09 and HOL10, as advocated in consideration of Policy HOL; c. add clause to Policy HOL to recognise that the town lies within a Critical Drainage Area and that development proposals for sites that lie within it will need to incorporate enhanced Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems; and d. add a clause to replacement Policy and commentary to supporting text, citing that proposals should be supported by the provision of a sustainable water strategy and to recognise that the site lies within a Critical Drainage Area.

Comments made in response to Policy HOL10 and associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 3

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” - -

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy HOL10 and supporting text plp number

Add reference to the use of SUDS within Critical Drainage Area for development 2718 (EA) proposals.

Consider site is smaller than indicated and as such cannot realise the scale of 277 / 298 proposed development. Advocate that site is extended, to enable yield to be achieved (land owner) and provide pedestrian / cycle and highway links between Rydon Road and Trewyn Road.

Development to the north west of the town is preferable for drainage management. 2707 (land owner)

Additional Information

2.1210 The additional allocation proposed to replace the housing lost through the removal of site HOL03 would lie adjacent to site HOL10. There is scope for the extent of HOL10 and the development principles to be incorporated into a wider allocation.

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.1211 The recommended removal of Policy HOL03 from the Plan on the basis that it is no longer available for residential development and the resultant recommendation to include the parcel of land adjacent to HOL10 as a new residential development proposal, raises the opportunity to rationalise and consolidate the proposals in and around Holsworthy. In doing so, it is recommended that the extent of Policy HOL10, along with HOL09, is incorporated into a new policy for a wider parcel of residential development. Whilst this change is not considered necessary on a soundness basis, it is

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

considered that consolidation of Policy offers the opportunity to deliver a better form of development across the sites in question, simplifies the Plan and provides for an improved balance of housing and employment within the housing sub-area (as discussed in relation to Policy HOL). To this end, it is recommended that major changes are made to the Plan, to delete Policy HOL09, associated supporting text and the spatial extent of the Policy on the Policies Map and for the site extent and principles of development to be incorporated into a new site allocation incorporating the extent of SHLAA site (SHA/HOL/13) and existing draft Local Plan Policies HOL09 and HOL10.

2.1212 Not withstanding the above, it is prudent to give due regard to the consultation responses provided in relation to the Policy. Given that the proposal site lies within a Critical Drainage Area, the Environment Agency seeks the addition of references to the use of SUDS to manage flood risk. Flood management requirements for development, including provisions for development in Critical Drainage Areas, are set out through Policy ST03: Adapting to Climate Change and Strengthening Resilience. Proposals brought forward under Policy HOL10 would be subject to the provisions of that Policy and the strategic policy is considered to adequately address this matter. As such amendments are not considered necessary to resolve any matters of soundness. However, to add clarity to the Plan, it is considered that a clause could be added to the Policy (or successor policy covering the land) and referenced in supporting text, through a series of minor / major amendments, to require the provision of a sustainable water strategy, including the management of surface water run-off through SUDS.

2.1213 Representations received on behalf of the land owner suggest that the site is smaller than the 1 hectare indicated within the draft Local Plan and that as such the site is not of a sufficient size to accommodate the 20 dwellings proposed for it. In response, the respondent advocates that the site is extended to the west to enable the dwelling yield to be accommodated and to enable footpath / cycle links to HOL09. A review of the site using the Council’s Geographical Information System (GIS) identifies that the site is actually 0.91 hectares. Application of the SHLAA endorsed assumptions on development potential, which generally offer a conservative estimate of dwelling yield, indicates a potential capacity of 19 dwellings for the site. As such, the yield of 20 dwellings attributed to the site is considered to be a reasonable assumption, particularly considering the yield is predicated by ‘approximately’ within the Policy. As such, it is not considered necessary to amend the policy on this basis to address matters of soundness. It is worth noting however that the recommended consolidation of the Policy into a wider allocation would address the concerns raised in relation to this matter.

2.1214 The comments in relation to the north west of the town being preferable to other locations with respect of drainage are noted.

Conclusion

2.1215 The submissions put forward through the consultation are not considered to identify any matters that would form a risk to the soundness of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan. A number of major and minor changes are recommended to simplify the Plan and offer the opportunity to the delivery of improved development.

Agreed Actions

1. The following are agreed as Main Changes to the Local Plan: a. delete content of Policy HOL10 and associated supporting text along with removal of spatial extents of Policy HOL10 on Policies Map (Map 6); b. insert new Policy to deliver residential development to the north west of Holsworthy, covering the principal extent of SHLAA site (SHA/HOL/13) and incorporating the spatial extents of Policies HOL09 and HOL10, as advocated in consideration of Policy HOL;

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

c. add clause to Policy HOL to recognise that the town lies within a Critical Drainage Area and that development proposals for sites that lie within it will need to incorporate enhanced Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems; and d. add a clause to replacement Policy and commentary to supporting text, citing that proposals should be supported by the provision of a sustainable water strategy and to recognise that the site lies within a Critical Drainage Area.

Town Strategies: Ilfracombe

Comments made in response to Policy ILF and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 12

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 3 ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 1 4

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 3 ~

Table 2.64

Summary of Issues

Comments on Ilfracombe Spatial Strategy Policy ILF: and supporting text plp number

Criterion (k) of the spatial strategy need to be amended to conform with paragraph 254 115 of the NPPF: The town is adjacent the designated AONB. ‘Development will seek to conserve the setting of the neighbouring designated AONB.’

Paragraph (g) refers to improving sea defences. Redevelopment proposals in these 917 (EA) areas should provide or contribute towards the improvement of existing sea defences. Reference to the CDA is supported and the need for stricter drainage standards at relevant sites in Ilfracombe. There should be a reference to water quality within this policy and supporting text, taking into account the WFD and bathing water issues. SWW need to confirm the availability and adequacy of the sewer system and treatment facilities and other work required to accommodate new development.

Policy should seek to do more. Ilfracombe identified as Conservation Area at risk. 1224 (EH) CIL funding should be used to fund maintenance and improvements. In current wording the policy is unsound.

Policy ILF is sound, including by meeting the prescribed tests of being “justified” and 1109 “effective”. In this respect and with particular regard to the proposed Ilfracombe southern extension (part c of the policy), this is the most appropriate strategy for the town. Policy ILF demonstrates that the southern extension forms an integral part of Ilfracombe’s future, and forms an important and complementary component of growth alongside town centre regeneration and renewal initiatives.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Amend Policy ILF(j): reference a “children’s centre base” alongside an increased 1300 (DCC) primary school capacity and early year’s provision.

The continued inclusion of the reservoir site at Higher Slade Road is supported. 1512

The strategy for the town is to deliver regeneration through growth to support greater 2309 self-sufficiency. We support this policy aim, but consider that the Plan needs to allocate more land for development at Ilfracombe to help achieve this goal. The recent resolution to grant permission relating to land to the south of Ilfracombe is noted. We consider that the Local Plan should look to allocate land sufficient to accommodate the likely shortfall (in the region of 260 dwellings). Given the overarching regeneration aims of the Plan in relation to Ilfracombe, we consider that allocating land beyond this (in the region of 400 to 500 additional dwellings beyond that provided by the ILF01 allocation) would assist greatly within the plan period.

As to point (f) of the policy we are of the opinion that initiatives to refurbish existing 2697 poor quality privately rented housing for much needed affordable housing is commendable but feel that the point should be pursued further. Rather than narrowing the scope to just privately rented houses the policy should be worded to support the refurbishment of any building to affordable housing. As is stated in the SHMA there is a large affordable housing need and policy should reflect this by looking at innovative ways of promoting affordable housing procurement.

Table 10.12 Housing Supply for Ilfracombe

Table 10.12. Chambercombe Bakery is no longer a 'development site' and should 2721 not be included in this section.

Table 10.12. The Bus Station site (ILF03) is subject to flooding, it should not be 55 allocated for housing. If built the ground floor would need to be raised by 1 metre which would impact on existing dwellings. Only 6 dwellings should be allocated on the western end of site.

Table 10.12. Developable sites should also include- Bicclescombe Nursery Site - 8 56 dwellings, Filers Bus Depot - Slade Road - 5 dwellings.

Doubts whether sites in table 10.12 will deliver what is relied upon within plan period. 2308 The figures of 192 and 165 cannot be relied upon and a more realistic figure of 150 and 75 are more realistic.

Site Proposals

Former Reservoir Site at Higher Slade Road 1512

Table 2.65

Additional Information

57064 : Erection of 6 Dwellings With Associated Access, Car Parking & Landscaping (Amended Plans & Additional Information). Withdrawn

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.1216 A range of responses to the Ilfracombe spatial strategy have been submitted, including support for the growth strategy to deliver regeneration of the town, and explicitly the southern extension (criterion c) which is considered to be the most appropriate strategy for Ilfracombe to allow greater self-sufficiency. There is also support for criterion (f), but it is accepted the policy aim could go further by looking at innovative ways of promoting affordable housing procurement and supporting the refurbishment of any building to affordable housing rather than focussing attention on the privately rented sector, such an approach would be consistent with paragraph 10.317. However, such initiatives to deliver affordable housing in Ilfracombe must still be based on robust and credible evidence as well as being deliverable in order for the Plan to be considered ‘Sound’.

2.1217 However, there have been a number of concerns with the spatial strategy including impact of future development on the adjoining AONB and inconsistency with the NPPF. The perceived concern regarding the chapter not being in conformity with paragraph 115 of the NPPF is noted. Although the Local Plan must be in general conformity with the Framework, it is not considered necessary to replicate wording within the NPPF. As the Plan must be read as a whole, it is considered there is adequate protection afforded to the AONB within Policies ST09 (Coast and Estuary Strategy) and ST14 (Enhancing Environmental Assets) which seeks to conserve the setting and special character and qualities of the North Devon AONB. There is no need to give even greater weight to conserving the adjoining AONB, although the strategy could be more explicit in terms of recognising the AONB and the need to protect its landscape character. Criterion (k) of the spatial strategy for Ilfracombe is explicit in terms of the need to respect the town’s landscape setting. However, it is accepted that additional wording could be added to specifically mention the adjoining AONB.

2.1218 The response from the Environment Agency is noted and welcomed regarding the recognition within the spatial strategy to improve sea defences, criterion (g) and the reference to critical drainage areas, criterion (n) which requires the provision of additional water storage areas within development sites compared to normal SUDS. The potential impacts on bathing waters from development in Ilfracombe and the appropriate measures to mitigate against any adverse harm are already recognised in criterion (g) which supports initiatives to mitigate against any adverse harm on bathing waters. This is further cross referenced throughout the strategic policies of the Plan including Policy ST03 (Adapting to Climate Change and Strengthening Resilience) and Policy ST09 (Coast and Estuary Strategy) in association with an ecosystem approach. However, it is accepted that a more specific reference should be made to ‘The EU Water Framework Directive’ within the plan’s strategic aims and objectives in Chapter 2 (Spatial Planning Vision) or in Chapter 6 (A World Class Environment).

2.1219 Criterion (k) of Policy ILF makes it clear that the spatial strategy and vision for Ilfracombe will be delivered through ‘developments that conserve and enhance the town’s historic environment and townscape quality and identity, reinforcing its distinctive character and sense of place’. It is recognised that some areas of Ilfracombe conservation area are potentially at risk from neglect and poor management of buildings and the public realm. These concerns have been highlighted in the ‘Ilfracombe Conservation Area Character Appraisal’ which has identified a number of the town’s hotels which are a major part of the character of Ilfracombe but many have since stood vacant and are in danger of falling in to disrepair. The appraisal also recognises several vacant or derelict sites where redevelopment, conversion or other enhancement and utilisation schemes could benefit the local environment and setting. Ilfracombe was only included on the at risk register by the LPA at a time when EH first did research through a questionnaire to local authorities to include conservation areas in the Heritage at Risk Register. This was on the basis that areas found to be at risk would be eligible for funding. Ilfracombe was a bit borderline but it was agreed that if funding was available then it might be appropriate to recognise the economic decline in the town and the poor condition of some vacant land and buildings in order to draw down some funding from EH. However, the funding never

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

materialised and Ilfracombe remains as a conservation area at risk although risk has diminished with redevelopment of the Collingwood. A good example where EH failed to assist in supporting the local authority in the maintenance and improvement of a listed building in the conservation area at risk was in the funding of vital repair work to the grade II* listed Old Quay Head.

2.1220 Policy ST15 (Conserving Heritage Assets) provides a positive approach to preserving and enhancing the historic environment throughout the Plan area. Also, the duty for a Local Authority to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the designated conservation area is set out within the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Some of the problem areas within Ilfracombe conservation area are being actively pursued by the Ilfracombe sites group, a collaboration of officers and Members from North Devon Council and Ilfracombe Town Council. The main focus of the group is to intervene and manage the delivery of development on sites that have ‘stalled’ and which are adversely impacting on the public realm of the town, mainly in the area of the seafront/harbour. The majority of these sites are within the Ilfracombe conservation area with two of the sites having buildings that are Grade II listed. The remit of the group is to use all powers open to them under the Planning and Listed Building Acts, Building Act, Environment and Housing Acts to ensure these important sites within the public realm are developed to an acceptable standard so that they no longer detract from the town’s built heritage. The areas subject to such scrutiny by the local community is not exhaustive and will be added to as and when sites/buildings are brought to the group’s attention. The Local Authority will continue to work with the local community and private landowners in order to improve the character and appearance of the conservation area.

2.1221 As the Plan must be read as a whole, it is considered there is adequate protection afforded to the Ilfracombe conservation area within Policy ST15 and other statutory legislation. There is no need to give greater weight to the conservation area, although it is accepted that paragraph 10.282 could make a more explicit reference to the fact that Ilfracombe conservation area is ‘at risk’. Also, the CIL Schedule could include a requirement to fund the maintenance and improvement to Ilfracombe conservation area but this must be balanced against other priorities in the Plan as well as the fact this would negate any further funding being secured from any future planning applications where a Section 106 agreement could secure funding towards enhancement of a particular area or building within the conservation area as identified through the up to date appraisal and management plan. It is not considered that criterion (k) is ‘unsound’. No amendment to the plan is required.

2.1222 DCC are concerned that criterion (j) has not made reference to the requirement for a ‘children’s centre base’ in the town alongside the increased primary school capacity and early years provision. Such provision could be included within the strategy as the approach would be consistent with the requirement to deliver a children’s centre as set out within Policy ILF01 (Ilfracombe Strategic Southern Extension). However, it is understood that DCC have now withdrawn their request for a children’s centre / youth provision within the southern extension as part of the current outline planning application (56675). It is still considered appropriate to retain the provision within the strategy for delivery somewhere in the town over the Plan period.

2.1223 In addition to the housing proposed for Ilfracombe in the Local Plan, including the current site allocations, additional housing sites have been promoted. The promoted sites have been fully assessed by the SHLAA Panel including the former reservoir off Higher Slade Road, which was identified as ‘developable’ in principle by the SHLAA Panel and included in Table 10.12 (Housing Supply for Ilfracombe 2011-2031). They are within the defined development boundary for Ilfracombe, but are considered to be too small to allocate but the principle of housing is supported to meet the need within the town over the plan period. The promoted site at Bicclescombe Nursery has been considered by the SHLAA Panel as ‘developable’ but, it has not been included in Table 10.12 as the site has the benefit of an extant outline planning permission for 15 dwellings so is included within existing commitments. Inclusion of this site within the Plan would constitute toward double counting

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

of housing numbers over the Plan period. The site at Filers bus depot, Slade Road has also been considered by the Panel as ‘not currently developable’ as availability from the landowner is unknown. It cannot count toward the overall housing supply for the town in Table 10.12 if the site is not ‘developable’. It is considered the identification of the Chambercombe Bakery site to deliver about 20 dwellings is justified in its inclusion as a developable housing site in recognition of the evidence available. However, the site has been redeveloped for economic uses and the short to medium term availability of the site is uncertain, a fact that has been recognised by the SHLAA Panel by identifying the site may not come forward toward the latter part of the Plan period then it will continue to be a developable site in principle to meet the housing need within the town over the Plan period to 2031, until such time as the landowner indicates the site is no longer available for housing

2.1224 A representation has expressed concern that Table 10.12 will not deliver what is relied upon within plan period and additional housing sites will be required in Ilfracombe to meet the level of supply proposed in the Plan. The representation has indicated that the figures of 192 (commitments) and 165 (non allocated developable sites) cannot be relied upon and a more realistic figure of 150 and 75 are more realistic. It is considered the existing commitments (192) are deliverable as these are sites already within the planning system which are either under construction or with an extant planning permission. The unimplemented commitments have already had a 15% non-implementation discount applied to reflect that not all sites with planning permission will be delivered. This level of discount rate was agreed by the SHLAA panel and used throughout the local plan for consistency as a realistic approach to non-implementation.

2.1225 All non-allocated developable sites have been assessed as developable by the SHLAA Panel. However, updated information justifies amendments with Southcliffe Hotel now having permission for 10 units rather than 8 units and the SWW depot likely to be developed for 3 rather than 6 units. Despite being considered ‘developable’ by the SHLAA Panel, other sites are no longer considered to be available and could be deleted from Table 10.12, including Larkstone Terrace (10), St Brannocks Park Road (6) and Harbourside Apartments (8). Additional sites that have since become available and will soon be considered by the SHLAA Panel such as John Fowler Holidays (52). Table 10.12 could be updated to reflect more up-to-date information.

2.1226 Ilfracombe is currently delivering approximately 17% of North Devon’s housing growth. Paragraph 14 of the NPPF advocates ‘the presumption in favour of sustainable development’ which is reflected in the Plan for Ilfracombe which is a main town in a sustainable location for further growth. However, even with a possible reduction in housing numbers being delivered in Ilfracombe through commitments and non allocated developable sites as advocated by the representation, Ilfracombe would still be delivering approximately 14% of North Devon’s housing need, a level of growth that would be in accordance with Policy ILF, the spatial strategy and vision for the town. The overall number and distribution of housing across the plan area is considered through representations to Policy ST08.

2.1227 One representation has indicated the former bus station site should deliver approximately 6 dwellings, proposed on the western part of the site. This representation will be considered as part of Policy ILF03 (The Former Bus Station, Ropery Road).

Other Matters

2.1228 Since the consultation period to the Local Plan, and further correspondence with DCC in terms of the planning application (56675) for the southern extension, it has been highlighted that safety and capacity improvement works are required to Lynton Cross and Two Potts. It is recommended additional wording is required to Policy ILF01 (criterion (l)) of the spatial strategy to read ‘...... , accommodates more effectively through improved safety and capacity, the vehicular traffic which is

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

necessary for the town’s continued economic regeneration,...... ’. The additional wording to criterion (l) would allow for contributions to be sought from other developments in the town toward these highway improvements.

2.1229 Amendment to the pre-fix to the housing numbers is additionally recommended to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of” through Policy ST08: Scale and Distribution of New Development in Northern Devon.

Conclusion

2.1230 Several issues were raised through representations received, but none are considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan, apart from the potential identification of non-developable sites. However, main changes are required to clarify wording and intentions of a particular paragraph or the strategy.

Agreed Actions

The following are agreed as Main Changes to the Local Plan:

1. To undertake a Main Change to Policy ILF, consequential of agreed Main Changes to Policy ST08 to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of”. A subsequent change is also required at paragraph 10.288. 2. Acknowledge the need to update housing numbers within Policy ILF(b) from 965 dwellings to 925 dwellings in total on site allocations and from 154 dwellings to 191 dwellings in total on non-allocated developable sites. Consequential change in Table 10.12. 3. Amend Criterion (k) of the strategy to be more explicit in terms of recognising the adjoining AONB and the need to protect its landscape character and also the conservation area at risk of decline. Amended wording will read “developments conserving and enhancing Ilfracombe’s historic environment and townscape quality and identity, safeguarding and enhancing the special character and appearance of the C onservation A rea at risk of decline, reinforcing its distinctive character and sense of place, and respecting its landscape setting including the special landscape character and qualities of the adjoining Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty . 4. Amend Criterion (f) of the strategy to be more explicit in terms of recognising the delivery of affordable housing in the town and look at innovative ways of promoting affordable housing procurement and supporting the refurbishment of any building to affordable housing rather than focussing attention on the privately rented sector. Delete existing criterion (f) of the strategy and replace with the amended wording “ support for initiatives, including innovative ways of promoting, procuring and delivering required affordable housing for Ilfracombe, including encouraging the refurbishment of existing buildings to meet needs on and off site where justified by robust and credible evidence of need”. 5. Amend Part 1 of the Plan to provide a more specific reference to ‘The EU Water Framework Directive’ in (Policy ST03 – Adapting to Climate Change) and (Policy ST14 – Enhancing Environmental Assets). 6. Amend Criterion (j) of the strategy to be more explicit in terms of recognising the requirement for a ‘children’s centre base’ in the town alongside the increased primary school capacity and early years provision. Amended wording will read “social and community facilities required to support new development including increased primary school capacity, a children's centre base , early years and youth provision, additional sports pitches, allotments and extension to the existing cemetery. 7. Amend Criterion (l) of the strategy to be more explicit in terms of recognising the need to improve key junctions in to the town. Amended wording will read “enhancement of Ilfracombe’s transport infrastructure, as set out in the Transport Master Plan, secured through the continued support

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

for a 'park and change' facility that reduces town centre congestion, accommodates more effectively through improved safety and capacity the vehicular traffic which is necessary for the town's continued economic regeneration, and optimises accessibility to jobs, shops and community facilities within and around the town. 8. Delete criterion (o) of the strategy as it duplicates requirements within Policy ST05. 9. Amend paragraph 13.288 to recognise the total housing requirement for Ilfracombe over the Plan period is for a minimum of 1,429 dwellings and not 1,426 dwellings. Consequential change in Table 10.12. 10. Amend Table 10.12 to update the range and capacity of identified non allocated developable housing sites: deleting Greenways (8 dwellings), Larkstone Terrace (10 dwellings), Harbourside apartments (8 dwellings), Oxford Grove car park (15 dwellings), whilst amending 51 High Street/Greenclose Road from (8 dwellings to 4 dwellings), Southcliffe Hotel from (8 dwellings to 10 dwellings) and SWW depot, Slade from (6 dwellings to 3 dwellings), whilst adding John Fowlers (63 dwellings), Hele Valley - Old Gas Works (3 dwellings) and Adelaide House, Market Street (6 dwellings). 11. Review Table 10.12 to reconsider Policy ILF02 to reduce approximate delivery from (60) dwellings to (50) dwellings in recognition of the site being within a CDA with a net loss of 10 dwellings from the housing land supply for Ilfracombe. 12. Review Table 10.12 to delete Policy ILF03 (loss of 30 dwellings) from the housing land supply for Ilfracombe. 13. Amend the footnote on Table 10.12 to recognise the 15% non-implementation discount is applied to small sites with extant planning permission. Delete gross figure of 166. 14. Amend paragraph 10.282 to make a more explicit reference to the fact that Ilfracombe conservation area is identified ‘at risk’ of decline.

Comments made in response to Policy ILF01: Ilfracombe Strategic Southern Extension and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 8

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 1 2

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1 1

Table 2.66

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy ILF01: and supporting text plp number

The site allocation at Worth Road currently forms part of ILF01. This land is physically 945 and functionally distinct from the rest of ILF01 and therefore should have its own policy wording. This would assist in the deliverability of this element for the town.

Objects to Policy ILF01 in terms of land parcel by Worth Road. It is not suitable for 1115 housing development, given extremely steep nature and springs running underneath.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

We support Policy ILF01 which allocates a new urban extension to the south of 1133 Ilfracombe. The evidence base demonstrates that the proposal is a sustainable one, in a sustainable location. It is consistent with the regeneration strategy for the town and supports local aspirations. The Policy identifies the components of the urban extension, and identifies key design criteria and master planning principles. We offer broad support for the uses, scale design criteria and principles identified, but consider that the critical influence of viability should be reflected in Policy. Minor changes are required and suggested to underpin the deliverability of the proposal and effectiveness of the Policy.

DCC’s education strategy is support by the set out provisions, amendment is required 1302 (DCC) however to refer to a “children’s centre base” and enhanced youth provision.

I support this proposal as it is the only viable location for sustainable development 1391 of Ilfracombe, which is necessary for the town’s economic and housing needs. However it is vital that developer contributions for new local infrastructure such as school places and highways are agreed in a timely fashion.

Amendment to reference the safeguarding of the dark night skies over Exmoor 2352 National Park is supported. (ENPA)

Preliminary discussions with the North Devon Council to pursue an application that 2694, 2698 directly adjoins the Southern Extension. Whether the site is included in the Southern Extension is a matter up for discussion but we feel the benefits of promoting a joined up approach to the new development should not be missed out on. There is certainly potential to increase permeability with the town through the inclusion of more direct cycle and footpaths, encouraging more sustainable methods of travel.

Amend paragraph 10.292 to add reference to Two Potts junction improvement, in 1304 (DCC) addition to Lynton Cross, or alternatively refer generally to a range of improvements that are being considered.

Site Proposals

John Fowler Holiday Camp (north of ILF01) 2694, 2698

Table 2.67

Additional Information

56675 : Outline Application For 750 Dwellings Together With A Mixed Use Centre (The Hub) Comprising 250m2 Retail (A1); Financial Services (A2); Restaurants, Pubs & Takeaways (A3, A4, A5); Up To 3250m2 Of Business Uses (B1); Community Uses (Including Health Centre)(D1);A Community Pavilion (D2); Access From Old Barnstaple Road; Extra Care Housing/Facility; Primary School; Green Infrastructure Including Formal & Informal Open Space & Amenity Space; Sustainable Drainage Systems; Infrastructure (Including Highways & Utilities (Including Gas, Electric, Water, Sewerage & Telecommunications)); Highway, Cycle & Pedestrian Routes; Site Reclamation (Including The Demolition & Removal Of Structures (Including Channel Farm)); & Engineering Works (Including Ground Remodelling)(Amended Plans & Revised Environmental Statement). Approved,

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.1231 The support in relation to Policy ILF01 from the principal landowner of the southern extension is noted and welcomed. However, it is also noted that the Planning Agent has suggested a number of minor changes to the policy.

2.1232 Criterion (1) currently requires the site to be ‘developed’ comprehensively although it has been suggested the site should be ‘planned’ comprehensively. It is considered that such a request is reasonable considering the number of landowners concerned and the period of time required to deliver approximately 875 dwellings. Such a change would also be consistent with the wording of other strategic allocations in the Plan and would not undermine the strategy to ensure a comprehensive development. The s106 will require infrastructure to be delivered as part of the housing development.

2.1233 It is recognised in the vision for the Ilfracombe Strategic Southern Extension that this site is important in terms of its contribution toward the town’s economic regeneration, as set out within the spatial vision. It is also recognised that the key element to the delivery of this site is to ensure the development remains viable but also the delivery of 875 dwellings will require an element of affordable housing as well as the necessary social and physical infrastructure to create a sustainable place. Policy ST23: Infrastructure will require developments to provide or contribute towards the timely provision of infrastructure made necessary by the specific and/or cumulative impact of those developments either through on-site provision or an off-site contribution. These issues will be resolved through negotiation as part of current planning application and do not need to form part of Policy ILF01. Therefore no change to the Local Plan is required.

2.1234 Following approval of the planning application 56675, it is accepted that criterion 1(c) should be amended to better reflect the development that will be delivered on site through this consent. Criterion 1(c) should read ‘a neighbourhood hub to include an additional 420 place primary school,

2.1235 a nursery for early years' provision and a new children's centre, medical facility and extra care housing scheme of approximately 50 bedspaces’. However, whilst this provision may not be delivered on site, there is still a requirement in the town for additional early years and youth provision as part of a children’s centre base. It will be retained within criterion (j) of the spatial vision and strategy for delivery somewhere in the town. Also, criterion 2(d) requires amending and should read ‘provide a neighbourhood hub that forms a focus to meet the community’s needs, establishes a new ‘gateway’ into Ilfracombe and makes provision for new space for business opportunities as well as complementary services and facilities rather than replacing those available elsewhere, particularly in the town centre’. Some of the concerns relating to criterion (i) and criterion (j) are noted, it is not proposed to amend the wording as proposed by the representation. Sustainable design requirements are facilitated by the Housing Standards Review. However, in recognition of recent changes housing standards and building regulations it is proposed to merge criterion (i) and criterion (j). The amended policy wording could read “deliver development utilising best practice in sustainable construction techniques and reduce carbon emissions through the design and layout of the site”.

2.1236 It is not accepted the proposed changes to criterion (h) “provide a sustainable water strategy that ‘seeks’ to reduce water usage” is required as the current wording of the criterion (h) is considered sound. It is again considered the proposed change to criterion 3(c) by adding the wording ‘consistent with the requirements of the development’ is not required in order to make the policy sound. It is considered these issues should be resolved through negotiation as part of current planning application and do not need to form part of Policy ILF01. Therefore, the Local Plan does not need to be amended.

2.1237 Exmoor National Park’s comment about ‘dark night skies’ are noted and welcomed.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

2.1238 Whilst the promoted housing site on land at John Fowler Holiday Park has not yet been considered by the SHLAA panel, the land is previously developed within the defined development boundary. Therefore, should a planning application be submitted for housing then it would be considered as a windfall site under relevant policies. The response from the representor has highlighted the ‘benefits of promoting a joined up approach to the new development, an opportunity that should not be missed out on. There is certainly potential to increase permeability with the town through the inclusion of more direct cycle and footpaths, encouraging more sustainable methods of travel’. Such opportunities are recognised but it is not considered the John Fowler site should form an integral part of Policy ILF01 as the outline planning application has now been approved but improved cycle and pedestrian linkages should be explored between the two sites as part of any future detailed applications for the southern extension and the John Fowler’s site to improve permeability in to the town.

2.1239 Members may wish to consider allocating the site for housing under a separate new policy, as it is proposed to delete the housing allocation on the former bus station site (ILF03) for 30 dwellings should it be considered that an alternative site for housing be required in the town to meet future needs over the Plan period. The recommendation to the SHLAA Panel (but not yet formally assessed) is that the site is ‘developable’ and could deliver approximately 50 dwellings based on the area promoted by the landowner.

2.1240 In terms of land off Worth Road, which forms part of the strategic southern extension to the town, the potential developer of this site has suggested the Worth Meadows site should be promoted through a separate policy independently from the larger site around Channel, Bowden and Winsham Farms due to its physical separation. It is accepted that ownerships differ, separate planning applications are expected, and the new ‘Neighbourhood Hub’ and employment opportunities will be on the main site south of Tesco. However, delivery of the neighbourhood hub will need to be jointly funded by development of both sites.

2.1241 The NPPF recognises that ‘the supply of new homes can be best achieved through planning for larger scale development that follow the principles of Garden Cities’. Paragraph 52 of the NPPF continues ‘LPAs should consider whether such opportunities provide the best way of achieving sustainable development’. Delivering a comprehensive development should ensure the scheme remains viable and will deliver the necessary physical and community infrastructure required in the town. It is accepted that the delivery of infrastructure, community facilities and affordable housing is subject to viability but it is not considered necessary to prioritise delivery within the Plan as this would be assessed at the time of any planning application(s). By allocating this site separately would require significant cross referencing to achieve the comprehensive development and delivery of community infrastructure that is proposed. A single strategic policy is more flexible and would be more effective in achieving the town’s spatial strategy and vision although it is accepted that paragraph 10.292 and 10.293 could be further clarified. It is worth noting that a similar representation was received during the previous round of public consultation and Members rejected the amendment.

2.1242 The site off Worth Road has been reviewed by the SHLAA Panel and considered to be developable in principle for approximately 125 dwellings compared to the previous delivery assumption of 250 dwellings in recognition of the site being located within a ‘Critical Drainage Area’ (CDA). Within a CDA, the EA require that all new development should provide measures to reduce current rainfall runoff rates. Policy relating to ‘Critical Drainage Areas’ throughout northern Devon is added to ST03 (Adapting to Climate Change). The supporting text 10.295 also refers to the site being within a CDA and therefore the development should provide additional water storage areas to be created within the site compared to the normal SUDS design thereby contributing to a reduction in flooding downstream of the Wilderbrook or Hele Stream. It is considered the detailed issues around flooding and underground springs should be resolved through negotiation as part of current planning application and not form part of Policy ILF01. Therefore, no amendment to the Local Plan is required.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Conclusion

2.1243 Several issues were raised through representations received, but none are considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan. However, minor amendments are required to clarify wording and intentions of a particular paragraph or the strategy.

Agreed Actions

The following are an agreed as Main Changes to the Local Plan:

1. Amend Criterion 1 to read “Land to the south of Ilfracombe, (about 84 hectares) as identified on Policies Map 7, will be developed planned comprehensively to deliver a sustainable, high quality, mixed use development that includes. 2. Amend Criterion 1(c) of the policy. Amended wording would read “a neighbourhood hub to include an additional 420 place primary school, a nursery for early years' provision and a new children's centre, medical facility and extra care housing scheme of approximately 50 bedspaces’. Consequential change to delete reference in paragraph 10.291. 3. Criterion 2(d) of the policy. Amended wording could read “provide a neighbourhood hub that forms a focus to meet the community’s needs, establishes a new ‘gateway’ into Ilfracombe and makes provision for new space for business opportunities as well as complementary services and facilities rather than replacing those available elsewhere, particularly in the town centre”. 4. Delete Criterion (i) and criterion (j) as it duplicates requirements set out in Policy ST05. 5. Amend paragraph 10.292. Amended wording to the second sentence would read “The new road alignment will connect to the existing roundabout on the Tesco link road whereas the Worth Meadows site will provide a new junction(s) on to Worth Road. 6. Amend paragraph 10.293. Add a new sentence to paragraph 10.293 which would read “..... Bicclescombe Park. Improved footpath and cycle linkages will also be required between Ilfracombe Academy on Worth Road and New Barnstaple Road. 7. Amend paragraph 10.294. Amend the second sentence of paragraph 10.294 to read “External street lighting will need to be designed to minimise light pollution on the Dark Sky Reserve over Exmoor National Park and the adjoining Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. 8. Amend Policies Map 7 to show the amended route of the proposed cycle / footpath running east to west across Policy ILF01.

Comments made in response to Policy ILF02: Land at the Shields / Fernway and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 1

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” ~ ~

Table 2.68

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy ILF02: and supporting text plp number

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

The land at Fernway has been, in effect, an allocation for 40 to 50 years and there 2310 has to be serious doubts about the deliverability of this site, bearing in mind visual and landscape impact and the potential for overlooking and impacts on the amenity of existing residents.

Table 2.69

Additional Information

57699 : Residential Development For The Erection Of 51 Dwellings With Associated Works. Pending Decision.

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.1244 The site off The Shields / Fernway has been reviewed by the SHLAA Panel and considered to be developable in principle for approximately 60 dwellings. A planning application (57699) has been received for the larger, eastern part of the site for 51 dwellings but there are issues around surface water drainage. It is considered there is developer interest on this site, the issues around visual and landscape impact and the potential for overlooking and impacts on the amenity of existing residents are being resolved through negotiation as part of the current planning application and are covered by other policies in the Plan such as DM01 (Amenity Considerations).

2.1245 In view of Ilfracombe being within a Critical Drainage Area, it is more realistic for the whole site to deliver about 50 rather than 60 dwellings in order to accommodate the sustainable drainage requirements.

Conclusion

2.1246 This representation is not considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan, with the site still being developable.

Agreed Actions

The following are agreed as Main Changes to the Local Plan:

1. Amend Criterion (a) of Policy ILF02. Amended wording would read “approximately 60 50 dwellings, the size and tenure of which will be reflective of local needs. A consequential change to paragraph 10.296. 2. Make associated changes to the spatial strategy, Policy ILF and Table 10.12.

Comments made in response to Policy ILF03: Former Bus Station, Ropery Road and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 10

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 4 ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ 4

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 2 2

Table 2.70

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy ILF03: and supporting text plp number

Ilfracombe Town Council as landowner formally requests the removal of the site and 617 (ITC) in effect removal of ILF03 from the Local Plan including all annexes/appendices referring directly to it as the land is not available for housing during the lifetime of the emerging Local Plan.

ILF03 should be modified to include the potential for long term use of the site for 714, 729 parking. The current car park has proved extremely popular with local residents and businesses. The site offers the only alternative to provide options for pedestrian priority on The Quay or a central link between the harbour and seafront areas.

This site is at risk of fluvial and surface water flooring, but measures to address tidal 919 (EA) flooding which should be sufficient to address all flooding.

Objects to housing development on ILF03, if any built development it should be for 1119 public amenity purposes.

Policy ILF03(d): no certainty regarding the delivery of alternative bus turning/stop 1305 (DCC) provision. To maintain suitable public transport provision, development should provide bus stops on Ropery Road and suitable dedication of land as highway to allow for buses to manoeuvre between Broad Street and Ropery Road.

We express reservations over the deliverability and viability of the bus station site. 2311 Delete ILF03.

The proposal for a building on this prominent corner at the junction of Broad St and 711, 728 Ropery Rd should be removed as it would create a hazard to both traffic and pedestrians and therefore be in conflict with the ambition stated in ILF03 to create a pedestrian priority area. The building would need to be raised at ground floor in order to comply with flood protection measures, making it excessively tall. These comments should be removed from this section.

For years Ilfracombe bus station looked like something out of a war zone. Now it 2433 has been turned into a car park. It appears that the buses now pick up/drop off passengers in narrow streets.

The Bus Station site (ILF03) is subject to flooding, it should not be allocated for 55 housing. If built the ground floor would need to be raised by 1 metre which would impact on existing dwellings. Only 6 dwellings should be allocated on the western end of site.

Table 2.71

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Additional Information

56670 : Application For Relevant Demolition In A Conservation Area In Respect Of Demolition Of Asbestos Workshop Buildings Including Internal Site Walls, Reduction In Wall Heights Of Exterior Walls & Demolition Of Derelict Booking Office (Additional Plan). Approved 7th Feb 2014.

56737 : Change Of Use Of Vacant Site To Temporary Car Park, Including Regularisation Of Existing Use On Eastern Site, Together With Associated Engineering Works. Approved 7th Feb 2014. (The use permitted is temporary and shall be discontinued on or before the 31st October 2018), although this date could be extended.

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.1247 The responses received regarding the redevelopment of the former bus station site in Ilfracombe for a mixed use development with regard to issues around flooding, reduced housing numbers and the erection of a landmark building have been noted.

2.1248 The site of the former bus station has been reviewed by the SHLAA Panel and considered to be developable in principle for approximately 30 dwellings. Members of the Working Group advised (August 2013) that ‘they were happy that this site should be community led but were not happy that this site should accommodate car parking due to the idea of making this area pedestrianised to assist regeneration. Members thought that alternative sites for car parking should be looked at to see how this would affect the town’s transport master plan’.

2.1249 However, in the early 2014, the new landowner (Ilfracombe Town Council) was granted planning permission for a temporary car park on the site, which has been implemented. Further to this planning permission, Ilfracombe Town Council indicates the site is no longer available and formally requested its removal from the SHLAA; and in effect removal of ILF03 from the Local Plan including all annexes/appendices referring directly to it as the land is no longer available for housing during the lifetime of the emerging Local Plan. As an unavailable site, delivery of housing is now uncertain or unlikely.

Other Matters

2.1250 Include the site within the extent of Policy ILF05 (Harbour / Seafront Tourist Area), an approach supported by ITC and considered under representations to Policy ILF05.

Conclusion

2.1251 Retention of a policy for this unavailable site would threaten the soundness of the local plan. A main amendment is required to delete Policy ILF03 and the supporting text 10.297 to 10.298.

Agreed Actions

The following are agreed as Main Changes to the Local Plan:

1. Delete Policy ILF03 (The Former Bus Station, Ropery Road) and supporting text 10.297 to 10.298. 2. Amend Policies Map 7 to delete Policy ILF03 and associated notation (see attached plan). 3. Amend Policies Map 7 to include the former bus station site (now a public car park) within the extent of Policy ILF05 (Harbour / Seafront Tourist Area) (see attached plan). 4. Make associated changes to the numbers in the spatial strategy, Policy ILF and Table 10.12.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Comments made in response to Policy ILF04: Mullacott Business Park and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 3

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 1 ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 2 ~

Table 2.72

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy ILF04: and supporting text plp number

Assisted Area status welcomed but viability of site remains marginal - no further 1129 burdens should be placed on development at Mullacott. In respect of Policy ILF04 (d) (DCC) whereby contributions are sought towards the provision of bus and cycle links to the town and the Southern Extension it is submitted that it should also be recognised that the existing site already benefits from an extant outline planning permission for development within Use Classes B1, B2 and B8. It is open for any development within the shaded areas on Policies Map 7A to be submitted via a reserved matters application. Any contributions sought under this provision must be viable and proportionate to the proposed development.

Amendment to reference the safeguarding of the dark night skies over Exmoor National 2353 Park is supported. (ENPA)

A second road entrance will need to be constructed from the A3123 to alleviate existing 57 traffic congestion and improve traffic flow through the estate.

Table 2.73

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.1252 The response from Exmoor National Park Authority regarding the recognition within Policy ILF04(c) to safeguarding the dark night skies over the National Park is noted and welcomed.

2.1253 The response from NPS, on behalf of DCC with regard the recognition that Mullacott Business Park is within a Ward of Assisted Areas Status as identified in Figure 5.1. The support is noted and welcomed. However, it is accepted that even with the Government’s granting of Assisted Area Status, delivery of economic uses at Mullacott has been difficult over previous years and may be marginal in terms of viability, due in part to its remote location. Therefore, in order to help encourage economic uses on to Mullacott Business Park it is recommended to add wording to criterion (d) to recognise that viability of attracting economic uses to the area should not be burdened by contributions if viability is marginal.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

2.1254 One representor has suggested a secondary access will be required on to the A3123 in order to alleviate existing traffic congestion and improve traffic flow through the estate. The local highway authority have not expressed any concern regarding a capacity issues at the existing junction on to the A3123 from the business park, either from existing traffic movements or through any further growth being proposed. It should be recognised that the potential oversupply of employment land across northern Devon warranted a previous reduction in the size of this proposal. In view of the slow build out rate for the existing Mullacott estate, since its original consent back in the 1980’s, the previous allocation for about 16 hectares had been reduced to approximately 4 ha, retaining the land adjoining the A3123 plus an intensification of the existing business park. However, should further land be required at Mullacott over the Plan period then paragraph 10.299 will support an extension eastwards to include appropriate structural landscaping. The Plan makes it clear that any additional land should be accessed through the existing estate with improvements to the junction on to the A3123 in order to increase capacity.

2.1255 It is not considered necessary to provide an additional vehicular access on to the A3123 to serve the business park from a highway safety or capacity viewpoint particularly, as there are no existing concerns from the local highway authority regarding the current junction. Also, as discussed above there is a clear recognition for improvements to the junction on to the A3123 in order to increase capacity if any additional land over and above the existing allocation is required over the Plan period.

Conclusion

2.1256 Several issues were raised through representations received, but none are considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan. However, a main change is required to provide more flexible wording and intentions of the policy.

Agreed Actions

2.1257 The following are agreed as Main Changes to the Local Plan:

1. Amend Criterion (d) of the policy. Amended wording would read “contributions towards the provision of bus and cycle links to connect to the town centre and proposed Southern Extension (Policy ILF01) where it does not undermine viability”.

Comments made in response to Policy ILF05: Harbour / Seafront Tourist Area and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 8

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 4 ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 2 2

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 4 ~

Table 2.74

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy ILF05: and supporting text plp number

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

The ability to realise such economic growth must be supported by a proactive 1017 (NDC) approach to development in and around the harbour. The harbour needs to be viewed as a working / leisure environment as opposed to a museum.

Sea defences will need to be improved as part of redevelopment. The proposed 920 (EA) development and changes to the park area and road network will need to reflect the risk of wave overtopping and flooding from Wilder’s mouth beach.

At Ilfracombe in Policy ILF05 Harbour/Seafront Tourist Area there is clear reference 1211 (EH) and consideration given to historic assets and their conservation and enhancements and an expectation of good design; at Hillsborough the scheduled monument and its setting are linked to Green Infrastructure. We welcome this as an approach as it is a proactive and positive strategy, if it is applied across the Local Plan area.

The proposal to consider additional car parking options to alleviate congestion and 720, 722 improve pedestrian priority on the Quay and harbour areas conflicts with ILF03, which ignores the Bus Station as the most suitable location for such provisions.

The referenced Collingwood regeneration site has been redeveloped by 5, 58, 715 Wetherspoons.

The proposed Watersports Centre at Larkstone which should be supported by the 723 plan.

Include the former Ilfracombe bus station site within the area of Policy ILF05 (Harbour 1400 (ITC) / Seafront Tourist Area).

Table 2.75

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.1258 It is recognised that the former Collingwood Hotel site has been redeveloped and paragraph 10.308 should be amended to reflect this by deleting reference to the former Collingwood Hotel. Also, considering the recommendation to remove Policy ILF03 from the Plan, the wording “Policy ILF03 covers Ilfracombe Bus Station” should also be deleted.

2.1259 Paragraph 10.305 could include support for the proposed Watersports Centre site at Larkstone which is within the Harbour / Seafront Tourist Area. The former bus station site (Policy ILF03), now a public car park, could be included within the harbour / seafront tourist area considering it has been proposed for deletion as a housing site. It would fit within the scope of this policy to cover the commercial opportunities within the harbour area.

2.1260 The response from English Heritage regarding the recognition within Policy ILF05 to heritage assets in the area is noted and welcomed. However, this is counter balanced by the Council’s Economic Development Manager having some concerns regarding the over protection of heritage assets in the seafront / harbour area against the need for a proactive approach to economic growth. Whilst the concerns of the Economic Development Manager are noted, it is not considered Policy ILF05 would prevent economic growth in the harbour / seafront area. Paragraph 17 of the NPPF (Core Planning Principles) seeks to proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver economic growth whilst conserving heritage assets. Paragraph 126 of the NPPF recognises that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and conserve them in a manner appropriate to their significance. Local Authorities should take into account the wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits that conservation of the historic environment can bring and the desirability of

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. The Policy and supporting text to ILF05 provides and appropriate balance to support economic growth in the harbour / seafront tourist area whilst ensuring that the special character and appearance of the area is not harmed from allowing developments that are poorly designed or would have an adverse impact on a heritage asset. Such a balance to allowing development in an area of designated assets is advocated by paragraphs 133 to 138 of the NPPF. No amendment is required.

2.1261 Criterion (g) of Policy ILF (Spatial Vision and Development Strategy) already recognises support for initiatives within and around the harbour and seafront areas to improve sea defences. Paragraph 10.305 also recognises that ‘proposals to safeguard the harbour and seafront from rising sea levels will be supported in accordance with the strategy within the Shoreline Management Plan’. No amendment is required.

2.1262 Policy ILF05 seeks to support development in the harbour / tourist area where it would not prejudice the achievement of pedestrian priority in the area. The requirement is further clarified in paragraph 10.307 where ‘enhancement of existing pedestrian links between the harbour, seafront and High Street will be supported’. Policy ILF05 does cross refer to Policy ILF03, albeit this particular policy did not propose the former bus station site for car parking. However, paragraph 10.304 will support ‘opportunities to provide alternative car parking provision that helps to alleviate traffic congestion and achieve pedestrian priority within the quay and harbour areas’. As the former bus station site has now been redeveloped to a car park and it is proposed to delete Policy ILF03 and include the site within the area identified as the harbour / seafront tourist area, there is no need to amend Policy ILF05 or supporting text with regard this objection.

Conclusion

2.1263 Several issues were raised through representations received, but none are considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan. However, main amendments are required to the Policies Map to include the former bus station site within the extent of Policy ILF05.

Agreed Actions

The following are agreed as Main Changes to the Local Plan:

1. Amend the extent of Policy ILF05 on Policies Map 7 to include the former bus station site (now a public car park) within the harbour / seafront tourist area (see attached plan). 2. Amend paragraph 10.305. Amended wording would read “Opportunities for water-based recreation activities within the harbour area, including the erection of a new Watersports Centre, will be supported where they do not prejudice its operation as a commercial harbour. In addition, appropriate infrastructure should also be incorporated into the harbour to facilitate an operational hub for any future large-scale off-shore renewable energy schemes. Proposals to safeguard the harbour and seafront from rising sea levels and to facilitate its continued use as an operational harbour will be supported in accordance with the strategy within the Shoreline Management Plan”. 3. Amend paragraph 10.308 to read “The redevelopment of key regeneration sites including the former Golden Coast amusements, Berkeley Hotel, former Collingwood Hotel, former Montebello Hotel and the former Pavilion site will be supported where development would create successful urban spaces that contribute positively to the local economy and sustainability of the town. Policy ILF03 covers Ilfracombe Bus Station. Community-led regeneration of the harbour and seafront areas will be supported, including proposals for new tourism and leisure attractions and provision for high quality tourist accommodation”.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Comments made in response to Policy ILF06: Local Green Space and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 1

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” ~ ~

Table 2.76

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy ILF06: and supporting text plp number

At Ilfracombe Policy ILF06 Local Green Space there is clear reference and 1212 (EH) consideration given to historic assets and their conservation and enhancements and an expectation of good design; at Hillsborough the scheduled monument and its setting are linked to Green Infrastructure. We welcome this as an approach as it is a proactive and positive strategy, if it is applied across the Local Plan area.

Table 2.77

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.1264 The response from English Heritage regarding the recognition within Policy ILF05 to heritage assets in the area is noted and welcomed. However, this is counter balanced by the Council’s Economic Development Manager having some concerns regarding the over protection of heritage assets in the seafront / harbour area against the need for a proactive approach to economic growth.

Conclusion

2.1265 The single issue raised through representations received is not considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan.

Agreed Action

1. No change to Policy ILF06 of the Local Plan is recommended in response to the issue raised through consultation.

Comments made in response to Paragraph 10.318

Total Number of Responses 2

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 1 ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 1 ~

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1 ~

Table 2.78

Summary of Issues

Comments on Paragraph 10.318 plp number

The Local Plan includes reference to a proposed artificial pitch (10.318) to be installed 620 (ITC), at the Ilfracombe Academy. The pitch has been installed and is in use. 723

Table 2.79

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.1266 It is accepted that paragraph 10.318 could be amended to reflect the fact that the artificial grass pitch at Ilfracombe Academy has now been delivered.

Conclusion

2.1267 A single issue was raised through representations received, but is not considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan.

Agreed Actions

The following is agreed as a Minor Change to the Local Plan:

1. A minor change is required to paragraph 10.318. Amended wording of the second sentence would read “The development of an artificial grass pitch for community use and associated infrastructure at Ilfracombe Academy has been delivered will be delivered during the plan period which will enhance existing sports facilities on the site”.

Comments made in response to Map 7 Ilfracombe (Policies Map)

Total Number of Responses 3

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 1 ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 1 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1 ~

Table 2.80

Summary of Issues

Comments on Map 7 Ilfracombe (Policies Map) plp number

Map 7 is not fully consistent with the development framework parameters plan 1134 expected to be permitted shortly, most notably in its depiction of the eastern section of the proposed pedestrian/cycle link across the site.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Include the former Ilfracombe bus station site within the area of Policy ILF05 (Harbour 1400 (ITC) / Seafront Tourist Area).

Green space between the edge of Ilfracombe and Chambercombe provides desirable 1122 amenity for local people and tourists, including those walking between John Fowlers holiday park and the seafront.

Table 2.81

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.1268 The response from ITC with regard to the inclusion of the former bus station within the harbour / seafront tourist area has been noted. The proposed change has been considered fully within Policy ILF05 with the recommendation that such a change is appropriate. It is also accepted that the east to west route of the proposed cycle / footpath link through the southern extension should more accurately reflect the proposal within the outline planning permission 56675.

2.1269 Land off Worth Road does not meet the requirements for a local green space (NPPF paragraph 77) and is proposed for housing as part of Policy ILF01. It is considered inappropriate to amend Policies Map 7 to propose the land off Worth Road for a green space. Criterion (e) of Policy ILF01 will require the strategic southern extension, including the development at Worth Meadows, to provide new footpaths, cycleways, public open spaces, wildlife corridors, formal and informal sport and recreation facilities. The lower density of development within the critical drainage area provides more space for green infrastructure provision alongside sustainable drainage measures. The flatter land around Channel Farm will provide the formal sports facilities.

Conclusion

2.1270 A number of issues were raised through representations received, but none are considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan.

Agreed Actions

The following are agreed as Main Changes to the Local Plan:

1. Amend the extent of Policy ILF05 on Map 7 to include the former bus station site within the harbour / seafront tourist area (see attached plan). 2. Amend the proposed route of the east to west cycle / footpath link through Policy ILF01 to accurately reflect the proposal within the outline planning permission 56675 (see attached plan). Town Strategies: Northam

Comments made in response to Policy NOR: Spatial Vision and Development Strategy and supporting text

Total Number of Responses 49

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 9 12

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 3 36

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 11 12

Summary of Issues

Comments on Northam Policy NOR and supporting text plp number

Support for the vision and development strategy for Northam, Appledore and 2268 Westward Ho!

Support NOR and the reference to “at least” 1,782 dwellings, which should also 1548 be reflected in the wording of Policy ST08.

Policy NOR should be split with the development principles for Northam being 1879 aligned with Bideford or altered to recognise Northam’s functional links with Bideford.

Development of Land adjoining Pit Hill will make a significant contribution to 2269 meeting the growth aspirations and housing needs of Appledore.

An over reliance on a small number of large sites, which may not deliver housing 1624 to meet market demand. Allow for additional sites within and beyond the development boundary to come forward to increase plan flexibly and contribute to the overall delivery of housing, to be more compliant with the NPPF.

No convincing plans to support housing with employment; doubtful that shipyard 1170 employment will expand significantly over the plan period. Housing at Pitt Hill could affect the future of the shipyard.

Needs of the older population could be met with better social support; gauge 1168 how much care home provision is required against housing.

Delivered housing will not relate to local needs, the required level of affordable 1166 housing will not be provided.

Additional car parking required in Westward Ho! as a result of Policy NOR02; 198 due to the steepness of the hill between both points.

Object to Polices NOR01 and NOR02 due to their greenfield nature and the 180 resultant traffic problems.

No employment or infrastructure improvements to match planned housing growth. 149

Regard to the importance of area setting and landscape has not always been a 183 priority. Proposed developments will overwhelm schools, doctor’s surgeries and roads.

Objection to the overall level of housing for Northam. 2722

Objection to “at least 1,782”, which would allow for more, the reference should 447 be up to. Concerns raised a the consequences of development in respect of drainage and the local highway network.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Development in Westward Ho! needs to be consistent with para 114 of NPPF; 243 (AONB add reference to AONB: ‘Development will seek to conserve the setting of the Partnership) neighbouring designated AONB.’

(1)(b): No evidence provided to justify the increase in the supply of housing from 682, 730 1675 – 1785 dwellings from the committee version of the Local Plan to the consultation document.

(1)(d): Safeguard the Lenwood Country Club as a tourist asset and enforce 682 occupancy restrictions.

(1)(d):add flexibility to allow for redevelopment for mixed use where employment 1176 in no longer desirable or commercially viable.

(1)(h) The strategy fails to mention avoiding coalescence that would result in the 682 loss of the strategic gap through Northam identified by NOR10 Green Wedge and the strategic gap referred to between Appledore and Northam is not covered by any Green Wedge Policy and is not identified on Policies Maps 8A/8B.

NOR (h): referenced strategic gaps should be identified on the Policies Maps. 1178

NOR, fails to mention the avoidance of coalescence that would result in the loss 1239 of the strategic gap identified by NOR10 Green Wedge.

(1)(i) Insufficient education capacity to support new development. The 210 place 682, 1241 primary school at NOR01 will sufficient to meet need, there is no capacity at existing local primary schools.

(1)(j) Policies NOR01, NOR04, NOR07 and NOR09 should be required to make 682 contributions to meet their own highway infrastructure requirements.

(1)(h) add the words: “and the strategic gap through Northam identified by 682 NOR10”.

1)(h) 'Avoidance of coalescence' too weak. Policy STO9 states that integrity of 1178 settlements 'will be maintained'. Consistency is required, with a clear commitment to settlement integrity and separation.

Seek confirmation on the adequacy of sewerage network and treatment facilities, 921(EA) or works required, to accommodate new development.

Significant work will be required on existing flood defences at Westward Ho!. 921(EA) Support is given to the reference to the CDA. There should be a reference to water quality within this policy and supporting text.

The proposed level of development is disproportionate to the capacity of the 1174 area to meet the needs of an enlarged community and the physical ability of the area with detriment to environmental qualities. The housing numbers should be reduced to enable sustainable development.

A significant increase in visitors would destroy the value of the area and adversely 1173 impact the SSSI at Northam Burrows.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Several housing allocated and non-allocated sites conflict with the Biosphere in 2188 terms of impact on the landscape.

Welcome a new school on site on NOR01. Existing pressures will result in DCC 1316(DCC) being unable to support further development proposals in Northam until a suitable serviced site is secured. Alternative sites in the town may be required to incorporate an alternative school site to ensure that a new primary school can be provided in a timely manner.

Allow development only on land within an approved development plan. 311, 448 Paragraphs would allow for development beyond that provided for in local Plan.

Table 10.14 – supporting text

Developed levels may result in higher of lower housing figures; the table title 1509 should be “Indicative number of dwellings”.

Objection to the referenced non allocated sites. Sites have the potential to 752, 510, 1208, negatively impact the landscape, affect the historic integrity of the village setting. 1200

Objection to the non allocated site at Watertown/Staddon Road; a sensitive site 1196, 2171 that should not be developed. Development would produce luxury housing.

Little provision for affordable housing in Appledore, vital for low paid residents. 509

Objection to the inclusion of Policy NOR09 (it should be included within NOR10). 351, 730, 683, 668

Site Proposals

Include Knapp House as an allocation for a mixed used development, including 594, 591 a marina and ancillary facilities the proposal accords with the NPPF and meets the objectives of Policy ST09(7).

Lenwood Country Club should be allocated for redevelopment through housing. 618

Uncertain that allocations and non allocated sites will deliver the attributed yields. 1806 There are locations adjacent to the built form that could deliver additional dwellings, including land at Polywell (Appledore).

Replace NOR07 with a site at west of Hubbastone Road that is available and 567 contiguous with the Appledore development boundary and more suitable for development.

Allocate a site to the west of Heywood Road for a housing led mixed use scheme. 2158 Presented by owners as available and suitable, with appropriate access the development of which would have minimal environmental impacts.

Allocate the area at Clevelands for a low level of high quality detached dwellings. 424

Zone Middle Dock for residential development with public open space adjoining 450 the slipway. Port related use proved not forthcoming.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Additional Information

2.1271 A review of housing commitments and non-allocated developable has highlighted the need to revise Table 10.14, to correct the housing supply contribution from commitments and from “land at Kingsley Avenue Appledore” and to identify a contributing site at “Land at Four Winds”.

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.1272 A range of comments have been provided in response to the Northam Spatial Vision and Development Strategy. Issues raised in relation to the scale, phasing and location of new housing, employment and infrastructure together with community service levels were generally addressed in response to the previous round of consultation. Other than in matters specific to individual policy areas, which are discussed below, the evidenced position has not altered and thus it is not considered necessary to amend the Local Plan in respect of the overall strategy for Northam.

2.1273 Comment is provided both in support and objection to the scale and location of housing growth. The level of housing planned for Northam is required not only as a contribution to the area’s objectively assessed needs, but as a necessary component to achieve the vision for the parish. Housing growth is required to rebalance the local housing market, including increasing the availably of affordable housing and the supply of housing to meet the changing needs of an increasingly aging population. The level of planned growth reflects the sustainability of Northam and the opportunity and capacity to accommodate required growth.

2.1274 Support (plp 1548) and objection for the “at least” prefix for the number of dwellings is provided. The approach is consistent with the NPPF in planning to deliver housing to meet objectively assessed needs and demands. The Local Plan plans for the indicated level of growth with flexibility for further housing to be provided through windfall and rural exception sites. The “at least” level is required as a minimum level. The reference sets out the realistic positon resulting from the flexibly provided through the Local Plan with regard to the opportunities for development beyond planned levels.

2.1275 It is suggested (1879) that the development principles for Northam should be split and aligned to Bideford. Through the development of the local development plan Northam has been separated from Bideford in recognition of the distinct identities of the settlements. It is recognised that there is a strong relationship between Bideford and Northam both physically and functionally. Paragraph 10.324 references the service links between Northam and Bideford. In the interests of clarity is accepted that an additional reference could be added within paragraph 10.324 referring to the strong functional links between the settlements.

2.1276 It is suggested (plp1624) that there is an over reliance on large sites, which consequently will result in housing demands not being meet. It is suggested that additional sites should be enabled to come forward, within and beyond the development boundary. It is recognised that there are a number of large sites which make a significant contribution to meeting the area’s objectively assessed needs and demands. There are however a range of additional sites which make up the land supply, through commitments and on non-allocated developable sites, which are of a more modest scale. The Local Plan additionally makes no allowance for windfall development which will come forward during the lifetime of the Local Plan and add to the housing supply which is planned for. With regard to facilitating development beyond development boundaries, such is enabled in support of the delivery of affordable housing on exceptions sites. The comment is not considered to raise any challenge to the Local Plan in respect of soundness.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

2.1277 Comment (plp 2722 and 1174) is made that housing levels are too high and there is an imbalance between housing and employment (plp 149 and 1170).The scale of planned housing growth in Northam Parish is appropriate to identified needs and demands as evidenced in the Torridge Affordable Housing Needs Assessment (JG Consulting 2012). Deliverable and developable sites are available in Northam to meet locally occurring needs and demands, on which basis there is no justification to seek a redistribution of housing sites away from the parish. With regard to employment development, the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan provides a supportive and flexible approach to economic development, in respect of new and expanding business, which will be taken forward in respect of implementation by the Northern Devon Economic Development Strategy. Despite the absence of allocated employment land in Northam, the area supports a range of employment and has the potential for growth. The Employment and Housing Study indicates that employment growth will occur within and outside traditional industrial estates and that in the short term, employment will be focused on sectors related to population growth and that tourism will continue to be an important sector. In the longer term, employment improvements in both quantity and quality will be sought in the marine and renewable sectors, both of which Torridge District Council will support through initiatives centred around established maritime assets, which are focused at Appledore. It is worth noting that the North Devon and Torridge Employment Land Review (GL Hearn April 2014) stated that to maintain employment levels housing growth of 11,200 dwellings would be required as a consequence of demographic change. The comments are not considered to raise any challenge to the Local Plan in respect of soundness.

2.1278 It is suggested (plp 1173) that a significant increase in visitor numbers would destroy the value of the area and that housing allocations and non-allocated sites would adversely affect the Biosphere in respect of landscape impact (plp 2188). The Local Plan provides support to increase the attraction of Westward Ho! as a visitor resort and provides for a significant level of planned housing growth. In accommodating development to meet tourism objectives, which are important with regard to the local economy, and housing, which is necessary to meet objectivity assessed needs and demands, regard will be given to the value of the area’s environmental and historic assets. The Local Plan seeks to conserve and enhance the area’s natural environment through Policy ST14: Enhancing Environmental Assets and preserve and enhance its historic environment through Policy ST15: Conserving Heritage Assets. It is worth noting that sites allocated or identified as non- allocated developable sites have been assessed as suitable for development through a Strategic Housing Land Availably Assessment, which includes a consideration of landscape impacts and have been subject to Sustainability Appraisal. The comments are not considered to raise any challenge to the Local Plan in respect of soundness.

2.1279 Comment is made with regard to the strategic gap in NOR (g) with the suggestion that: the strategic gap should be defined on the Policies Map and that the area subject to Policy NOR10: Green Wedge should be referenced as a strategic gap. The comments are noted, however the “strategic gap” has no policy basis and it is recommended that the reference is removed from the Local Plan. It is considered that the loss of the reference would not diminish the spatial strategy requirement with regard to the maintained “avoidance of coalescence…”. The undeveloped area between Northam and Westward Ho! is recognised as having value through its designation as part of the undeveloped coast, which affords it projection with regard to protecting the unspoilt character, appearance and tranquillity of the area.

2.1280 With regard to the suggested extension of the policy coverage of NOR10: Green Wedge to the area between Appledore and Northam, such is considered as inadvisable, as a consequence of the potential conflict between policy application. Policy ST09 allows for a limited range of development (agricultural purposes, for the benefit of the local community at large, to enhance

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

opportunities for outdoor sport/recreation or where it cannot reasonably be located elsewhere) while NOR10 would prevent development that would lead to or contribute towards coalescence. The comments are not considered to raise any challenge to the Local Plan in respect of soundness.

2.1281 It is suggested (plp 682) that the reference to the strategic gap should include the area subject to Policy NOR10. As indicted above it is recommended that the “strategic gap” reference is removed form the Local Plan. It is accepted that the area subject to Policy NOR10 should be referenced in Policy NOR (h), in the context of avoiding coalescence. The recommended change is considered necessary to achieved consistency within the Local Plan

2.1282 It is further suggested that Policy NOR (h) should be amended to strengthen the position with regard to the avoidance of coalescence. Reference is provided to Policy ST09, which provides for the maintenance of separate settlement identity. The point is accepted and a further criterion is recommended which relates to development respecting the landscape setting including the special landscape character and qualities of the adjoining Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

2.1283 Comment is made (plp 1168) that the needs of the older population could be met with better social support. Social support is outside the scope of the Local Plan. The Local Plan does recognise that area’s population needs are changing which will have a consequence for the housing that will be required. Policy NOR (a) requires housing development to meet all housing needs, together with an expanded supply to meet the increasing needs of the area’s aging population. The comments are not considered to raise any challenge to the Local Plan in respect of soundness.

2.1284 A concern is raised (plp 1166) that new housing development will not relate to local needs and that affordable housing will not be provided. Housing developments will be required to meet a range of housing needs, including affordable homes with the application of Policies ST17: A Balanced Local Housing Market and ST18: Affordable Housing on Development sites. Evidence in support of the Local Plan, both the Torridge Affordable Housing Needs Assessment (JG Consulting 2012) and the North Devon and Torridge Strategic Housing Market Assessment Update (Housing Vision 2013) provide the basis for the range of accommodation that will be sought through development.

2.1285 Objection is made to Policies NOR01: Daddon Hill and NOR02: Buckleigh Road. As discussed in response to comments on the individual policies both sites have been assessed through the Strategic Housing Land Availably Assessment to be suitable and available for development and make a significant contribution to local housing needs and more widely the area objectively assessed housing needs and demands.

2.1286 It is suggested (plp 243 AONB partnership) that a reference to the AONB with regard to conserving its setting is added to the spatial strategy. The perceived concern regarding the chapter not being in conformity with paragraph 115 of the NPPF is noted. Although the Local Plan must be in general conformity with the Framework, it is not considered necessary to replicate wording within the NPPF. As the Plan must be read as a whole, it is considered there is adequate protection afforded to the AONB within Policies ST09 (Coast and Estuary Strategy) and ST14 (Enhancing Environmental Assets) which seeks to conserve the setting and special character and qualities of the North Devon AONB. There is no need to give even greater weight to conserving the adjoining AONB, although the strategy could be more explicit in terms of recognising the AONB and the need to protect its landscape character. An additional criterion is recommended to the Northam Spatial Strategy which specifically references the AONB, on the basis that development should respect the landscape setting including the special landscape character and qualities of the adjoining Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

2.1287 Respondents (plp 682 and 730) highlight a variance in the committee version of the Local Plan and the document published for consultation in relation to Northam’s housing numbers; the housing level being adjusted from 1,675 to 1,785. This point is accepted, the land supply figure was amended from the committee version to better reflect the anticipated yield from non allocated developable sites. The increase in the total supply detailed in Table 10.14 resulted from housing yields being attributed to additional non allocated developable sites. The action was undertaken having regard to the authority given to the Joint Head of Strategic Development and Planning in consultation with the Lead Member for the Natural and Built Environment. No change to the Local Plan is considered necessary with regard to a soundness challenge.

2.1288 The safeguarding of Lenwood Country Club as a tourist asset is suggested (plp 682). The Local Plan does not seek specifically to safeguard tourist uses, it provides through Policy ST13: Sustainable Tourism and DM17 and DM18 to provide for the appropriate expansion and development of accommodation and attractions. Proposal for any reuse or redevelopment of the facility would be considered against the general policies of the Local Plan. It should be noted that the Lenwood County Club provides a range of permanent and holiday accommodations and has no on site supporting facility. The enforcement of occupancy conditions applicable to the range of holiday and time limited residential accommodations is not a matter for the Local Plan. No change to the Local Plan is considered necessary with regard to a soundness challenge.

2.1289 The need for flexibility in the reuse of employment sites is suggested (plp1176) where employment is no longer desirable or commercially viable. The proposed approach is provided for through Policy DM13: Safeguarding Employment Land, which subject to a range of tests allows for the release of employment land to alternative uses.

2.1290 Comment from Devon County Council (plp 1316) is made in relation to educational capacity, highlighting existing pressured on primary schools. The Spatial Strategy provides for the expansion of education capacity, which in respect of a new school is provided as a requirement in Policy NOR01: Daddon Hill. Further comment is made (plp 682 and 1241) that the proposed 210 place primary school is insufficient to meet future needs; this positon is accepted in response to a comment from Devon County Council (plp 1313)as a result of which amendment to Policy NOR01 is recommended to increase the primary school requirement from 210 places to 420 places.

2.1291 It is suggested that Policies NOR01, NOR04, NOR07 and NOR09 should be required to make contribution to meet their own highway infrastructure requirements. NOR (j) provides that new development will meet their own infrastructure requirements and references specific highway improvements. Additionally, infrastructure improvements required as a result of development will be secured with the application of Policy ST23: Infrastructure. No amendment to the Local Plan is recommended, no soundness challenge is considered to be raised

2.1292 The Environment Agency makes a number of comments, (plp 921), in relation to the capacity of sewerage network and treatment facilities, the need for flood defences at Westward Ho! and to reference water quality. Support is also provided for the reference to the Critical Drainage Area. With regard to the capacity of sewerage network and treatment facilities, no objection to the scale of proposed development has been received by South West Water; the Councils’ have maintained a dialogue with South West Water through plan preparation. Additionally criterion (3) of Policy ST23 ensures that development can only occur where necessary off-site infrastructure improvements are facilitated. The point in relation to flood defences is noted, and is provided for through Policy NOR (j) as a result of comment made to the draft Consultation Local Plan by the Environment Agency.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

2.1293 The Environment Agency seeks reference within the Strategy and supporting text to recognise the Water Framework Directive and in particular to take account of a local water body being classified as poor. This is an issue raised in relation to numerous settlements. Part (f) of Policy ST03 already seeks the adoption of effective water management including water quality improvements. Additionally, Policy DM02 provides for environmental protection including safeguards around the pollution of surface and ground water. Recommendations to other policy areas have been agreed to provide additional supporting text to Policy ST03 and DM02, as a minor change, to reference the Water Framework Directive and the need for development to ensure that water quality is not adversely impacted and opportunities for improvements sought, no further change to the Local Plan is considered necessary with regard to soundness.

2.1294 An amendment to Table 10.14 is sought (plp 1509), to replace the title “Housing Provision” to “Indicative Number of Dwellings” on the basis that development may result in a higher or lower level of housing. It is accepted that over the plan period the level of delivered housing may vary from the level set out in Table 10.14, however the level is reflective of the supply provided through the Local Plan. No change to the Local Plan is considered necessary with regard to a soundness challenge.

2.1295 Table 10.14 includes a number of sites identified as non-allocated developable sites to which objection is raised (plps 752, 510, 1208, 1200, 1196 and 2171)with regard to the impact on the landscape and the integrity of the setting of Appledore. The sites included as non-allocated developable sites have been assessed to be suitable and available for development through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment and have been subject to Sustainably Appraisal, which had regard to such matters as landscape impact. The sites at Kingsley Avenue and on land east of Churchill Way are or will be fully enclosed by development as a result of their position within the current and future built form of the village and the site at Staddon Road is considered to provide a suitable and logical extension to the existing form of Appledore. With regard to the impact on the landscape such with be managed through Policy ST14. No change to the Local Plan is considered necessary with regard to a soundness challenge.

2.1296 It is suggested (plp 509) that there is little provision for affordable housing in Appledore. It is recognised that there is evidenced need for affordable housing in Appledore and across the plan area. The Local Plan consequently seeks the provision of affordable housing as an element of the area’s objectively assessed needs and demands. Housing development that provides a net gain in open market housing will be subject to Policy ST18: Affordable Housing on Development Sites, which will seek the delivery of affordable housing on qualifying sites at a rate of 30%. No change to the Local Plan is considered necessary with regard to a soundness challenge.

2.1297 Objection (plps 351, 730, 683 and 668) is raised to Policy NOR09: Land South West of Heywood Road Roundabout, with the suggestion that Policy NOR10: Green Wedge should be extended to include the subject site. It is not considered necessary to extend NOR10 to meet the objectives of the policy. NOR09 is a relatively self contained development site; it is generally well screened within the wider landscape and is concealed by its topography and the presence of large trees particularly to the north of the site. The site is also well contained by the existing built form and nearby highways. This matter is further considered with Policy NOR10.

Site Proposals

2.1298 A number of sites are presented as additional and alternative housing and mixed use development sites, a number of which were considered and discounted in determining the spatial development strategy for Northam in the Publication Local Plan. It is not considered necessary to

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

revisit these sites, which are at Knapp House (plp591 and 594) and Hubbastone Road (plps 2288, 2290 and 567) in the absence of any variation to the evidence base which established the development strategy provided for in the Local Plan.

2.1299 It is suggested (plp 618) sites at Lenwood Country Club and to the west of Heywood Road (plp 567) are allocated for housing. The sites, in a countryside location, are located to the north of A39 and are divorced from the built form of Northam and the draft development boundary. The sites have not been subject to assessment through the Strategic Housing Land Availably Assessment process or to Sustainability Appraisal, such assessments may result in the identification of constraints that would limit or preclude residential development. It is not appropriate to allocated sites without certainty as to developability. No change to the Local Plan is recommended in response to the comments plp 618 and 567.

2.1300 A site to the northwest of Appledore is proposed (plp 1806) for housing on the basis that there is uncertainty regarding the attainment of attributed yields from the allocated and non-allocated sites. The site at Polywell was assessed as developable through by the Strategic Housing Land Availably Assessment (SHLAA). It is not however accepted that the anticipated contributions from the referenced sites will not be achieved. The allocated and non- allocated developable sites have been assessed as suitable and available for development and the attributed yields are derived from an agreed SHLAA methodology. It is not considered necessary to add to the Appledore land supply. No change to the Local Plan is considered necessary with regard to a soundness challenge.

2.1301 A site at Clevelands is proposed (plp 424) for housing on the basis that such would be high quality detached dwellings. The site subject to the comment is in part adjacent to the defined development boundary north of Durrant Lane. The site was assessed as developable through by the Strategic Housing Land Availably Assessment (SHLAA), but falls within the defined undeveloped coast; it is considered to form an important part of the setting of the wider estuary landscape. Development on the site would significantly reduce the generally undeveloped area between Durrant Lane and Clevelands, diluting the objective of Policy NOR10 in respect of avoiding development that could lead to or contribute towards coalescence. It is not considered necessary to add to the Northam land supply. No change to the Local Plan is considered necessary with regard to a soundness challenge.

2.1302 Middle Dock (Appledore) is proposed (plp 450) as a housing site. The site has been subject to assessment through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHA/NOR/37) and was considered to be potentially suitable for development subject to robust justification supporting the notion that the site is redundant and no longer required for commercial purposes (including waterside uses). Accepting this outcome, the Local Plan through Policy ST09: Coast and Estuary Strategy, seeks to protect such sites in the first instant in accordance with NPPF paragraph 143, which seeks the safeguarding of “.wharfage and associated storage, handling and processing facilities for the bulk transport by rail, sea or inland waterways of minerals, including recycled, secondary and marine-dredged materials;”. This position is further supported through the findings of the Torridge Estuary Study, which identified Middle Dock as an asset and that such locations should be utilised if required for commercial port growth.

Other Matters

2.1303 As a point of correction within Table 10.14, Land east of Churchill Wat, should be revised to Land east of Churchill Way.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

2.1304 The Full Councils’ of Torridge and North Devon District Councils agreed an amendment to paragraph 10.334 to add to the proposed Main Changes presented to the respective meetings on 23rd and 25th February 2015. The amendment confirms the significance of avoiding coalescence between Northam and Appledore and the value of the undeveloped coast between the two settlements.

Conclusion

2.1305 A range of issues were raised through representations received, the majority of which are not considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan, apart from the absence of a policy position to support the reference to a “strategic gap”, on which basis its omission is sought . A number of further Main Changes are considered to be necessary in the interest of clarity and consistency.

Agreed Actions

1. The following are agreed as Main Changes to Policy NOR:

a. amend NOR by the addition of (h): development that respects the landscape setting including the special landscape character and qualities of the adjoining Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; b. amend NOR (g) avoidance of development that would result in coalescence between Appledore and Northam and the designated Green Wedge in Northam; and c. Table 10.14, non –allocated developable sites: amend yield from Land at Kingsely Avenue from 10 to 14 dwellings and add Land at Four Winds – 3 dwellings.

2. The following are agreed as Minor Changes to the Local Plan:

a. amend paragraph 10.324 to refer to the strong functional links between the settlements; b. amend Table 10.14 revise Land east of Churchill Wat, to Land east of Churchill Way; and c. amend paragraph 10.334, add following the last sentence: In providing for development, coalescence between Northam and Appledore will be resisted to ensure the distinct identities of the respective settlements are maintained and in recognition of the value of the undeveloped coast which forms the countryside beyond the settlement’s defined development boundaries.

Comments made in response to Policy NOR01: and associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 27

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - 11

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - 15

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1 10

Summary of Issues

Comments on Northam Policy NOR01: and supporting text plp number

Support for the allocation and general support for the provisions of Policy NOR1. 1884

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Enhanced on-site management of surface water and drainage identified at (2)(d) 1904 should be subject to further technical evidence that demonstrates that the allocation would increase flood risk on the site and beyond. The need for contributions to secure improvements to the Kenwith Flood Risk Defence Scheme should be subject to technical evidence to demonstrate that these are necessary and proportionate.

General support for (2) (e), (f) and (g), further consideration will need to be given, in 1905 landscape terms, regarding the proposed planting along the site’s northern and eastern boundaries.

Inadequate health provision to support the population increase. 1182

No overwhelming local demand for housing. NOR01 is not within walking distance 502 of Northam or Bideford and there are no cycle routes. Concerned about increase in traffic movements and lack of employment opportunities.

Too many houses for the site. 1182

Development not sensitive to existing development or wider landscape. 501

Landscaping and tree planting is needed to mask this development from the south. 166

Major drainage will be required at the south western boundary. 504

Amend NOR01, add “contributions will be required for the provision of off-site highway 682 improvements as necessitated by the development” and “contributions will be required towards improvements to Heywood Road roundabout, Heywood Road, and the A39/B3236 junction”.

Delete NOR01; reinstate it as “rural gap”. 500

Daddon Hill is not a suitable location for development, it should be deleted as an 1576 allocation, on the basis that: the allocation is inconsistent with the NPPF which seeks to protect and enhance the natural environment, the site does not appear to be subject to a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment. The site is exposed along the length of its southern boundary; the site form part of the wider countryside and is predominantly rural in character. The allocation does not protect or enhance the natural environment and conflicts with policy objectives in NOR: Spatial Vision .

Delete NOR01 and replace with a new allocation to the south of Bideford” Bideford 619 South Scheme”.

Development will increase flooding lower down the valley, especially at NOR09; a 2071,503 proper flood risk assessment has not been carried.

Insufficient primary school places for the level of planned growth increase to a 420 689, 2071 place school, with nursery places.

Amend Policy NOR01 (b), increase the education requirement to provide a minimum 1313 (DCC) 420 place primary school on a 2.1 hectare site.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Contributions to meet the necessary highway improvements are not being required: 609 add - (2)(c) contributions will be required for the provision of off-site highway improvements as necessitated by the development, including contributions towards improvements to Heywood Road roundabout,……

NOR01 (2) (d) The words “as necessary” should be removed so that contributions 609, 691 to secure improvements to Kenwith Flood Risk Defence Scheme are guaranteed with subsequent amendment to paragraph 10.341.

NOR01 (2) (b) “vehicular access only from Daddon Hill that will requires clarification; 1317 (DCC) discuss with the Highway Authority.

NOR01(2) (c) should also refer to improvements to the junction of Buckleigh Road 1318 (DCC) and the A39 which would be necessary to accommodate traffic associated with the overall development proposals for Northam.

Amend (2)(b) provide more flexibility concerning access arrangements; the site 1895 should not be constrained to a single point of access off the B3236.

All allocations that benefit from proposed highways improvements from the A39 / 1898 B3236 to the site identified at (2)(c), including junction improvements at Silford Cross should contribute towards the cost and delivery of these improvements.

Inconsistencies over how traffic will flow in and around site and how extra traffic will 505 affect existing residents.

Ensure that proposals are brought forward in a comprehensive manner in terms of 1907 strategic infrastructure provision to facilitate the identified strategic growth in Northam and Westward Ho! Ensuring against imposing unsustainable infrastructure demands on proposals.

Change the road reference from Daddon Hill to Laundry Lane. 164

Housing is being used to fund social infrastructure, if required it could be sensitively 506 integrated without the need for loss of farmland.

Additional Information

2.1306 The development interests have commenced pre- application discussions with Torridge District Council.

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.1307 The supporting comments for the allocation subject to Policy NOR01 are noted, as are a range of comments which object both to the principle of development and the detail of Policy NOR01. The suitability of the site to accommodate housing, exiting and future infrastructure provision and the need for the planned scale of housing has been previously considered and recognised. The maintenance of the site as a housing focused allocation is not considered to represent a soundness risk.

2.1308 General support (plp 1905)for the policy is provided with the suggestion that further consideration will be required with regard to the sought strategic landscaping measures, with another respondent (plp 166) proposing the need for additional landscaping to mitigate the impact of

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

development from the south. The points are noted, the detail of landscaping and Green Infrastructure will be further addressed through master planning work that will demonstrate how the site will be comprehensive developed to take account of site specific and the general policies of the Local Plan.

2.1309 The requirement for enhanced on site management of surface water and drainage and as necessary contributions towards improvements to the Kenwith Flood Defence Scheme, resulted form the acceptance of comments to the draft Consultation Local Plan from the Environment Agency. The site falls within the Bideford Critical Drainage Area, within which the Environment Agency has determined that the associated watercourses do “not offer a good standard of protection to Bideford from fluvial and surface water flooding. Our detailed modelling study of the scheme (2012) [Kenwith Flood Alleviation Scheme] along with known flood problems on the numerous minor watercourses and surface water culverts within the area show a problem. .. All new development will have to play their part in reducing current rainfall runoff rates”. To satisfy the requirement that all off site surface water discharges from development should mimic “Greenfield” performance, all sites within the Critical Drainage Area will be required to accommodate enhanced SUDS. It is also considered appropriate to indicate that contributions to the flood defence scheme may be required. Contributions to secure improvements to the flood risk defence may be required in addition to on site SUDS to address the drainage issues resulting from development, it is appropriate that Policy NOR01 is clear as to what may be required in support of the delivery of the site. No amendment is considered necessary with regard to soundness, no change to the Local Plan is recommended.

2.1310 It is suggested that there is no local demand for housing (plp 502), this position is not accepted. The Torridge 2012 Urban Housing Needs Assessment (JG Consulting August 2012) identified a housing requirement of 1458 dwellings in Northam Parish. This level was based on demographic growth without the “policy on” positon presented by the Housing and Employment Study (GL Hearn 2014), which provided an overall requirement of 16,800 dwellings from North Devon and Torridge. The contribution provided by the range of sites at Northam is required to meet the objectively assessed needs and demands for the area. Northam is recognised as a sustainable location to accommodate development and the scale of enable development on developable sites reflects identified housing needs and demands and the capacity of the area to accommodate growth.

2.1311 It is not accepted that there are too many houses attributed to the site NOR01. The planned level of housing development is 13% less that the capacity determined by the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) of 572 dwellings (SHA/NOR/15/127). The SHLAA assumed yield is based on a site discount of 50% on the majority (31.7 hectares) of the site on which a density multiplier of 35 dwellings per hectare is applied, in accordance with the agreed SHLAA methodology. In determining the 500 dwelling site yield in Policy NOR01, site characteristics and non-housing uses have reduced the site yield considerably. The aim in respect of site development is to achieve a high quality outcome which respects the sensitivities of the sites landscape setting, not to maximise the housing delivery from the site. It must however be recognised that the site makes a significant contribution to meeting local housing needs and more widely to the objectively assessed housing needs and demands of the area.

2.1312 Concern is expressed (plp 501 and 1576) that the site is not sensitive to existing development or the wider landscape. It is suggested (plp 1576) that the allocation conflicts with the NPPF (paragraph 7) with regard to the need to protect and enhance the natural environment, on which basis it is unsustainable and should be deleted. It is recognised that development of the site will have an impact on the local landscape, as will development on the majority of sites planned to be delivered though the Local Plan. The site has been assessed as suitable and available for development through the Strategic Housing Land Availably Assessment , which in respect of landscape stated ” The site is not subject to any landscape designations. The site forms part of a rolling hillside, and in parts is exposed commanding long views over the countryside to the south. Development would however be set against

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

the existing skyline built form along Bay View Road so impact would be somewhat lessened”. In recognition of the of the landscape sensitivities of the site and the need to safeguard adjoining interests strategic landscaping measures are proposed through Policy NOR01 (e). Additionally, with regard to existing residents, amenity considerations will be assessed with regard to Policy DM01: Amenity Considerations and in respect of the form of the development Policy DM04: Design Principles will apply which requires development to be appropriate and sympathetic to buildings and landscape features in the local neighbourhood.

2.1313 It is suggested (plp 500) that the area subject to the Policy NOR01 is reinstated as “rural gap”. The site was not formally designated on such a basis in the Torridge District Local Plan. As previously stated NOR01 is considered to be suitable for a housing focused development which is anticipated to be delivered within the plan period. The site makes a significant contribution to meeting local housing needs and more widely to the objectively assessed housing needs and demands of the area.

2.1314 A site to the south of Bideford is suggested (plp 619) as an alternative to the Daddon Hill site. A number of sites to the south of Bideford have been presented for consideration as housing allocations to the draft Consultation Local Plan, all of which have been discounted. Additionally, it is not considered necessary to further add to the level of housing development in Bideford, which already provides for a level of about 4, 150 dwellings 2011-2031. The NOR01 site is suitable and available for development, the maintenance of the site is not considered to represent a soundness challenge.

2.1315 Comments (plps 689, 2071 and 1313) including from Devon County Council relate to the scale of education provision planned for in NOR01 (b). Devon County Council seeks an increase in the primary school capacity from 210 to 420 on a site of 2.1 hectares. Account must be taken of educational needs as identified by the education authority, to do otherwise could result in future generated needs being unmet. The NPPF is clear in that Local Plans should be “positively prepared”, which requires objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements to be met, if this issue is not addressed the Local Plan could be subject to a soundness challenge. It is recommended that the required new primary school be increase from 210 places to 420 places.

2.1316 Comments (plp 1907 and 506) are made with regard to infrastructure delivery and provision. The need to ensure the site is comprehensively developed is recognised (Policy NOR01 (2)) and with regard to delivery in a timely fashion such is provided for through Policy ST23: Infrastructure. It is suggested that housing is being used to fund social infrastructure, which is recognised to be correct in response to the needs generated by development. It is entirely appropriate that infrastructure needs generated by development are delivered through such development, to do otherwise would result in the area’s infrastructure needs not being meet, which would be a soundness issue.

2.1317 A range of comments have been received with regard to the access arrangements and wider highway network improvement related to the proposed development at Daddon Hill.

2.1318 It is suggested (plp 609) that contributions to highway improvements are not being required, and a policy amendment is sought on the basis of: contributions will be required for the provision of off-site highway improvements as necessitated by the development, including contributions towards improvements to Heywood Road roundabout… A range of site specific highway improvements are required through Policy NOR01, with an opportunity to secure contributions, as directly required from the development, provided by Policy ST23: Infrastructure.

2.1319 It is suggested that all allocations that benefit from the proposed highway improvements from A39/B3236 and to Silford Cross should contribute to the cost and delivery of the improvements. The sought highway improvements from allocated sites are reflective of the demands and generated

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

improvements from each site. It is recognised that there may be instances where contributions will be sought from more than one development site and such will sought through the application of Policy ST23: Infrastructure.

2.1320 Devon County Council have suggested a number of amendments to the policy with regard to access requirements and associated highway improvements. The Policy NOR01 was prepared with advice from DCC (HW), but it is accepted that additional site investigations may have resulted in revision to earlier guidance.

2.1321 Devon County Council (DCC) suggest (plp 1317) that NOR01 (2)(b) is clarified with another respondent seeking (plp 1898)the addition of flexibility to the policy with regard to how the site could be accessed, to allow for more than a single access point. The requirements set out in Policy NOR01 (2) (b) sought to provide a single vehicular access and to direct traffic from the site onto B3236. Advice from DCC provides that vehicular access to the site should be enabled from Daddon Hill/ Laundry Lane and onto Buckleigh Road. DCC (HW) has additionally confirmed() that a secondary access is not necessary to make the site acceptable with regard to highway requirements. On which basis it is not considered necessary to incorporate such a requirement within Policy NOR01. Criterion (2)(b) also sought to direct vehicle traffic onto B3236, to avoid an increase in the use of Daddon Hill to the east of the site entrance, it is considered necessary to enhance this policy point, providing that vehicle movements will be restricted along Daddon Road.

2.1322 Devon County Council suggest (plp 1318) that NOR01 (2) (c) is amended to refer to improvements to the junction of Buckleigh Road (B3236) and A39. It is recognised that highway improvements along Buckleigh Road and at the Silford Cross and A39/ Buckleigh Road junctions will be required in support of the development of the sites subject to Policy NOR01 and NOR02. It is recommended that a reference to required contributions to the junction of Buckleigh Road (B3236) and the A39 are incorporated into the policy at NOR01(c).

2.1323 Correction of a road reference is sought (plp 164) to change Daddon Hill in NOR (2)(b) and in the supporting text to Laundry Lane. Investigations relating to the accuracy of the reference indicate the road name to be correct. No change to the Local Plan is required in response to plp 164.

Other Matters

2.1324 Correct the site area of Policy NOR01 from about 31 hectares to 32 hectares.

2.1325 For the avoidance of doubt the reference to Daddon Hill, within Policy NOR01 and the associated supporting text is recommended to be amended to Daddon Hill/Laundry Lane.

2.1326 Policy NOR01(2)(e) requires strategic landscaping measures to ensure the development respects the sensitivity of the existing landscape setting which includes significant planting on the site’s eastern and northern boundaries. In the absence of a Landscape and Visual Impact assessment, there is no evidenced position that indicates that the referenced strategic planting would provide the optimum benefit with regard the sought objective in respect of the landscape setting. The form of the site will be established through a masterplan, within which all design issues will be addressed in detail, it is recommended that the locational reference to strategic planting is removed. The issues of potential concern in relation to amenity and landscape impact will be required to be addressed through the sought masterplan, in accordance with the general policies of the Local Plan. For certainly however, it is considered appropriate to add a reference within the supporting text that provides for the contained development to be located and of a form that takes account of the amenity interests of the existing adjoining residents.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Conclusion

2.1327 The majority of submissions put forward through the consultation are not considered to identify any matters that would form a risk to the soundness of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan. Amendment to the Local Plan is however considered necessary to reflect education and highway infrastructure requirement and to remove locational link to strategic planting.

Agreed Actions

The following are agreed as Main Changes to Policy NOR01, with associated supporting text revisions:

1. amend NOR01(1): A site of about 31 32 hectares at Daddon Hill …

a. amend Policy NOR01 (1)(b): a 210 420place primary school with associated… b. amend Policy NOR01 (2)(c): vehicular access only onto Buckleigh Road from Daddon Hill/Laundry Lane; that will direct traffic on to Buckleigh Road c. amend Policy, insert criterion and renumber subsequently NOR01 (2)(d): restricted vehicle movements along Daddon Hill/Laundry Lane, which will become a Sustainable Transport Link; d. amend Policy NOR01 (2)(c d): highway improvements from and including the A39/ Buckleigh Road B3236 to the site, including junction improvements at Silford Cross and at the junction of Buckleigh Road and the A39 e. amend Policy NOR01 (2)(e f): strategic landscaping measures to ensure the development respects the sensitivity of the existing landscape setting, including planning on the sites eastern and northern boundaries.; and f. amend paragraph 10.342:The layout of the site must take account of the consequences of the site’s topography, including the consideration of the amenity of existing residents and the sites points of exposure when viewed from the south.

Comments made in response to Policy NOR2: and associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 18

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 4 4

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 2 13

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 4 4

Summary of Issues

Comments on Northam Policy NOR02: Site West Of Buckleigh Road and supporting plp number text

Supports for NOR02 the land is available and development can be delivered within 196, 758, the plan period. A logical development site. 1510

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

The site is in multiple ownerships, the site is likely to come forward in phases, the 758 sough comprehensive development will be challenged to be delivered. Recognise fragmented landownership could delay delivery and offers no certainty that site-wide master planning can be achieved.

Delete that part of the allocation that is not subject to planning permission. 403, 974 Development would negatively impact on the local landscape, reducing its attraction to tourists. The policy is not in the best interest of the local population.

The sustainability of the site is questioned; lack of local employment and public 625 transport.

If maintained, the overall level of development must be restricted to 520 dwellings. 625

Empty homes and brownfield sites should be used before greenfield sites, as required 184 by the NPPF.

Proposed housing numbers too high, not enough infrastructure. 181, 1183

Meet local housing needs, including the elderly who are a growing demographic. 182

Consented development has not provided the required community centre or road 727 improvements to Silford Cross.

More green infrastructure within the development, add: “the development will have wildlife corridors integrated into it and the design will fit into the landscape by using soft colours of stone and wood”.

Add a requirement for allotments, which would improve some social, economic and 648 environmental issues.

Highway improvements required to Buckleigh Road prior to development NOR1 or 996 NOR2; the staggered junctions at Bay View and Cornborough Road are hazardous.

Policy NOR02 is inconsistent with Policy NOR (f) that related to making a positive 643 contribution to the centres role as a coastal resort.

Amend NOR02 add “contributions will be required towards improvements to Heywood 643, 692, Road roundabout, Heywood Road, and the A39/B3236 junction”. 165

(2)(d) Contributions to improvements to Kenwith Flood Risk Defence Scheme should 692, 694 be required; development will increase flood risk.

Development will increase flooding lower down the valley, especially at NOR09; a 2073 proper flood risk assessment has not been carried.

Amend NOR02 (2) (g) to refer to improvements to the junction of Buckleigh Road and 1319 the A39, which are necessary to accommodate traffic associated with the overall (DCC) development proposals for Northam

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Additional Information

2.1328 A site within the allocation 1/0251/2013/FULM, to the east of Buckleigh Road has been granted for residential development of 132 units and 126m2 of retail floor space including access, associated engineering works, infrastructure, and drainage and landscaping on the basis of an appeal decision.

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.1329 The supporting comments for the allocation subject to Policy NOR02 are noted, as are a range of comments which object both to the principle of development and the detail of Policy NOR02. The suitability of the site to accommodate housing, exiting and future infrastructure provision and the need for the planned scale of housing has been previously considered and recognised. The maintenance of the site as a housing focused allocation is not considered to represent a soundness risk.

2.1330 The proposed level of growth is considered to be too high (plps 181 and 1183). Policy NOR02 attributes a yield that reflects the potential capacity recommended by the Strategic Housing Land Availably Assessment (SHLAA). This is the standard approach adopted across the Local Plan unless the housing yield would be affected by a specified non-housing requirement or the presence of an extant planning permission. Taking account of the last point it is considered prudent to review the site’s housing yield; 4.65 hectares of the site now has planning permission for a range of uses including 132 dwellings. On the basis of the SHLAA identified potential capacity of the non-consented element of the site (472 dwellings) plus the contribution from the consented development (132 dwellings) the housing number attributed to Policy NOR02 should be increased to 600 dwellings (from 520). In positively planning for development the Local Plan should not seek to set a ceiling on development that could expected to be delivered from an allocated site, nor would it be advisable to under account for the anticipated yield, to do so could result in the unnecessary release of additional sites.

2.1331 It is suggested (plp 403 and 974) that the 25.35 hectares of the site not subject to planning permission is deleted from the allocation. As indicted above the site subject to Policy NOR02 makes a necessary contribute to meeting the areas housing needs. The site has been assessed to be suitable for development though the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. If the site yield was reduced to 132 dwellings, the balance of the lost delivery potential would have to be alternatively accommodated. It is considered that NOR02 provides the best opportunity with the other allocations, not only to meet housing needs but to secure infrastructure improvements, including to the highway network for the existing and future population of Northam. No alterative site is proposed to meet the shortfall that would result from the deletion of the bulk of Policy NOR02. The comments are not considered to present a soundness challenge; no change to the Local Plan is recommended.

2.1332 The sustainability of the site is questioned (plp 625) having regard to the lack of employment and public transport. With regard to local employment, it is recognised that employment allocations are not present in Northam. However, as evidenced in the Employment and Housing Study(GL Hearn 2014) an increasing proportion of future employment growth will not require locations on industrial estates and the majority of planned housing growth (11,200 dwellings) is required to maintain a stable workforce. Identified short term growth is assessed to be focused on population growth; service based industries, including care and retail with tourism continuing to be significant contributor to employment opportunities. All of the stated sectors occur and have potential for growth in Northam. In the longer term and as reflected by the Councils’ Economic Development Strategy improving employment opportunities will be supported in marine and energy sectors both of which have the potential for growth at Appledore. In addition to employment in Northam, an expansion of employment opportunities

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

is planned for in Bideford which is easily accessible, including by public transport from Northam. On the matter of public transport, connectivity to the western part of Westward Ho! will be improved as a result of the development of site NOR01 and NOR02. The comment is not considered to present a soundness challenge; no change to the Local Plan is recommended.

2.1333 Comment (plp 758) is made that the sought comprehensive development is not achievable on the basis that the site is in multiple ownerships and to insist on such could impact on delivery. It is recognised that the site is in more than a single ownership and that part of the site already benefits from an extant planning consent, on which basis the achievability of comprehensive development would be compromised. However, having regard to the need for the site to be fully developed and the nature of the generated infrastructure that would be required from the site it is considered necessary to continue to require the site to be viewed as a whole, it is recommended that the comprehensive reference is amended to planned from developed. The recommendation is made to improve the deliverability of the allocation, which is a matter subject testing on the basis of soundness.

2.1334 The comment (plp 184) on empty homes and previously developed land is noted. The Local Plan provides for additional housing beyond the existing supply to accommodate future needs and demands. Market signals such as vacant dwellings and second homes are taken into account in calculating the future housing requirement. With regard to previously developed sites, the contribution from this source is utilised were appropriate with regard to assessed deliverability and developability. There is a limited availability of previously developed land in northern Devon and the scale of required housing necessitates the use of greenfield sites.

2.1335 With regard to the form of development required from the site, Policy NOR02 provides that housing will be required to reflect local needs, including accommodation for the elderly and affordable homes. Policy NOR: Northam Spatial Strategy Vision and Development Strategy recognises the areas changing dynamic from which an expanded supply of housing for the elderly will be required.

2.1336 It is suggested that additional green infrastructure is required within the allocation and that allotments should be provided for. The Policy provides for the delivery of enhanced landscaping and additional Green Infrastructure will be achieved through the application of Development Management Policies: DM04: Design Principles, DM08: Biodiversity and Geodiversity and DM10 Green Infrastructure.

2.1337 The comments provided with regard to the access arrangements to Buckleigh Road and improvements to the Heywood Road Roundabout and the A39/B3236 are noted. The phasing of highway improvements will be a matter for management with the highway authority, which will be addressed having regard to Policy DM05: Highways and ST10: Transport Strategy.

2.1338 Comment is made that the allocated site contradicts Policy NOR (f) with regard to making a positive contribution to the centres role as a coastal resort. The policy reference relates more directly to Policies NOR05: Westward Ho! – Core Tourism Area and NOR06: Westward Ho! – Tourism and Recreation Sites. The focus as specified at NOR (f) is towards regeneration and new site development that will secure improved access to the resort and qualitative improvement to facilities, attractions and visitor accommodation. The development strategy does not seek that such improvements will be secured as a result of the housing focused development. The comment is not considered to present a soundness challenge; no change to the Local Plan is recommended.

2.1339 It is suggested (plps 629, 694) that contributions should be provided to the Kenwith Flood Risk Defence Scheme, rather than “as necessary”. The basis for the provision is through comment provided from the Environment Agency. Contributions will be required if necessary and such will be guided by the Environment Agency with regard to any improvements that are generated as a result of development. The comments (plps 629, 694) are not considered to represent a soundness challenge,

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

no amendment to the Local Plan is consequently proposed. Comment (plp 2073)is also made with regard to increased flood risk; a flood risk assessment is sought. Policy NOR (2)(d) provides for enhanced on site management of surface water and drainage, to avoid an increase of flood risk within and beyond the site. The requirement reflects the location of the site within the Bideford Critical Drainage Area. No soundness challenge is considered to be raised as a consequence of comment (plp 2073) on which basis no change is recommended.

2.1340 Comments (plp 643, 692 and 165) regarding the need for contributions to be made to achieve highway improvements are noted. Policy NOR02 requires highway improvements in relation to Buckleigh Road and contributions to Silford Cross improvements; additional Infrastructure improvements if required as a result of development will be secured with the application of Policy ST23: Infrastructure. In response to comment from Devon County Council (plp 1319)it is recommended that a reference to required contributions to the junction of Buckleigh Road ( B3236) and the A39 are incorporated into the policy at NOR02(g).

Conclusion

2.1341 The majority of submissions put forward through the consultation are not considered to identify any matters that would form a risk to the soundness of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan. Amendment to the Local Plan is however considered necessary to clarify that the site should be comprehensively planned, to increase the attribute housing yield to better reflect the sites residential development capacity and to clarify the scope of highway improvements that will be required in association with the development of the site.

Agreed Actions

1. The following are agreed as Main Changes to Policy NOR02, with associated supporting text revisions:

a. amend Policy NOR02(1) Land to the west of Buckleigh Road (north), extending to about 30 hectares and as defined on Policies Map 8A, will be developed comprehensively planned to deliver a sustainable, high quality mixed use development that includes: b. amend Policy NOR02(1) (a):approximately 520 600 dwellings, providing a mix of housing types and size to reflect local need, including those of the areas elderly population and affordable housing; c. undertake consequential changes to housing supply figures to take account of the increased yield from Policy NOR02.; and d. amend Policy NOR02 (g): highway improvements to Buckleigh Road and contributed improvements to the Silford Cross junction and the junction of Buckleigh Road and A39.

Comments made in response to Policy NOR03: Land adjacent to Landsdowne Park and associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 4

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 1 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - 4

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” - 2

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Summary of Issues

Comments on Northam Policy NOR03: Land adjacent to Landsdowne Park plp number supporting text

Amend NOR03 add “contributions will be required towards improvements to 682 Heywood Road roundabout, Heywood Road, and the A39/B3236 junction”.

NOR03 should provide enhanced reaeration facilities, not housing. 449, 733

Development would result in: the loss of Grade A agricultural land, the green gap 1185 land and result in traffic impacts on junction of Golf Links Road and Sandymere Road.

Additional Information

2.1342 A planning application: 1/0362/2014/OUTM for 14 dwellings was agreed by Torridge District Council by on Land adjoining Sandymere Road and Golf Links Road, Westward Ho! The application site comprises 0.8 hectare of the allocated site.

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.1343 Comments regarding the need for contributions to be made to achieve highway improvements are noted. Infrastructure improvements required as a result of development will be secured with the application of Policy ST23: Infrastructure. No amendment to the Local Plan is recommended, no soundness challenge is considered to be raised as a result of comment plp 682.

2.1344 The site of Policy NOR03 has been subject to assessment through the Strategic Housing Land Availably Assessment and Sustainably Appraisal. The site is suitable and available for development, as demonstrated by the positive determination of planning application 1/0362/2014/OUTM. In allocating the site such matters as: agriculture land values, landscape impact and the achievably of satisfactory vehicle access and the resultant traffic impacts have been considered. The site provides a necessary contribution to the housing needs of Northam and more widely in support of achieving a housing supply to meet objectively assessed needs and demands. It is recognised that the allocation would result in the loss of agricultural use of Grade 3a land.

Conclusion

2.1345 The submissions put forward through the consultation are not considered to identify any matters that would form a risk to the soundness of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan.

Agreed Actions

1. No change to Policy NOR03: Land adjacent to Landsdowne Park or the associated supporting text.

Comments made in response Policy NOR04: Tadworthy Road to and associated supporting text:

Total Number of Responses 22

Yes No

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 15 2

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 1 18

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 3 16

Summary of Issues

Comments on Northam Policy NOR04: Tadworthy Roadand supporting text plp number

Support for Policy NOR04.

Objection to Policy NOR04: lack of amenities, increased traffic and flood risk in the 391 area, result in the loss of separation between Northam and Westward Ho!

Amend NOR04 add “contributions will be required for the provision of off-site highway 682, 695 improvements as necessitated by the development” and “contributions will be required towards improvements to Heywood Road roundabout, Heywood Road, and the A39/B3236 junction”.

Retain as a green corridor between Northam and Westward Ho! avoid coalescence 368, 335, to keep the distinct form of the settlements. 453, 444, 1180

Proposals are not reflective of the aging nature of the population and recent 445 opportunities have been missed to deliver housing for the elderly/affordable housing.

Delete the allocation; it does not meet local needs, would result in a negative impact 451, 568, on the landscape and wildlife, the loss of a locally valued green space between 2092, 459, Northam and Westward Ho! that would result in coalescence and the loss of views 463, 734, to Northam Burrows and increase flood risk. The proposed road would become a 1216, 455. cut through.

There will be no views to the Burrows; the area beyond the site will be developed 735 for holiday homes.

Develop brownfield sites before greenfields. 2092

Are football facilities required, allotments would be better used. 1216

Section 106 contribution to new traffic scheme to alleviate congestion at Northam 1216 Square.

Incorrect reference to forming a 'gateway into Westward Ho!', it is in Northam. 1217

Extend existing leisure facilities into the site proposed for housing at NOR03 rather 736 than build a separate site so close at NOR04.

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.1346 The supporting comment for the allocation subject to Policy NOR04 is noted, as are a range of comments which object both to the principle of development and the detail of Policy NOR04. The suitability of the site to accommodate housing has been previously considered and recognised. The

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

maintenance of the site as a housing focused allocation is not considered to represent a soundness risk. The site subject to Policy NOR04 is judged to be developable by the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment and has been subject to a Sustainability Appraisal. The housing yield from the site provides a required contribution to meet the areas overall housing needs.

2.1347 It is recognised that the site currently forms a break in the built form between Westward Ho!

2.1348 and Northam, and is valued locally, it is however considered to have little value in landscape and visual amenity terms. Sensitive development proposals with appropriate landscaping will be required. The site is not subject to any local biodiversity designations, it is however recognised that it has some intrinsic wildlife and habitat value, which will be addressed though the application of the Policy DM04: Design Principles and if required Policy DM08: Biodiversity and Geodiversity.

2.1349 The comment (plp (2092) suggesting using brownfield sites before greenfield sites is noted. Previously developed sites have been used where they have been assessed to be deliverable and developable and fall with the local development strategy. The availability of such sites is however very limited in comparison to level of housing that is required to be planned for. It is therefore necessary to use greenfield sites to achieve a land supply requirement to meet objectively assessed needs and demands. No change to the Local Plan is recommended in response to the comment.

2.1350 Comments related to drainage are noted, issues in relation to which to will be taken into account in consultation with the Environment Agency to guide the design and location of elements with the development site.

2.1351 Comments (plp 682 and 695)regarding the need for contributions to be made to achieve highway improvements and to alleviate congestion are noted. Infrastructure improvements, including to the local highway network, required as a result of development will be secured with the application of Policy ST23: Infrastructure. No amendment to the Local Plan is recommended, no soundness challenge is considered to be raised.

2.1352 It is suggested (plp 445)that proposals are not reflective of the aging nature of the population, Policy NOR04 (1)(a) requires that in providing about 150 dwellings, a mix of housing types and size should be provided to reflect local needs, including affordable housing. The Strategic Policy for Northam (NOR) also provides that supported homes together with an expanded supply to meet the needs of the areas aging population should be provided. Policy ST17: A Balanced Housing Market established that new housing should be provided that reflects local needs of present and future generations. No amendment to the Local Plan is recommended, no soundness challenge is considered to be raised.

2.1353 Comment (plps 736 and 1216)is provided on the need for and location of football pitch provision. The Green Infrastructure Strategy and the Playing Fields Strategy provides the evidence of need for recreation facilities and pitches required to address an existing shortfall in provision and to meet needs as a result of planned development. It is appropriate that housing development provides and contributes towards the meeting of generated needs. With regard to allotments Policy DM10: Green Infrastructure Provision will be applied to secure new provision. No amendment to the Local Plan is recommended, no soundness challenge is considered to be raised.

2.1354 The comment (plp 1217) relating to the gateway reference is noted. It is accepted that the site is located in the ward of Northam. The basis for the policy requirement is to improve the attraction of the entrance into Westward Ho! which can be supported by appropriate boundary treatments along Golf Links Road, through the development of the site subject to Policy NOR04. No amendment to the Local Plan is recommended, no soundness challenge is considered to be raised.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Conclusion

2.1355 The submissions put forward through the consultation are not considered to identify any matters that would form a risk to the soundness of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan.

Agreed Actions

1. No change to Policy NOR04: Tadworthy Road (Northam) or the associated supporting text.

Comments made in response to Policy NOR05: Westward Ho! Core Tourist Area and associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 3

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 2 -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - 2

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1 1

Summary of Issues

Comments on Northam Policy NOR05 Westward Ho! Core Tourist Area and plp supporting text number

Amend NOR05 add “contributions will be required towards improvements to Heywood 682 Road roundabout, Heywood Road, and the A39/B3236 junction”.

Football pitches are 200m away at Sandymere, an under used and under-maintained 573 tennis court facility and play area along Golf Links Road.

Policy NOR05 should attempt to address flooding and climate change risks. The level 922 (EA) 2 SFRA shows these risks. Reference should be made to the need for funding to facilitate new sea defences to deal with both current and future flood risk.

The private dwelling Vicosa should be removed from the Core Tourism Area, other 2166 private dwellings along Merely Road are excluded.

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.1356 Comment (plp 682) regarding the need for contributions to be made to achieve highway improvements are noted. Infrastructure improvements, including to the local highway network, required as a result of development will be secured with the application of Policy ST23: Infrastructure. No amendment to the Local Plan is recommended, no soundness challenge is considered to be raised.

2.1357 The comment (plp 573) relating to the need to support under used and poorly maintained sports facilities is noted. The comment is not however considered relevant in the context of Policy NOR05. Improvement to existing facilities may be achieved as a result of contributions secured from housing development from the application of Policy DM10: Green Infrastructures Provision. No amendment to the Local Plan is recommended, no soundness challenge is considered to be raised.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

2.1358 The Environment Agency (plp 922) suggests that Policy NOR05 should attempt to address flooding and climate change risks and that reference should be made to the need for funding to facilitate new sea defences. It is accepted that the level 2 Flood Risk Assessment demonstrated some risk to the area subject to Policy NOR05. Policy ST03: Adapting to Climate Change and Strengthening Resilience is relevant, requiring development to take account of climate change. It is not considered necessary to make a specific reference to climate change within Policy NOR05. Reference within the supporting text could be provided in the interest of clarity that the designated area is in part subject to flood risk which will shape the nature and form of development. Reference to the need for funding for sea defences is noted. A reference is provided on this basis in Policy NOR: Northam Spatial Vision and Development Strategy. It is not considered appropriate to add a specific requirement to Policy NOR05, the focus for which is to maintain a concentration of tourist within the defined area. The Environment Agency has not identified the scope of required improvements or a programme of works to deliver sea defaces. In the absence of such detail there is no certainly as to the delivery of the sought sea defences. If the Environment Agency identifies required works, such should be defined in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and funding secure through the application of Policy ST23: Infrastructures. No amendment to the Local Plan is recommended, no soundness challenge is considered to be raised.

2.1359 The Core Tourist Area covers a large proportion of Westward Ho!, including the majority of the area to the north and south of Merely Road. The purpose of the designation is to maintain a focus of tourism related activities in support of the area’s resort function. A revision to the extent of the designation is sought (plp 2166) to exclude a property (Vicosa) which is located to the south of Merely Road. The site is substantial within the designation and is bordered by tourism uses, all of which are subject to Policy NOR05. The current residential use of the site is recognised, however it is considered appropriate to maintain the designation on the basis of the need to retain the current concentration of tourism uses and the potential for enhancement of such within the defined area. The loss of the site from the designation would remove a constraint to achieving development that would not contribute to the resorts tourism function, such as housing. In support of the advocated revision, it is suggested that through the work undertaken on the 2008 Westward Ho! Area Design Statements the property was removed from the Core Tourism Area. It is accepted that the extent of the Core Tourism Area was subject to discussion through the referenced document, which included a related recommendation for the Local Development Framework, but such sought to extend not to reduce the Core Tourism Area. With regard to the Design Statement, it could not alter Local Plan policy and it was not formally adopted by the District Council. No amendment to the Local Plan is recommended, no soundness challenge is considered to be raised.

Conclusion

2.1360 The submissions put forward through the consultation are not considered to identify any matters that would form a risk to the soundness of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan. A minor change is recommended to provide additional guidance with regard to the presence of flood risk within the area subject to Policy NOR05, and that such will affect the range and form of acceptable uses.

Agreed Actions

1. No Main Change to Policy NOR05: Westward Ho! Core Tourist Area. 2. The following agreed as a Minor Change: a. Amend paragraph 10.358: To enhance the resort function significant development within the Core Tourism Area will be granted only for tourist purposes on the basis of: quality tourist accommodation, visitor attractions, tourism facilities and complementary service development

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

(retail, leisure or entertainment) available for tourist use. Significant market housing or general employment development will not be acceptable within the Core Tourism Area. The scope and form of enabled development will be further shaped by the presence of flood risk, which within the Core Tourism Area is significant in locations adjoining the Promenade and the area around the slipway.

Comments made in response to Policy NOR06: Westward Ho! tourist and Recreation Sites and associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 2

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” - 1

Summary of Issues

Comments on Northam Policy NOR06: Westward Ho! tourist and Recreation Sites plp number and supporting text

Amend NOR06 add “contributions will be required towards improvements to 682 Heywood Road roundabout, Heywood Road, and the A39/B3236 junction”.

Policy NOR06 should attempt to address flooding and climate change risks. The 923(EA) level 2 SFRA shows these risks. Reference should be made to the need for funding to facilitate new sea defences to deal with both current and future flood risk.

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.1361 Comments regarding the need for contributions to be made to achieve highway improvements are noted. Infrastructure improvements, including to the local highway network, required as a result of development will be secured with the application of Policy ST23: Infrastructure. No amendment to the Local Plan is recommended, no soundness challenge is considered to be raised.

2.1362 The Environment Agency suggests that Policy NOR06 should attempt to address flooding and climate change risks and that reference should be made to the need for funding to facilitate new sea defences. It is accepted that the level 2 Flood Risk Assessment demonstrated some risk to the area subject to Policy NOR06. Policy ST03: Adapting to Climate Change and Strengthening Resilience is relevant, requiring development to take account of climate change. It is not considered necessary to make a specific reference to climate change within Policy NOR06. Reference within the supporting text could be provided in the interest of clarity that the designated area is in part subject to flood risk which will shape the nature and form of development. Reference to the need for funding for sea defences is noted. A reference is provided on this basis in Policy NOR: Northam Spatial Vision and Development Strategy. It is not considered appropriate to add a specific requirement to Policy NOR05, the focus for which is to maintain a concentration of tourist within the defined area. The Environment Agency has not identified the scope of required improvements or a programme of works to deliver sea defaces. In the absence of such detail there is no certainly as to the delivery of the sought sea defences. If the Environment Agency identifies required works, such should be defined in the

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

infrastructure Delivery Plan and funding secure through the application of Policy ST23: Infrastructures. No amendment to the Local Plan is recommended, no soundness challenge is considered to be raised.

Conclusion

2.1363 The submissions put forward through the consultation are not considered to identify any matters that would form a risk to the soundness of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan.

Agreed Action

1. No change to Policy NOR06: Tadworthy Road (Northam) or the associated supporting text.

Comments made in response to Policy NOR07: Site Adjoining Pitt Hill and associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 17

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 2 2

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 1 4

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 2 2

Summary of Issues

Comments on Northam Policy NOR07: Site Adjoining Pitt Hill and supporting text plp number

General support for Policy NOR07. The proposed designation will make a significant 2272, 539, contribution to meeting the future housing needs of Appledore as set out in Policies 2724 ST08 and NOR, which will be fundamental to the early achievement of the spatial vision for the area. Land owners support the proposal.

The improvements proposed to the highway infrastructure at Criterion (2)(c) are 2277 supported.

Question the change of housing yield from 150 to 130 dwellings between plan draft 2273 and Publication plans, which occurred without explanation. A higher unit yield should be enabled if it can be demonstrated that sustainable drainage techniques can be applied. Flexibility on housing numbers is sought.

Too many houses proposed in Appledore, however affordable housing is needed. 187

Amend NOR07, add “contributions will be required for the provision of off-site highway 682, 696 improvements as necessitated by the development” and “contributions will be required towards improvements to Heywood Road roundabout, Heywood Road, and the A39/B3236 junction”

Delete NOR07 and replace with a site at Hubbastone Road, a deliverable and more 567 suitable site.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

A conflict between the sites inclusion within the undeveloped part of the coast and 1184 estuary and the provided development opportunity. Delete the allocation and adjust the development boundary to exclude the site.

Adverse effect on the integrity of Appledore, the setting of the estuary and on the 1186, 1218 green gap with Northam, contrary to the aims of the Plan. Traffic generated by the Pitt Lane development would have a highly adverse effect on Churchill Way, which would impinge seriously on the amenity of local residents, contrary to Policy DM01.

Potential adverse landscape impact from development, potential adverse effect to 2034(NE) views from the lower lying Northam County Park.

Question the delivery of the site within the plan period, the site is indifferent 2290, 2288 ownerships and no evidence provided to demonstrate development potential. An alternative site the west of Hubbastone Road is presented as a reasonable alternative, with benefits that cannot be achieved through NOR07; strong links to Appledore, near Appledore Shipyard; able to provide affordable housing within walking distance of local employment. The allocation result in Local Plan flaws in respect of positive preparation and being justified.

As provided by the SHLAA NOR7 is not sustainably located with regard to access 2287 to facilities and that development of the site is unstainable with out the development of land to the west of Hubbastone Road. The allocation of NOR07 is inconsistent with the strategic aims of the Local Plan and the aims of achieving sustainable development.

Amend (2)(b) should encouraged the provision of green infrastructure rather than 2276, 2274 impose it as a requirement. Many factors contribute to securing a successful development. it is crucial that the development is viable and deliverable in accordance with NPPF paragraph 173.

A reference to the housing development at NOR07 providing a 'reflection of the 1222 area's historic character' is not accepted.

Table 2.82

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.1364 The supporting comments for the allocation subject to Policy NOR07 are noted, as are a range of comments which object both to the principle of development and the detail of Policy NOR07. The suitability of the site to accommodate housing has been previously considered and recognised. The maintenance of the site as a housing focused allocation is not considered to represent a soundness risk. The site subject to Policy NOR07 is judged to be developable by the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. The housing yield from the site provides a required contribution to meet local housing needs and more widely as a contribution to the areas objectively assessed needs.

2.1365 Concern is raised with regard to the potential impact of development on the integrity of Appledore, the dilution of the gap between Northam and Appledore and the negative amenity consequences for local residents. It is recognised that development of the site subject to Policy NOR07 would result in some localised landscape impact, no in principle concerns have however been expressed by Natural England in respect of the AONB and policy requirements dictate the need for development to be located so as to minimise any loss of landscape character. Access to the site is achievable, as confirmed by the Highway Authority in relation to which the necessary highway

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

improvements and access arrangements are set out within Policy NOR07. With regard to the location of the site, it is accepted that the built form of the village would be extended in a southerly direction. The site is principally surrounded by open countryside although it does hold a loose relationship with a number of dwellings to the North West and south of the site and is adjacent to the Appledore Football Ground.

2.1366 Natural England (plp 2034) raise concerns on the potential landscape impact development on the NOR07 allocation on which basis policy amendment is sought to safeguard the western and northern boundaries of the site from inappropriate high level development that would break the ridge line. Policy NOR07 provides that development should be located and of a form that minimises any loss of landscape character of the surrounding area, which, with Policy ST: 14 Enhancing Environmental Assets is considered adequate with regard to protecting the natural environment from inappropriate development.

2.1367 The housing yield attributed to the allocation is questioned (plp 2273).The attributed yield is based on a methodology agreed through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment: http://www.torridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=14076&p=0 with regard to gross to net site size ratios. The standard calculation, which was applied to allocations in the draft consultation Local Plan, was adjusted as a result of the 2013/2014 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment update, to take account of the consequences of accommodating development in Critical Drainage Areas. The housing yields from all sites based on SHLAA determined levels of potential development capacity were reviewed and as necessary adjusted. It is important to note that the approximation of yield provided for in allocating policies should only be regarded as a guide, not a maximum or a ceiling to acceptable development levels. The attributed yield is regarded as an approximation of the level of housing that could be delivered. No change to the Local Plan is recommended, no soundness risk is considered to be raised as a result of the issue raised.

2.1368 Comment (plp 187) is made that the scale of housing provided for in Appledore is too high, but with recognition that affordable housing is required. The suggestion that the scale of housing in Appledore is excessive is not accepted, the Torridge Urban Housing Needs Assessment (GJ Consulting 2012) identified a need for 309 dwellings (201 market and 109 affordable) over the period to 2032 in Appledore. The level of planned housing growth at 185 (provided by allocated and non allocated developable sites) is considered appropriate with regard to the scale of identified need and the opportunities to bring suitable sites forward having regard to the character and form of the settlement. The housing yield from Appledore provides an essential contribution to the areas objectively assessed housing needs and demands.

2.1369 Comments (plp 682 and 692) regarding the need for contributions to be made to achieve highway improvements are noted. Infrastructure improvements, including to the local highway network, required as a result of development will be secured with the application of Policy ST23: Infrastructure. No amendment to the Local Plan is recommended, no soundness challenge is considered to be raised.

2.1370 A site at Hubbastone Road (6.2 hectare) is proposed as an alternative to the allocation adjoining Pitt Hill; it is suggested the site is deliverable and more suitable. The comment raised (plp 576) was previously considered in preparing the Publication Local Plan through which the suggestion of replacing the Pitt Hill site for an allocation at Hubbastone Road was rejected. It is recognised that the Hubbastone Road site was appraisal through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHA/NOR30) through which it was considered to be potentially developable (131 dwellings) on the basis that there were no underlying constraints to the delivery of residential development that was identified as available for development and which could deliver a product attractive to the market without any significant barriers to development. However the Hubbastone Road site, as previously

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

stated, is not considered to provide a preferable option to the Policy NOR07 site. Significantly the Hubbastone site holds a prominent hillside location commanding long views across the open countryside and the adjacent estuary. As such, the site is relatively exposed within the wider landscape and development has the potential to have an adverse impact on landscape character. Additionally there is concern regarding the potential for conflict with the operation of Appledore shipyard in respect of to both noise and air impacts which could result in a statutory nuisance to closely developed housing. No change to the Local Plan is recommended, no soundness risk is considered to be raised as a result of the issue raised.

2.1371 It is suggested (plp 2290 and 2288)that the site subject to the allocation is not deliverable during the lifetime of the Local Plan, on which basis it should be replaced by an alternative allocation at Hubbastone Road. The suggestion that a site at Hubbastone Road should be alternatively allocated has previously been discussed and discounted. With regard to the deliverability of the site subject to Policy NOR07, the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment finds that the component elements of the site (SHA/NOR1/18/112) are developable, thus suitable and available for development. It is also worth noting that Torridge District Council has been in early discussions with development interests on the majority of the allocated site. It is considered that there is every reasonable prospect that the site will come forward during the plan period. The maintenance of the NOR07 allocation is not considered to represent a risk to soundness, no change to the Local Plan is recommended.

2.1372 Comment (plp 2276 and 2274)is made that Policy NOR07 (2)(b) should only encourage rather than require green infrastructure, indicating that a range of factors contribute to the delivery of successful development, including ensuring consideration is given to viability. The comment is noted and flexibly in respect of supporting delivery through the consideration of viability impacts is provided throughout the Local Plan and amendment to Policy ST23: Infrastructure is recommended to recognise viability as a consideration relating to infrastructure requirements. However with regard to Green Infrastructure such is regarded as a necessary component of housing development. While the development management policies of the Local Plan will provide the standards which should be achieved as a necessary element of housing development, the locational requirement in Policy NOR07 are considered necessary with regard to the sensitivities of the referenced part of the site. The site will generate a need for Green Infrastructure and having regard to the potential landscape impacts of the site it is appropriate to maintain the policy requirement NOR07(2)(b). No change to the Local Plan is recommended, no soundness risk is considered to be raised as a result of the issue raised.

Other Matters

2.1373 The site to the immediate north of NOR07, land east of Churchill Way is identified as a non allocated developable site in Table 10.14 The site is considered to be suitable and available for development by the North Devon and Torridge Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA/NOR/135) but with a dependency on gaining access through site NOR/112, which forms part of Policy NOR07. To enable delivery on the non allocated developable site it is considered necessary to require an appropriate site access to be achieved from the site of Policy NOR07.

Conclusion

2.1374 The submissions put forward through the consultation are not considered to identify any matters that would form a risk to the soundness of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan. A Main Change is recommended with regard to facilitating the delivery of the adjoining site which is defined as contributing to the housing supply.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Agreed Actions

1. The following is agreed as a Main Change to Policy NOR07: Site Adjoining Pitt Hill (Appledore): Amend Policy NOR07; add (d) safeguarding of an appropriate vehicular access extending to the northern boundary, to enable the future delivery of the adjoining site on land east of Churchill Way.

Comments made in response to Policy NOR08: Land North of Cleveland Park and associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 2

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 1 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - 2

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1 1

Summary of Issues

Comments on Northam Policy: NOR08: Land North of Cleveland Park and supporting plp number text

Amend NOR08 add “contributions will be required towards improvements to Heywood 682 Road roundabout, Heywood Road, and the A39/B3236 junction”.

Add green infrastructure to protect the landscape value: ‘Green infrastructure will be 369 planted to protect the landscape value and wildlife needs of this site'.

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.1375 Comment (plp 682) regarding the need for contributions to be made to achieve highway improvements are noted. Infrastructure improvements, including to the local highway network, required as a result of development will be secured with the application of Policy ST23: Infrastructure. No amendment to the Local Plan is recommended, no soundness challenge is considered to be raised.

2.1376 The comment (plp 369) relating to Green Infrastructure is noted, it is considered that the existing provisions of the policy at (2)(b): a landscape structure that builds on and enhances existing assets, together with the requirements of development management Policies, specifically DM04: Design Principles, DM08: Biodiversity and Geodiversity and DM10: Green Infrastructure Provision are sufficient to address the raised concerns. No amendment to the Local Plan is recommended, no soundness challenge is considered to be raised.

Conclusion

2.1377 The submissions put forward through the consultation are not considered to identify any matters that would form a risk to the soundness of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan.

Agreed Action:

1. No change to Policy NOR08: Land North of Cleveland Park or the associated supporting text.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Comments made in response to Policy NOR09: Land Southwest of Heywood Road Roundabout and associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 73

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 7 21

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - 45

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 7 28

Summary of Issues

Comments on Northam Policy NOR09 Land Southwest of Heywood Road plp number Roundabout and supporting text

Support for the allocation, which is in a sustainable location. A planning application 1550 is now being progressed.

Note that NOR09 includes two listed buildings. 1213 (NE)

Amend Policy: (d) retention of the contained Public Right of Way, or provision of 1558 a suitable alternative route within the site;

NOR09 (f) remove the reference to contributions to the Kenwith Flood Risk Defence 1559 Scheme, which is unnecessary. Make such a reference only in paragraph10.370 with the addition of this being secured if necessary and relevant to the scheme through the development management process.

Amend NOR09, add “contributions will be required for the provision of off-site 682, 423, 716 highway improvements as necessitated by the development” and “contributions will be required towards improvements to Heywood Road roundabout, Heywood Road, and the A39/B3236 junction”.

The site is Bideford facing, children from the development are anticipated to attend 1321 (DCC) new primary provision in the west of Bideford.

Too many dwellings proposed, not in keeping with the area. 400

Delete NOR09 on the following basis: an unsustainable site that would result in 22, 101,102, the loss of: a local environmental asset with high biodiversity value, a recreation 104,373, area with access provided by an ancient footpath. Development would result in 275,418,350, negative impacts on surrounding property (noise and privacy) historic assets, 392,354,359, habitat and produce traffic congestion and pressure on services (doctors, schools), 396, 399,423, and an increase in flood risk. 454,569,1103, 1135,1424, Access opportunities to the site could not be improve to be adequate. Development 1468, 2051, would be to a high density inconsistent with the surrounding area or the site's 2136, 2057, potion as a gateway to Bideford. The high cost of flood alleviation would result in 2039, 2086, community housing needs as affordable housing or for the elderly not being met.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

2075, 2089, 2164, 2175,2202,

2104,2114,

2183 ,23, 11

23,315,10,25,

26,395,398

The site was deleted from the 2004 Local Plan and has been subject to refused 1230, 1468, planned applications and appeals, it is an unsustainable site and in conflict with 2039, Policy NOR (j) relating to development meeting generated infrastructure needs. 2075,394

Heywood Road cannot support additional traffic, already congested, further 1424,9, 24, development will add to road safety risks. 316

If access taken directly off Heywood roundabout some of the traffic issues could 2136 be mitigated.

The use of Heywood Road as the access to proposed development is dangerous 100,401, 397 and increased congestion and pollution, the only safe access would be directly onto Atlantic Highway.

Lenwood Road is too narrow to be used for emergency vehicle access. 305

The size of development would adversely affect the landscape and wildlife contrary 1187 to the Spatial Vision. The strategic gap and a green wedge would be lost.

Retain Northam stream, it allows natural flooding of flood plain. If development 416 takes place it will be necessary to increase capacity for water retention to prevent flooding.

Integrating a comprehensive drainage scheme will damage existing green 721 infrastructure, the wildlife corridor and the contained environmental assets. If retained, amend to include “The site will deliver a high quality development that achieves the integration of Green Infrastructure with new development whilst protecting and preserving the assets contained within the site, including the retention of all the Devon Hedgebanks, woodlands and trees contained within and bordering the site, retention of the wildlife corridor along the stream and its adjoining fields and protection of the notable and protected species within the site whilst respecting the sensitivity of the existing landscape setting and character of the area."

The issue of potential flooding from Northam Stream has not been adequately 717 addressed and does not take into consideration the impact on flood zone 3 within the site that development at NOR01 and NOR02 will have.

Deletion NOR09 for development and include at least the southern part of the site 418, 673, 710, (south of Northam Stream) in NOR10. 713, 716

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Amend NOR09 (if retained), reduce the yield to 150 and remove the care home. 710 Require through additional Policy text: a low density development, the retention of all existing nature features and integration of development into its setting, off site Green Infrastructure contributions, respecting environmental assets, a contribution to off site highway improvements, retention of the Public Right of Way, adjacent Devon Hedgebank and some public open space, the maintained integrity of the listed buildings, the avoidance of development on any landscape structure within the flood zone and require contributions to the improve Kenwith Valley Flood Defences. Prior to application a Flood Risk Assessment and Traffic Impact Assessment Study should be undertaken.

Amend the red line on the Proposals Map (Map 8A) and site area of to reflect the 1550, 1551 outline planning application. In particular, land associated with Woodville, which should be omitted.

The Local Plan fails to protect Woodville (as well as Rosehill), a listed building 716 contained within site NOR09; there are 2 listed buildings contained on site but only 1 has been protected.

Amend the policy to provide for 200 dwellings to align with the expected planning 1552 application. The application will not provide an extra care facility; it will provide a range of house types and additional care service facilities for the Rosehill Centre. Amend NOR09 (1)(a) to delete “including those of the area’s elderly population through an extra care facility ” and the related reference in paragraph 10.368.

Consultation and planning flaws. 274

The committee version of the Local Plan provided for 170 dwellings, with no 713 reference to a care home. Delete the allocation and include within NOR10.

Paragraph 10.371: adequately protects wildlife and ecology on site. Remove 417 southern part of NOR09 ;if retained protect hedges, tree's and stream

Additional Information

2.1378 Torridge District Council has received a planning application for the majority of the site subject to the allocation NOR09: 1/0863/2014/OUTM - demolition of dwelling, erection of up to 200 dwellings, extension of existing care home, associated multi-use open space, additional car parking for care home, diversion of a Public Right of Way, other associated infrastructure with all matters reserved other than primary access.

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.1379 A relatively high number of comments (compared to other site allocations) have been received in response to Policy NOR09. Support is provided for the allocation together with a range of comments in objection, which relate both to the principle of development and to the detail of the policy.

2.1380 Natural England and another respondent (plp 716) suggest that there are two listed buildings within the site. The Council’s Conservation Officer has confirmed this position, which is recognised in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHL/NOR/32/36); the Grade II Listed Buildings Rose Hill and Woodville are located within the site of allocation NOR09. It is considered appropriate

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

to amend paragraph 10.369 to refer to the two listed buildings, no amendment is considered necessary to Policy NOR09 in this respect, which refers to the need to maintain the integrity of the contained and adjacent listing buildings.

2.1381 With regard to the detail of how the site should be development, it is suggested (plp 1558) that flexibly should be introduced with regard to the retention of the Public Right of Way; it is proposed that an alternative route should be enabled. The suggestion is considered acceptable having regard to the configuration of the site and the scale of development that is planned, subject to any variation from the existing Public Right of Way being of at least equal value with regard to site permeability and accessibility. In the interests of deliverability it is recommended that the Local Plan is amended to allow for an alternative route to be provided from the established Public Right of Way within the allocated site.

2.1382 Revision to Policy NOR09 (2)(f) is sought(plp 1559) to remove the reference that contributions, as necessary will be secured towards improvements to the Kenwith Flood Risk Defence Scheme . The Environment Agency sought the inclusion of the stated requirement, having regard to the sites location within the Bideford Critical Drainage Area , in relation to which the following is stated “The Kenwith Flood Alleviation Scheme, and along with all it associated watercourses does not offer a good standard of protection to Bideford from fluvial and surface water flooding. Our detailed modelling study of the scheme (2012) along with known flood problems on the numerous minor watercourses and surface water culverts within the area show a problem”. It is considered appropriate to indicate that contributions to the flood defence scheme may be required in support of the development of the Heywood Road site. Contributions to secure improvements to the flood risk defence may be required in addition to on site SUDS to address the drainage issues resulting from development, it is appropriate that Policy NOR09 is clear as to what may be required in support of the delivery of the site. No amendment is considered necessary with regard to soundness, not change to the Local Plan is recommended.

2.1383 Comments (plp 628, 423 and 716) regarding the need for contributions to be made to achieve highway improvements are noted. Infrastructure improvements, including to the local highway network, required as a result of development will be secured with the application of Policy ST23: Infrastructure. No amendment to the Local Plan is recommended, no soundness challenge is considered to be raised.

2.1384 Devon County Council state that the educational needs generated from the site are likely to be addressed by the proposed new primary school to the west of Bideford, the comment is noted.

2.1385 The proposed housing yield from the site is questioned (plp 400), it is suggested that the level is not in keeping with the locality. The level of growth attributed to the site is based on the outcomes of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, which indicates a potential development capacity of 155 dwellings, together with the requirement for an extra care facility which as a minimum would provide 50 units. The attributed yield is based on a standard calculation established through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment methodology (http://www.torridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=14076&p=0 ) which provides an approximation not a minimum or ceiling. No change to the Local Plan is considered necessary with regard to a soundness challenge.

2.1386 A range of issues have been raised in objection to the allocation of the site, which include: the loss of an environmental and recreational assets, resultant highway issues through increased traffic generation and the unsuitability of the proposed access arrangements, negative impact on surrounding property, increased flood risk and pressure on local services and facilities. The raised matters were previously considered through the preparation of the Publication Local Plan, the detail

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

of which is set out through the related consultation statement: http://www.torridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=13732&p=0 and there is no indication that the position on each issue has altered. The site continues to be regarded as a developable site that could be appropriately delivered during the lifetime of the Local Plan while making a necessary contribution to objectively assessed housing needs and demands. No change to the Local Plan is considered necessary with regard to a soundness challenge.

2.1387 The site planning history is referenced (plps 1230, 1468, 2039, 2075 and 394) on which basis it is suggested that the site is unsustainable. The planning history to elements of the allocated site is recognised as resulting in refused planning applications and dismissed appeal decisions (01/41/0339/86, 1/1495/1995 and 1275/2007/OUT). As previously indicted through the consideration of comments in response to the draft Consultation Local Plan, historic applications and appeals decisions did not embrace the entirety of the site subject to Policy NOR09. Providing for development on both eastern and western aspects to the site, which had been subject to separate applications, will allow for concerns in respect of flood risk, loss of ecology and highway safety to be appropriately addressed. It is also suggested that there is a conflict with the Northam Spatial strategy with regard to infrastructure. Policy ST23: Infrastructure will be to development proposals to ensure the timely delivery of infrastructure required to meet the generated needs. No change to the Local Plan is considered necessary with regard to a soundness challenge.

2.1388 A range of comments (plp 1424,9,24,316, 2136, 10, 401 and 397) have been received relating to the suitability of the proposed access to the allocated site and alternatives are suggested. Access to the site is required to be provided to the site from Heywood Road. Devon County Council as the Local Highway Authority has determined the proposed access arrangements satisfactory. Devon County Council has also confirmed that the primary site access should be taken from Heywood Road; access from the A39 would not be acceptable. A comment is made that Lenwood Road is too narrow to accommodate emergency vehicles; no observation is made in response to this comment the subject of which is not included within the Local Plan.

2.1389 It is suggested (1887) that development of the site would result in the loss of a strategic gap and green wedge with resultant negative landscape impacts. It is accepted that development on the allocated site would result in the use of a greenfield site, the site is however not subject to any landscape designation or local designation that seeks to prevent development in the interest of avoiding coalescence. The site is generally well screened within the wider landscape and is concealed by its topography and the presence of large trees particularly to the north of the site. The site is also well contained by the existing built form and nearby highways.

2.1390 Concerns are raised on the issue of flood risk, through a number of comments which relate directly to this matter and as part of a wider criticism of the NOR09. This issue was considered in response to the allocation in the draft Consultation draft Local Plan. The Environment Agency has identified that there is an area subject to flood risk within the site; Northam Brook with its functional flood plain and an area in the south east corner of the site which forms part of the Kenwith flood defence schemes. The site is also identified as draining towards the Bideford Critical Drainage Area. Consequent of the nature of the site in this respect Policy NOR09 (2)(f)provides for enhanced on site management of surface water and drainage, which will ensure that flood risk is not increased within the site or beyond as a result of development. Additionally, contributions to secure improvements to the Kenwith Flood Risk Defence Scheme will be sought if such are required. It is worth noting that the Environment Agency have made no comment on the principle or detail of Policy NOR09. No change to the Local Plan is considered necessary with regard to a soundness challenge.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

2.1391 Concern is raised (plp 721) that the requirement for a comprehensive drainage scheme will damage existing Green Infrastructure. This position is not accepted, an enhanced drainage system is required to address issue of flood risk, which will be required to work with the landscape structure, as provided by NOR09(2)(a) that builds on existing assets, including the retention of the wooded part of the site. No change to the Local Plan is considered necessary with regard to a soundness challenge.

2.1392 A number of respondents (plp 418, 673,710, 713 and 716) suggest that Policy NOR09 is deleted and the site is alternatively subject to an extended Policy NOR10. Policy NOR10 establishes a green wedge from Pusehill Road in the west to Goat Hill Road in the south to prevent coalescence of communities on either side of the designation. It is not considered necessary to extend NOR10 to meet the objectives of the policy. NOR09 is a relatively self contained development site; it is generally well screened within the wider landscape and is concealed by its topography and the presence of large trees particularly to the north of the site. The site is also well contained by the existing built form and nearby highways. It is not considered that the Local Plan needs to be amended in relation to this matter.

2.1393 It is suggested (plp 710) that the site yield is reduced to 150 dwellings and the extra care facility removed as requirement, with the policy reworded “to secure a high quality low density development, with Green Infrastructure, where existing assets are protected, with regard given to protected species and the sensitivities of the existing landscape and character of the area”. It is also proposed that a Flood Risk Assessment and Traffic Impact Assessment is undertaken prior to any planning application. It is not accepted that a low density development should be required form the NOR09 site; a quality development is sought that contributes to housing needs. The density of development that the site can accommodate, while meeting both site specific and general policy requirements, will be a matter for the development management process, which will include the sought assessments. The issues which are suggested as amendments to the policy are generally dealt with through Policy NOR09 and other policies of the Local Plan.

2.1394 With regard to the requirement for an extra care facility, such is considered necessary having regard to housing needs for this type of accommodation which is significant as a result of the increasingly aging population of the area. The Strategic Housing Market Assessment update ( Housing Vision 2012) identified that the over 65 years population in Torridge would increase by 5,845 over the period 2011-2031, from which there would be a requirement for 865 units of specialist accommodation (designated: 368, sheltered: 176 and extra care 321). Within the relevant housing sub-market (Taw and Torridge, Towns and Rural Fringe) the extra care requirement over the plan period equates to 218 units. Additionally the Devon County Council Extra Care Strategy identifies the potential need for 2 x 50 affordable unit schemes in the Bideford/Northam area. There is no justification to remove the requirement for the sought extra care facility; such will contribute to meeting identified needs for specialist accommodation. No change to the Local Plan is considered necessary with regard to a soundness challenge.

2.1395 The majority of the allocated site is now subject to an outstanding planning application 1/0863/2014/OUTM, it is suggested (plp 1550 and 1551) that the extent of the allocation for NOR09 should be reduced to reflect the application area. This position is not accepted, there is no reason to seek the removal of the southern element of the site, which the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment has determined to be suitable and available for development. No change to the Local Plan is considered necessary with regard to a soundness challenge.

2.1396 It is also suggested (plp 1552) that Policy NOR09 should be amended to align with the submitted planning application (1/0863/2014/OUTM). This position is not accepted; it is a matter for the Local Plan to set the framework against which development proposals will be determined. Additionally, the referenced planning application has not been determined and thus the included

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

proposals have not yet been determined to be acceptable. An amended site yield is sought based on 200 dwellings without an extra care facility. There is no considered basis for the removal of the extra care facility; evidence (Strategic Housing Market Assessment update (Housing Vision 2012)) clearly demonstrates that the area will have an increasing aging population which will require specialist accommodation to meet changing housing needs. Specialist accommodation forms part of the area’s objectively assessed needs and demands, it is important that housing focused development provide for a mix of housing types to reflect local need, including those of the areas elderly population. No change to the Local Plan is considered necessary with regard to a soundness challenge.

2.1397 Flaws in the consultation process are suggested (plp 274), although no detail is provided on specific points of concern. The Local Plan has been prepared in accordance with Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, which includes prescribed periods of consultation. The process and consultation outcomes are set out in detail in the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan Consultation Statement: http://www.torridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=13732&p=0 . No change to the Local Plan is considered necessary with regard to a soundness or legal challenge.

2.1398 A respondent (plp 713) highlights a variance in the committee version of the Local Plan and the document published for consultation, 170 dwellings not 210 and no provision for an extra care facility. This point is accepted, Policy NOR09 was amended from the committee version t o better reflect the anticipated yield from the site and to make the form of sought accommodation for the elderly explicit. The action was undertaken having regard to the authority given to the Joint Head of Strategic Development and Planning in consultation with the Lead Member for the Natural and Built Environments. No change to the Local Plan is considered necessary with regard to a soundness challenge.

Conclusion

2.1399 The submissions put forward through the consultation are not considered to identify any matters that would form a risk to the soundness of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan. For clarification it is considered appropriate to reference

Agreed Actions

1. No Main Change to Policy NOR09: Land Southwest of Heywood Road Roundabout. 2. The following is agreed as a Minor Change:

a. the new site access and the form of development will have regard to the contained listed buildings Rose Hill and Woodville, the settings of which will be protected under Policy ST15: Conserving Heritage Assets.

Comments made in response to Policy NOR10: Green Wedge and associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 13

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 6 4

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 2 9

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 6 4

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Summary of Issues

Comments on Northam Policy NOR010: Green Wedge and supporting text plp number

Support for Policy NOR10. 88

Clarify the nature of the environmental assets that will be maintained. 306

Extend the scope of NOR10 to include the site subject to Policy NOR01. 507

Extend the scope of NOR10 to include land at Raleigh, south west of Heywood Road 2083

Add the strategic gap between Appledore and Northam as part of policy area NOR10. 2083, 2173, 726, 1236

Amend to exclude land to the south of Clevelands Park to allow for future small scale, 272 appropriate development.

Extend the scope of NOR01 to include the site subject to Policy NOR09 and amend: 725, 2083 A green wedge from Pusehill Road in the West to Goats Hill Road in the North East and bordered by Raleigh Hill/Lenwood Park in the South is shown on Policies Map 8A to protect the individual identities of the communities on either side, to protect the area of open land south of the A39 that is important as a setting for the town and to protect land south of Northam Stream that is important ecologically.

The policy is too restrictive and incorrect in description of the area. Development 794, 793 that is not harmful to the landscape should be allowed - that may be at a lower density than within the defined settlement but a useful contribution to housing can be achieved.

Amend paragraph 10.372: “There is a significant undeveloped gap through Northam 726 from Pusehill Road in the west to Goats Hill road in the north east and Raleigh Hill/Lenwood Park in the south" At the end of the paragraph add the sentence “It is essential that the valued environmental and heritage assets of the land and stream south of the A39 be permanently preserved for future generations”.

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.1400 A range of comments are provided in response to Policy NOR09, which are generally of a supporting nature and which seek the extent of the policy to be extended to include additional areas.

2.1401 Clarification is sought (plp 306) on the nature of “environmental assets”. The protection and enhancement of environmental assets is addressed through Policy ST14: Enhancing Environment Assets, it is not referenced in the context of Policy NOR10. No change to the Local Plan is considered necessary with regard to a soundness challenge.

2.1402 It is suggested (plp 507) that the extent of the policy area is extended to include the site subject Policy NOR01: Daddon Hill. It is not considered necessary to extend NOR10 to meet the objectives of the policy, to prevent coalescence of communities on either side of the designation. It is not the purpose of Policy NOR10 to prevent development on sites identified as suitable for development, on the basis of objection to the proposed development. The sites at Daddon Hill and Raleigh would not result in the coalescence of settlements which are not otherwise disconnected. No change to the Local Plan is considered necessary with regard to a soundness challenge.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

2.1403 Respondents (plps 725 and 2083) suggest that Policy NOR09 is deleted and the site is alternatively subject to an extended Policy NOR10. It is not considered necessary to extend NOR10 to meet the objectives of the policy. NOR09 is a relatively self contained development site; it is generally well screened within the wider landscape and is concealed by its topography and the presence of large trees particularly to the north of the site. The site is also well contained by the existing built form and nearby highways. Comment (plp 1236) on paragraph 10.372 additionally suggests the addition of text within paragraph 10.372 that would effectively prevent development within the NOR09 allocation. It is not considered that the Plan needs to be amended in relation to this matter. No change to the Local Plan is considered necessary with regard to a soundness challenge.

2.1404 A deduction to the policy area is sought (plp 272) with regard to land the south of Clevelands Park to allow for a small housing scheme. The site subject to the comment is in part adjacent to the defined development boundary north of Durrant Lane. The site forms part of a principally undeveloped valley running down towards the estuary. The site forms an important part of the setting of the wider estuary landscape. Development on the allocated site would significantly reduce the generally undeveloped area between Durrant Lane and Clevelands, diluting the policy objectives in respect of avoiding development that could lead to or contribute towards coalescence. No change to the Local Plan is considered necessary with regard to a soundness challenge.

2.1405 It is suggested (plp 794 and 793) that the policy is too restrictive and that low density development should be enabled that is not harmful to the landscape. The description of the area subject to Policy NOR10 as undeveloped is also questioned. The area subject to the designation is considered to be significant with regard to avoiding coalescence between elements of gradual transition from urban to rural landscapes. It is worth noting that the designation is outside the defined development boundary, which will be the main point of restriction with regard to new development. The Green Wedge designation provides a further restriction on development, forms of rural development that would increase the developed appearance of the area should be avoided. To allow low density development would result in the erosion of the generally undeveloped area subject to the designation. It is accepted that to describe the designated area as undeveloped is inaccurate; revision to paragraph 10.372 is recommended to reference the area a sparsely developed. No Main Change to the Local is considered necessary with regard to the scope of enabled development within the Green Wedge, no soundness challenge is considered to be raised as a result of this comment.

2.1406 The absence of a defined strategic gap between Northam and Appledore, as referenced in Policy NOR (h): avoidance of coalescence that would result in the loss of strategic gas between Northam and Appledore is questioned with the suggestion that Policy NOR10 should be extended to include the “strategic gap”. Policy NOR10 adds a development restriction in the interest of avoiding coalescence between two built elements of Northam and it is accepted that the Local Plan seeks to avoid coalescence between the settlement of Northam and Appledore. The need to define a Green Wedge between Northam and Appledore is however not accepted on the basis that the area between the two settlements is included within the Coast and Estuary Zone, (as part of the undeveloped coast) which could result in a conflict between policy applications. Policy ST09: Coast and Estuary Strategy affords protection to the undeveloped coast, in the interest of protecting the unspoilt character, appearance and tranquillity of the area but also allows some limited development which may not be enabled with the further application of Policy NOR10. No change to the Local Plan is considered necessary with regard to a soundness challenge. No change to the Local Plan is considered necessary with regard to a soundness challenge.

Conclusion

2.1407 The submissions put forward through the consultation are not considered to identify any matters that would form a risk to the soundness of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Agreed Action

1. No change to Policy NOR10: Green Wedge or the associated supporting text.

Comments made in response to the Northam/Appledore Policies Map

Total Number of Responses 24

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 8 -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 3 8

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 6 -

Summary of Issues

Comments on the Northam/Appledore Policies Map plp number

Support the Appledore Development Boundary to include the non-allocated 574 housing site at Staddon Road/Watertown.

Amend the Appledore development boundary to exclude the site at Staddon 487, 1073, 1046, Road/Watertown identified as a non-allocated housing site. Exclude the site 1040,1050, to protect the AONB and CPA and safeguard the setting of Appledore. The 1083,1090, 1094, greenfield site has biodiversity value and provides views of the land and 1167, 1219, 1179, seascape across to the UNESCO Biosphere at Northam Burrows. The allocation 2103, 1956, 2180, is contrary to the landscape strategy, which provides:” to protect the landscape's 1167. open vistas and sea views, avoiding the location of new development and vertical structures on prominent skylines both within and in sight of this LCT (Landscape Character Type)". Development would negatively impact the areas tourist industry and add to traffic volumes. Development of the site would encourage further development along Staddon Road to the detriment of the village.

Amend the Appledore development boundary to exclude the site at land at 1167 Kingsley Avenue, which makes significant contributions to the setting of the village, ensuing that the identified undeveloped land in the Coast and Estuarine Zone is not developed.

Exclude the unallocated site between Churchill Way and Pitt Hill from the 1214, 1167 development boundary. The site has a development capacity of 100 dwellings, which taken with other proposed development is excessive having regard to local services. Development would dramatically affect the hillside setting of the village, potential delivering skyline development contrary to the adopted Landscape Character Assessment. Even if NOR07 is retained the land to the north should be deleted from the development boundary.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

The concept of the area within a development boundary being ‘ developed 2203 coast ’ is, ambiguous, and in a number of locations there will be areas of undeveloped land which are sensitive in landscape and/or wildlife terms and which shouldn’t be included in the development boundary (e.g. Appledore).

Additional Information

2.1408 An application for 4 dwellings 1/0723/2014/OUT was refused by Torridge District Council for the reason that the site was located within the Coastal Preservation Area and there was no proven need for the development to be located in the Coastal Preservation Area.

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.1409 A range of comments are provided in response to Policies Map 8b Northam/Appledore, one in support (plp 574) and others in objection to a numbers of sites being included within the defined development boundary.

2.1410 A revision to the draft Consultation Local Plan resulted in an amendment to the Appledore development boundary to include a small site at Staddon Road, which is identified as a housing site to deliver 5 dwellings in Table 10.14. A number of respondents have objected to the inclusion of the site within the development boundary on range of issues, including: development would impact on the Coastal Preservation Area, the AONB and the setting of Appledore, would negatively impact on traffic levels and encourage development further along Staddon Road. The Staddon Road site is identified as developable by the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, which included consideration of the landscape impacts of development and on which basis the majority of the site subject to the assessment as SHA/NOR/2 was discounted. The Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment concluded that “the site is identified as being available for development and would be suitable in part along the eastern boundary for a limited quantum of residential development, following the existing line of development. Development limited by potential for appropriate highway access and the fact that the remaining area of the site is not suitable as it is highly visible in the wider landscape and is not well related to existing built development”. Having regard to this conclusion, it was considered that the small site extension offered a logical extension to Appledore that would be of a scale to contribute to affordable needs and provide local construction opportunities.

2.1411 It recognised that the site falls within the Coastal Preservation Area as defined in the Torridge District Local Plan, but this policy has been replaced by the Policy ST09: Coast and Estuary Strategy through which the developed and undeveloped coast is defined. The Staddon Road Site would be in the developed coast as a consequence of its location within the development boundary. It is considered that an appropriately designed development would not result in a negative impact on the setting of Appledore or the adjoining undeveloped coast. With regard to the suggested impact on the AONB, it is worth noting that Natural England has not objected to the proposed housing site or the development boundary extension at Staddon Road.

2.1412 Objection (plp 1167) is made to exclude the site to the south west of Kingsley Avenue from the development boundary on the basis that it makes a significant contribution to the setting of the village. The site is fully contained within the development boundary and bordered on three sides by development. The site was assessed as developable by the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHA/NOR/3), which in respect of landscape stated that the “Site is not subject to any landscape character designations. Site lies close to the Coastal Preservation Area (CPA) but is well screened within the wider landscape and it is unlikely to have any adverse landscape character impacts”. With regard to the sites inclusion within Table 10.14, as a non allocated developable site, such is appropriate on the basis that there is a reasonable prospect that the site will be developed

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

during the lifetime of the plan and thus the anticipated yield should be identified as a contribution to objectively assessed needs and demands. The maintained inclusion of the site within the development boundary is not considered to represent a soundness challenge on which basis no change to the Local Plan is recommended in response to plp 1167.

2.1413 It is suggested (plps 1167 and 1214) that the non allocated site (Table 10.14) at Churchill Way and Pitt Hill is excluded from the development boundary. The site is fully contained within the Appledore development boundary and is bordered to the west and east by development and on the southern and northern boundary; housing development is proposed (Policy NOR07) and anticipated (non allocated developable site at Kingsley Avenue). The site was assessed as developable by the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHA/NOR/135), which in respect of landscape stated that “The site does not lie within, or adjacent to, any areas subject to formal landscape character designation. The site is however visually prominent in part and commands long views. As such, development will need to be sensitive to its setting and incorporate appropriate landscaping”. In recognition of the possible impact of comprehensive development the potential site yield was significantly discounted with low density assumption applied. It is recognised that the site has some sensitivities in respect of landscape but the Development Management Policies of the Local Plan will be applied to minimise negative impacts. The maintained inclusion of the site within the development boundary is not considered to represent a soundness challenge on which basis no change to the Local Plan is recommended in response to plps 1167 and 1214.

2.1414 The concept of the “developed coast” is questioned (plp 2203) on the basis that there are undeveloped areas which form part of the developed coast by virtue of being included within the Appledore development. It is suggested that areas with landscape or biodiversity value should not be included within the development boundary, that they should form part of the undeveloped coast. The sites allocated or otherwise identified for housing and within the development boundary have been assessed as suitable and available for development through the Strategic Housing Land Availably Assessment and have been subject to a Stainability Appraisal. As a result of the planned development on such sites it is appropriate that they are included as part of the developed coast and brought within the development boundary. No change to the Local Plan is considered necessary with regard to a soundness challenge.

Other Matters

2.1415 Policy ST12: Town and District Centres defines the area’s retail hierarchy. For the Strategic and Main Centres, the Policy provides for town centres to be defined and such are included within the relevant policies maps. The District Centres, at Northam, Appledore and Westward Ho! have however not been spatially defined, which is a current omission. The NPPF requires that town centres or centres, which includes district centres, should be defined on the local authority proposals map (policies map). To address this omission district centre boundaries are proposed at Northam, Appledore and Westward Ho! The extent of the district centres are defined having regard to a concentration of town centre uses, which will be afforded additional protection as a result of the designation.

Conclusion

2.1416 The submissions put forward through the consultation are not considered to identify any matters that would form a risk to the soundness of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan.

Agreed Action

1. The following is agreed as a Main Change to the Northam Policies Maps 8A (Northam/Westward Ho!) and 8B (Northam/Appledore):

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

a. define district centre retail boundaries for Northam, Appledore and Westward Ho!

Town Strategies: South Molton

Comments made in response to Policy SMO and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 28 (from 10 separate individuals)

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally 10 1 compliant?”

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 10 6

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with 10 0 the Duty to Co-operate?”

Table 2.83

Summary of Issues

Comments on South Molton Spatial Vision and Development Strategy Policy SMO: plp number and supporting text

The Place : Paragraphs 10.374 to 10.381

Paragraph 13.74 needs to be amended to clarify that the high population growth in 823 the town was driven by the extremely high level of new dwellings built.

Support is given to this strategy. 836, 849, 1041 (all SMTC)

Superfast broadband may help to strengthen the local economy but the Local Plan 827 needs to outline how this will be delivered.

South Molton TC support this paragraph 10.379 853 (TC)

No consultation undertaken as to how expansion of existing provision could be 1325 (DCC) delivered, the current wording in the plan is therefore premature.

Revise the strategy to state that the community woodland may be designated as a 1042 (TC) local nature reserve.

Policy SMO

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Support is given for Policy SMO (k) which supports initiatives to improve and mitigate 926 (EA) against any harm to water quality in rivers and streams. Further reference to water quality within the supporting text would be welcome. Any new development would need to be after SWW confirm the availability and adequacy of the sewer system and treatment facilities.

The town’s special features should be recognised. There is a requirement for better 1043 (TC) living conditions including less dense development, a balanced mix of affordable, starter, lifetime and retirement dwellings including bungalows, and all in a well landscaped location with access to all amenities (education, health. work, retail and recreational facilities).

Provision of a new primary school site with the expansion of the existing infants 1021 school and junior school to become primary schools, provision of a new medical centre, new sewage treatment works, additional sports pitches, allotments and open space.

We broadly support this Policy SMO and welcome the comprehensive approach to 1993, 2447 development around the west side of the town. It should not be undermined by further allocation until such time as the strategic intent of the policy has been delivered. The total housing requirement for South Molton may be constrained by needs to be made for a distributor road, various junctions along its corridor, access to a school with dropping off facilities, significant public open space, SUDS and sewage treatment.

Provide additional wording to criterion (f) : Provision of a new primary school site 2208, 2213 with the expansion of the existing infants school and junior school to become primary schools, provision of a new medical centre, new sewage treatment works, additional sports pitches, allotments and open space”

Paragraph (f) is inaccurate and needs to be amended to show that the existing junior 788 school will become a primary school on a new site; as follows:

'f) social and community facilities required to support new development including provision of a new primary school incorporating the existing junior school , expansion of the existing infants to a primary school, new medical centre, new sewage treatment works, additional sports pitches, allotments and informal open space'

The town's roads, medical centres, schools etc are not coping and medical facilities 2422 have been inadequate for at least 10 years. The new medical centre need to be double the size of those now in existence and MUST have adequate parking facilities. Exact plans need to be in place for all schools to be built before the influx of people - otherwise there will be no school places for children.

Need to plan for Park and Ride because narrow streets unlikely to support increased 2423 traffic generated by proposed development and 'ring' road will not facilitated trips to town which are necessary to sustain it.

Only the housing development is planned in detail, with remainder aspirations that 2424 have existed for long time. Advocate that housing should be located near to work places to minimise transport use and car reliance.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

General support for the Spatial Vision and Development Strategy, but consider that 2684 it should have explicit reference to the timing of the proposed elements, and particularly to the early provision of the western link road and supporting residential development, which will have a significant and positive impact on the town. For example, criterion (h) amended to early provision of a new distributor road before 2021.

Totals should be ‘at least’ rather than ‘approximately’ the proposed numbers of 2684 dwellings.

South Molton Town Council supports this strategy. 1044 (TC)

Tables 10.15 and 10.16 and supporting text

This table needs updating to include the Gullacombe/Station Road development. 829

The number of dwellings proposed is out of proportion with the size of the town. This 830 needs to be scaled back by at least 20%.

South Molton Town Council supports Table 10.15. 1045 (TC)

Question the scale of proposed housing growth, considering it out of balance with 2421 that projected for Devon.

South Molton Town Council supports the strategy with amendment to extend the 1048 (TC) allocation of employment land to meet demonstrated need.

Support the South Molton employment supply subject to an extended allocation on 1049 (TC) land to the West of Hacche Lane to meet demonstrated need beyond the 9 ha allocated. (Note an error in 10.395 - 6ha rather than 9ha is quoted).

Site Proposals

The identified site at Nadder Lane is presented as available for housing development 2156 as part of the South Molton Strategic Extension.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

With reference to our client’s land to the east of the town centre, we would make the 2443, 2447 following observations: Our clients land is well located close to the existing town centre with existing footpath & cycle links, and no need for any major new distributor roads to open the land up from a highways perspective. Our clients land could be brought forward within a 5 year time frame or sooner, given that there is no need for major new infrastructure unlike the proposed allocations to the west of town centre. There are no statutory designations affecting the land to the east of the town centre such as conservation areas which could affect future deliverability. Our clients land received a positive assessment by the SHLAA (SHA/SMO/031 & SHA/SMO/032). The panel concluded that the land could deliver 65 dwellings, but could accommodate at least 100 new dwellings. The land to the east is served by the B3227 which links to the town centre & Pathfields Business Park, as well as the A361 at Bishmill which is the main arterial route into North Devon. Traffic would not therefore have to pass through the town centre. Given the need to provide major highway infrastructure to deliver the land to the west of the town centre we would question the timing of deliverability with the 5 year housing land supply in mind. It is our view that the land to the east of the town centre can be delivered in a more timely fashion without the need for major highway infrastructure upgrades.

Table 2.84

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.1417 A range of responses to the South Molton spatial strategy have been submitted. The Town Council’s support for the strategy and supporting paragraphs is noted and welcomed. The historic growth of population is linked to and has been facilitated by historic rates of house building, however it is considered unnecessary for the local plan to explain this link explicitly. Housing is already proposed close to existing employment land, with good connectivity to Pathfields business park and the proposed distributor road enhancing vehicular links.

2.1418 A new local nature reserve must be designated by a public authority with control over the land. As landowner, it is accepted that South Molton Town Council would be responsible for a new local nature reserve. Whilst the aspiration remains for the community woodland to be designated as a local nature reserve, it is considered appropriate for the wording in paragraph 10.381 to be amended such that it ‘may’ rather than ‘will’ be designated.

2.1419 There is general support for the strategy but several concerns relating to its delivery. The western extension needs to deliver key infrastructure including a distributor road, a new medical centre and a new primary school. The site capacity was assessed through the SHLAA process and considered the gross to net site ratios to enable the necessary infrastructure to be accommodated. No further discounting is required. The phasing of infrastructure delivery was also questioned, although the new distributor road would be delivered in phases as part of each development, so would be delivered alongside the proposed housing. It is unnecessary and inappropriate to require the new distributor road to be delivered before 2021, which could be unduly restrictive and affect viability, as it will be delivered in phases alongside and funded by the development it serves.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

2.1420 The primary school will be partly funded by development but, as a relocation of the existing junior school. Responses seek amendments to reflect more accurately the proposed changes to primary schools in South Molton. Proposed wording amendments recognise that the existing junior school will be relocated to become a primary school and could be amended for accuracy and clarification.

2.1421 Devon County Council have indicated (informally) that they have no plans for a new Park and Ride site at South Molton and that there is likely to be insufficient demand for one. However, land at Pathfields business park would be one option if a future need or site was identified, provided that the car park was close to an existing or diverted bus route.

2.1422 The Environment Agency’s support for criterion (k) is welcomed. Paragraph 10.403 already refers to improving water quality in the rivers Mole and Bray. Policies SMO(f) and SMO1(3f) and paragraph 10.385 already refer to the need for a new foul sewage treatment works at Ford Farm and/or through increasing the capacity of the existing sewage works. This would help to improve water quality and the supporting text could be amended to clarify this link.

2.1423 Table 10.15 sets out the housing supply for South Molton, including 150 dwellings at Gullacombe as a non-allocated developable site, which is currently under construction. The growth for South Molton is substantial (approximately 55% from 2,200 households baseline), but is supported in principle by the Town Council and will contribute to the town’s spatial vision and strategic objectives. The proportion of growth for South Molton is higher than for other main towns, but the housing growth is located alongside deliverable growth of employment opportunities and infrastructure provision. The strategy for South Molton has already been established through community engagement during plan preparation and is not considered to be out of scale. It is not considered necessary to reduce the proposed scale of development within the town.

2.1424 Three additional housing sites were promoted. Land south of Nadder Lane (plp2156) was considered ‘not currently developable’ by the SHLAA panel, because it was isolated from the town and the strategic western extension. Sites on the eastern side of South Molton off Tucking Hill Lane (SMO/031) and north of Road (SMO/032) were considered ‘developable’ by the SHLAA panel. The strategy for South Molton has already been established and alternative sites have been through a robust assessment prior to publication of the draft Local Plan. It is not considered necessary to allocate these additional sites.

2.1425 The Town Council proposes additional employment land. An expansion of Pathfields business park is proposed (SM03) however, in view of potential over-provision of employment land, an enlarged allocation is not justified. Overall employment land proposals and their distribution across the plan area, including the need for potential employment land reductions, is considered in more detail under representations to Policy ST08. Paragraph 10.392 already supports further extension of the existing business park if proposed expansion is built out early in the plan period should a further extension be required.

Other Matters

2.1426 Proposed employment land (17.5 hectares) includes approximately 2.5 hectares for a new livestock market, which needs to be recognised. As employment land needs to be reduced further at South Molton then other land will be deleted.

a. Land rear of High Temp (eastern side of SM03) is existing employment land (approx 2.4 hectares) which should be excluded from SM03. b. Land west of Hacche Lane should be reduced by approximately 2.8 hectares whilst securing enough land for delivery of the new access road.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

2.1427 Removal of both of these employment areas from SM03 would reduce overall employment land by 5.2 hectares to 10.8 hectares.

2.1428 Criterion (l) should be deleted to avoid duplicating Policy ST05 which has been amended to include the principles of sustainable design and construction, including a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, to reflect the Housing Standards Review.

2.1429 Amendment to the prefix to the housing numbers is recommended to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of” through Policy ST08: Scale and Distribution of New Development in Northern Devon.

2.1430 The figures in Table 10.15 need updating to reflect an additional non-allocated developable site (1-10 Bidders Court) for 5 dwellings and a corrected figure for unimplemented consents (59 rather than 52 dwellings).

Conclusion

2.1431 Several issues were raised through representations received, but none are considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan. However, amendments are required to clarify wording and intentions of a particular paragraph or the strategy.

Agreed Actions

1. The following is agreed as Main Changes to Policy SMO: a. Amend criterion (f): “Social and community facilities required to support new development including provision of a new primary school site, with the expansion of the existing infant school and junior school to become a primary schools, provision of a new medical centre, new sewage treatment works, additional sports pitches, allotments and open space.” b. Amend criterion (d): “Provision of approximately 17.5 10.8 hectares of additional employment land to the east and west of Hacche Lane at Pathfields business park plus an additional 2.5 hectares for a new livestock market to strength the town’s role as a vibrant business and employment centre.” c. Delete criterion (l).

2. The following are agreed as Main Changes to Policy SMO to reflect the higher housing numbers: a. Criterion (a) from “about 1,210” to “a minimum of 1,240”. b. Criterion (b) from approximately 900 to 920 dwellings. c. Criterion (c) from “about 840” to “approximately 860” new dwellings. d. Paragraph 10.382 to reflect these higher housing numbers with a change from “about 1,210” to “a minimum of 1,240”.

3. The following are agreed as Minor Changes to: a. Paragraph 10.381 of the Local Plan to amend ‘will be designated’ to ‘may be designated’. b. Paragraph 10.373 to delete reference to South Molton’s rural area extending to include parts of Dartmoor.

4. The following are agreed as Main Changes to:

a. Paragraph 10.383 of the Local Plan to amend 17.5 to “10.8 hectares of additional land for economic development plus an additional 2.5 hectares for a new livestock market”.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

b. Table 10.16 of the Local Plan to amend 17.5 hectares to 10.8 hectares which includes 2.5 hectares for the livestock market. c. Paragraph 10.385 by adding ’in order to improve water quality’.

5. The following are agreed as Main Changes to Table 10.15:

a. adding Bidders Court to as an identified non allocated developable housing site. b. amending SMO1 from 840 to 860 dwellings c. updating the figure for unimplemented commitments from 52 to 59 dwellings d. updating all consequential changes to totals.

Comments made in response to Policy SM01: South Molton Strategic Western Extension and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 28 (from 16 separate individuals)

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 10 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 11 5

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 10 ~

Table 2.85

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy SM01: and supporting text plp number

Strategy support but amendment to Policy SM03. Increase the employment 1051 (TC) allocation to the west of Hacche Lane and amend policy provisions: the proposed access should be a cycle/footway; realignment of the road route, a shelter belt (possibly bunded) along the Link Road is more appropriate than the policy provision for a wide planted area and remove unnecessary landscape planting.

South Molton Town Council supports the South Molton Vision. 1052 (TC)

Scale of proposed development not relative to the expected increase in population, 83 declared in the Spatial Planning Vision of the plan. This development is not wanted or needed and will be detrimental to the environs of the town and surrounding area. The required infrastructure is not in place to support the development or evidence provided to demonstrate that it will be provided in advance of the planned housing. Additionally the western extension is unsustainably beyond walking distance from employment, it will be detrimental to the nature of the town.

There should be an alteration to ensure that proposed developments are 749 proportionate to local housing needs and appropriately dispersed to cause minimum environmental impact to one specific area of the town, so that this policy statement can be met.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Support proposal but affordable housing should be calculated by percentage and 380 not by value of property. Additional land could be made available for surface water ponds and relief road.

The number of dwellings in too high and needs scaling back by at least 20% to 832 ensure it is sustainable. Relocate the proposed medical centre to a more central location as the proposed location will lead to increased traffic. Sewerage treatment plant needs relocating as prevailing winds will bring any odours over the town. Clarify school expansions or relocations as it is not clear in its current form.

South Molton Town Council supports this strategy. Note that the Town Council 1054 (TC) understands a new sewerage works may not be a necessity.

South Molton Town Council supports Policy ST01 and this strategy. 1053, 1055, 1058 (all TC)

Objection to the proposed school west of Exeter Gate in South Molton. 1019, 1020, 1221

Objects to the land west of Exeter Gate being allocated for a new school and not 2206 residential.

Support as would allow good access to new primary school. 370

The policy should be amended to include 'expansion of current infants and junior 1022, 2211, schools to become primary schools, a new primary school site to the west of Exeter 2212 Gate

Wording on the Plan would indicate that the current Infant School is to be expanded 1246 to a primary school and relocated to a new site at Exeter Gate. This is not the case. The plan should indicate that the existing Junior School, now no longer fit for purpose, would relocate to a new site at Exeter Gate as a primary school with the current Infant School also expanding to a Primary school.

Amend Policy SM01(1)(d): to include reference to “early years provision” and a 1331 (DCC) “children’s centre base” alongside the reference to a new primary school.

Insufficient weight has been given to local concerns regarding the provision of 1393 infrastructure and in particular the impact on local highways.

Consider land designated for housing in SMO1(a) & (b) to be Green Belt. Question 2426 whether it is still government policy to protect Green Belt and to apply a brownfield first approach and, if so, why is the plan not adhering to this approach?

We broadly support the Local Plan as currently drafted and the allocation of our 2686 client’s site. However, we object to various elements of Policy SM01, which are overly prescriptive and are not flexible enough to facilitate the Council’s vision for the town.

PCL Transport, in discussion with Devon County Council has prepared a drawing 2723 of the proposed distributor road as it passes through site 2d. The link onto Road has insufficient frontage to accommodate a highway junction with visibility splay and suitable gateway development. The adjoining area which

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

currently accommodates redundant chicken houses should also be allocated in order to accommodate the proposed development and create an appropriate gateway to South Molton at this point. The remainder of the chicken house site we would recommend should be landscaped to provide a suitable boundary to the developed area.

The western boundary of site 2d is not defined by an existing field boundary. The 2723 existing field boundary is slightly further to the west. This land and land on the other side of the B3226 are the lowest bodies of land and we recommend this area should be included within the development area in order to provide for surface water run off, public open space, allotments and community woodland and a wildlife area. There is also the need to provide for a sewage pumping station in this general location or on the north side of the B3226 which will further erode the residential land allocation.

No consultation undertaken as to how expansion of existing provision could be 1327 (DCC) delivered, the current wording in the plan is therefore premature.

The road must be safe to accommodate HGV’s and the road aligned to restrict 1056 (TC) speeds and ensure safety for all road users.

With the planned housing development, the town's road infrastructure will have to 84 accommodate an enormous increase in traffic. The distance of facilities from housing will encourage more car use and the roads will be even more congested as people drive the most direct route.

Support the strategy with the loss of open footpaths absorbed by development 1057 (TC) replaced by new rights of way.

Table 2.86

Additional Information

54384 : Full planning permission for 115 dwellings and outline planning permission for up to 135 dwellings and a medical centre on land north of Gunswell Lane was approved 16 July 14

58050 : Development of 172 Residential Dwellings With Associated Access, Roads, Footways, Parking, Landscaping, Drainage, Open Space And Play Facilities, land off Nadder Lane – approved in principle January 2015

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.1432 The Town Council’s support for this policy and supporting paragraphs is noted and welcomed. Many of the issues raised are considered under comments to the spatial strategy (above), including the overall scale of growth, the distance between housing and employment opportunities, the need for new infrastructure and the phasing of infrastructure prior to delivery. These issues are not repeated here.

2.1433 This policy does not set out the number or proportion of affordable homes required within this development; this is covered in Policy ST18. Several responses refer to different types of infrastructure. The planning permission north of Gunswell Lane (54384) includes a site for a new medical centre. Alternative options closer to the town centre were considered during plan preparation

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

and no suitable and available sites were identified. The delivery of proposed development has been considered through community engagement and cooperation with statutory organisations in preparing the local plan.

2.1434 The Town Council understands that a sewage works may not be necessary, which is consistent with Criterion (3f) proposing a new foul sewage treatment works if required. In order to serve the strategic extension on the western side of town, and to enable it to be gravity fed, the potential location at Ford Farm is most appropriate if required. No wording amendment is necessary.

2.1435 The proposed distributor road is a main road to relieve town centre congestion (see criterion H of spatial strategy). It will need to be able to accommodate HGVs including those accessing the Norboard factory, but this does not need to be stated explicitly as it would be required for any new distributor road.

2.1436 A number of comments have been received relating to the proposed new primary school west of Exeter Gate as a replacement for the existing junior school. Criterion (f) of the spatial strategy (SMO) has already been amended. DCC have identified the additional need for “early years provision” and a “children’s centre base” alongside the reference to a new primary school. Criteria (1d) and (2d) should be updated to recognise this, with an associated amendment to the supporting text and criterion (f) of the spatial vision and development strategy (Policy SMO). The policy requirements are not considered to be inflexible or overly prescriptive since the policy requirements are all justified and help to deliver the town’s spatial vision and development strategy.

2.1437 Several objections oppose the proposed new primary school on this site, instead identifying the site for housing. This is DCC’s preferred school site in consultation with the local community and its delivery will be facilitated by the surrounding residential development.

2.1438 The representation relating to green belts and the Government’s policy to protect them is not relevant for North Devon where there are no designated green belts. Also, there are insufficient previously developed sites within South Molton to accommodate new development so alternative greenfield sites were assessed when identifying the most sustainable locations for future growth.

2.1439 The SHLAA site west of Exeter Gate (SHA/ SMO/427) is larger than the site allocated for SM01d, with the western most part of the field south of B3226 excluded. It is accepted that the site should be extended to include the remainder of this field (see plan provided), with the extended site included within an extended development boundary.

2.1440 A representation queries the site’s ability to accommodate a suitable highway junction on to George Nympton Road, which will be towards the southern end of the proposed new distributor road. The additional land required (redundant chicken sheds) was not formerly considered by the SHLAA panel, but a slightly smaller site than that promoted (plp1993) has subsequently been submitted as a SHLAA site so its availability is known. The SHLAA Panel indicated that the site is ‘developable’ and could deliver additional dwellings as well as facilitating the new road junction and landscaping. The extended site has an increased capacity of approximately 170 rather than 150 dwellings. The site should be extended to include the chicken shed site (see plan provided), with the extended site included within an extended development boundary.

Other Matters

2.1441 Policy SM01 does not refer to Beech House, the setting of which needs to be protected. Amendments should be made to protect its setting.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

2.1442 Criteria (g) and (h) should be deleted to avoid duplicating Policy ST05 which has been amended to include the principles of sustainable design and construction, including a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, to reflect the Housing Standards Review.

2.1443 Amendment to the pre-fix to the housing numbers is recommended to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of” through Policy ST08: Scale and Distribution of New Development in Northern Devon.

Conclusion

2.1444 Several issues were raised through representations received, but none are considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan. The site should be extended to ensure deliverability provided that the SHLAA panel find the additional land developable. Amendments are required to clarify the range of uses within the proposed primary school allocation and to extend the site boundary.

Agreed Actions

1. The following are agreed as Main Changes to Policy SM01:

a. Amend criterion (1d) to indicate the need for early years’ provision and a children’s base centre alongside the new primary school; b. Amend criterion (2di) to indicate that area 4 of the extension will include early years’ provision and a children’s base centre alongside the new 420 place primary school; c. Amend criterion (2d) from ‘approximately 150 dwellings’ to ‘approximately 170 dwellings’, with a consequent change to criterion (1a) from ‘approximately 840 dwellings’ to ‘approximately 860 dwellings’; d. Delete criteria (g) and (h). e. Make associated changes to the housing numbers in the spatial strategy Policy SMO and Table 10.15.

2. The following is agreed as a Main Change to criterion (f) of Policy SMO of the Local Plan to identify the need for early years’ provision and a children’s base centre alongside the proposed new primary school.

3. The following are agreed as Main Changes to Policies Map 9:

a. Amend western boundary of SM01d and include it within an extended development boundary; b. Amend southern boundary of SM01d to include the chicken shed site and include it within an extended development boundary.

4. The following are agreed as Main Changes:

a. amend paragraph 10.385 to recognise the new primary school will incorporate provision for early years’ provision and a children’s base centre; b. amend paragraph 10.385 to replace ‘... future its expansion’ with ‘... its future expansion’; c. amend paragraph 10.386 by adding ‘whilst protecting the setting of the listed buildings at Beech House’; d. amend paragraph 10.385 from ‘approximately 840 dwellings’ to ‘approximately 860 dwellings’.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Comments made in response to Policy SM02: Sports Hub and Football Club and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 4 (from 2 separate individuals)

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 3 ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 3 ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 4 ~

Table 2.87

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy SM02: and supporting text plp number

South Molton Town Council supports this Policy and strategy. 1059, 1060, 1061 (all TC)

Amendment to reference the safeguarding of the dark night skies over Exmoor 2354 (ENPA) National Park is supported.

Table 2.88

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.1445 The representations received to SM02 were all representations of support.

Conclusion

2.1446 These representations do not threaten the soundness of the local plan.

Agreed Action

1. No change to Policy SM02 of the Local Plan is agreed in response to the issues raised through consultation.

Comments made in response to Policy SM03: Pathfields Business Park and associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 10 (from 5 separate individuals)

Yes No

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 8 ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 8 ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 8 ~

Table 2.89

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy SM03: and supporting text plp number

South Molton Town Council supports this strategy. 1065 (TC)

Support the strategy but an enlargement of the employment land is sought. There 1066 (TC) is a typographical error in respect of the allocation west of Hacche Lane with Table 10.16.

Support proposal but affordable housing should be calculated by % not by the value 372 of the properties.

Strategy support but amendment to Policy SM03. Increase the employment allocation 1062 (TC) to the west of Hacche Lane and amend policy provisions: the proposed access should be a cycle/footway; realignment of the road route, a shelter belt (possibly bunded) along the Link Road is more appropriate than the policy provision for a wide planted area and remove unnecessary landscape planting.

Correct description of transport mitigation in Policy SMO03(2)(b) to: provision of a 1336 (DCC) road from Bucknell Way, crossing Hacche Lane and linking to the B3226 to the west.

Support the general principle of the policy, concerned however about the 1807 deliverability of the proposals given the need to deliver a highway link across third party land.

If Hacche Lane is to be turned into a Cycle Route, then it will be necessary to provide 790 an appropriate adopted access to the existing site capable of taking Heavy Goods Vehicles. It will be appropriate to separate commercial access from the cycleway link to Pathfields

South Molton Town Council supports this strategy, but suggests the need for more 1063 (TC) employment land.

Support the strategy but that Hacche Lane should become a cycle footway link 1064 (TC) (open to existing traffic).

Support the strategy but landscape planning should be revisited. 1067 (TC)

Table 2.90

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.1447 The Town Council’s support for this policy and supporting paragraphs is noted. There is inconsistency between paragraph 10.395 and the site areas listed in Policy SMO, Table 10.16, paragraph 10.393. To address this inconsistency and to reflect a reduction in employment land, paragraph 10.395 should be amended to indicate 5.6 (not 9.5) hectares east of Hacche Lane and 5.2 (not 6) hectares west of Hacche Lane. The Town Council seeks to expand the site to include all the land enclosed within the structural planting. In view of potential over-provision of employment land, an extended allocation is not required. Paragraph 10.392 already supports further extension of the existing business park if required during the plan period. The Northern Devon Employment Land Review indicates that up to 8 hectares would be required here.

2.1448 However, the Town Council have provided details of the indicative new road link onto the B3226, which requires a slightly larger area at the western end of the site. The site should be extended slightly to facilitate delivery of this access (see attached plan). DCC have indicated that the description of the new route needs clarification and correction to: “provision of a road from Bucknell Way, crossing Hacche Lane and linking to the B3226 to the west”.

2.1449 The proposed new vehicular access across the site is intended as a route capable of taking all vehicular traffic including HGVs. Following completion of this route, Hacche Lane will not be required to provide vehicular access and will no longer need upgrading in accordance with criterion (2a). This criterion should be deleted. Hacche Lane could then become a cycle / footway, which would help to separate cyclists from vehicular traffic. Policies Map 9 should amend the proposed upgraded road (orange squares) to a new footpath/cycle link (red dots) between the new road link and the existing main road. Paragraph 10.393 would need to be amended accordingly to clarify this.

2.1450 In terms of deliverability of the access road, the Town Council has advised that it is in advanced negotiations with the landowner of the field between the B3226, who is keen to join a consortium for expansion of Pathfields. The potential availability of the site and willingness of the landowner is considered unlikely to prevent the delivery of this new road link.

2.1451 The structural landscaping is required to mitigate the proposed development’s visual impact to integrate it within the town’s landscape setting whilst delivering biodiversity network improvements. One of the Town Council’s concerns was that the structural planting east of Hacche Lane was too wide and could be relocated along the northern A361 boundary. The need for structural planting and its proposed location was originally identified through Leithgoe Landscape Architects in early master planning for the growth of Pathfields business park. The extent of structural planting is indicative and the planting adjoining Hacche Lane could be reduced but a narrower buffer would further increase the oversupply of employment land. No map change is considered necessary, although paragraph 10.396 could be amended to clarify that the location of structural planting is indicative.

2.1452 The representation referring to percentage of affordable housing is not relevant to this Policy. This representation will be considered further under Policy ST18: Affordable Housing on Development Sites.

Other Matters

2.1453 The Full Councils of Torridge and North Devon District Councils agreed an amendment to the proposed Main Changes presented to the respective meetings on 23rd and 25th February 2015. The amendment in relevant paragraphs and tables increases the additional area to be safeguarded for a new livestock market at Pathfields from 1.5 to 2.5 hectares, in addition to the employment land supply area west and east of Hacche Lane, without increasing the overall employment land supply of 10.8 hectares.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Conclusion

2.1454 The challenge to the deliverability of the access road could threaten the soundness of this policy, but progress made by the Town Council is resolving this uncertainty to ensure deliverability. The other representations do not threaten the soundness of the local plan, subject to proposed changes for accuracy and to ensure deliverability.

Agreed Actions

1. The following are agreed as Main Changes to Policies Map 9:

a. Realign the proposed access road further north; b. A minor extension to the employment allocation to facilitate delivery of this route (in accordance with attached plan); c. Remove land north of the footpath; d. Amend the proposed upgraded road to a new footpath/cycle link along Hacche Lane between the new road link and the existing main road.

2. The following are agreed as Main Changes to Policy SM03 paragraph 1:

a. Amend wording to “A site of approximately 17.5 10.8 hectares east and west of Hacche Lane plus an additional 2.5 hectares for a new livestock market, as identified on Policies Map 9, is allocated for economic development that includes the following site specific development principles:” b. Amend criterion (a) to “at least 2.5 hectares of land safeguarded for the provision of a new livestock market.”

3. The following are agreed as Main Changes to Policy SM03 paragraph 2:

a. Propose amended wording to criterion (2b) to “provision of a new road link between from Bucknell Way, crossing Hacche Lane and linking to the B3226 to the west across Hacche Lane;” b. Delete existing criterion (2a).

4. The following is agreed as a Main Change to paragraph 10.392:

a. An extension east and west of Hacche lane will provide approximately 17.5 10.8 hectares of new employment land during the Plan period to meet the town’s growing employment needs, with an additional 2.5 hectares identified for the relocation of the livestock market .

5. The following is agreed as a Main Change to paragraph 10.393:

a. Hacche Lane will become a key route for pedestrians and cyclists between the business park and the recreation ground.

6. The following is agreed as a Main Change to paragraph 10.395:

a. “Development east of Hacche Lane will provide approximately 9.5 5.6 hectares of new employment land and to the west, approximately 6 5.2 hectares of new employment land. In addition, part of the expansion to Pathfields will require at least 2.5 hectares safeguarded for the relocation of the livestock market.

7. The following is agreed as a Main Change to paragraph 10.396:

a. indicate that the extent of the structural planting shown on policies Map 9 is indicative.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Comments made in response to Policy SM04: South Molton Town Centre and associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 7 (from 3 separate individuals)

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 5 ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 5 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 5 ~

Table 2.91

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy SM04: and supporting text plp number

An explicit statement needs to be made in this policy about the relocation of the 833 cattle market. An additional statement about the future of the Tesco site is needed too.

Support Policy SM04, with the suggestion that car parking and linkages are 1068 (TC) secured and enhanced to protect the town's current independent traders and outlets.

The Norringtons site should be considered for compulsory purchase to prevent 2386 housing development and allow for a possible new health centre. The plan states (para 10.399) that the same amount of parking or more should be protected, should this not read more car parking would be needed because of all the new houses that are being built and should it not state how many there are now and the amount that would be required.

Support the strategy, with the suggestion that car parking and linkages are secured 1072 (TC) and enhanced to protect the town's current independent traders and outlets. Car parking should be secured close to recreation facilities.

Support this strategy; a suitable site on Pathfields Business Park has been 1074 (TC) identified.

Support the strategy but seek to increase not retain car parking levels and provide 1076 (TC) for a viable public transport system, including a circular route linking employment, homes and community facilities. The lorry park should also be re-located to allow good access to services.

Support the strategy but public transport should be highlighted in paragraph 1077 (TC) 10.400.

Table 2.92

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Additional Information

2.1455 Tesco have recently indicated that they no longer propose to build a new store in the town and have started to advertise their land at Norrington’s Yard for sale.

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.1456 The Town Council’s general support for this policy and supporting paragraphs is noted. The request to increase rather than retain car parking provision is noted and could be amended in paragraph 10.399. It is inappropriate to state explicitly how many car parking spaces exist and how many are required in the future. It is too detailed and future needs will depend upon the mix and scale of town centre uses proposed within any comprehensive redevelopment.

2.1457 An additional reference to public transport could be included alongside the reference to the transport master plan in paragraph 10.400. Paragraph 10.399 already supports opportunities to enhance pedestrian and cycle links within the town centre, which would include enhanced linkages for the benefit of current independent traders. No further amendment is considered necessary.

2.1458 Tesco have recent announced that they no longer propose to build a new store in South Molton. It is unnecessary to indicate this as the plan does not refer to any specific retailer. The whole of the Norrington’s site is included within the boundary of SM04, where town centre uses including additional retail floor space and/or a medical centre would be supported. There is no need to refer to compulsory purchase of any land.

2.1459 SMTC have indicated that a suitable site at Pathfields has been identified for potential relocation of the livestock market. A final decision as to whether the livestock market can/will relocate is premature so it is not possible to give a more explicit statement in the local plan. As drafted, the plan provides appropriate policy guidance whether the livestock market remains or relocates. Text could be added indicating that the lorry park could also be relocated through redevelopment of SM04, but there is no requirement to do so, so it is unnecessary to refer to it explicitly.

Other Matters

2.1460 Paragraph 13.999 safeguards the built heritage of the town centre including surrounding listed buildings and the adjoining conservation area. There are also several buildings surrounding the site identified on the list of locally important buildings, which should be referenced in this paragraph.

Conclusion

2.1461 These representations do not threaten the soundness of the local plan, subject to minor changes for greater clarity.

Agreed Actions

1. The following are agreed as Main Changes to the Local Plan:

a. Paragraph 10.399 to amend “Regeneration of the livestock market and central car park must be designed to enhance the town’s built heritage, including its surrounding listed buildings, locally important buildings and the special character and appearance of the conservation area (ST15: Conserving Heritage assets and DM07: Historic Environment).”

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

b. Paragraph 10.399 to amend “the existing level of car parking provision should be retained or increased.” c. Paragraph 10.400 to amend “The redevelopment and regeneration of the site must be planned carefully to provide a holistic approach to traffic management, rear servicing and car parking within and around the town to improve linkages with employment opportunities, homes and community facilities. South Molton’s Transport Master Plan will facilitate visitor management within the town including public transport links with improved parking and access to the town centre.”

Comments made in response to Policy SM05: Local Green Space and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 4 (from 1 separate individual)

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 4 ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 4 ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 4 ~

Table 2.93

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy SM05 and supporting text plp number

Support Policy SM05, the Town Council has provided the Community Woodland 1078 (TC) extension and upgraded access for people of all abilities.

Support the strategy with modification relating to existing and planned green 1079 (TC) infrastructure and sports facilities.

Support the strategy, the expansion of the Community Woodland will be completed 1080 (TC) by 2015.

Support the strategy. 1082 (TC)

Table 2.94

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.1462 The Town Council’s general support for this policy is noted including the scheduled expansion of the community woodland by 2015. Paragraph 10.402 already states that the open space in the Central park is identified as part of the town’s sports hub and is shown as such on Policies Map 9. It includes the swimming pool and bowling club sites. The Sheepfair field does not form part of the sports hub and is not promoted for provision of new open space. As such it is unnecessary to show it as green infrastructure on the policies map as only proposed new open spaces and existing sports hub sites are shown.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

Conclusion

2.1463 These representations are broadly supportive and do not threaten the soundness of the local plan.

Agreed Action

1. No change to Policy SM05 of the Local Plan is agreed in response to the issues raised through consultation.

Comments made in response to Map 9 South Molton (Policies Map)

Total Number of Responses 2

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 2 ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 2 ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 2 ~

Table 2.95

Summary of Issues

Comments on Map 9 South Molton (Policies Map) plp number

Support the retention of the amendments previously made to the settlement boundary. 271

Hacche Lane should be a cycle/ footway and the money spent on the new feeder 1084 (TC) road to the B3226.

Table 2.96

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.1464 Support for the development boundary is noted, but in the context that minor amendment is proposed as a main change in response to a representation to Policy SM01.

2.1465 The changes to Hacche Lane from a proposed upgraded road to a new footpath/cycle link between the new road link and the existing main road through Pathfields business park is set out under responses to Policy SM03. Removing the need to upgrade Hacche Lane would potentially facilitate delivery of the new link road, as proposed by the Town Council.

Conclusion

2.1466 The issues raised through representations received are not considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan. The main change required is set out as agreed changes to Policies SM01 and SM03.

Agreed Action

No further change to Policies Map 9 is agreed in response to the issues raised through consultation.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Chapter 11: Monitoring Framework

Monitoring Framework

Comments made in response to Monitoring Framework and Appendix 3

Total Number of Responses 8

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 0 0

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 0 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 0 0

Summary of Issues

Comments on Monitoring Framework and Appendix 3 plp number

Part 1 of ST21 should be moved to Monitoring Framework 1683, 1808, 1909, 1997

Highways Agency agrees that monitoring and review are key components of the 1344 (HA) planning system and that Local Plans need to be continually reviewed and revised.

Support is given to paragraph 11.2. National policy is being implemented through 927 (EA) the catchment based approach. As part of this approach Catchment partnerships have formed. The North Devon Catchment Partnership is embedded into the Biosphere Reserve.

The Environment Agency would like to offer water quality data and evidence to 931 (EA) demonstrate no deterioration and achievement of the targets in the RBMP

Monitoring Framework Appendix 3- Under Aim 2 ST02 should be applicable to d 281 and g.

Aim 2 b needs clarification as it does not make sense. 281

Under Aim 3, ST02 should be referenced as a key policy. 281

Target for delivering affordable housing should be higher than 30%. 281

Consideration of Issues Arising

2.1467 The Highways Agency concur that monitoring and review are key components of the planning system and that Local Plans need to be continually reviewed and revised. The Highways Agency is keen to be involved in the process as required. The comment is noted and welcomed.

2.1468 The Environment Agency welcomes reference in paragraph 11.2 to working in partnership and they request that the North Devon Catchment Partnership is referenced. Paragraph 11.2 states that ‘the implementation of policies contained in the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan will require

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: 2: Strategic Policies)

concerted action by a range of public, private and voluntary sector bodies working in partnership’. No organisations are mentioned explicitly and therefore, although the comment is noted it is not considered to raise a soundness challenge. No amendment is sought.

2.1469 The Environment Agency offer to share appropriate water quality data and evidence with both Councils. The comment is noted and welcomed.

2.1470 A number of respondents request that part 1 of Policy ST21 is moved to the Monitoring Framework. Policy ST21 relates to managing the delivery of housing, with Part 1 of the policy asserting that a positive ‘plan, monitor, manage’ approach will be adopted to ensure the timely delivery and provision of appropriate housing. It is considered a statement of intent rather than providing any detailed targets and indicators and should therefore remain within the housing chapter of the Plan. No amendment is sought.

Appendix 3

2.1471 One respondent would like to see the following changes to Appendix 3 – Monitoring Framework;

2.1472 Policy ST02 referenced under points (d) and (g) of Aim 2. The comment is considered justified and an amendment is sought.

2.1473 Policy ST02 referenced as a key policy under part (a) and (c) of Aim 3. Comment is considered justified and an amendment is sought.

2.1474 Clarification of target 1 of Aim 2 is requested as respondent feels it currently makes no sense. The target states a ‘Net increase in % SSSI units with favourable condition or unfavourable recovering condition’. The comment is noted but monitoring is carried out by trained technical officers who use nationally endorsed indicators and targets. The target is considered appropriate and no change is considered necessary in response to the representation, although a minor wording change is recommended for clarification; inserting the word ‘of’ within the target, to read: ‘Net increase in % of SSSI units…’.

2.1475 Finally, the respondent would like to see the affordable housing target increased. They feel 30% is too low for an area with a high percentage of low paid jobs. The Plan recognises there is a substantial need for affordable housing across northern Devon. Open market housing is out of reach of many due to a significant imbalance between wages and house prices with evidence showing that residents have some of the lowest earnings in the UK. The issue has been exacerbated by northern Devon having a relatively small stock of affordable housing allied with a low level of affordable housing delivery. This is reflected by the two Councils who both identify affordable housing delivery as a strategic priority. Evidence indicates that over half of all housing required to meet the needs and demands of northern Devon’s communities over the plan period needs to be affordable. However providing the scale of affordable housing required poses a significant challenge as viability needs to be maintained. The figure of 30% has been derived from robust evidence including the Economic Viability Assessment of Housing Development in North Devon and Torridge (Adams Integra, September 2013). The comment is noted but there is no justification to change the target level of affordable housing provision. No change is sought.

Conclusion

2.1476 The comments raised in response to the Monitoring Framework are considered not to raise any major issues that would challenge the soundness of the Local Plan.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 1: Appendix Strategic Policies) 2:

Agreed Actions

1. No major changes to the Local Plan are agreed in response to the issues raised through consultation. 2. The following minor amendments are agreed in response to the issues raised:

a. Amend Target 1 of Aim 2 to read ‘Net increase in % of SSSI units with favourable condition or unfavourable recovering condition’.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: 3: Development Management Policies)

Appendix 3: Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: Development Management Policies)

Chapter 12: Development Management Policies

Development Management Policies – Sustainable Development – Environmental Protection

Comments made in response to Policy DM01: Amenity Considerations and paragraphs 12.1 – 12.6

Total Number of Responses 8

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 1 -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - 2

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1 -

Table 3.1

Summary of Issues

Comments on Development Management Policy DM01: and supporting text plp number

Support policy DM1 1201, 2036 (NE)

Most housing developments allowed for in the Plan will have amenity implications 1232 contained in Policy DM01.

Consider there to be a degree of overlap between Policies DM01 and DM02 and they 1684,1685, should be combined. 1809,

1910, 2001

Table 3.2

Consideration of Issues Arising

3.1 General support is shown for this policy. The main issue raised by several respondents is the suggestion that there is considerable overlap between policies DM01 and DM02 and therefore they should be combined. While both policies relate to the impact of development on the surrounding environment and could potentially be combined, there is no advantage to doing so at this stage of the plan preparation.

3.2 One respondent has commented that most housing developments allowed for in the Plan will have amenity implications as covered in DM01. This is address in criterion a) which states ‘it would not significantly harm the amenities of any neighbouring occupiers or uses’

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: Appendix Development Management Policies) 3:

Conclusion

3.3 No issues have been raised which will have implications on the soundness of the Plan

Agreed Action

No change to the Local Plan are necessary in response to the issues raised through consultation.

Comments made in response to Policy DM02: Environmental Protection and paragraphs 12.7 – 12.20

Total Number of Responses 13

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 1 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 1 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 2 0

Table 3.3

Summary of Issues

Comments on Development Management Policy DM02: and supporting text plp number

Support policy DM2 518 (CA)

Welcomes Policy DM02, but include, in respect of light pollution prevention, reference 2037 (NE) to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty as the tranquillity and sense of remoteness are a special quality of the Protected Landscape.

Objection to Policy DM02 because it is poorly drafted and inconsistent. 2082,2278

Criterion (2) should be amended to make it clear that development will be supported where it does not result in unacceptable levels of pollution unless appropriate measures mitigate risk to an acceptable level (as stated in criterion (1)).

Alternatively, the policy could be re-drafted in a positive way, which makes it clear that development would be acceptable if hazard and pollution risks are reduced to acceptable levels through mitigation. If the risk cannot be reduced to acceptable levels then the development will not be supported.

Remove second part of the sentence in Policy DM02 part (2)d referring to light 219 pollution as wider environmental designations and qualities (tranquillity, special qualities of the AONB etc) are belittled by omission.

Consider there is a degree of overlap between DM01 and DM02 and they should 1810,1911, be combined. 2005

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: 3: Development Management Policies)

Paragraph 12.12, wording correction, ‘mediation’ should be ‘remediation’ or 1584 ‘mitigation’.

Paragraph 12.16 -The lighting design requirement does not match Local List 1585 requirements and is at variance with the NPPG.

Paragraph 2.20 - If development will not be supported where air quality will be made 1586 worse, no development will take place.

Pollution section is vague. No adopted Air Quality Action Plan. 552,1583

Table 3.4

Consideration of Issues Arising

3.4 A range of comments have been provided on policy DM02. The issues raised are limited; however they do highlight that the policy could be redrafted to make it more succinct and clearer for all users of the plan. For example, noise pollution is included in the criteria for both the hazards and pollution sections. As well as potential duplication, there is potential need to resolve the inconsistency between the exemption at the end of the first paragraph (hazards) and the lack of equivalent exemption at the end of the second paragraph (pollution).

3.5 In addition to the drafting issues, several comments have been made in relation to criteria 2(d) light pollution. It is considered that the draft publication text of DM02 does cover wider environmental designations, although not individually named, so there is no need to name the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty in the policy.

3.6 A representation states that lighting design requirements should be dealt with only through conditions, however design and access statements have been used to consider this issue to date, and it is agreed that this approach continues.

3.7 Representations have also been received asking for clarification on the location of the Air Quality Management Area and stating that there is no adopted Local Air Quality Action Plans within the Plan area. At the present time there is one draft AQMA (Braunton), and for clarity it is agreed to amend the text of the policy to remove the reference to adopted AQMAs and also insert text to clarify that the Local Plan will help to deliver measures identified within the Action Plan. In addition it is agreed to amend Policies Map 3 to show the extent of the adopted Action Plan for Braunton.

3.8 The point regarding combining DM01 and DM02 is covered in the DM01 section above.

Other Matters

3.9 A correction has been identified through the consultation comments, in respect of paragraph 12.12 changing the text from ‘mediation’ to ‘remediation’

Conclusion

3.10 A small number of issues were raised through representations received, but none are considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan. It is agreed that policy DM02 is redrafted, however it is not considered a soundness issue.

Agreed Action

1. The following are agreed as a Main Change to Policy DM02:

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: Appendix Development Management Policies) 3:

a. Amend policy DM02 (1)(b)to read: its siting on known or suspected contaminated land which is unsuitable for the use proposed; or b. Delete criterion (1)(c) c. Amend criterion (2) to read: Development will be supported where it does not result in unacceptable levels of: d. Add a sentence following all the criteria listed in section 2 of the policy to read: unless appropriate remedial, preventative or precautionary measures remove, reduce or mitigate impact to an acceptable level. e. Amend paragraph (3) to read: Development and traffic proposals that help to deliver measures identified within an adopted Local Air Quality Action Plan or improved overall area air quality will be supported.

2. The following are agreed as Minor Changes: a. amend paragraph 12.12: “... though modern buildings techniques protection and re-mediation measures can address potential problems: … ” b. amend Policies Map 3 for Braunton and Wrafton and the Legend to show the extent of the adopted air quality management area along Caen Street, Braunton (see attached plan c. Include a new paragraph referencing the Water Framework Directive

Comments made in response to Policy DM03: Construction and Environmental Management and paragraphs 12.21 – 12.34

Total Number of Responses 154

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1 -

Table 3.5

Summary of Issues

Construction and Environmental Management Policy DM03: and supporting text plp number

Policy is imprecise. Non compliant with paragraph 15 of the NPPF. 553, 1587

There needs to be a reference to Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPGs) in the 932 (EA) supporting text. Developers would need to produce a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) to manage pollution and waste during the construction phase. A CEMP should be drafted using the guidance from PPG6. Any disposal of any waste should comply with the relevant waste guidance and regulations.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: 3: Development Management Policies)

Amend Policy DM03(1): All major development that will generate a significant volume 1342 (DCC) of construction and operational waste will be required to demonstrate through a waste audit statement management plan how the waste will be minimised, and residual waste will be managed for collection and recycling reused or recycled on site, or segregated for reuse and recovery elsewhere in accordance with the waste hierarchy .

A waste plan must find a way of allowing the building trade to dispose legally of 2729 waste – by not imposing fees for delivery to re-cycling or waste sites. Currently laws are flouted and dumping and air pollution from illegal burning are taking place.

Duplication with the Devon County Waste Local Plan should be avoided 1811, 1912, 2007, 2664

Paragraph 12.30 - No method of ensuring the provisions of the waste audit statement 1588 are delivered; the statement is an unnecessary burden on development with no guaranteed effect.

Paragraph 12.33 - Reference Policy W10: Protection of Waste Management 1351 (DCC) Capacity, which seeks to safeguard the operation of existing and permitted waste management sites.

Table 3.6

Additional Information

3.11 Since the draft publication of the Local Plan was published in June 2014, Devon County Council adopted the Devon Waste Plan in December 2014. This needs to be reflected when referring to the Waste Local Plan in this section.

Consideration of Issues Arising

3.12 A range of comments have been received on policy DM03 and the supporting text. The issue of defining a ‘significant’ volume of operational waste was considered in preparing the Publication Local Plan and as a consequence additional text was added to paragraph 12.29 (following discussions with Devon County Council). It is considered that this policy and supporting text do meet the requirements of paragraph 15 of the National Planning Policy Framework and does not raise a soundness issue.

3.13 Waste Audit Statements are a requirement of the Waste Local Plan and cannot be reviewed through this Local Plan process.

3.14 Concern has been raised over the duplication of text from the Waste Local Plan. The detail in the supporting text of this section is to assist applicants.

Other Matters

3.15 A number of areas of change, correction or clarification have been identified through consultation comments and by officers in respect of policy DM03 and the supporting text. The sought amendments are considered beneficial to the use of the Local Plan. These are;

DM03 (1) All major development that will generate a significant volume of construction and operational waste will be required to demonstrate through a waste management plan how the

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: Appendix Development Management Policies) 3:

waste will be minimised, and residual waste will be reused or recycled on site, or segregated for reuse and recovery elsewhere in accordance with the waste hierarchy. DM3 (4) update final sentence to: “Management of waste from proposed development will be expected to accord with the Devon Waste Plan” Paragraph 12.22 – delete “(could not find copy_2900706_ID_615)” Paragraph 12.26 – amend paragraph to “...The Devon County Waste Plan, prepared by the County Council, forms part of the Development Plan. Any waste management development must be in accordance with the adopted policies in that document (or successor Devon Waste Plan) .” Paragraph 12.29 – add a new sentence at the end of the paragraph “ In addition, development may need to produce a Construction Environment Management Plan as set out in the Environment Agency’s Pollution Prevention Guidelines(143) Paragraph 12.33 – insert ‘Policy W10 (Protection of Waste Management Capacity) of the...’ at the beginning of the third sentence and update the references to the Devon Waste Plan. Glossary – add a definition of a Waste Management Plan

Conclusion

3.16 No issues of soundness have been raised to policy DM03 and the supporting text.

Agreed Actions

1. The following are agreed as Main Changes to Policy DM03: a. Amend criterion (1) of Policy DM03 to read: (1) All development that will generate a significant volume of construction and operational waste will be required to demonstrate through a waste management plan audit statement how this the waste will be minimised, and residual waste will be reused or recycled on site, or segregated for reuse and recovery elsewhere in accordance with the waste hierarchy. managed for collection and recycling. b. Amend criterion (4) of Policy DM03 to read: (4) Management of waste from proposed development will be expected to accord with the Devon County Waste Local Plan and emerging Devon Waste Plan.

2. The following are agreed as Minor Changes to Policy DM03: a. Paragraph 12.22 – delete “(could not find copy_2900706_ID_615)” b. Amend paragraph 12.26 to read “...The Devon County Waste Plan, prepared by the County Council, forms part of the Development Plan. Any waste management development must be in accordance with the adopted policies in that document (or successor Devon Waste Plan) .” c. Paragraph 12.29 – add a new sentence at the end of the paragraph “ In addition, development may need to produce a Construction Environment Management Plan as set out in the Environment Agency’s Pollution Prevention Guidelines(144) d. Paragraph 12.33 – insert ‘Policy W10 (Protection of Waste Management Capacity) of the...’ at the beginning of the third sentence and update the references to the Devon Waste Plan. e. Glossary – add a definition of a Waste Management Plan

143 Pollution Planning Guidance 6 – Working at construction and demolition sites (Environment Agency 2010) 144 Pollution Planning Guidance 6 – Working at construction and demolition sites (Environment Agency 2010)

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: 3: Development Management Policies)

Comments made in response to Policy DM04: Design Principles and paragraphs 12.34 – 12.41

Total Number of Responses 23

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 1 2

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - 6

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1 -

Table 3.7

Summary of Issues

Design Principles DM04: and supporting text plp number

Support policy DM04 1804, 2084, 2279

Identified Active Design objectives should be promoted by master plans: improving 1024 (SE) accessibility; enhancing amenity and increasing awareness.. Developers should be encouraged to design future proposals in line with the Active Design principles.

Explicit reference should be made to the role of the historic environment in helping 1181 (EH) to define context. Reference to role of good design in Conservation Areas should also be referenced. Policy is currently unsound.

Policy DM04 is too prescriptive, many of the sections are unnecessary and no 1590 provision is made for appropriate contemporary design

The extent to which Councils will be able to ensure good design is questioned in 1235 the context of dwindling resources.

Add a caveat to this Policy clearly stating that the Design Principles are subject to 2700 not impeding viability of the development..

Policy DM04 (f) should be amended to reflect that existing landscape features and 1561 biodiversity should be retained/integrated to developments “ where possible

and desirable ”. As it stands the policy reads as if all landscape and biodiversity features should be retained on all schemes.

Amend Policy DM04 (f) to enhance environmental features 2038 (NE)

Reference Hartland Design Guide produced by AONB Partnership. 1565 (North Devon AONB)

Policy DM04[I] clarification of “future neighbouring occupiers”. 1595

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: Appendix Development Management Policies) 3:

The Councils need to set out some of their detailed aspirations for design in a 2280, 2693 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). The Council’s commitment to preparing such an SPD should be clearly stated within the supporting text to Policy DM04.

No reference to designing out crime and the Architectural Liaison Officer.. Revisions 2271 sought to design considerations; providing for designing out opportunities for crime, antisocial behaviour and community conflict, reflecting the legal duties placed on local planning authorities in considering crime prevention.

Paragraph 12.37 – Support the inclusion of ‘Streets for All’. However, to have no 1188 (EH) strategy of how to address the historic environment in highways terms is to create an unsound plan. Must be explicitly referenced in DM06 and ST10.

Amend paragraph 12.37 to include ‘Manual for Streets’ and CABE’s ‘By Design’. 1591

Reference in paragraph 12.38, is made to Secured by Design, which has been 2700, 1804 identified as part of the Government’s Housing Standards Review, as a tool to be withdrawn. Need to amend this paragraph identifying Secured by Design, and its successors.

Paragraph 12.40 addressed two completed difference subjects. The first [relating 1592 to adaptability] is aspiration, with no practical influence. If used to determine design suitability, alternative uses may not be achievable.

Amend paragraph 12.41 text to clarify the subject as a policy requirement. 1594

Table 3.8

Consideration of Issues Arising

3.17 A range of comments have been provided on policy DM04 and the supporting text.

3.18 The purpose of Policy DM04 is to ensure that all new development is of a high quality. The criteria listed cover all aspects of design which need to be considered when submitting an application. Therefore it is not considered that the policy is over-prescriptive, or will impact on the viability of a scheme; good design should be fundamental to all new development. It is also not necessary to include criteria on contemporary design as the policy does not preclude any type of design.

3.19 Concern has been raised regarding the need for both the explicit reference to the role of the historic environment in helping to define context and reference to role of good design in Conservation Areas. The policy does account for heritage assets through criteria b) and c). However, it is acknowledged that a specific reference to the historic environment will assist in the signposting applicants to consider Conservation Areas etc, therefore ensuring the plan is sound. An amendment to policy DM04 is proposed:

3.20 One respondent has raised the issue that paragraph 12.37 should refer to ‘Manual for Streets’ and Cabe’s ‘By Design’. By Design was archived in March 2014, replaced by the National Planning Practice Guidance. It is accepted that referring to ‘Manual for Streets’ will assist applicants.

3.21 Two separate points have been raised to criteria f). There is no need to change the start of the sentence to ‘retain, integrate and enhance existing landscape features” as the policy is considering landscape features in terms of enhancing networks and promoting diversity and distinctiveness of the surrounding area.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: 3: Development Management Policies)

3.22 The concern that criteria f) expects all landscape and biodiversity features to be retained on all schemes is unfounded as the final sentence of the first paragraph states “Development proposals need to have regard to the following” This does not imply that all features should be retained.

3.23 Criterion (g) relates to issues regarding designing out crime, with further details provided provided in paragraph 12.38. It is not considered necessary to amend the policy or text.

3.24 The comment asking for clarification of who future neighbouring occupiers are is not necessary.

3.25 It is considered that SPD is not specifically required to support this policy at this stage. It may be an area which can be developed in the future but a commitment does not need to be made in the Plan.

3.26 Paragraph 12.36 lists further guidance which should be used when preparing applications (where appropriate). A specific reference to The Hartland Design Guide is not necessary as other guidance is not listed by name.

3.27 Sport England’s comments regarding incorporating Active Design principles into masterplans are noted and reference to ‘Active Design could be added to paragraph 12.40.

Other Matters

3.28 English Heritage’s concerns regarding referencing ‘Streets for All’ in policies DM06 and ST10 are considered under those policies.

3.29 A number of areas of change, clarification and clarification have been identified through the consultation and by officers. The sought amendments are considered beneficial to the use of the Local Plan. These are;

Amend final sentence of paragraph 12.35 to cross refer to DM07: Historic Environment “Design must respect its context (including heritage assets as set out in DM07), promote or reinforce local distinctiveness and take opportunities to improve the character and quality of an area” Insert reference to ‘Manual for Streets 2’ at the end of paragraph 12.37. The current Secured By Design standards referred to in paragraph 12.38 are currently subject to the Government’s current consultation to incorporate five areas of residential design into Building Regulations. Therefore the final sentence of paragraph 12.38 should be updated to reflect this change.

3.30 “Secured by Design (or successor standards) will support new development to create a safer and more secure environment”

The final sentence of paragraph 12.40 to be a new paragraph. Add a further sentence stating “Master planning of new developments should reflect the principles of Sport England’s ‘Active Design’(145) Delete paragraph 12.41 as it does not relate to the criteria as set out in DM05

Conclusion

3.31 The comments by English Heritage relate to the soundness of the Plan; it is considered that these concerns can be overcome by small amendments to DM04 and supporting text to clarify the importance of the historic environment when considering design issues.

145 https://www.sportengland.org/facilities-planning/planning-for-sport/planning-tools-and-guidance/active-design/

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: Appendix Development Management Policies) 3:

3.32 The majority of the comments received on this policy do not relate to the soundness of the Plan, the emphasis is on the interpretation and concern that the policy is too prescriptive. Concerns relating to being too prescriptive are unfounded as a policy setting out design criteria needs to be robust enough for developers to understand the standards required by the Councils.

Agreed Actions

1. The following are agreed as a Main Changes to Policy DM04: a. Amend DM04 d) to read: ‘Contribute positively to local distinctiveness, historic environment and sense of place’

2. The following are agreed as Minor Changes to paragraphs 12.35 – 12.41: a. Amend final sentence of paragraph 12.35 to cross refer to DM07: Historic Environment “Design must respect its context (including heritage assets as set out in DM07), promote or reinforce local distinctiveness and take opportunities to improve the character and quality of an area” b. Insert reference to ‘Manual for Streets 2’ at the end of paragraph 12.37. c. Amend the final sentence of paragraph 12.38 to read: “Secured by Design (or successor standards) will support new development to create a safer and more secure environment” d. The final sentence of paragraph 12.40 to be a new paragraph. Add a further sentence stating “Master planning of new developments should reflect the principles of Sport England’s ‘Active Design’(146) e. Delete paragraph 12.41 as it does not relate to the criteria as set out in DM04.

Comments made in response to Policy DM05: Highways and paragraphs 12.42 – 12.46

Total Number of Responses 6

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” - 1

Table 3.9

Summary of Issues

Highways DM05: and supporting text plp number

No information on highway improvements to the existing highway network. Proposed 106 growth levels will result in a significant increase in traffic using the existing network and thus further congestion will result in Barnstaple. A361 to A39 may need to be upgraded to a dual carriageway.

Amend Policy DM05: refer to public rights of ways, not bridleways in isolation. 1356 (DCC)

Amend paragraph 12.42 to reference ‘Manual for Streets’. 1596

146 https://www.sportengland.org/facilities-planning/planning-for-sport/planning-tools-and-guidance/active-design/

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: 3: Development Management Policies)

Guidance required on the threshold of a ‘significant levels of vehicular traffic 1597,1826 movements’ that would require a Transport Statement –should reference the PPG which contains the most up-to-date information

Table 3.10

Consideration of Issues Arising

3.33 A limited number of comments have been received in respect of policy DM05 and supporting text. The issues raised are not considered to raise issues of soundness or legal compliance.

3.34 One representation is concerned that that is no information on the highway improvements to the existing highway network. Policy ST10 sets out the transport strategy for the districts. In addition, individual site allocations include reference to the provision of physical infrastructure. Further details on the improvements needed to the highways network are set out in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan.

3.35 It is not agreed that the policy should to refer to rights of way instead of bridleways, as the text refers to the different types of rights of way individually.

3.36 Responses have been received asking for clarification of the term ‘significant’ in paragraph 12.44. It is not considered appropriate to provide a definition. This the paragraph 013 of the Travel plans, transport assessments and statements in decision-taking section of the NPPG states that:

3.37 “Local planning authorities must make a judgement as to whether a development proposal would generate significant amounts of movement on a case by case basis (i.e. significance may be a lower threshold where road capacity is already stretched or a higher threshold for a development in an area of high public transport accessibility).”

Other Matters

3.38 An area of change which has been identified through the consultation comments and by officers is the need to update the reference to government guidance in paragraph 12.44. The document ‘The Guidance on Transport Assessment’ DOT March 2007 has now been superseded by the National Planning Practice Guidance.

3.39 Reference should be made in paragraph 12.42 to ‘Manual for Streets’

3.40 Therefore the following minor modifications are proposed:

Paragraph 12.42 add “and in accordance with ‘Manual for Streets1 & 2(147)’ at the end of the paragraph. Paragraph 12.44: delete “ ‘The Guidance on Transport Assessment’ Department of Transport March 2007 and replace with ‘National Planning Practice Guidance”

Conclusion

3.41 No soundness implications have been raised to this policy and supporting text.

Agreed Action

1. The following are agreed as Minor Changes:

147 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/manual-for-streets

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: Appendix Development Management Policies) 3:

a. Amend the final sentence of Paragraph 12.42 to read “New roads will be designed to allow for the safe, easy and expedient movement of vehicles appropriate to the function of the route (particularly for larger vehicles such as buses, refuse collection and goods vehicles) which should be achieved through appropriate design, such as the width of the carriageway, radius of bends and adequate visibility as agreed with the Highway Authority and in accordance with 'Manual for Streets 1 & 2' b. Amend the final sentence of paragraph 12.44 to read: “Guidance on the indicative thresholds for transport assessments is provided in the national guidance, currently ‘ The Guidance on Transport Assessment’, Department of Transport March 2007 the national 'Planning Practice Guidance'.”

Comments made in response to Policy DM06: Parking Provision and paragraphs 12.47 – 12.52

Total Number of Responses 3

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” - -

Table 3.11

Summary of Issues

Parking Provision DM06: and supporting text plp number

Welcome reference to ‘Streets for All’ [para 12.37]. This and the messages it delivers 1189 (EH) however must also be extended so as to be explicitly referenced in DM06 Parking Standards

The term ‘appropriate scale and range of parking provision’ should be defined within 2667 the Local Plan, or at least an indication of what this might mean in practice.

Amend paragraph 12.51, to reflect the cycleway/footpath links provide by development 1599 will be commensurate with the development’s scale.

Table 3.12

Consideration of Issues Arising

3.42 No issues have been raised in response to this section which have implications for the soundness or legality of the Local Plan. The request for DM06 to refer explicitly to ‘Streets for All’ was previously considered in preparing the Publication Local Plan. Circumstances, including the evidenced position, have not altered to necessitate a review of the Local Plan in respect of this matter.

3.43 A supplementary Planning Document will be considered if required.

3.44 The text in paragraph 12.51 does allow for flexibility depending on the scale of the development.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: 3: Development Management Policies)

Conclusion

3.45 No changes are required to this policy.

Agreed Action

1. No change to Policy DM06: Parking Provision or the associated supporting text.

Comments made in response to Policy DM07: Historic Environment and paragraphs 12.53 – 12.56

Total Number of Responses 8

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 2 -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 2 2

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 3 -

Table 3.13

Summary of Issues

Historic Environment DM07: and supporting text plp number

The Authority supports the inclusion of this policy to provide for the conservation and 2355 (EPA) enhancement of heritage assets.

Support for approach taken in Policy DM07, which sets out how the Councils will 2483 consider proposals which affect heritage assets and their settings. It is encouraging to see that the policy takes a positive approach in this regard. This is consistent with para 126 of NPPF.

The policy is consistent with national planning policy. 1423

Support the recognition in Policy DM07 (2) that in instances where there is potential 1562 for harm to the heritage asset or its setting, this should be weighed in the balance against the benefits of the proposal

In situations where a heritage asset is lost or damaged there is a need for safeguards 220 (AONB) to be put in place to examine and record the asset similar to NDLP policy ENV14.

The current policy does not add much of additional value or amplify ST15. Yet DM 1191 (EH) 07, through addressing a number of key points, can provide a positive strategy for the historic environment and guide applicants and decision makers, but in its current form it is unsound. How will the decision maker make a decision where assets are on a local list or within a conservation area? Amplify these with detailed policies to address the particular issues likely to affect the management of its Conservation Areas and opportunities there may be to better reveal the significance these areas.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: Appendix Development Management Policies) 3:

We believe there should be policies on undesignated assets and that there is a clear opportunity in DM07 to do so, in accordance with para 139 NPPF. The approach to development within areas of archaeological importance may warrant a specific Policy within a Local Plan. Detailed Policies may be necessary in order to protect or enhance important views and vistas. Need detailed approach to development proposals affecting archaeological remains of less than national importance.

A systematic approach to the assessment of development affecting the setting of 2097 heritage assets is required, which would add to the positive management required by Policy ST15. As part of a systematic assessment consideration should be given to options for avoiding or reducing any harm, and providing enhancement.

There does not appear to be an accessible register of ‘locally listed buildings’, which 1600 should be available before the policy is introduced. An indication of the classifying criteria should also be provided.

Table 3.14

Consideration of Issues Arising

3.46 English Heritage has raised concerns on the soundness of DM07. These concerns are noted however it is considered that the current policy read in conjunction with the supporting text, does meet the requirements of the NPPF. References to a supplementary planning document to provide further guidance on the approach to identifying and protecting undesignated heritage assets have been added to the supporting text (paragraph 12.56) as well paragraph 6.15 The AONB concerns about safeguarding heritage assets are covered by the final sentence of policy 12.55.

3.47 It is accepted that settings should included important views and vistas

3.48 The Plan does take a systematic approach to the assessment of development affecting the setting of heritage. Paragraph 12.55 sets out this approach including mitigation measures.

3.49 The register of locally listed buildings, including information on the classifying criteria is available on North Devon Council’s website in the near future. Information for Torridge is available at: http://www.torridge.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=9335

Other Matters

3.50 An area of change which has been identified through the consultation comments and by officers is the need to include a reference to important vistas in this section,

3.51 The review of policy ST15: Conserving Heritage Assets has resulted in a revised version of criterion (2) being moved to Policy DM07, a further paragraph of supporting text to accompany the additional criteria. In addition, further text has been added to the end of paragraph 12.56 referring to a future supplementary planning document.

Conclusion

3.52 English heritage have raised soundness issues for this policy. It is considered that the policy and supporting text do meet the NPPF requirements. Commitment to a SPD will ensure that further detailed guidance will be provided.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: 3: Development Management Policies)

Agreed Action:

1. The following are agreed as Main Changes to Policy DM07:

a. Add an additional criterion to Policy DM07 to read: (3 ) Proposals to improve the energy efficiency of, or to generate renewable energy from, historic buildings or surrounding heritage assets will be supported where:

(a) there is no significant harm or degradation of historic fabric including traditional windows; and

(b) equivalent carbon dioxide emission savings cannot be achieved by alternative siting or design that would have a less severe impact on the integrity of heritage assets.

b. Add an additional paragraph to the supporting text to read: “A significant pressure is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by improving energy efficiency of historic buildings and generation of renewable energy on the roof or in curtilage of a listed building. Opportunities to address these issues within or surrounding heritage assets without harming their historic integrity will be supported, provided that opportunities for alternative design, siting and renewable energy technologies have been investigated to identify the proposals that would have least impact on the historic fabric and integrity of heritage assets. Details of alternatives investigated and any assessment of their relative impacts on heritage assets would need to be provided alongside any development proposals considered against Policy DM07(3). Traditional doors and windows that form an integral part of a heritage asset’s historic fabric should be safeguarded.”

2. The following are agreed as Minor Changes to Policy DM07:

a. Amend the final sentence of Paragraph 12.53 to read: “For this reason, there is a presumption in favour of preservation in-situ of heritage assets and their settings, including important views and vistas”.

Comments made in response to Policy DM08: Biodiversity and Geodiversity and paragraphs 12.57– 12.61

Total Number of Responses 34

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 3 2

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 4 6

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 4 -

Table 3.15

3.53 Summary of Issues

Biodiversity and Geodiversity DM08: and supporting text plp number

Support Policy DM08. 2456 (DWT)

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: Appendix Development Management Policies) 3:

This policy seeks to take the wording from National Policy which relates to specific 554, , 1449 designated areas and apply it throughout the Local Plan area.

DM08 goes beyond the requirement of paragraph 118 of the NPPF. No justification 962, 1427, for development to ‘contribute to a net gain’ in ‘biodiversity’ and ‘geodiversity 1449, 1563, 1609 2283, The aim should be to enhance biodiversity and geodiversity; this cannot be a 2087 requirement of this policy.

The policy should be amended to state that development will contribute to a net gain in biodiversity and geodiversity “where possible”.

Question whether or not Geodiversity can be enhanced, (protected yes) 1687, 1812, 1913, 2008

Policy DM08 is currently unsound; agree with the [mitigation] hierarchy in paragraph 2040 (NE) 12.58, however off-setting and compensation will not apply to statutory designations and protected species are subject to Natural England licensing procedures. The approach to priority habitats is contrary to NPPF paragraph 117 which promotes the preservation, restoration and recreation of priority habitats.

The policy only accounts for development proposals where there are overriding 2088, 2283 public interests to consider. It does not account for more normal circumstances where impacts on protected species can be mitigated. Thus, it ignores widely used methods, which enable development and biodiversity to co-exist successfully.

The spirit of the policy should be that development that would disturb or otherwise harm protected species or their habitats will only be permitted where the effects will be acceptably minimised through mitigation, careful design, work scheduling or other measures

This policy does not have regard to National Policy in NPPF paragraph 28. It is 817 too restrictive and therefore not justified.

Delete policy and replace with: "To support the rural economy economic development in the countryside and rural settlements will be permitted provided that significant harm is avoided to: - the living conditions of local residents - the environment, landscape or historic assets and particularly where the proposals are in support of agricultural, Horticultural or forestry sector proposals"

Paragraph 12.57 mentions proportionate protection. This is not clear in the wording 1828 of the policy itself, and as such the policy should be amended. The current wording confuses between harm to any ecological or geological value, and harm to protected species.

Paragraph 12.58 makes no suggestion for contribution to net gain or enhancement, 1610 only that adverse effects should be avoided.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: 3: Development Management Policies)

Paragraph 12.58 Supporting text states that DEFRA metric will be used. This 1464 requires reprovision of all habitat on a one for one basis which is not viable and goes beyond the provisions of national policy.

Advise caution about the use the DEFRA metric for measuring biodiversity gain and loss until the results of DEFRA's biodiversity offsetting pilot studies are published and the effectiveness of this metric is known. What are the 'adopted protocols'?

Inconsistency footnote reference for the Housing and Employment Study and the 962 actual publication date.

The 4th sentence in Paragraph 12.59 reading - " Critical environmental assets 754 such as ancient woodland and veteran trees cannot be relocated or replaced so must be retained and enhanced on site " This sentence should also reference 'ancient trees' in accordance with national policy as set out in the Government’s Forestry Policy Statement

Paragraph 12.59 -Ancient woodlands and veteran trees will age and might die. To 1611 state that they must be retained and enhanced on site’ is unachievable.

Table 3.16

Consideration of Issues Arising

3.54 Policy DM08 is a new policy, added to the Plan in response to comments received on the previous Local Plan consultation. This new policy is in addition to ST17 ‘Enhancing Environmental Assets’

3.55 The responses to this policy have raised a concern that the policy is not NPPF compliant because of the requirement for all development to contribute towards a net gain in biodiversity and geodiversity. This approach reflects paragraphs 109 and 118 of the NPPF, but it does omit the NPPF caveat ‘where possible’. The intention of this policy is for all development to contribute to an overall net gain for the districts. It is accepted that the addition of ‘where possible’ to the first sentence will provide clarity and flexibility to the Plan.

3.56 It is not necessary to amend DM08 to clarify that the policy will be managed in a way that is proportionate to the scale of development concerned as this is set out in paragraph 12.57. It is appropriate that this statement remains in the supporting text.

3.57 No change is needed in relation to the comment of not being able to enhance geodiversity as this is indeed possible e.g. through clearance or through providing education.

3.58 Natural England have raised two issues of soundness. The first relates to the use of the ‘mitigation hierarchy’ for protected species. This issue can be overcome by stating in paragraph 12.58 that the mitigation hierarchy approach will not apply to statutory designations and protected species (which are dealt with separately under paragraph 12.61). The second issue relates to policy DM08 meeting the necessary requirements of a specific bullet point in paragraph 117 of the NPPF. DM08, read in conjunction with policy ST14 does meet this requirement.

3.59 The mitigation hierarchy set out in paragraph 12.58 provides details on how to address adverse effects sequentially. It is not considered necessary to provide more information on how to protect and enhance biodiversity.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: Appendix Development Management Policies) 3:

3.60 Several comments have been made on paragraph 12.59. It states that the DEFRA Metric will be used to assess the extent of any net gain. It is, at the current time, still a draft document, with consideration of pilot schemes still underway. The text will need to make it clear that it is not a formally adopted approach. The viability of using the DEFRA metric, as referred to paragraph 12.59 may raise issues when considered alongside all the other requirements of the Plan. The main change outlined above of inserting ‘where possible’ into the policy will overcome this issue.

3.61 In addition, concern is raised regarding the reference to ancient woodland in 12.59. This paragraph is consistent with paragraph 118 NPPF as ancient woodland is considered as an irreplaceable habitat. It is not necessary to specifically refer to ancient woodland in DM08. Ancient woodland and veteran trees are referred to in paragraph 12.59 as examples of ‘critical environmental assets’ and should not be singled out for inclusion. As examples, there is not a need to add ‘ancient trees’ into the final sentence.

3.62 The concern that this policy does not positively set out how mitigation might be dealt with in accordance with NPPF is unfounded as this is covered in paragraph 12.60.

3.63 DM08 does meet the requirements of paragraph 28 of the NPPF as it does not prohibit economic growth in rural areas; it is ensuring that biodiversity and geodiversity issues are taken into consideration.

Conclusion

3.64 The responses to this new policy have raised the issue of policy DM08 not providing flexibility through omitting the caveat ‘where possible’ at the end of the first sentence, and this could undermine the soundness of the Plan. Several minor issues of clarification have also been raised, which are not considered a risk to the Local Plan

Agreed Actions

1. The following are agreed as Main Changes to Policy DM08 and supporting text: a. Amend the first sentence of DM08 as follows: Development will contribute towards a net gain in biodiversity and geodiversity, where possible, including enhancing sites with ecological value whether or not they are formally protected, b. State in paragraph 12.58 that the mitigation hierarchy approach will not apply to statutory designations and protected species (which are dealt with separately under paragraph 12.61).

2. The following are agreed as Minor Changes to Policy DM08 and supporting text a. Amend footnote 60 to refer to subsequent revisions of the DEFRA metric. b. Amend paragraph 12.59 to read: The DEFRA efra metric(148)will be used to assess the extent of any net gain and acceptability of developments having an impact on biodiversity. Biodiversity assets should be retained or enhanced on site where feasible. Alternatively, a ‘biodiversity offsetting’ approach may be supported where net gains in biodiversity are delivered in accordance with DEFRA metric proposals (when adopted). adopted protocols . Critical environmental assets such as ancient woodland and veteran trees cannot be relocated or replaced so must be retained and enhanced on site c. In paragraph 12.61 amend the final sentence to read: “Adverse impacts on protected species (see Glossary) will only be supported in exceptional circumstances of imperative reasons of overriding public interest.”

148 Technical Paper: The metric for the biodiversity offsetting pilot in England, DEFRA efra (2012) or subsequent revisions

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: 3: Development Management Policies)

Comments made in response to Policy DM09: Safeguarding Green Infrastructure and paragraphs 12.62 - 64

Total Number of Responses 14

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 1 -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 1 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1 -

Table 3.17

Summary of Issues

Safeguarding Green Infrastructure and supporting text plp number

Welcome Policy DM09 regarding green infrastructure. 2042 (NE)

Supportive of Policies DM09 and DM10 and support for the reference to SUDS use 934 (EA) in open space in paragraph 12.66

The Local Plan should have a safeguarding policy for existing open space, sports 1023 (SE) and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields that reflects NPPF paragraph 74. Policy DM09 does not reflect the NPPF and includes the vague statement on ‘enhancement through redevelopment of a small part of the site’. What constitutes ‘small part of the site’?

Policy DM09 (b): will result in an incremental loss of open space leading to a potential 1203 large overall loss of open space which can not be replaced.

Define green infrastructure as itemised in paragraph 12.62 [informal/formal open 1614 space including playing fields, allotments, parks, playgrounds a d cemeteries].

Consider that policies DM09 and DM10 could be usefully combined. Support general 1689, 1813, principle but consider that strict adherence to standards can lead to less than optimal 1831, 1914, outcomes. Identify inconsistency between Council views (para 12.67 - 12.69) and 2009 policy approach.

Part (a) could conflict with intended use of the Defra metric. 2458

Paragraph 12.62 - In order to protect open space, there should be designation of 1240 individual open spaces included in the Plan.

Paragraph 12.64 Provisions relating to biodiversity should be dealt with under Policy 12.64 DM08.

Table 3.18

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: Appendix Development Management Policies) 3:

Consideration of Issues Arising

3.65 The approach taken in the Plan is to not designate individual sites as open space; sites will be assessed on a site by site basis, providing more flexibility and ensuring the policy applies to all open spaces.

3.66 Concern that the criterion a) could be in conflict with the DEFRA Metric is unfounded as the DEFRA metric relates only to biodiversity.

3.67 Open space standards are a requirement of the NPPF (paragraph 73). The criteria based approach to DM09 provides an element of flexibility on how developers can address the loss of GI and not have a “a less than optimal outcome” Criterion b) will not result in an incremental loss of open space as suggested as it requires the GI network to be “retained of enhanced”, as explained in paragraphs 12.62 – 12.63.

3.68 Sport England have raised concerns on the soundness of the policy as it does not strictly follow paragraph 74 of the NPPF. The councils have written a Green Infrastructure Strategy and this has flagged up that there are very few settlements with an existing surplus, and this is expected to decrease further with the planned growth set out in the Plan. This should be clarified in the supporting text.

3.69 The question on what constitutes a ‘small part of the site’ does not need to be explained further in the policy as it is relevant to both the size of the site and what GI is being provided.

3.70 The point on inconsistency between paragraphs 12.67 - 69 and policy DM09 is not founded as DM09 relates to safeguarding green infrastructure and the paragraphs are considering new development.

Other Matters

3.71 To provide clarity to Policy DM09, the additional text “in either case” should be added after criterion b).

3.72 The publication draft of the Local Plan uses the Town and Country Planning (Biodiversity Green Infrastructure) in the Glossary. To be consistent with the government guidance, this definition should be updated to the NPPG definition, which refers to open space as a type of green infrastructure.

3.73 As a consequence of the previous Local Plan consultation, paragraph 12.64 was added for clarification on the requirement of a net gain in biodiversity. This is in addition to the references in DM08 and supporting text.

Conclusion

3.74 Both major and minor changes to Policy DM09 and supporting text have been agreed to provide clarity and consistency.

Agreed Actions

1. The following is agreed as a Main Change to policy DM09: a. Amend Policy DM09 to read: Development involving the loss of green infrastructure including public open space will only be permitted supported where:

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: 3: Development Management Policies)

(a) alternative green infrastructure is provided of at least equivalent size, quality and accessibility to that being lost; or

(b) the green infrastructure network in the locality can be retained or enhanced through redevelopment of a small part of the site; and in either case

(c) there is no net loss in sustainable travel options.

2. The following are agreed as Minor Changes:

a. Amend paragraph 12.62 to read: “However there is a general deficiency of open space, including more formal open space. provision throughout northern Devon in relation to identified open space standards”

b. Amend paragraph 12.63 to read “There is not a surplus of the vast majority of different types of green infrastructure against the adopted standards at the start of the Plan period; further growth will further reduce any surplus. The L loss of public open space will only be acceptable where development provides alternative provision that is of at least equal size, quality, accessibility, usefulness and attractiveness to that being lost. The partial loss of an area of open space may be acceptable where it improves the quality, accessibility and viability of an existing facility. Such improvements could include additional facilities such as a clubhouse/changing rooms, seating area, play equipment or car parking.”

Comments made in response to Policy DM10: Green Infrastructure Provision and paragraphs 12.65 – 12.71

Total Number of Responses 9

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” - 1

Table 3.19

Summary of Issues

Green Infrastructure Provision: and supporting text plp number

Supportive of Policies DM09 and DM10 and support for the reference to SUDS use 935 (EA) in open space in paragraph 12.66.

Consider that policies DM09 and DM10 could be usefully combined. Support general 1691, 1814, principle but consider that strict adherence to standards can lead to less than optimal 1915, 2010 outcomes. Identify inconsistency between Council views (para 12.67 - 12.69) and policy approach.

Welcome Policy DM10 regarding green infrastructure, but consider other ANGSt 2043 (NE) criteria.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: Appendix Development Management Policies) 3:

One further uncertainty in the Councils' viability assessments is the relationship 2542 (HBF) between gross to net site areas with particular reference to the requirements of Policy DM10 and / or proposals for sustainable urban drainage systems. One error that has a very large impact on the outcome of viability testing is overlooking the distinction between the gross site area and the net developable area. The net area can account for less than half of the site to be acquired taking into account on-site requirements such as formal and informal open space, sustainable urban drainage systems, community facilities and strategic on site infrastructure. The Council should provide further information on this matter especially if the benchmark land value is based on a price per gross hectare and the residual land value is a figure for the net developable area as the cost of the land in the comparison will have been underestimated.

Paragraph 12.65 - The on site requirement, integral to the development, is not set 1616 out in the Green Infrastructure Strategy, which sets out requirements for provision on-site according to the size of the development. Amend to accord with the evidence base.

Paragraph 12.69 - In some circumstances small non multi-functional would be 1617 appropriate – such as a dedicated play area. Detailed comments are also provided on the Green Infrastructure Strategy, focused on thresholds and standards.

The policy text refers to ‘the open space standard’. We would welcome clarification 2668 on what this is, presumably the 2004 SPG.

Table 3.20

Consideration of Issues Arising

3.75 The comments raised on merging DM09 and DM10 and the consistency of paragraphs 12.67 -12.69 are considered as part of the representations to DM09.

3.76 The approach of having opens space standards is set out in the NPPF. Responses have been received to this consultation which raise concerns about viability in the delivery of green infrastructure. Ensuring adequate GI is essential to delivering the spatial planning vision of the Plan. Concerns regarding the gross and net deliverable areas should be addressed through the Viability Assessment for the Plan.

3.77 The point has been made that all of the Angst criteria() should be used in the DM10; paragraph 12.70 sets out that the Councils will have regard to Natural England’s accessible natural greenspace standards (ANGST) and Woodland Trust access standards.

3.78 Paragraph 12.69 states that small parcels of open space will not be supported if they are not multifunctional. This ensures that all opens spaces are contributing to the local environment and do not end up being ‘spare pieces’ of land e.g. a small grassed area. The Green Infrastructure Study is part of the evidence base and has been used to inform the Local Plan policies. The concerns raised regarding the details in the GI Study are very detailed queries on the report and are not relevant to policy DM10 and supporting text.

3.79 The question of where the open standards are taken from is referenced in footnote 61 – ‘Green Infrastructure Strategy for North Devon and Torridge District Councils 2013 – 2031’

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: 3: Development Management Policies)

Other Matters

3.80 An area of change has been identified by officers in respect of providing definitions for amenity and natural green space. These definitions should be added to the glossary. The sought amendment is considered to be beneficial to the use of the Plan.

Conclusion

3.81 One comment was received to this section relating to the Local Plans soundness. This concerns viability and should be considered as part of the Local Plan viability assessment.

Agreed Action

No changes to the Local Plan are necessary in response to the issues raised through the consultation.

Comments made in response to Policy DM11: Planning Enforcement and paragraphs 12.72 – 12.74

Total Number of Responses 5

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1 -

Table 3.21

Summary of Issues

Planning Enforcement and supporting text plp number

An enforcement policy is not a matter for the Local Plan. 555, 1618,

Policy appears to be no more than a statement of duties. 1815, 1916, 2012

Table 3.22

Consideration of Issues Arising

3.82 As a consequence of an amendment made from the draft to the Publication Local Plan, several comments have been received in respect of DM11. All the comments refer to DM11 not being an appropriate policy for the Local Plan. It is recognised that an Enforcement Plan could be written outside of the Local Plan Process. The purpose of retaining the policy is to reflect the statutory requirements of the local planning authorities.

Conclusion

3.83 The inclusion of this policy does not raise any soundness issues.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: Appendix Development Management Policies) 3:

Agreed Action:

No changes to the Local Plan are necessary in response to the issues raised through the consultation.

Development Management Policies – Enabling a Vibrant Economy

Comments made in response to Policy DM12: Employment Development at Towns and Villages and paragraphs 12.75 – 12.80

Total Number of Responses 14

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 2 2

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 3 3

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 2 -

Table 3.23

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy DM12: Employment Development at Towns and Villages and plp number supporting text

Support as allows flexibility to meet changing market demand. 556

Policy is considered sound to comply with national policy and guidance. Support the 2320, 2470 approach of enabling new economic development on existing employment sites.

Support is given to the content and intent of this policy. There is significant overlap 1692, 1816, and repetition between DM12, DM13, DM14, DM15 and ST11. 1917, 2014

Within the designated AONB employment development should be confined to sites 221 within the development boundary so that the primary purpose of the designation is adhered to. Suggest the addition of ‘and protected landscapes’ after ‘landscape character’.

Major development in Protected Landscapes should be exceptional and in the public 2044 (NE) interest and with no alternative site available, taking into account the cost of meeting the need elsewhere and with no harm to the landscape. Note: case law defines “major” as any development with the potential for adverse harm to a protected landscape

Objection to Policy DM12 (c): delete ‘undue’ to avoid employment development 1206 adversely affecting residential amenity.

This policy does not positively support economic growth in rural areas and does not 797, 818, comply with NPPF paragraph 28. The policy seeks to constrain economic 1451 development within development boundaries or within the principle built form of local centres and villages.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: 3: Development Management Policies)

This does not take into account the nature of rural areas and the need to support economic growth for all types of business throughout rural areas as expressed by NPPF paragraph 28.

(d) is unnecessarily restrictive and does not accord with NPPF paragraph 34.

Allow development to meet market demands, in all parishes, not only identified 1619 settlements.

Table 3.24

Consideration of Issues Arising

3.84 No issues have been raised which are considered to affect the soundness of the Plan.

3.85 Comment is made that both policy DM12 and DM14 are too restrictive in terms of not supporting economic growth in the rural areas of the districts. Criterion (b) allows for new employment sites to be permitted (subject to the listed requirements) outside of the settlement boundary providing sufficient flexibility to accord with paragraph 28 of the NPPF, and maintain the spatial strategy set out in chapter 4 of the Plan. Issues relating to employment in the rural areas are considered under policy DM14.

3.86 It is not accepted that there is unnecessary overlap between ST11 (delivering employment and economic development) and policies DM12 - 15. ST11 sets out the overarching strategy for the Councils; DM12-15 provides the details of how the strategy will be implemented for development management purposes.

3.87 Representations have been made to add references to the AONB and ‘protected landscapes’ in criterion (c). This policy is concerned with the impact of development on all landscapes, not just those which have specific designations. As protected landscapes are covered in policy ST14: Enhancing Environmental Assets, it is not considered that they need to be mentioned specifically in DM12. However, to provide clarity, it is recommended that the supporting text in paragraph 12.78 cross references to ST14.

3.88 A respondent seeks the removal of ‘undue’ from criterion (c) due to concerns that this will allow for employment development which will adversely affect residential amenity. This is not the intention of the policy, nor how the policy reads. Therefore no change is recommended.

3.89 The point that criterion (d) is unnecessarily restrictive and does not accord with NPPF paragraph 34 is unfounded. Paragraph 34 of the NPPF states: “Plans and decisions should ensure developments that generate significant movement are located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised. However this needs to take account of policies set out elsewhere in this Framework, particularly in rural areas.” DM12 does comply with this policy.

Other Matters

3.90 In paragraph 12.78 “Council’s” should be corrected to “Councils” for accuracy.

Conclusion

3.91 Several issues were raised through representations received, but none are considered to threaten the soundness of the Local Plan. However, minor amendments are required to clarify wording and intentions of a particular paragraph or the strategy

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: Appendix Development Management Policies) 3:

Agreed Actions:

1. The following Main Changes are agreed to Policy DM12

a. Delete criterion (1) as not required b. Change ‘permitted’ to ‘supported in first line of DM12 to provide consistency across the Plan

2. The following are agreed as Minor Changes to policy DM12 and the supporting text:

a. Amend paragraph 12.78 to refer to policy ST14. b. Correct paragraph 12.78 from “Council’s” to “Councils”.

Comments made in response to Policy DM13: Safeguarding Employment Land and paragraphs 12.81 – 12.86

Total Number of Responses 13

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 1 3

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 2 4

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 3 -

Table 3.25

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy DM13: Safeguarding Employment Land and supporting text plp number

Objects to policy. Policy would work if employment land supply was correct. Instead, 545 land will be lying vacant. Amend the policy to allow for alternative uses if it can be clearly shown there is no realistic prospect for employment uses.`

Policy seeks to prevent the use of employment land rather than positively seek its 557, 819, sustainable development and reuse. 1620

Concern at the need for appropriate marketing as can harm the commercial viability of a company and can cause delays in responding to market demand. If the evidence supports a time period it should be included here so that the Policy complies with NPPF paragraph 154.

Flexibility is required to allow for the redevelopment of sites with historic employment 1207 uses that detrimentally affect the amenity of adjoining existing uses. Enabling the continuation of such conditions is contrary to the aims of sustainable development.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: 3: Development Management Policies)

Applications should be treated on their merits if there is no prospect of employment 1543 use being achieved having regard to market signals and the relative need for alternative uses to support sustainable communities. Policy DM13 prevents the use of employment land rather than positivity seeking sustainable development/reuse.

Concern at the need for marketing prior to enabling the alternative use of employment 819 sites, which could result in harm in responding to market demand. A more flexible and market responsive position is sought, which would not always require a sequential test or 12 month marketing period.

Paragraph 51 of the NPPF recommends that a LPA should normally approve planning applications for change to residential use and any associated development from commercial buildings (currently in the B use classes.

Support general content and intent of policy but consider there to be significant 1694, 1817, overlap and repetition between DM12, DM13, DM14, DM15 and ST11 and that 1918, 2015 rationalisation would lead to clearer policy. Consider clause should be inserted into DM13 to avoid retention of non-conforming employment uses where there may be adverse impacts on amenity of adjoining occupiers.

The wording of the policy is unclear as to what the test would be required to 2321 demonstrate; whether there are alternative sites that could be used for a proposed development, or whether the site in question has to run through the listed types of development (employment, mixed-use, non-employment) before any development can take place. This would ensure the policy is as positively prepared as possible.

Policy considered to accord with paragraph 21 of NPPF and other national policy / 2471 guidance subject to minor amendment. Seek provision of clarity and certainty within policy as to scope of sequential test, considering the existing wording to be unclear - should alternative sites be tested, or the particular site be tested for listed types of development?

Whilst we acknowledge that Policy DM13 does allow for some flexibility with regards 2685 to non employment uses on employment sites, we are concerned that this policy may be inappropriately applied in respect of holiday parks. Whilst holiday parks do employ people these are in the main low skilled and seasonal workers and therefore in the event that an alternative non-employment use is proposed this policy should be appropriately and proportionally applied. We encourage the Councils to further consider this policy to allow non-employment use to protect, enhance and preserve current and potential employment sites through cross-subsidising with non employment uses, including residential development. We would ask that the Councils consider the wording and inclusion of paragraph 22 of the NPPF. Employment land has not been designated in perpetuity. Therefore, if suitable and more practical uses are available we suggest that the Councils our proactive in allowing are more suitable use to come forward.

Table 3.26

Consideration of Issues Arising

3.92 DM13 sets out the councils’ approach to safeguarding existing employment land, in accordance with the spatial strategy for the districts.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: Appendix Development Management Policies) 3:

3.93 Respondents have suggested that the policy could be made clearer in terms of whether applicants need to meet all four of the criteria listed. It is acknowledged that the wording of the policy needs to be clarified, and therefore a main change is recommended to reword the policy.

3.94 Several comments have been received relating to the need for the policy to avoid the retention of non-conforming employment uses where there may be adverse impacts on amenity of adjoining occupiers. This is the intention of criterion (d), however it is acknowledge that it could be reworded to make this clear and this change is recommended.

3.95 Representations have raised concerns that the policy prevents the developers positively seeking the reuse of employment land. This is not the intention of the policy. DM13 has been structured in order to comply with the guidance set out in the NPPF, in particular paragraph 22. Conditions (a) – (d) of DM13 set out the terms under which existing employment land/buildings can change to other uses, whilst ensuring the spatial strategy for districts is followed. The criteria-based approach set out in DM13 ensures that the policy is also in conformity with paragraph 51 of the NPPF; paragraph 12.82 emphasises this approach.

3.96 One comment has been submitted suggesting the need to include paragraph 22 of the NPPF in the policy. Local Plans should not include the text of the NPPF. Policy DM13 currently reflects the NPPF (para 22). DM13 is also in conformity with paragraph 51 of the NPPF.

3.97 One representation is concerned that the policy will not work in practice as the employment land supply for the Plan is incorrect, resulting in vacant employment land. Members will be aware that the further work is currently being undertaken on the employment land supply required for the Plan and this work will be reported to the Joint Working Group in the near future. This representation does raise the overall soundness issue for the Plan of ensuring that there is a balanced approach to the allocation of housing and employment over the Plan period. The NPPF is clear that employment land cannot be allocated and then remain vacant for several years.

3.98 A requirement for ‘appropriate marketing’ in condition (b) is a reasonable proposition, which represents a standard employment policy procedure that does not conflict with the NPPF. It is a legitimate request for developers and therefore potential removal of (b) is not accepted. It is a means for assessing development proposals for non-employment uses which seeks to safeguard a range of suitable and available sites and buildings for employment in the plan area.

3.99 Concern has been raised that policy DM13 will apply to holiday parks. It is not the intention that this policy applies to holiday parks; proposals for redevelopment of this use would be considered against other relevant policies.

Conclusion

3.100 The comments in response to the draft Local Plan policy DM13 are considered not to raise any issues that challenge the soundness of the Local Plan. A main change to policy DM13 is proposed which is considered appropriate in the interest of adding clarity to the policy.

Agreed Action

1. The following is agreed as a Main Change to Policy DM13: a. amend Policy DM13 to read: In order to maintain a range of suitable and available sites and buildings for employment, non-employment development uses will not be permitted supported on allocated sites or in buildings previously used for employment or in buildings currently used for employment unless:

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: 3: Development Management Policies)

(a) there is sufficient quality and quantity of employment sites available in the local area to provide opportunities for local employment uses; or

(b) it can be demonstrated through appropriate marketing that the site no longer provides a realistic prospect for employment uses; or

(c) the existing use is causing harm to surrounding uses and the new use will not cause harm for the existing neighbouring uses; and in all cases

( d c ) a sequential test has been applied to the for redevelopment of the site based on the following order of preference:

(i) employment based redevelopment;

(ii) mixed use including employment generating redevelopment;

(iii) non-employment generating redevelopment . ; a nd

(d) existing neighbouring uses are not restricted by long standing employment uses or the introduction of new uses and the new use will not be harmed by the existing neighbouring uses.

Comments made in response to Policy DM14: Rural Economy and paragraphs 12.87 – 12.91

Total Number of Responses 12

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 1 3

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - 6

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 2 -

Table 3.27

Summary of Issues

Comments on DM14: Rural economy and supporting text plp number

The policy is much more restrictive and therefore not justified in terms of NPPF (para 798 (LEP), 28). There is a need to be flexible with rural diversification and to demonstrate clear 969 encouragement for micro entrepreneurs and to enable these businesses to grow without having to move to an urban location.

NPPF paragraph 28 provides support for sustainable economic growth and business 1454 expansion including sustainable rural tourism and leisure. The proposed policy is too restrictive, an alternative is proposed that would support tourist/visitor facilities and local services and community facilities.

Unnecessarily restrictive applying as it does to re-use of existing structures. Propose 989 amendment to Part (a) to append '...where available'.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: Appendix Development Management Policies) 3:

Policy should allow for new buildings where appropriate. Delete DM 14 (c) 558

Explicit reference should be made to historic assets and their settings at point F. 1194 (EH)

This approach is not followed through within the wording of the policy itself which 1431 restricts economic development in the countryside to that which has a strong functional link to local agriculture, forestry or other existing rural activity. This would rule out converting a rural building, or group of buildings, for use as offices for professional businesses and could even be interpreted to mean that tourism related developments are not acceptable. Therefore, in its current form this policy effectively precludes the introduction of new types of businesses in the countryside; an approach which will stifle the diversification and growth of the rural economy. Also concerned to see that the policy seeks to restrict employment development in the countryside to sites or in buildings that adjoin or are well related to a defined settlement. This effectively rules out the conversion of the majority of northern Devon’s rural buildings to employment related uses simply because they are not well related to defined settlements.

Policy DM14 is too restrictive, allow new buildings to support business development 1621 including live/work units.

Replace DM 14 (c) with “sites or buildings adjoining or well related to existing dwellings which will be linked to the business”. Allow for home working.

Support general content and intent of policy but consider there to be significant overlap 1695, and repetition between DM12, DM13, DM14, DM15 and ST11 and that rationalisation 1818, 1919 would lead to clearer policy. Consider clause should be inserted into DM13 to avoid retention of non-conforming employment uses where there may be adverse impacts on amenity of adjoining occupiers.

We would favour a clause to this effect to be inserted into policy DM13.

Table 3.28

Consideration of Issues Arising

3.101 Concern has been raised that both policy DM12 and DM14 are too restrictive in terms of not supporting economic growth in the rural areas of the districts and therefore do comply with Paragraph 28 of the NPPF. Section 4 of the Local Plan sets out the spatial strategy for the districts, based on the NPPF’s sustainable development principles. Paragraph 12.89 provides a link to the spatial strategy of the local plan for which any potential proposals need to be consistent with when considering economic development in the countryside.

3.102 To ensure that a spatial strategy is complied with across the rural areas of the districts, delivering sustainable economic growth is a key factor. The provisions of DM14 will not necessarily restrict new types of business activity as suggested, where proposals are consistent with the spatial strategy in terms of location. Policy DM14 does allow for new developments which are considered to be in a sustainable location.

3.103 It is acknowledged that the first part of the policy needs to be amended to make it clear that proposals only need to meet one of the criteria a to c. This will allow for the small scale development of employment uses (including offices), where criteria (d) to (f) can all be met.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: 3: Development Management Policies)

3.104 One representation has raised the need to also refer to supporting tourisms facilities and local services and community facilities. Tourism proposals will be assessed against policies DM17 or DM18; and community and local services are covered by policy ST22. Cross reference is not considered necessary.

3.105 Proposals for live-work units will be assessed against a wider suite of local plan policies, depending upon individual circumstances, including housing and spatial strategy.

3.106 English Heritage have commented that explicit reference should be made to historic assets and their setting at criterion (f); this text is already included in the policy.

Conclusion

3.107 The comments made in response to Policy DM14 do not raise issues that are considered to challenge the soundness of the Local Plan. However they have raised issues relating to the interpretation of DM14. Therefore it is agreed to amend the wording to make it clear that only one of the criteria listed (a) to (c) needs to be met. In addition, change ‘permitted’ to ‘supported in criterion (1) of DM14 to provide consistency across the Plan

Agreed Action

1. The following rewording of Policy DM14 is agreed as a Main Change:

1) To support the rural economy, new small scale economic development in the countryside will be permitted supported on the following basis:

(a) change of use or conversion of a permanent and soundly constructed building; or

(b) sites or buildings adjoining or well related to a defined settlement; and or

(c) T the proposed employment use has a strong functional link to local agriculture, forestry or other existing rural activity;

2. The following is agreed as a Minor Changes:

a. Amend paragraph 12.87 to read: “Small scale economic development is needed to promote employment diversification and reduce commuting. A range of employment activities, particularly associated with tourism, recreation and rural diversification can be accommodated in countryside locations without adverse effects on the character of the rural area. Proposals relating specifically to farm diversification will be considered against Policy DM15.”

Comments made in response to Policy DM15: Farm Diversification and paragraphs 12.92 – 12.96

Total Number of Responses 9

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - 2

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: Appendix Development Management Policies) 3:

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” - -

Table 3.29

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy DM15: Farm Diversification and supporting text plp number

Policy DM15 is generally supported. A further provision is required similar to that 222 (AONB) included in paragraph (f) of DM14 to draw attention to the need to preserve the special qualities of the AONB and other protected landscapes.

Policy amendment to give further protection of areas within or providing the setting 2045 (NE) to protected landscapes be adverse impacts on amenity of adjoining occupiers. Need to include the following text: ‘Proposals must conserve and enhance the character and qualities of the landscape and the setting of any affected settlement or protected landscape and include effective mitigation measures to avoid adverse effects or minimise them to acceptable levels.’

The policy does not comply with NPPF (para 28) or with the revised GPDO which 800, 821, allows the conversion of former agricultural buildings, it is therefore not justified or 1455 compliant with National Policy.

Support is given to the general content and intent of these policies. However there 1697, 1819, is significant overlap and repetition between this policy, DM12, DM13, DM14 and 1920, 2018 ST11 which with some rationalisation would make a clearer policy framework.

Table 3.30

Consideration of Issues Arising

3.108 The focus of Policy DM15 is to support the agricultural sector by allowing new development as part of farm diversification schemes. Therefore the comments made that this policy is not justified, as the revised GDPO allows the conversion of former agricultural buildings, are not relevant. This is a positive policy which complies with paragraph 28 of the NPPF; especially the second bullet point which states that local plans should “promote the development and diversification of agriculture and other land based rural businesses.”

3.109 The representation regarding the need to make reference to protected landscapes is noted. It is agreed that Criterion (c) is updated to reflect the importance of special landscapes in the districts; this will apply more widely than just sites located in the AONB and/or protected sites. Issues relating to the need to mitigate new developments to avoid adverse effects are covered in other policies in the Local Plan.

Conclusion

3.110 Several issues were raised through representations received, but none are considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan. However, minor amendments are required to clarify wording and intentions of the policy or the strategy.

Agreed Action

1. The following is agreed as a Main Change to Policy DM15:

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: 3: Development Management Policies)

a. Amend policy DM15: (c) any new buildings are sited close to existing buildings and can be satisfactorily assimilated into the surrounding countryside having regard to form, bulk, design, landform, and landscaping, special landscape qualities and landscaping character.

Comments made in response to Policy DM16: Equine Development and paragraphs 12.97 – 12.99

Total Number of Responses 6

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - 2

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - 3

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1 -

Table 3.31

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy DM16: Equine Development and supporting text plp number

Policy amendment to give further protection of areas within or providing the setting 2046 (NE) to protected landscapes.

Policy DM16 is generally supported. A further provision is required similar to that 223 included in paragraph f of DM14 to draw attention to the need to preserve the special qualities of the AONB and other protected landscapes.

Flexibility is required in respect of rural diversification opportunities, allow for small 801 (LEP) business growth in the rural area, including equine related development. Delete Policy DM16.

This policy, which does not comply with NPPF paragraph 28, seeks to restrict equine 822, 1458, related development, it differentiates this type of business from others without 560 evidence.

Table 3.32

Consideration of Issues Arising

3.111 Both Councils receive enquiries relating to equine development on a regular basis and it is considered that these developments can have a significantly negative impact on the rural area if not managed in an appropriate way. Therefore it is considered necessary to retain a specific policy relating to this activity

Other Matters

3.112 It is acknowledged that as with all development in the countryside, equine development should have regard to protected landscapes, as set out in policy ST14. Therefore it is not considered necessary to add this detail to the policy. However, it is agreed that a minor change is made to paragraph 12.98 is amended to refer to the special character of the landscape.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: Appendix Development Management Policies) 3:

Conclusion

3.113 No issues of soundness have been raised through representations received. For clarity it is recommend one minor change to paragraph 12.98

Agreed Actions

1. No Main Changes to Policy DM16 2. The following is agreed as Minor Change; a. Amend the third sentence of Paragraph 12.98 to read: New buildings will be required to be designed and located to minimise impact taking into account local landscape character and special landscape qualities.

Comments made in response to Policy DM17: Tourism and Leisure Attractions and paragraphs 12.100 – 12.102

Total Number of Responses 11

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - 4

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 3 6

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” - -

Table 3.33

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy DM17: Tourism and Leisure Attractions and supporting text plp number

Support 1195 (EH)

Support is given for Policy DM17 as it will facilitate high quality tourism development. 973, 1011 Year round tourism attractions should be encouraged and supported. It accords with national policy and guidance.

To be consistent with other policies and to comply with LPA duties under the CROW 224 Act Section 82, a further consideration is required at (1)(b): iii) landscape character and the special qualities of designated landscapes attractions) may in some circumstances be appropriate and acceptable when such development may unlock potential (investment) of the tourism site or nearby sites, within the same ownership. On this basis we consider that policy DM17 is not sound as it is not sufficiently flexible enough to deal with potential change in circumstances.

DM17e needs amending to be consistent with other policies. It should be amended 225 to similar to that included in paragraph (f) of DM14 to draw attention to the need to preserve the special qualities of the AONB and other protected landscapes.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: 3: Development Management Policies)

Policy amendment to give further protection of areas within or providing the setting 2047 (NE) to protected landscapes.

Tourism acknowledged to be important part of the economy but policy seeks to 561, 824, restrict such development. Not compliant with NPPF paragraph 28. 1459

Allow tourism development in locations other than adjacent to defined settlements. 1622

Overall, we support the emphasis of this Policy. However, it fails to recognise that 2682 a partial or complete rationalisation of accommodation (facilities or attractions) may in some circumstances be appropriate and acceptable when such development may unlock potential (investment) of the tourism site or nearby sites, within the same ownership. On this basis we consider that policy DM17 is not sound as it is not sufficiently flexible enough to deal with potential change in circumstances.

Table 3.34

Consideration of Issues Arising

3.114 A range of comments have been raised on this policy. Concern had been raised regarding the need for the policy to clearly address the needs of existing tourism, visitor and leisure facilities. Although this is not a soundness issue, it is agreed to amend the policy to address this omission to ensure that the Plan is clear on the approach to such applications.

3.115 Representations have been made which raise concerns that the policy seeks to restrict tourism and therefore it is contrary to paragraph 28 of the NPPF. This is not justified as paragraph 28 states that planning policies should support sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments that benefit business in rural areas in ‘appropriate locations’. The policy does allow tourism development outside of the development boundaries, both adjacent too and in the countryside, with the criteria clarifying where proposals will be supported.

3.116 It is not necessary to include the need to preserve the special qualities of the AONB and other protected landscapes as environmental assets and policy ST14 are referenced in paragraph 12.102.

3.117 The policy refers to new and expansion of existing attractions but does not give a policy steer for rationalisation of existing facilities. It is accepted that clarification could be provided within this policy.

Conclusion

3.118 No issues of soundness have been raised through representations received. For clarity it is recommend one main change is made to Policy DM17.

Agreed Actions

1. The following is agreed as a Main Changes to policy DM17 and supporting text:

a. Amend Criterion (1) to read: (1) Development of new , and expansion or rationalisation of existing tourism, visitor or leisure facilities will be supported within or adjacent to defined settlements where:

(a) the scale of the proposal is appropriate to the size of the settlement; and

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: Appendix Development Management Policies) 3:

(b) there will not be an unacceptable impact upon: (i) the local road network; or nor (ii) identified environmental and heritage assets . ; and (c) any rationalisation would facilitate the retention or improvement of the remaining tourism, visitor or leisure facilities. b. Amend Policy DM17 (e) to to read: environmental and heritage assets are not subject to significant harm, are conserved or enhanced, including with particular respect to the setting and special qualities of nationally important landscapes, biodiversity and heritage designations.

2. The following is agreed as a minor change b. Add an additional sentence at the end of paragraph DM17 to read: Where rationalisation is proposed it will be expected to secure the improvement of the remaining facilities.

Comments made in response to Policy DM18: Tourism Accommodations and paragraphs 12.103– 12.106

Total Number of Responses 14

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - 2

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 2 4 Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1 -

Table 3.35

Summary of Issues

Comments on DM18: Tourism Accommodations and supporting text plp number

Support Policy 1197 (EH)

Paragraph 12.104 - The Authority supports the inclusion of this policy to provide for 2356 the conservation and enhancement of heritage assets. (ENPA)

This policy is insufficiently flexible to support the re-use of previously developed sites 203, 1406 like Venn Quarry for high quality tourism accommodation. It is inconsistent and ineffective in delivering the wider strategic objectives of the Local Plan and national policy in relation to economic growth and sustainable development. An addition to the policy is suggested:

DM18 (2) (d) is on a previously developed site and includes environmental enhancement;

DM18 (3)The words ‘will be supported where’ are missing. The last part of the sentence 226 (referring to enhancement throughout a year) needs clarification.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: 3: Development Management Policies)

Support is given for Policy DM18 as this will allow the expansion and diversification 976, 1012 of the accommodation available for tourists. Clarification is sought on how the policy will be interpreted as any new build could be argued to improve the quality or diversity of the tourism offer by the virtue of it being ‘new’ and therefore better quality.

Tourism is recognised as an important part of the northern Devon economy; Policy 1461, 825 DM18 seeks to restrict such development, it is therefore not compliant with NPPF paragraph 28.

Tourism acknowledged to be important but policy seeks to restrict it. Should allow 562 provision in all villages if the demand is there.

Allow for provision for tourism accommodation, in all villages, not only defined 1623 settlement, if there is demand.

The policy should have a higher limit or no limit subject to justification; should

allow provision in all villages if the demand is there and elsewhere if suitable.

Policy DM18 fails to fully acknowledge the economic and social benefits that tourism 1605 development can bring to rural communities outside of larger settlements and is thus unduly restrictive. Many smaller rural communities are heavily reliant on tourism income, the creation of new economic opportunities and the wider regeneration benefits of development in these areas will help to balance commuting patterns and benefit self-containment of these settlements.

In paragraph 2 of Policy DM18 add a new sub paragraph (d) to read:

'(d) Where is can be shown that development would bring sustainable economic, social and regeneration benefits to a community, either as part of a stand-alone scheme or wider mixed use proposals.'

There is broad support for this policy but there are questions as to the focus of the 1820, third element of the policy. If it does refer to the impact of campsites then the policy 1921, 2019 needs to clearly say do. The final sentence of paragraph 12.104 should be included within the policy.

On the whole we are supportive of policy DM18, but as per our comments in DM17 2683 the policy fails to recognise the potential that a redevelopment would have in facilitating the retention or improvement of the tourism accommodation.

Table 3.36

Consideration of Issues Arising

3.119 Representations have been made which raise concerns that the policy seeks to restrict tourism and therefore it is contrary to paragraph 28 of the NPPF. This is not justified as paragraph 28 states that planning policies should support sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments that benefit business in rural areas in ‘appropriate locations’. Therefore the Plan is justified in limiting new tourism accommodation in the countryside where new development is not considered sustainable.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: Appendix Development Management Policies) 3:

3.120 New tourism accommodation is permitted outside of the main and local centres listed in the Plan, subject to meeting the criteria listed in (2) and (3). These criteria will ensure sustainable growth takes place in line with the Plan’s spatial strategy. To ensure that development takes place in the appropriate locations it is not considered necessary to amend criterion 2(d) to specifically refer to previously developed sites as these could be located throughout the countryside in unsustainable locations.

3.121 It is acknowledged that the policy should address the potential that a redevelopment would have in facilitating the retention or improvement of the tourism accommodation. An amendment to policy DM18 proposed accordingly. DM18(3) also needs to clarify that proposals in the AONB will be supported where it will protect and enhance its setting and special qualities.

3.122 One comment has raised concerns that all new development will improve the quality of northern Devon’s tourism offer, by virtue of it being new. It is not considered that this will necessarily be the case and the wording should not be amended.

Other Matters

3.123 There is an omission in the Local Plan with regard to policy that would guide the consideration of proposals for the removal of occupation restrictions from holiday accommodation. It is regarded as important to provide such guidance, particularly in respect of the need to maintain an appropriate supply of holiday accommodation, which is important to the local economy. Additionally, while accepting that rural buildings can be converted to new dwellings (DM27); it is considered necessary that proposals that could increase residential use in dispersed rural locations contrary to the principle of sustainable locations are given appropriate consideration

3.124 A definition for ‘tourism accommodation’ should be included in the glossary to assist with readers’ understanding of the policy.

Conclusion

3.125 Several issues were raised through representations received, but none are considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan. However, amendments are required to clarify wording and intentions of the policy or the strategy

Agreed Actions

1. The following are agreed as Main Changes to policy DM18 and supporting text: a. Amend first paragraph to read: 'Development of new, and expansion and rationalisation of existing tourism accommodation will be supported within the Sub-regional, Strategic, Main and Local Centres (identified in Policies ST06 and ST07) where it:' b. Add an additional criteria at 1(c) to read: (c) any rationalisation would facilitate the retention or improvement of the tourism accommodation. c. Add an additional criterion at 2(g) to read: (g) identified environmental and heritage assets are not subject to significant harm, are protected and conserved or enhanced, with particular respect to the setting and special qualities of nationally important landscapes, biodiversity and heritage designations and including the undeveloped coast.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: 3: Development Management Policies)

d. Amend criterion (3) to read: New and extended tourism accommodation within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty will be supported where it will protect and enhance its setting and special qualities and provide an overall environmental enhancement when assessed throughout a year.

e. Add an additional criterion (4) to read: Applications for the removal of occupancy conditions on holiday accommodation will only be permitted where:

(a) it is capable of being occupied permanently without need for major extension or alteration; and

(b) there is compelling evidence to demonstrate that such a restriction is no longer justified

f. Add additional paragraph 12.104A to read: Holiday occupancy restrictions may be removed where there is evidence to demonstrate that the accommodation is no longer required to meet the tourism needs of the locality. The local planning authority will expect applications for the removal of occupancy conditions to be supported by evidence demonstrating no demand for the property in the locality.

2. The following is agreed as a minor change

a. Add a definition for tourism accommodation to the Glossary:

Comments made in response to Policy DM19: Town Centres and paragraphs 12.107– 12.110

Total Number of Responses 10

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - 2

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 1 2

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1 -

Table 3.37

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy DM19: Town Centres and supporting text plp number

Support policy, especially 1a. 1198 (EH)

Need to recognise value of non A1 uses in town centre. Overly restrictive application 559 of A1 use.

This policy is not in accordance with the recent revisions to the GPDO 826, 1460

Policy DM19 is too restrictive in favour of A1 uses; recognise the value of other 1625 types of use in the town centres, particularly A3 to the tourism/night economy.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: Appendix Development Management Policies) 3:

Support Part (1) of policy. Consider that the prescriptive nature of Part (2)(b) may 1699, 1821, not offer sufficient flexibility across plan period to reflect changing retail patterns. 1922 Propose simpler requirement to maintain active frontages via attractive areas of mixed uses. Consider the acceptable non-A1 uses need to be defined Part (2)(c).

Table 3.38

Additional Information

3.126 Changes have been agreed to Policy ST12 and supporting text to remove defined Local Retail Centres from the retail hierarchy.

Consideration of Issues Arising

3.127 Several representations have been made relating to the perceived restrictive nature for uses other than A1 in the town centre. The first part of the policy offers a wide range of potential development uses which can take place and these uses are also outlined in Policy ST12. Therefore it is considered that Policy DM19 is compliant with the uses set out in the NPPF.

3.128 Criterion 2(b) of Policy DM19 ensures that the proportion of A1 uses within Primary Frontages does not fall below 60%. This percentage is considered reasonable given the purpose of a Primary Frontage is to retain a high percentage of A1 uses. As the acceptable

3.129 town centre uses are listed at DM19(1), it is not necessary for it to be stated again in DM19(c).

3.130 In terms of the recent revisions to the General Development Permitted Order, it is accepted that there are currently permitted changes of use from A1 to other use classes. However the Local Plan will continue to be relevant where permission is required for planning applications and the proportion of A1 uses will be monitored through annual retail surveys.

Other Matters

3.131 For clarity, it is agreed that Policy DM19 and supporting text should refer to both town and district centres. A correction has been identified through by officers, in respect of DM19(1)(a). The reference to ‘town centres historic character’ should be amended to ‘town centre’s historic character’.

Conclusion

3.132 The comments in response to Policy DM19 are considered not to raise any issues that challenge the soundness of the Local Plan.

Agreed Actions

1. The following Main Changes are agreed to Policy DM19 and supporting text: a. Amend paragraph 12.106 to read: Barnstaple and Bideford are the main comparison and convenience goods centres in northern Devon. The other centres, Braunton, Great Torrington, Holsworthy, Ilfracombe and South Molton additionally providing provide a range of retail and service outlets consistent with their role as Main Centres, as set out in Policy ST12: Town , and District and Local Retail Centres. District Centres at Northam, Appledore, Westward Ho! and Roundswell (Barnstaple) further provide an important retail and service role. It is important that the town retail centres of within all the main settlements remain attractive to the retailer and to

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: 3: Development Management Policies)

the consumer. This will require positive management to provide an attractive, safe, and accessible environment. b. Amend Policy DM19 to “Town and District Centres” c. Amend Policy DM19 (1)(a) to read: (a) the retention and enhancement of the town centre ' s historic character; d. Amend Policy DM19 (2) to read: Within the town and district centres , the retail function will be safeguarded and enhanced. Development and change of use of ground floor premises to alternative uses will be permitted supported unless: e. Amend paragraph 12.107 to read: Primary Shopping Areas are defined at all town and district centres and Primary Frontages are defined in Bideford, Barnstaple and Ilfracombe. The Braunton, Great Torrington, Holsworthy , and South Molton , Northam, Appledore, Westward Ho! and Roundswell Primary Shopping Areas are aligned with the town and district centre boundaries and Primary Shopping Areas extend to the balance of the non Primary Shopping Areas Frontages in Bideford, Barnstaple and Ilfracombe.

Comments made in response to Policy DM20: Development Outside Town Centres and paragraphs 12.103– 12.106

Total Number of Responses 8

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” - -

Table 3.39

Summary of Issues

Comments on Development Outside Town Centres DM20: and supporting text plp number

The policy should be enhanced to make reference to the requirement for good 1199 (EH) design in context.

The type of development considered by the Policy is not clear. 1701, 1822, 1923, 2021

As more premises are used for leisure/entertainment, their illumination when closed 1628 would add to town centre vibrancy and safety and closed premises would benefit from enhanced exposure.

Significant retail developments of more than 250sq.m on the edge of town centre 1939 locations should be required to undertake a retail impact assessment according with the NPPF requirements. Amend the policy to reflect this so that out of town developments do not have an adverse impact on town centres.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: Appendix Development Management Policies) 3:

In relation to (2), we consider that text should be added to the effect of stating that 2669 “or where that need can be better met off site”. With regard to (4), this should be carefully thought through before imposing a standard density that may be inappropriate due to other policy considerations, just to tip over into the affordable threshold, although we note text in paragraph 12.118. We would welcome clarification on why the threshold has been set at seven. At present it seems rather arbitrary.

Table 3.40

Consideration of Issues Arising

3.133 A representation has been made stating significant retail developments of more than 250sq.m on the edge of town centre locations should be required to undertake a retail impact assessment in accordance with the NPPF requirements. It is considered that the policy as it stands does comply with the NPPF, which only requires impact assessments for out of town applications. However, the issue raised by the respondent is whether retail applications for more than 250sq.m on the edge of town centre locations should undertake an impact assessment. Given the uncertainty that the wording of the policy it is considered necessary to make the policy more explicit and include reference to the requirement for an impact assessment for locations on the edge of town centres.

3.134 English Heritage have suggested the policy should be enhanced to make reference to the requirement for good design in context. Short front design is covered specifically in Policy DM22. Other policies in the Local Plan provide details on how good design is expected to be incorporated into all development, so it is not necessary for this guidance to be added DM20.

3.135 Main town centre uses can be clarified through the glossary. One representation (plp2669) does not relate to policy DM20 or supporting text, nor another identifiable policy.

3.136 The illumination of premises outside of opening hours is contrary to policies ST05: Sustainable Construction and Buildings, DM02: Environmental Protection and DM22: Shop Front Design and Signage.

Other Matters

3.137 For clarity, it is agreed that Policy DM20 and supporting text should refer to both town and district centres.

Conclusion

3.138 No issues of soundness have been raised through the representations made to Policy DM20 and supporting text.

Agreed Actions

1. The following Main Changes are agreed to Policy DM20 and supporting text:

a. Amend Policy DM20 to “Development Outside Town and District Centres”

b. Amend Policy DM20 criterion (1) to read: (1) Within Barnstaple, Bideford, Braunton, Great Torrington, Holsworthy, Ilfracombe , Northam and South Molton a sequential approach to proposals for main town centre uses will be applied on the following preferential basis: (a) Town or District Centre (b) Edge of Town or District Centre (c) Out of Town or District Centre

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: 3: Development Management Policies)

c. Amend Policy DM20 criterion (2) to read: Edge of centre and other out of centre proposals must be well related to the town or district centre s and accessible by public transport...

d. Amend Policy DM20 criterion (3) to read: On the edge of or Ooutside town and district centres, proposals for new shops of more than 250 square metres (gross) retail floor area, or extensions to existing shops which will increase their size to by more than 250 square metres (gross) retail floor area, must be accompanied by an impact assessment in accordance with NPPF (paragraph 26) requirements.

2. The following minor changes are agreed to Policy DM20 and supporting text: a. Add a definition for main town centre uses to the glossary.

Comments made in response to Policy DM21: Local and Rural Shops and paragraphs 12.115– 12.118

Total Number of Responses 8

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1 -

Table 3.41

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy DM21:Local and Rural Shops and supporting text plp number

Support policy. 1202 (EH), 1823, 1925, 2022

No justification to restrict rural shops to 250m2. Need to allow for rural shops in 563, 1626 all villages not just those identified in ST06.

It is unnecessary for the number of market dwellings to be less than the number 2671 of affordable units as a matter of principle. This is a clear case of not seeing the wood for the trees; the wood being delivery of affordable housing, the trees being the fear that someone may be getting away with ‘something’. If a 50/50 scheme enables an affordable need to be met by making the land available, the Local Plan should be supportive.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: Appendix Development Management Policies) 3:

Paragraph 12.117 This concludes that the affordable housing requirements are 2670 considered robust and achievable, yet text in 12.113 refers to ongoing work on viability, which is acknowledged as potentially changing policy. Paragraph 12.117 clearly cannot be stated with any certainty and should only be included when it can.

Table 3.42

Consideration of Issues Arising

3.139 The justification for the up to 250 square metres threshold for local shops is found in the

3.140 Retail and Leisure Study. In straight forward terms it complements the threshold for Policy DM20 for development of more than 250 square metres outside town centres to comply with the sequential approach for site selection.

3.141 There is objection that the policy prevents rural shops in all villages, not just the ones in the settlements listed in Policy ST07. It is agreed that to make the policy NPPF compliant it needs to permit the development of local shops in the rural settlements as well as the identified settlements in ST07.

3.142 Representations plp 2670 and 2671 do not relate to policy DM21 or supporting text, although paragraphs supporting DM21 have been referenced

Other Matters

3.143 For clarity, it is agreed that Policy DM121 and supporting text should refer to both town and district centres.

3.144 The draft Local Plan does not currently address the circumstances when the change of use of local shops would be supported. This is considered to be a policy gap which needs to be addressed in Policy DM21.

Conclusion

3.145 It is considered necessary to set out the circumstances when the change of use of local shops would be supported.

Agreed Actions:

1. The following Main Changes are agreed to Policy DM21 and supporting text: a. Amend paragraph 12.113 to read: Town and district centre shops are supplemented by a range of local shops in small groups and by individual units within villages and in residential neighbourhoods. b. Amend Policy DM21 (1) to read: Within development boundaries, or within the principal built form of Policy ST07 identified settlements without development boundaries and within Rural Settlements , the development of individual shops or small groups of shops up to 250 square metres (gross) retail floor area to serve neighbourhood or village needs will be permitted supported provided that:... c. Amend Policy DM21(2)(a) to read: (a) the location and scale of the development would not harm the vitality and viability of town or district centre or village shopping facilities

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: 3: Development Management Policies)

d. Add an additional criterion to Policy DM21 to read: (3) The change of use of local shops will be supported provided that: (a) there is suitable alternative or replacement provision in the locality; or (b) it is demonstrated that the business is no longer viable and cannot reasonably be made so. e. Add an additional paragraph to read after paragraph 12.118: The third part of the policy mitigates against the loss of retail use where necessary to maintain a basic level of service. In determining proposals that would result in the loss of a local shop, the local planning authority will have regard to the need for the facility and the support of the local community. Applicants will need to demonstrate that the existing facility cannot be maintained as a viable business or that adequate alternative provision is available within the locality to serve the local community.

Comments made in response to Policy DM22: Shop Front Design and Signage and paragraphs 12.119– 12.122

Total Number of Responses 4

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1 -

Table 3.43

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy DM22: Shop Front Design and supporting text plp number

Supports the amendment to this paragraph to cross refer to DM02: Environmental 2357 Protection which specifically has regard to light pollution. (ENPA)

Support policy but historic centres may benefit from specific reference in policy for 1204 (EH) the protection of historic shopfronts and to introduce a design framework for advertisements

Policy DM22 (1)(a): it is sufficient that the local character and features of existing 1627 traditional shop fronts are retained, not enhanced.

The policy is unnecessary and overly prescriptive. It is unnecessary for the planning 2672 system to extend its reach into every nook and cranny of the housing market. In our view, it is better to leave the decision on the size of dwellings to the house builders, who know the market and can respond to the needs of consumers. In many locations there will be a ceiling on the achievable sales value for a dwelling with a certain number of bedrooms. Imposing increased space standards will just mean that the houses will cost more to build without the requisite consequence of an increase in sales values. This is likely to impact detrimentally on viability and deliverability. In addition, where viability arguments come into play due to these increased space standards, the variable that will suffer is likely to be delivery of affordable units.

Table 3.44

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: Appendix Development Management Policies) 3:

Consideration of Issues Arising

3.146 A particular reference to historic centres in DM22 is not considered necessary as the first sentence of supporting text (paragraph 12.119) makes clear that northern Devon’s historic town and village centres are an important focus of the policy. Criterion (1a) also references traditional shop fronts. If a supplementary planning document is considered necessary to provide further detail relating to this policy, the wording provides a policy hook sufficient to do so.

3.147 The concern raised over including the term ‘enhanced’ in criterion (a) is unfounded as this wording will ensure that all new shop frontages are designed to a high standard that reinforces local character.

3.148 The representation 2672 does not relate to Policy DM21 or supporting text.

Other Matters

3.149 Paragraph 12.121 refers to Policy DM03 in relation to light pollution at night, whereas it should refer to DM02: Environmental Protection. This anomaly should be corrected.

Conclusion

3.150 The comments in response to the draft Local Plan Policy DM22 are considered not to raise any issues that challenge the soundness of the Local Plan. One correction is considered necessary to paragraph 12.121.

Agreed Action:

1. No change to Policy DM22: Shop Front Design and Signage 2. The following is agreed as a Minor Change: a. Amend the first sentence of paragraph 12.121 to read : Illumination of shop fronts and signage is not required during the day and it should be restricted to trading hours to reduce energy consumption (Policy ST05: Sustainable Construction and Buildings) and light pollution at night (Policy DM02: Environmental Protection DM03: Construction and Environment Management ) when businesses are closed.

Development Management Policies – Delivering a Balanced Local Housing Market

Comments made in response to Policy DM23: Residential Development in defined Settlements without development boundaries and paragraphs 12.123 – 12.124

Total Number of Responses 10

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” - 1

Table 3.45

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: 3: Development Management Policies)

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy DM23: Residential Development in defined Settlements plp number without development boundaries and supporting text

Support is given to this policy as it is a sensible and pragmatic approach to 1702, 1824, maintaining vitality within small rural communities. 1926, 2023

There is insufficient weight given to designated landscapes in the wording of this 227 policy. Add to section 2: ‘If within the AONB, contributes to the protection and enhancement of landscape and scenic beauty of the AONB’

The utility of this policy is questioned. A more appropriate policy to manage 1834 non-RES developments in rural areas is encouraged.

Part 2(a) is not appropriate. Development may cause some harm to the settlement’s 1836 character, setting, form or surrounding countryside. The policy must be amended accordingly.

Residential development in defined settlements without development boundaries 1631 should not be restricted to affordable housing.

Clarification on whether the absence of development boundaries could leave a 2362 (ENPA) potential ‘grey area’ in terms of housing delivery with exception sites ‘well related’ to the settlements around some settlements of a dispersed character with no development boundary.

With reference to Bratton Fleming, the proposed development site is not located 485 within the principal built form of the village and will not provide affordable housing. The development will harm the settlements rural character, setting and form. Withdraw Glebe Field from plan

Table 3.46

Consideration of Issues Arising

3.151 Several representations of support have been made to Policy DM23.

3.152 Development in designated landscapes are covered by policy ST14 ‘Enhancing Environmental Assets’ However, for clarity it is agreed to refer to them in criterion (2) of the policy.

3.153 Policy DM23 does not restrict residential development to just affordable housing as one respondent has stated. Part 1 sets out that residential development is supported within the built form of the settlement and affordable housing focused development are supported where it is ‘well related’ Another representation has raised concerns regarding the potential ‘grey area’ in terms of housing delivery with exception sites where the settlement is of a dispersed nature. This comment is noted, however it is still considered practical within the context of the policy to site affordable housing where it is well related to part of the settlement if it is not of a compact nature.

3.154 Not all development may cause some harm to the settlement’s character, setting, form or surrounding countryside; the policies included in the Local Plan are intended to limit this whether possible. Therefore no change is considered necessary in response to the representation raising this concern.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: Appendix Development Management Policies) 3:

3.155 One comment requests a more appropriate policy to manage non-residential developments in rural areas. However, this policy is concerned exclusively with residential development. Other ST and DM policies address non-residential uses.

3.156 A representation is making reference to the Glebe Field allocation at Bratton Fleming. This comment raises no new issues to those already considered as part of comments to the Bratton Fleming chapter.

Other Matters

3.157 Policy DM23 is the first policy in the ‘Delivering a balanced local housing market’ section of the Development Management section. The title to this section has been omitted from the draft document and should be added in for clarity.

Conclusion

3.158 No issues have been identified which threaten the soundness of the Plan. One Main Change and one Minor Change are agreed.

Agreed Actions:

1. The following Main Change is agreed:

a. Amend Policy DM23 2(c) to read: conserve the special landscape character and qualities of areas designated for their local, national, or international importance including the setting of Exmoor National Park.

2) The following Minor Change is agreed:

a. Add ‘Delivering a Balanced Local Housing Market’ as a title to this section.

Comments made in response to Policy DM24: Rural Settlements and paragraphs 12.125 – 12.127

Total Number of Responses 13

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 2 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - 6

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 3 -

Table 3.47

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy DM24: Rural Settlements and supporting text and supporting plp number text

Support policy DM24 but consider it could be combined with DM23. 1704, 1825, 1928, 2025

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: 3: Development Management Policies)

Loxhore Parish Council supports the criteria which allow more flexibility for 2517 (Loxhore community supported planning applications and which are detailed in Stage 3 of Parish the new local plan in relation to very small villages. Council)

This policy places too much emphasis on NIMBYISM and is contrary to the Localism 970 Legislation. Paragraph (2)(e) needs to be removed so that decisions can be based on genuine planning and land use considerations.

The inclusion of ‘Rural Settlements’ recognises those smaller settlements which 1443 contribute to the overall sustainability of the rural area. Criterion (1), which requires Rural Settlements to comprise at least one service or community facility to qualify for residential development, is inappropriate because residential development in settlements without such facilities can still support the viability of a shop, school or pub in a nearby village.

The Christie Devon Estate is also concerned about the wording of criterion (2)(e) which states that “demonstrable community support” is required in order for residential proposals to gain approval. The policy provides no further clarification as to what will constitute ‘demonstrable community support’ in practice. There is nothing in the NPPF which states that planning applications should only be approved where subject to demonstrable community support.

The policy is overly restrictive and would significantly restrict an important element 1606, 1607 of housing supply in the two districts. Furthermore it does not recognise the economic and social benefits that new housing development can bring to rural communities.

Reword paragraph 1 of Policy DM24 to read:

(1) A small closely grouped or contiguous built form of housing that is physically separate from urban areas or defined settlements

Paragraph 2: Delete sub paragraphs (d) and (e) and insert new sub paragraph (d) to read

“ Where is can be shown that development would bring sustainable economic, social and regeneration benefits to a community”.

It is necessary to clarify the term 'rural settlement', how the policy differs from ST19 1840 and the way the Councils recognise a locally defined need for market housing. Paragraph 12.127 indicates that a ‘flexible’ approach will be taken but this is not evident in the policy.

Should the current policy be continued, it would be necessary to amend the policy as follows:

“ Residential development in a rural settlement, not otherwise defined, outside of the provisions of ST19 , will be supported subject to the following qualification.....”

Amend Policy DM24 (1) add flexibility to the qualification of a rural settlement . 1632

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: Appendix Development Management Policies) 3:

The policy fails to provide sufficient safeguards on landscape impacts, particularly 2098 (National in relation to protection of AONB, undeveloped coast. Safeguards to ensure Trust) consistency with national policy in relation to sustainable development and the protection of landscape areas are required.

The Authority suggests that: 2365 (ENPA) Part of the qualifying statement (1) to be included in Policy ST07 clause 3 for avoidance of doubt “ Defined settlements that contain at least one service or community facility ” and Paragraph 4.15 to list the services/facilities considered to qualify these settlements as set out in clause (1)(a).

Table 3.48

Additional Information

3.159 On the 28th November 2014, a written ministerial statement by the Minister of State for the Department for Communities and Local Government, Brandon Lewis, set out measures to restrict the ability of local planning authorities to seek affordable housing and section 106 planning obligations on small-scale housing proposals. The ministerial statement was supported by changes to the Planning Practice Guidance Paragraphs 012-023 (Planning Obligations), National Planning Practice Guidance (Department for Communities and Local Government), http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/planning-obligations/planning-obligations-guidance/ . Further information about the new provisions and the implications for the delivery of affordable housing through the Local Plan are contained within the reports considering Policy ST18: Affordable Housing on Development Sites and Policy ST19: Exception Sites. It has been agreed that Policy ST19 (Affordable Housing on Exception Sites) should be amended to include Rural Settlements.

Consideration of Issues Arising

3.160 Broad support has been received to this new policy, although concerns have been raised regarding it being too restrictive and giving the local community too much input into the decision making process.

3.161 Exmoor National Park Authority have recommended that details included in policy DM24 are included in Policy ST07 to make the plan more user-friendly. This amendment would be helpful and therefore it is agreed to move the qualifying criteria for Rural Settlements to Policy ST07. For clarity, it would be useful to refer in the supporting text to policy ST07; this will provide the context of what and where ‘Rural Settlements’ are in the districts.

3.162 Criterion (1) of the policy requires qualifying settlements to meet certain requirement e.g. small closely grouped housing. This is to ensure that inappropriate development is not permitted in places which are considered to be in the countryside.

3.163 Representations have been made concerning the need for this policy to be more flexible as some respondents believe it to be currently unsound, citing paragraph 55 of the NPPF. The revised development strategy, set out in Policy ST07, reflects the updated ‘Northern Devon Settlement Hierarchy’ background paper. The background paper looks in details at the level of facilities each settlement contains, and the relationship between settlements, placing the most sustainable settlements in the higher level categories e.g. Local Centre or Villages. It is considered that the NPPF’s ‘smaller settlements’ requirements will be met by the Local Plan’s ‘Villages’ category. By adding the‘Rural Settlements’ as a lower tier it is enabling further additional limited development to take place in very

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: 3: Development Management Policies)

small villages/hamlets.The policy does not preclude additional development, but new development should focus on addressing local needs. A key challenge for the smallest settlements in the districts is to allow some development to respond to local needs where appropriate and justified, whist ensuring that the spatial strategy of the Local Plan is maintained. It would not be appropriate or acceptable to allow uncontrolled or sporadic development to occur across the District. This is consistent with the approach in the NPPF. It is important to note that housing developments which are permitted in this category will contribute to the housing supply, but have not been included in the calculations demonstrating the delivery of the housing requirement. Therefore, they are ‘windfall’ developments.

3.164 The changes to national planning policy introducing thresholds for affordable housing (outlined in the Additional Information section above), have an impact on the opportunity for delivering affordable housing at Rural Settlements. Policy DM24 was intended to support both market and affordable housing proposals, generally of a small scale. The introduction of national thresholds on affordable housing will preclude the opportunity to deliver affordable housing on sites of under 11 dwellings through Policy DM24. In doing so, the intended flexibility of the policy has been diminished considerably and it is no longer considered an effective mechanism to enable delivery of affordable housing at Rural Settlements.

3.165 The policy, in its current form, raises several issues which need to be addressed to ensure that the policy is both sound and compatible with the other policies in the Local Plan (especially any amendment to policy ST19: Affordable Housing on Exception Sites). The issues are outlined below:

a. Scale and Mix of Development

3.166 Policy DM24 and the supporting text, allows for ‘modest’ development in the Rural Settlements, with the scale proportionate to the settlement’s size, form and character. With the changes to the Government’s affordable housing policy, a consequence could be that no affordable housing is delivered as a result of future developments, with developments focusing on the provision of open market housing rather than affordable homes which the policy would also allow.

3.167 ‘Modest’ development is not defined in the plan. In addition, the Publication version of the policy does not limit the number of dwellings allowed for individual applications, as long as the scale of development is proportionate to the settlement’s size, form and character. A consequence of the policy is that many separate schemes could be permitted in a Rural Settlement which the settlement hierarchy assessment has shown not to be the most suitable location to focus development (as discussed below).

3.168 In addition to the loss of affordable housing schemes, the current approach is inconsistent with settlements defined as Villages or higher in the settlement hierarchy, whereby development outside the development boundary, or built form of defined settlements without development boundaries is only permitted on ‘exception sites’.

3.169 To overcome these issues, the scale of open market housing needs to be restricted for clarity and to facilitate opportunities for affordable housing delivery. It is agreed that housing enabled to meet locally identified housing needs is restricted to a single dwelling, with opportunities for larger developments permitted only on the basis of the revised wording to Policy ST19, that includes Rural Settlements in the list of acceptable locations for exception sites. Such schemes would still need to be proportionate in scale to the settlement

b. Interpretation of ‘locally identified housing need’

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: Appendix Development Management Policies) 3:

3.170 Representations have been received stating that the term ‘locally identified housing need’ needs to be defined. It is accepted that being able to clearly set out what constitutes a ‘locally identified need’ is fundamental to the delivery of Policy DM24. It is agreed to use the local connections criteria used in policy ST18 (replacing references to ‘parish’ with references to ‘Rural Settlement’) to establish if an applicant has a local connection to a Rural Settlement. Using this list of criteria will provide consistency within the Local Plan. To establish that there is an ‘identified local housing need’ an additional criterion has been added which should be met in addition to one of the other four criteria:

(5) at least one adult in the household needs a separate home (defined as those setting up a new household including as a result of co-habitation, marriage, divorce or separation, or those that have, or are about to leave, tied accommodation on retirement) or whose present accommodation is sub-standard or unsuitable to their present circumstances because of their age, an impairment, medical condition or to meet the needs of a growing family, or there is no suitable accommodation available.

3.171 This new criterion does not define need in terms of affordability, but relates to suitability and availability of existing accommodation.

3.172 It is not considered necessary to delete criteria 2(d) and replace with criteria which include bringing economic regeneration benefits to the local community. DM24 is focused on rural housing; economic, social and regeneration in rural settlements are covered by other policies in the Plan.

3.173 Representations have also been made concerning 2(e) – proposals for housing will be supported where there is demonstrable local community support for the proposal - as this requirement is not set out in either the NPPF or the PPG, with concerns that local communities will always object to the majority of development. As mentioned above, the ‘rural settlements’ category is designed to allow development over and above that required to meet the housing requirement and provides additional flexibility to delivering the Plan. This flexibility means that, in practice, if development proposals are not favoured by the local community then it is considered appropriate to take their views into account. Respondents have also commented that all applications should be assessed only on their overall economic, social and environmental sustainability, not by community support . However under this policy, development is to meet locally identified local housing need so community support is not unexpected. A respondent has stated that clarification is required as to what constitutes community support and therefore it has been agreed to add supporting text setting out how local community support should be demonstrated.

3.174 One comment asks for clarification between policy ST19 (Affordable Housing on Exception Sites) and DM24. This is not required as ST19 is specifically related to affordable housing at Local Centres and Defined Villages. DM24 is focused entirely on new residential development in rural settlements.

3.175 Development in designated landscapes are covered by policy ST14 ‘Enhancing Environmental Assets’

Other Matters

3.176 It is agreed to remove play areas from the list of qualifying criteria for Rural Settlements as it is not considered a significant facility on which to decide new residential units.

Conclusion

3.177 Several Main Changes are considered necessary to ensure the soundness of the Plan.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: 3: Development Management Policies)

Agreed Actions

1. The following Main Changes to the Local Plan are agreed:

a. Amend paragraph 12.125 to read: To enable small rural communities to meet locally generated needs, modest development single dwellings in settlements qualifying as Rural Settlements may be permissible. Qualifying settlements will be formed by an obvious grouping of dwellings physically separate from urban areas or other defined settlements, which will be supported by a qualifying service or community facility meet the qualifying criteria set out in Policy ST07: Spatial Development Strategy for Northern Devon’s Rural Area .

b. Delete the following text: Residential development in a rural settlement, not otherwise defined, will be supported subject to the following qualification:

(1) A small closely grouped or contiguous built form of housing that is physically separate from urban areas or other defined settlements that contains at least one service or community facility from the following:-

(a) Community / village hall, post office, public house, convenience shop, place of worship, sports playing field, children’s play area, primary school.

c. Amend criterion (2) to read: (2) In qualifying Rural S s ettlements, proposals for housing a local occupancy single dwelling to meet a locally identified housing need will be supported where: (a) the development site forms part of a small closely grouped or contiguous built form of housing that is physically separate from urban areas of other defined settlements;

( a b ) the scale is proportionate to the settlement’s size, form and character;

( b c ) the site is within or directly adjoining the built form of the settlement;

(d) the size of the dwelling is no larger than can be justified by the established need;

( c e ) it would not harm the settlement’s rural character and setting;

( d f ) secure arrangements are made to ensure the dwelling remains available to meet the locally identified housing needs of the local community both initially and in the long term provided the need exists the development meets a locally identified housing need ; and

( e g ) there is demonstrable local community support for the proposal.

d. Amend paragraph 12.126 to read: In Rural Settlements residential development will be supported by means of infilling, the conversion or replacement of appropriate buildings, re-development and small scale rounding off. Any acceptable development scheme should maintain the settlement's rural character and setting and be small and proportionate in scale. The requirements of Policy ST14 (Enhancing Environmental Assets) should also be met as appropriate.

e. Amend paragraph 12.127 to read: A fundamental requirement of enabled development at Rural Settlements will be to meet only locally identified needs. A flexible approach to the demonstration of community support will be taken, but such should include a robust process of local engagement that is proportionate to the proposal. The required community engagement could be delivered by or through the parish council. The primary purpose for allowing limited housing in Rural Settlements is to sustain their vitality and to meet the needs of the local community by identifying that a ‘locally identified need’ can be demonstrated. Speculative development will not be

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: Appendix Development Management Policies) 3:

supported in view of sustainability considerations. New dwellings coming forward on single plots will be allowed either as affordable housing or subject to secure arrangements to ensure occupancy is limited both initially and in the future to:

(1) at least one adult in the household was resident continuously in the Rural Settlement for a minimum of five years immediately prior to occupation; or

(2) at least one adult of the household was resident in the Rural Settlement for five years within the previous ten years immediately prior to occupation; or

(3) at least one parent, guardian, child or sibling, of at least one adult in the intended household, has been resident in the Rural Settlement for a minimum of 5 years immediately prior to occupation; or

(4) at least one adult in the household has been in continuous employment for at least 16 hours per week in the Rural Settlement for at least five years immediately prior to occupation; and in all cases

(5) at least one adult in the household needs a separate home (defined as those setting up a new household as a result of co-habitation, marriage, divorce or separation, or those that have, or are about to leave, tied accommodation on retirement) or whose present accommodation is sub-standard or unsuitable to their present circumstances because of their age, an impairment, medical condition or to meet the needs of a growing family, or there is no suitable accommodation available.

f. Add two additional paragraphs after paragraph 12.127 to read: Restricting the occupation of a new dwelling in this manner will help ensure there is a stock of homes to meet the housing needs of the local community. A cascade approach will be applied to any property not let or sold within 6 months. Where it can be demonstrated that the is no demand for the property within the rural settlement, a cascade will apply to subsequently require the property to be marketed to those with a local connection (as set out in criteria 1 to 4 of the paragraph above) to the parish within which the dwellings resides, the adjoining parishes or within a relevant grouping of parishes formally recognised by the local planning authority (such as the Rural Alliance). Ultimately, any property not let or sold within a further 6 month period will cascade to the wider local planning authority area. The new dwelling will be subject to a legal agreement, including details that the value of the property will reflect the local occupancy restriction at any point of sale. Affordable housing to meet the specific needs of lower income groups in the local community will be permitted for one or more dwelling through policy ST19: Exception Sites.

for 12.126 Local community support for a development scheme will be demonstrated through a positive response being made to the planning application by the relevant Parish Council, informed by community engagement at a public meeting.

2. Amend Policy ST07 to the Local Plan by: a. as a Main Changes including part of the qualifying criterion of DM 24(3) in Policy by defining rural settlements as “settlements that contain at least one service or community facility”; b. as a Minor Change amending paragraph 4.15 to list the services/facilities considered to qualify these settlements as set out in clause (1)(a).

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: 3: Development Management Policies)

Comments made in response to Policy DM25: Residential Extensions and Ancillary Development and paragraphs 12.128 – 12.131

Total Number of Responses 1

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 0 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 0 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1 0

Table 3.49

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy DM25: Residential Extensions and Ancillary Development and plp number supporting text

Policy DM25 is too restrictive, not allowing for annex accommodation for close family 994 who seek in the main independent living. Policy revision proposed.

Table 3.50

Consideration of Issues Arising

3.178 One comment has been made to Policy DM25. It is concerned that the policy is too restrictive; stating that it does allow for annex accommodation which is separate from the main dwelling. It is agreed that the policy should be amended to remove the requirement in DM25 (2) for its principle access to be provided through the main dwelling or its immediate curtliage, and replaced with a requirement for it to be physically attached to the main house.

Conclusion

3.179 The issue raised through the consultation is not considered to raise issues of soundness. However it is agreed to amend the text of the policy to ensure that it is clear what is expected in an application.

Agreed Action:

1. The following is agreed as a Main Change to Policy DM25:

a. Amend DM25: (2) to read: Annexe accommodation will be physically attached to the main house and be commensurate in scale to the needs of the intended occupants and have its principal access provided through the main dwelling or its immediate cartilage b. Amend the final sentence of paragraph 12.131 to read: Annexe accommodation will be required to be physically attached to the main house. ; separate self-contained accommodation will be treated as an additional house.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: Appendix Development Management Policies) 3:

Comments made in response to Policy DM26: Replacement Dwellings in the Countryside paragraphs 12.132 – 12.134

Total Number of Responses 7

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 1 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 1 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” - 2

Table 3.51

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy DM26: Replacement Dwellings in the Countryside Development plp and supporting text number

The policy is justified and consistent with national planning policy. 1444

This policy is too restrictive on the size of a replacement dwelling. Larger plots could 995 readily accommodate a larger house without detrimental impact on the setting. Remove criteria (c).

Policy is overly prescriptive. A policy that restricts the size of all replacement dwellings 1527 is both unnecessary and not in conformity with the NPPF.

Policy DM26 amendment, take into account permitted development rights and for 1633 consideration of a larger building.

Clarify the purpose of Clause C, as it is considered that in most cases existing property 1827, in the countryside is beyond that which will be considered affordable. The only reason 1929, for the clause could be to ensure that new and replacement dwellings do not have 2026 adverse visual impact or impact on amenity of neighbours. This clause should be the criteria by which new replacement dwellings are judged.

Table 3.52

Consideration of Issues Arising

3.180 A limited number of responses have been received to this policy.

3.181 Several respondents have raised concerns with criteria (c) being too restrictive in terms of the size of replacement dwellings. It is acknowledged that the policy will place restrictions on replacement dwellings in the countryside which may deter such developments taking place. Therefore it is agreed to remove criterion (c) from DM26.

Other Matters

3.182 It is agreed to amend wording of the policy to improve the clarity of the policy.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: 3: Development Management Policies)

Agreed Actions:

1. The following is agreed as a Main Change to Policy DM26:

a. Amend policy DM26 (a) to read: the replacement dwelling respects respecting the character of the surroundings and is no more visually intrusive than that of the existing dwelling; and

b. Delete Policy DM26 (c):the size of a replacement dwelling will be commensurate to that provided by the building subject to replacement combined with any extant planning permissions for residential extension.

c. (Amend paragraph 12.134 to read: The size of a replacement dwelling will generally be commensurate to that provided by the building subject to replacement combined with any extant planning permissions for residential extension. An exception may be made for substandard accommodation in order to enable reasonable amenities to be achieved. The siting and footprint of the replacement dwelling should also be similar to the original, unless repositioning can significantly reduce the impact of development . Replacement may provide the opportunity for development to better harmonise with the locality. Where a replacement is built on a different footprint, the original building must be removed and the site reclaimed.

Comments made in response to Policy DM27: Re-Use of Rural Buildings and paragraphs 12.132 – 12.134

Total Number of Responses 15

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 2 3

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 4 2

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 2 4

Table 3.53

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy DM27: Re-Use of Rural Buildings and supporting text plp number

Support for Policy DM27. 985, 1205 (EH), 1445, 2366 (ENPA), 2485

Paragraph 12.137 -Support for the re use of rural buildings for residential, tourism 988 or economic uses.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: Appendix Development Management Policies) 3:

Recognition of the great weight given to the preservation of the AONB is needed. 228 Include the following to section (b):

‘including special qualities and characteristics of the designated AONB’

Add a reference to the recent changes in legislation that allows building conversions 948 as permitted development.

Rural buildings are often not suitable for conversion and the policy needs to allow 979 some flexibility for rebuilding. Add the following to paragraph (c): ‘save where it can be demonstrated that the partial rebuilding will significantly improve the sustainability of the resultant building’

Deletion of Policy DM27(d) [highway access and surrounding highway access]. 1635

Whilst support is given for this policy, care needs to be taken with regard to the 1829, 1931, caveats contained within the policy that the do not exceed the new permitted 2208 development rights with regard to barn conversions.

The policy is in general conformity with the thrust of national guidance and is not 2151, 2182 overly prescriptive. Objection is raised however to the policy and related supporting text on the requirement that conversion can be achieved without significant alteration. This point is accepted with regard to the exterior but considered unreasonable in respect of the interior.

Table 3.54

Consideration of Issues Arising

3.183 The policy relates to the reuse of rural buildings were the building is physically capable of conversion and re-use for the intended purpose (paragraph 12.138). It is not the intention to allow for the development of buildings which are not suitable for conversion; this would be considered a new build.

3.184 The representation to remove need for proposals to have a positive impact on the immediate setting of the building (in crietrion (b)) is not consistent with existing national guidance in the ‘Requiring good design’ sub-section (7) of the NPPF. Seeking to encourage re-use which makes a positive contribution to the setting of the subject building is therefore a reasonable local plan approach.

3.185 Paragraph 12.136 refers to DM27 applying when planning permission is required. Therefore the representation concerned with the policy being more prescriptive than the permitted development rights are unfound and it is not necessary to refer explicitly to changes in legislation.

3.186 It is recognised that reference should be made policy ST14 which covers designations such as the AONB..

3.187 Criterion (3) relates to external alternations and this should be referred to in the policy. One representation has stated that criterion (d) should be deleted. However as no justification has been provided, it is not considered necessary to do so.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: 3: Development Management Policies)

Other Matters

3.188 For Clarity it is agreed to add a reference in paragraph 12.139 to Policy DM08: Biodiversity and Giodiversity.

Conclusion

3.189 It is agreed that Main Change should be made to Policy DM27 and to the supporting text to provide more clarity.

Agreed Actions:

1. The following are agreed as Main Changes to Policy DM27:

a. Amend the first sentence of Policy DM27 to read: Permission will be granted to convert The conversion of rural buildings will be supported where:

b. Amend Policy DM27 (c) to read: development can be achieved without significant external alteration, extension or substantive rebuilding;

c. Insert additional text at the end of paragraph 12.136 to read: Additionally permitted development rights allow, subject to a 'prior notification' procedure, a range of changes of use to some existing rural buildings.

d. Insert additional text before the last sentence of paragraph 12.137 to read: The requirements of Policy ST14: Enhancing Environmental Assets should also be met as appropriate.

e. Insert additional text at the end of paragraph 12.139 to read: Policy DM08: Biodiversity and Geodiversity will apply.

f. Delete paragraph 12.141

Comments made in response to Policy DM28: Rural Worker Accommodation and paragraphs 12.141 – 12.151

Total Number of Responses 6

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 1 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 2 -

Table 3.55

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy DM28: Rural Worker Accommodation and supporting text plp number

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: Appendix Development Management Policies) 3:

Support is given to the general principle of this policy. Part 4 of the policy needs to 1830, 1932, be amended as the word ‘holding’ would appear to imply agricultural uses only. 2030 Include the words ‘holding or business’ instead of ‘holding’.

The requirement to tie the accommodation to the land holding is not a valid policy. 564

Policy DM 28 (4) amend to read :-Accommodation provided for rural workers will be subject to planning conditions restricting its occupancy.

Policy DM28 clause (1)(b):Farm house size should relate to the needs of the intended 1209 occupants; avoid the encouragement of unnecessarily large dwellings in the countryside.

Amend Policy DM28 remove the requirement: to consider alternative means of 1636 housing rural workers (1)(c), time limited accommodation (3) accommodation tied to the holding (4) and the means by which occupancy conditions or ties will be considered in respect of removal (5).

Table 3.56

Consideration of Issues Arising

3.190 The policy reflects paragraph 55, and requires additional criteria to be met to ensure that the business operation is viable. By their nature, rural workers’ accommodation is often required in remote locations which do not meet the social and environmental sustainably criteria required elsewhere the Plan. Therefore, to ensure that the new dwellings are considered to be sustainable, demonstration of the viability of the business is required. Without such a requirement there is the potential for a proliferation of dwellings across the countryside in northern Devon.

3.191 It is accepted that there are occasions when essential rural workers are required to be resident at or near the place of work. Criterion (c) is ensuring that new development is not built when alternatives are available. In the instance of (c)(i), accommodation in a nearby settlement should be considered as there may be instances where the rural worker could find suitable accommodation in close proximity to their place of work.

3.192 The time period set out in criterion (3) of the policy is considered a reasonably approach. This gives the enterprise time to become a viable business, without the risk of many dwellings being built in isolated locations throughout the districts which are no longer needed for an economic purpose.

3.193 Comments have been raised stating that it is not valid to require occupancy restrictions to normally be subject to a legal agreement. Recent appeal decisions in Torridge have endorsed this approach by the planning inspector and therefore no change is proposed. However, the reference to planning conditions being applied to all existing dwellings on the rural holding has been removed to strengthen the requirement for a legal agreement.

3.194 With regards to 1(b), it is accepted that “the size and nature of the dwelling is commensurate to the scale of the operation” is open to interpretation. The policy should be reworded to provide clarity.

3.195 It is accepted that criterion (4) should refer to ‘holding or business’ to cover all rural uses. Criterion (5) is considered necessary, to demonstrate the mechanism under which the removal of occupancy conditions will be permitted.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: 3: Development Management Policies)

Other Matters

3.196 The Full Councils’ of Torridge and North Devon District Councils agreed an amendment to Policy DM28 to the proposed Main Changes presented to the respective meetings on 23rd and 25th February 2015 for Policy DM28 and paragraph 12.148. The amendment is to the wording of DM28(4), changing the emphasis for the requirement for occupancy restrictions on existing dwellings at the rural dwelling from “normally” to “may be”

Conclusion

3.197 The issue raised through the consultation is not considered to raise issues of soundness. However it is agreed to make main and minor changes to clarify wording and meaning.

Agreed Actions:

1. The following are agreed as a Main Changes to Policy DM28 and supporting text:

a. Amend (1b): the size and nature of the dwelling should be such that it can be sustained is commensurate to by the scale of the operation ...

b. Amend (4): Accommodation provided for rural workers will be subject to occupancy restrictions and will normally be subject to a legal agreement tying its use to the specific rural holding or business. Planning conditions will normally be applied to all existing dwellings on/at the rural holding or business also restricting their occupancy to rural workers.

2. A minor change is agreed to amend paragraph 12.147 to read “ To ensure that the accommodation provided is affordable to rural workers, the size of the proposed dwelling will be expected to be commensurate in scale to such that it can be sustained by the scale of the rural enterprise.

Comments made in response to Policy DM29: Farmer Family Attached Accommodation and paragraphs 12.152 – 12.155

Total Number of Responses 1

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” - -

Table 3.57

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy DM29: Farmer Family Attached Accommodation and supporting plp number text

Amend Policy DM29 to relate to rural workers, not just farmers. 1638

Table 3.58

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: Appendix Development Management Policies) 3:

Consideration of Issues Arising

3.198 One comment has been received to this policy which states that it should apply to all rural workers, not just to farmer families. A specific policy on rural workers is already included in the Local Plan. Policy DM 29 provides further flexibility to farming families.

Conclusion

3.199 No issues of soundness have been raised through representations received

Agreed Action

1. No change to Policy DM16 and supporting text.

Comments made in response to Policy DM30: Sites For Traveller Accommodation and paragraphs 12.156 – 12.159

Total Number of Responses 0

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - - Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” - -

Table 3.59

Summary of Issues

3.200 No consultation responses have been received to this policy.

Additional Information

3.201 The Councils are currently undertaking a Traveller Accommodation Assessment in partnership with other local authorities across Devon which will provide evidence on traveller accommodation need and demands. A draft report was published in December 2015. The findings of the report are outlined in the section for Policy ST20: Providing Homes for the Traveller Communities.

Consideration of Issues Arising

3.202 No consultation responses have been received to this policy

Other Matters

3.203 It is agreed that the terminology in (2)(d) is changed from ‘prejudicing’ to ‘harming’.

Conclusion

3.204 No issues have been identified which threaten the soundness of the Plan. One Major Change is agreed.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: 3: Development Management Policies)

Agreed Action:

1. The following is agreed as a Main Chang to Policy DM30:

a. Amend criterion 2(d) to read: it offers an acceptable level of amenity to prospective occupants whilst not unacceptably prejudicing harming the amenities of neighbouring occupiers;

Other Comments received to the Development Management Chapter

Sustainable development – Environmental Protection

Telecommunications

3.205 A Representation has been made by Mono Consultants Ltd on behalf of Mobile Operators Association (ID 2167) stating that there should be a concise and flexible telecommunications policy that should give all stakeholders a clear indication of the issues which development will be assessed against.

Consideration of Issues

3.206 Paragraph 43 of the NPPF does state that when preparing Local Plans, LPAs should support the expansion of electronic communications networks, including telecommunications and high speed broadband.

Conclusion

3.207 It is agreed to include an additional DM policy to cover telecommunications

Agreed Action:

1. Include the following additional Development Management Policy and supporting text as a Main Change:

DM11A: Telecommunications

Proposals for new or upgraded telecommunications equipment and installations will be permitted (where planning permission or ‘prior approval’ is required) where:

(a) the telecommunications equipment and installation would not have a significant adverse effect on its landscape setting, landscape character, heritage and visual amenity by reason of its siting and design or as a result of cumulative impact with nearby development;

(b) opportunities have been sought to share masts or sites with other providers and, where appropriate, the erection of antennae on existing buildings or other structures; and

(c) the proposal conforms to the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines, taking account where appropriate of the cumulative impact of all operators' equipment located on the mast/site.

12.74A Telecommunications installations involve tall structures that have the potential to be visually obtrusive and can lead to adverse landscape impacts on the surrounding area, either on their own or cumulatively with other developments such as wind turbines. Therefore, new development which does not currently benefit from deemed planning consent should demonstrate that the proposal, where possible, seeks to minimise the visual impact of any new structures

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 2: Appendix Development Management Policies) 3:

or antenna and that there is not an unacceptably adverse environmental impact, both in isolation and cumulatively. Proposals will be supported in accordance with national policy and with other plan policies to protect landscape, heritage, habitats and biodiversity.

New Policy for the Conserve protected landscapes

3.208 Natural England (rep ID 2048) has made a representation stating: “The absence of a policy to conserve protected landscapes and have regard to landscape character elsewhere is significant omission.”

Consideration of Issues Arising

3.209 Protected landscapes and landscape character are considered throughout the Plan in particular in Policies ST09 and ST14. Where there are developments which could have an adverse impact on protected landscapes, these policies have been cross- referenced to recognise this.

Agreed Action:

No changes to the Local Plan are necessary in response to the issues raised through the consultation.

New policy for Sui Generis uses

3.210 A Representation has been made by Heart of South West LEP Rural Interest Group (ID 2167): Add policy relating to sui generis uses, recognising that this contributes to employment generation.

Consideration of Issues Arising

3.211 The value of sui generis uses are noted and the employment policies in the draft Local Plan relate to economic development within all the relevant use classes. This is clarified in paragraph 12.77. Therefore no separate policy is required and no change is necessary.

Agreed Action:

1. No changes to the Local Plan are necessary in response to the issues raised through the consultation.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

Appendix 4: Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Rural Strategies)

Local Centres Bradworthy

Comments made in response to Policy BRD: Bradworthy Spatial Strategy

Total Number of Responses 1

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1 -

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy BRD: Bradworthy Spatial Strategy and supporting text plp number

Include land identified on attached plan (site to the north east of Bradworthy) within 533 the development boundary.

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.1 An additional area of land has been put forward for inclusion within the development boundary of Bradworthy (plp 533). The site is located to the north east of the village; it is divorced from current development and is not well related to the draft development boundary. The strategy for the village has been established through community consultation and all allocations and development boundary alterations have been subject to a Sustainability Appraisal and Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA). The proposed area of land has not been subject to the pre-requisite SHLAA process and Sustainability Appraisal and was not identified as a development preference by the local community.

4.2 Circumstances, including the evidenced position, have not altered to necessitate a review of the Local Plan in respect of this matter and no soundness or legal compliance challenge is considered to be raised. Further consideration of the Bradworthy housing allocations is not required to allow the draft Local Plan to progress to Submission.

Conclusion

4.3 No areas of change, correction or clarification are sought in respect of the Bradworthy Spatial Strategy.

Agreed Action

1. No change to Policy BRD: Bradworthy Spatial Strategy or the associated supporting text.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

Policies BRD01: Land North of Elizabeth Lea Close and BRD02: Land at Mill Road and the related supporting text

4.4 No consultation comments were received in response to BRD01 (including supporting text) and BRD02 (including supporting text).

4.5 No Main or Minor changes are identified as other issues; no areas of change, correction or clarification are sought in respect of the Bradworthy Policies.

Agreed Action

1. No change to Policies BRD01 and BRD02 or the associated supporting text. Bratton Fleming

Comments made in response to Policy BRF and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 61 (from 17 separate individuals)

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 17 21

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 3 42

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 9 31

Summary of Issues

Comments on Bratton Fleming Spatial Strategy Policy BRF: and supporting text plp number

Bratton Fleming should be a village rather than a local centre due to lack of services. 320, 343, 390, The settlement no longer reaches the required scores for community facilities and 476, 600, 621, employment. 681, 739, 975, 1070, 1075, 2237

Village would not need to allocate a site. 600

Stated facilities are incorrect. Pub closed in 2012. No formal public recreation 404, 410, 486, facilities. More populous than surrounding villages but fewer local facilities. 681, 738, 975

Make sure Bratton Fleming meets the criteria for local centre at submission as 610 original assessment is out of date.

Reduce extra housing requirement from 10% to 5%. 345, 460, 653

The road is not a main road, it doesn’t have a number, is too narrow for larger 344, 456, 835, traffic and cannot cope with any greater volume of traffic. 1081

Paragraph 13.25 is true and should be recognised in the rural strategy. 1086

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

There is a need for affordable homes for young people as this is a national problem. 476, 981, 983, No need for open market housing. 2242

No affordable homes necessary in the village at present. 405

Only way to achieve balance of age groups is to form an alliance with a social 492 housing provider.

Too many houses proposed in Bratton Fleming. Requirement for development 464 should be reduced.

Housing needs survey should be made available to the general public. 966

As this has not been made available it does not comply with the duty to co-operate. Reference to new dwellings should be deleted until this data has been published.

Objection to proposed expansion in this village as it is unnecessary given the 653 number and type of properties available on the market for sale or rent in the village.

The upper Glebefield contributes to the rural nature of the village and should not 964 be considered for housing development.

The Glebe is unsuitable for development due to access concerns. 411

Paragraph 13.26 is unclear as every settlement has a mixture of property styles 806 and types.

Unclear what ‘high quality’ means. Many ‘high quality’ houses for sale within 3 321, 457, 490, miles but lack of social/shared ownership and accessible bungalows for elderly. 828, 981

There is a shortage of properties for older people in the village. 740

Siting of any new development requires open and transparent consultation with 627, 632, 740, the local community. 1047

Infrastructure cannot cope. Infrastructure improvements must precede all 490, 828, 983 development. Define ‘necessary infrastructure’.

The spatial plan or vision for the village tries to focus housing development next 636 to its protected woodland area, recreational facilities, and public buildings. There are other sites that are well related to the village and would be better suited to future housing development.

Local development should be focussed on Barnstaple as the infrastructure is there 831 to support it. There is no property provision for elderly people to downsize in the village in order to vacate larger houses for young families.

Paragraph 13.28 is fine as far as it goes, apart from the kiss-of-death buzzwords 1088 'sustainable' and 'vibrancy', but it really says very little, perhaps because no consultation has taken place in the parish.

(a) Provide evidence of the need to provide 44 new dwellings and/or amend the 328 methodology applied. Alternatively apply the Village standard.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

(b) Provide evidence to support the suggested extension.

(c) Identify the "small scale sites" known on the Policy Map.

(e) Delete the words "and the provision of additional facilities at the Sports Club"

(g) Delete entirely.

(h) identify the location of the additional cemetery provision on the Policy Map as being on the "Land off The Glebe" (BRF 01)

Delete Glebefield site (BRF01 and BRF criterion b). 456, 476, 653

The Glebe site could provide for short term housing needs but longer term the 393 Beara Down site would provide a better option for village expansion.

Remove reference to Sports and Social Club (in criterion e) as it is a private club 460, 835, 983 and should not receive funding.

Identify land on Upper Glebefield as preferred cemetery space. Continue as green 460, 653, 983 space.

There are other sites capable of accommodating 25 new dwellings if the number 978 of these is justified.

How has the figure of 44 new dwellings changed from 33? Point (b), extension in 984 centre of village of approximately 25 dwellings, conflicts with maintaining the character of the village (i).

Amend criterion (i) by limiting rate of growth of village in green centre 460, 983

Much of the Plan will make nonsense of it if the balance of priorities is not changed. 1089 For example, there's nothing about protecting the parish from any further inappropriate industrial development such as WTGs and PV power stations.

There should be no provision for additional employment land in the village 1092

With reference to Bratton Fleming, a built for profit housing development on the 483 Glebe FIeld would not contribute to a balanced housing market. Infrastructure issues would escalate the costs with the developer selling on his liability for affordable housing. A modern housing development here would un-balance the needs and demands of local people.

Site Proposals

Expansion of the Grange Hill workshops could provide local employment and 346, 462 residency in the village.

Identify Beara Down Farm site which has better access and less impact on 345, 346, 411, amenities of villagers. The omission of this site should render this plan unsound 584, 709, 844, and not legally compliant. 978, 997,

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

1128 (NPS), 2233, 2239, 2242, 2600

If housing is considered at Beara Down Farm, then expansion of the industrial 838, 839 units could provide for work/life balance that would be ecologically sound.

Proposed housing site at the White Hart. 2406

Proposed housing site land south of Benton Road. 2719

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.6 A wide range of responses to the Bratton Fleming spatial strategy, including that Bratton Fleming should be classified as a village rather than a local centre. The settlement hierarchy assessment (Dec 2012) identified the five requirements for a settlement to be classified as a local centre. Bratton Fleming meets each of these requirements; it requires at least 10 community facility points and previously had 12. Closure of the pub and its proposal for future housing as a representation to this local plan (plp2406) would indicate that it is unlikely to reopen and Bratton Fleming’s score should be reduced to 10 points, although it would still meet the threshold of at least 10. In any event, the bar at the sports club could be considered to retain these2 community facility points for a public house/bar.

4.7 Bratton Fleming also retains the necessary employment score of 5 points to satisfy the requirement of a local centre. It also has a sports ground and equipped play area, as well as the millennium green. As such, Bratton Fleming warrants retaining its definition as a Local Centre through an updated settlement hierarchy assessment. Local centres are generally expected to take a larger scale of growth as rural service centres, but villages still require growth. Bratton Fleming would still be expected to identify a housing site whether or not Bratton Fleming is defined as a local centre. Indicative levels of growth (paragraph 4.13) are minimum figures, so there would be no need or justification to reduce housing provision from 10% or 5% if Bratton Fleming were to be reclassified as a village.

4.8 The main road through the village is a generic reference and has no specific definition. It is a class C road (C459) which is a local distributor road, so the reference to main road is appropriate and does not need to be amended. The capacity of the road is a separate issue, although the highway authority response to the SHLAA site at Glebefield (SHA/BRF/520) raised no objections to vehicular access from The Glebe.

4.9 The representations relating to housing raise differing opinions. There is a current need for affordable housing, evidenced by the recent housing needs survey for the Rural Alliance, however affordable homes would only be delivered on the back of open market housing so ‘affordable housing only’ is not a practical option. The housing needs survey has been published and provided to the Parish Council. Its preparation does not conflict with the duty to cooperate. There is also a need for open market housing across the plan area. The number and mix of properties currently available for sale or rent do not change the overall need for additional housing across the plan area over the plan period, nor the need for Bratton Fleming to grow alongside other local centres and villages.

4.10 The need for housing suitable for older people including accessible bungalows is accepted and recognised. This issue applies across much of the plan area. Policy ST18 seeks a mix of housing types to meet the needs of the local community and local housing sub-market, with major developments needing to provide a proportion of lifetime homes. Specific reference to provision of housing for the

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

elderly within Bratton Fleming is not required. There is a need for all types of housing including open market housing to contribute to a balanced housing market. It is the only practical way to facilitate provision of affordable housing.

4.11 The recognition of the mix of property styles and ages is appropriate in describing the character of the settlement, particularly when there is no identified conservation area as identified for many other villages. The reference to ‘high quality development’ is not defined but is an appropriate aspiration for the spatial strategy. Development through out the plan area is expected to be high quality. Development at the Glebefield is not considered to conflict with criterion (i) relating to the character and setting of the village.

4.12 Necessary infrastructure may change over time through the plan period so it is inappropriate to specify exactly what it in includes. Paragraphs 13.40 to 13.43 clarify some of the community facilities currently required or likely to be required during the plan period. Policy ST23 already requires the timely provision of physical, social and green infrastructure so no further clarification is considered necessary.

4.13 The need for additional cemetery provision is already recognised (paragraph 13.41) but without a site identified. This will provide flexibility for alternative sites, which would be assessed against the spatial strategy (Policy BRF) and Policy ST22. There is insufficient assessment of alternative options to identify a specific site for a new cemetery and it is unnecessary to do so.

4.14 Bratton Fleming sports club may be a private club but provides an important community facility for residents of the village. It is considered appropriate for the local plan to refer to the sports club, and to recognise its status as a sports hub. Criterion (e) proposes additional facilities at the sports club, which reflects its status as a hub site. The plan does not refer to the sports club receiving any funding so no change is required. Paragraph 12.68 relating to Policy DM10: Green Infrastructure Provision indicates that hub sites will be enhanced to serve their wider catchment area.

4.15 The spatial strategy and spatial vision for Bratton Fleming was drafted based on consultation with the Parish Council during 2013, as well as other evidence base relating to the needs and aspirations of the local community.

4.16 The proposed level of growth (44 homes) is the total from the allocated site (25 homes) and net existing commitments (19 homes). A figure of 33 homes was from an early draft chapter which has never been published. It is unnecessary to show all existing commitments on the policies map, and would make the map more confusing if applied across the plan area. The specific issues for the Glebefield site (BRF01) are set out in the following section. It is not proposed to delete the site nor to limit the rate of growth in the village centre, which is potentially the most sustainable location for future development.

4.17 Policy ST16 sets out where renewable energy development will be supported and consequently where/when inappropriate renewable energy proposals would not be supported. This strategy applies across the plan area and relates to all different landscape character types. It would be inappropriate and unnecessary to make special provision within Bratton Fleming as to what types of renewable energy development would be acceptable.

4.18 There is no site identified for provision of additional employment land within the village, although an expansion of Grange Hill workshops is proposed. In view of potential over-provision of employment land, a new allocation is not required. Paragraph 13.30 already supports extension of the existing business park if required during the plan period.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

4.19 A number of additional or alternative housing sites were promoted in Bratton Fleming. Land at Beara Down Farm was proposed by a number of representations, including the landowner (NPS). This site was considered ‘not currently developable’ by the SHLAA panel, although amended access details have since been provided which could overcome previous concerns. Land south of Benton Road was considered ‘developable’ by the SHLAA panel. The former White Hart public house was proposed by the owner, so is likely to be available but has not yet been considered formally by the SHLAA panel. The strategy for Bratton Fleming has already been established through community consultation during 2013 and alternative sites have been through a robust assessment prior to publication of the draft Local Plan. It is not considered necessary to allocate these additional sites. Additional residential development within the village is permitted where it meets the requirements of Policy DM23.

Other Matters

4.20 Amendment to the pre-fix to the housing numbers is additionally recommended to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of” through Policy ST08: Scale and Distribution of New Development in Northern Devon.

Conclusion

4.21 A wide range of issues were raised through representations received, but none are considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan.

Agreed Actions

The following are agreed as Main Changes to the Local Plan:

1. To undertake a Main Change to Policy BRF, consequential of agreed Main Changes to Policy ST08 to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of”. 2. Add new criterion (i) to read “supporting the retention and expansion of village facilities and services to meet the needs of the local community and visitors to the area including the provision of a community shop”. Consequential change to labelling of existing criteria following the insertion of a new criterion (i). 3. Amend paragraph 13.28 to read “The community’s spatial vision for Bratton Fleming is that it should evolve in a sustainable way to strengthen the community’s vibrancy, retaining a balanced age profile by ensuring young people remain in the locality and enhancing the services and facilities currently available. The community's vision includes the provision of a new village shop within the plan period”. 4. Paragraph 13.40 to recognise the importance of community facilities, especially identified community assets including the public house.

Comments made in response to Policy BRF01: Land off The Glebe and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 52 (from 18 separate individuals)

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 12 20

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 0 41

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 3 35

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy BRF01: and supporting text plp number

Paragraph 13.31 should be deleted pending sound and sustainable evidence 331, 1000 appropriately analysed. Additional housing may not provide the scale and type of development to meet the needs and demands of the local community. Research and consultation should be undertaken to show exactly what housing is needed.

No evidence to support need. 336

Vehicular access is poor and unsafe due to road layout and visibility. Access poor 347, 406, due to proximity of 2 junctions. Any application to develop Glebe Field would be 408, 468, turned down by Highways due to visibility issues. Concern over the access to BRF01, 472, 493, on safety grounds. There are 5 road junctions within 100m of the access joining 590, 662, the main road. The large amount of traffic entering this area will clearly be a risk to 848, 955, villagers and children alike. 997, 998, 1001, 2601

There are also a number of local businesses in this area that attract pedestrians, 2601 tourist traffic, and local people some of which use the over-flow car-park. It is difficult to see how this development will meet the needs of both going forward.

Access to the field is for agricultural vehicles only and is very narrow; there is a strip 2238, 2244, of land (purchased by the Parish Council specifically to protect the Glebe Field 2601 when the Millennium Green was created) which would have to be bought to allow access. This land is not developable.

Previous development at the Glebe should have never taken place and in my opinion 2601 was at odds with most of the planning principles that are supposed to be reinforced. With the exception of the Millennium Green these houses did nothing for the village.

Does not support proposal due to access issues and conflicts with children’s play 584 area.

Topography of site and proximity to other dwellings will limit the number and types 598 of houses that could be built. Drainage and sewerage may also be a problem. Select alternative site that will not result in loss of green space/grazing land.

Glebe Field has steep gradient and large scale excavation works would be required 495 for development to take place.

A village needs to develop in order to thrive, and some controlled building is needed 677 in Bratton Fleming to provide low cost housing for local young families and for older residents who want to downsize but remain in the village.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

Remove all reference to the BRF01 allocation and replace it with land at Beara 709, 844 Down Farm (BRF/368) which is owned by the county council so access to the main road would not require any further land purchase. This is the "right" side of the road for families as parents and children could have access to the school via a developer-supplied footpath, without the need to cross or walk along the busy main road.

Not the best site for housing in the village. Beara Farm should be identified 469, 470, 847, 852

This site is not appropriate for housing development as there are potential land and 844 foul drainage problems. As access to the site is on the village main street and as such could cause an accident.

Policy BRF01 is not deliverable as the site is not available now with no realistic 741 prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years and is contrary to the NPPF.

No discussion with the village over need for proposed number of new 468 dwellings/proposed sites.

The site subject to Policy BRF01 was identified as a preferred development site by 18, 660, 661, the Parish Council without local community consultation. Proper consultation should 665, 852 take place concerning proposals for Bratton Fleming.

No detail about types of houses proposed and how they will benefit local residents. 590 It should remain green field land, adjoining woodland trust and recreational areas. An extension to the graveyard would be more in keeping with the village. There are other more suitable sites for development.

The proposed allocation will harm the landscape setting of the village enormously 665 as houses, pavements and street lighting cannot equate to an agricultural field used for grazing.

No detail about types of houses proposed and how they will benefit local residents. 580 It should remain green field land, adjoining woodland trust and recreational areas. An extension to the graveyard would be more in keeping with the village. There are other more suitable sites for development.

Land at the Glebe is not suitable for housing development. 845, 846

There are alternative uses which could be looked into for this field. Allotments are 955 needed, an extension to the village cemetery or perhaps a multi-faith garden of remembrance.

There is no mention of any of the other sites. There is no evidence of why this field 2244 was chosen over the other sites. It is directly adjacent to the village green and community woodlands which the village have invested heavily in to develop a green heart for the village. The houses on Old Rectory Lane, which border this field, have very little land surrounding them. Development in this field it will compromise these properties hugely.

Support subject to amendments. Insert word 'night' to read 'dark night skies'. 2367 (ENPA)

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

It is impossible to maintain the dark skies if building new homes. 992

My property is built along a 300ft+ thin strip of this field and has little or no frontage 2604, 605 with a low brick wall. My property looks straight into the field consequently any development will affect amenities of residents along Old Rectory Lane and The Glebe significantly particularly privacy and light. Any green border (as suggested) can only serve to add/contribute to these problems and any road will create much traffic and noise in a quiet part of the village.

It has always been said that this field would never be developed for housing but 2720 may be an extension to the graveyard or allotments. This is good quality land and therefore perfectly suitable for such uses. Other sites have land that would not be regarded as of equal quality and therefore is better suited to housing.

Paragraphs 13.33, 13.34 and 13.35 should be deleted. 337, 338, 339, 340

Housing to the east need protecting with additional planting or open space. 992

New housing should be smaller properties for retired, single people or young couples. 407

Paragraph 13.36 is a meaningless statement and should be deleted. 850

The housing development will cause significant harm to both the surroundings 601 601and appearance of this part of the village to the detriment of all that live nearby and those that use the neighbouring woodland walks.

It is difficult to see how landscaping could lessen to any relevant degree the impact 660 of buildings on the Glebe field.

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.22 A wide range of responses were received to Policy BRF01 and supporting text. A number of responses raised concerns about the suitability of the vehicular access and safety at the junction with the main road, especially in proximity to the Millennium Green. Devon County Council as local highway authority raised no objection and the site was considered ‘developable’ by the SHLAA panel, which included consideration of access issues.

4.23 The SHLAA identified the whole site as available (SHA/BRF/520), including the access strip from The Glebe owned by the Parish Council. The potential availability of the access strip to provide access to this site may need to be confirmed. The SHLAA report and the Local Plan do not identify this site to be ‘deliverable’ within the first 5 years but this does not make the policy conflict with the NPPF.

4.24 The site’s topography is noted but the level of excavation works required would not prevent development. Drainage and sewerage have not been identified as potential constraints on development. The good quality agricultural land (grade 3), potential loss of grazing land and the suitability of this site for a cemetery are noted but do not undermine the site’s suitability for housing. The landscape setting of the village will not be harmed unduly in this location. The site’s proximity to the community woodland and recreational areas, and its location within the centre of the village, do not prelude the principle of development here and in fact help to make it a sustainable location.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

4.25 There are alternative sites for development (see previous section relating to the spatial strategy) and alternative sites have been through a robust assessment prior to publication of the Local Plan. The site was identified through community consultation during 2013 and alternative sites have been through a robust assessment prior to publication of the draft Local Plan. It is not considered necessary to allocate these additional or alternative sites. Beara Farm is identified as an alternative site, which is considered in more detail in the previous section relating to the spatial strategy.

4.26 There is some recognition of the need for Bratton Fleming to grow in order to survive, especially to deliver low cost housing for young families. This issue is set out in the previous section relating to the spatial strategy. The evidence required to identify this need has been questioned, although the overall level of housing need across the Plan area will be assessed elsewhere in the Plan (ST08).

4.27 The potential impact of proposed development on the amenities of adjoining properties is recognised. Paragraph 13.37 already minimises the impact of development on adjoining properties to provide a protect their amenities, in addition to protection from Policy DM01: Amenity Considerations. Enhanced landscaping along the northern site boundary will also contribute to their separation. The observations that the original development at the Glebe should have been built is not directly relevant to Policy BRF01.

4.28 Exmoor National Park’s comment about ‘dark night skies’ is accepted and can be amended for clarification and consistency.

Conclusion

4.29 A wide range of issues were raised through representations received, but none are considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan. Nevertheless, to be confident of soundness, it would be helpful to confirm the potential availability of the access strip to provide access to this site.

Agreed Actions

The following is agreed as a Main Change to the Local Plan:

1. Acknowledge the need for a main change to Criterion (2c) of Policy BRF01 to safeguard the ‘dark night skies’ over Exmoor National Park.

Comments made in response to Policy BRF02: Local Green Space and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 13 (from 7 separate individuals)

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally 5 7 compliant?”

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ 12

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with 10 1 the Duty to Co-operate?”

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy BRF02: and supporting text plp number

A part of The Community Woodland is in private ownership and not solely in public 496, 565 ownership.

The Glebe Field would be a very good site for allotments, there are few other 615 alternatives.

The Sports Club is a Private Members club and should not be supported from the 342, 856 public purse or considered as part of the development plan.

Bratton Fleming Sports club is private members only. The field know as the Recreation 497 Ground is under used, and if properly landscaped could become the venue for community football and cricket clubs. Remove final sentence from paragraph.

Building at the Glebe would not conform with either paragraph one or two of BRF02. 473 Neither opportunities for leisure activities nor local biodiversity would be significantly improved.

Allocate part of "Land off The Glebe" (BRF01) for provision of the additional cemetery. 349

Agree with paragraph 13.38 so why develop a site that borders the woodland trust 583 and recreation area.

Existing village cemetery nearly at capacity. Land off The Glebe deemed most suitable 474 site for new cemetery (Parish Questionnaire).

The Glebe Field is church land and is the most appropriate site for an extension to 593 the graveyard.

The Glebe is suitable to provide overspill space for the graveyard and could also 854 accommodate expansion of the allotments.

The Glebe was once suggested as an additional graveyard site. 409

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.30 Representations indicate that the Millennium Green and community woodland are partly in private ownership. Paragraph 13.38 should be corrected accordingly.

4.31 Bratton Fleming sports club may be a private club but provides an important community facility. It is considered appropriate for the local plan to refer to the sports club, and to recognise its status as a sports hub. The plan does not refer to the sports club receiving any funding so no change is required, however paragraph 12.68 relating to Policy DM10: Green Infrastructure Provision indicates that hub sites will be enhanced to serve their wider catchment area.

4.32 Land off The Glebe was considered in more detail in the previous section relating to Policy BRF01. Building on The Glebe is not considered to conflict with the identification of the Millennium Green and community woodland as a local green space.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

4.33 The Glebe site (BRF01) would be suitable for a new cemetery to meet the need identified. This site, or any other site promoted, could be considered as a windfall site if it was promoted. If it was considered to be the only site or best site available, then Policy BRF01 could be amended to a mixed use development of 25 homes together with a new cemetery.

Conclusion

4.34 Issues raised through representations received are not considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan.

Agreed Actions

The following is agreed as a Minor Change to the Local Plan:

1. Acknowledge the need for minor change(s) to be made to paragraph 13.38 to indicate the Millennium Green and community woodland are partly in public and partly private ownership.

Comments made in response to Policies Map 11: Bratton Fleming

Total Number of Responses 3

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 2 ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ 2

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” ~ 1

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policies Map 11 plp number

BRF02 does not show a correct boundary line south of the community woodland. The 737 Millennium Green ownership boundary line and area designated as Local Green Space is also incorrect which shows part as designated housing.

Map should show all sites where development might take place. 475

Map 11 shows areas of land (the field to the east of the cricket pitch) that has never 2703 ceased to be farm land. The land used by the sports club is subject to a lease that expires in 2019. The lease puts the onus on the leaseholder to keep it unencumbered for future use and therefore if you continue with this policy it will mean that the council will deliberately be forcing the sports club to break its covenants. The land is in private ownership and any change in designation or other use I would expect to be discussed with me as the owner.

Additional Information

52980 – Planning Application for Erection of 8 Dwelling Houses on Land West of Newhouse, Bratton Fleming was approved in principle (Dec 2012) subject to signing a Section 106 agreement which is waiting to be signed.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.35 The local greenspace (BRF02) includes the Millennium Green and the community woodland, hence the policies map shows the combined area, not just the extent of the Millennium Green. The legal extent of the Millennium Green also includes the access strip to The Glebe (BRF01), which is outside the scope of the local greenspace. Issues relating to the access to The Glebe (BRF01) are considered in more detail in the previous section relating to Policy BRF01.

4.36 It is unnecessary to show all existing commitments on the policies map, which would make the map more confusing if applied across the plan area.

4.37 The sports hub site around the Sports Club includes land with resolution to grant permission for residential development (52980). The eastern end of the eastern field (closest to the village) should be removed from the Policies Map to reflect the future area available for the sports club.

Conclusion

4.38 Issues raised through representations received are not considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan, provided that the extent of the sports hub site is amended.

Agreed Actions

The following are agreed as Main Changes to the Local Plan:

1. Amend Policies Map 11 to correct the extent of the sports hub to exclude the proposed residential development. 2. Amend Policies Map 11 to show the full extent of the community woodland (Policy BRF02).

Community Facilities

4.39 No consultation comments were received in response to paragraph 13.40.

Other Matters

4.40 A consequential amendment to paragraph 13.40, following a resolution from the Local Plan Working Group regarding the need to protect the only pub in the village as a community asset.

Agreed Actions

The following is agreed as a Main Change to the Local Plan:

1. Amend paragraph 13.40 to read “Identified community assets and other community facilities, including the public house, are important to meet the needs of local residents. Bratton Fleming Sports Club at the western end of the village and recreation field to the east provides important recreation facilities for the community and the sites are safeguarded for these uses (Policy DM09). The sports club is identified as a hub site (Policy DM10). Provision of additional sports and recreation facilities on these sites or on other appropriate sites will be supported where the need is identified”.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

Buckland Brewer

Comments made in response to Policy BBR: Buckland Brewer Spatial Strategy

Total Number of Responses 2

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” - 1

Summary of Issues

Comments on Buckland Brewer Spatial Strategy and supporting text plp number

Plan for Buckland Brewer does not comply with the Parish Councils ‘Rural Settlement 264 Plan 2013’. A site to the west of Tower hill should be allocated for residential development

Include site 7 – land to the rear of Tower Hill as an allocation 1071(BBPC)

Additional Information

4.41 Clarification was sought as to the extent of the land holding in retain to the site to the rear of Tower Hill and if the site could be acceptably accessed. The site owner has confirmed that an access point connecting the site to Tower Hill is within his control, the detail of which was provided by an agent acting of behalf of the site owner. Devon County Council (HW) has confirmed that an acceptable access could be achieved from Tower Hill to the site to support the development of the site.

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.42 Two representations (plp 264 and 1071), including one from the Parish Council seek the allocation of a site to the rear of Tower Hill for housing. The site adjoins the proposed development boundary to the north west of the village. The site has been considered through the SHLAA process (SHA/BBR/9) and while identified as developable with a potential capacity of 10 dwellings, it was the view of the Stakeholder Panel that development was only achievable in association with the adjoining site to the west (SHA/BBR/10) which is not allocated in the Local Plan. On this basis the site to the rear of Tower Hill was not included in the Publication Local Plan.

4.43 As provided above, it is clear that an acceptable access can be achieved, without any consideration of a third party, from the site to Tower Hill. Taking account of this update to the evidenced position and that the District Councils’ have generally sought to accept locally determined strategy and development aspirations, it is recommended that the site to the rear of Tower Hill is allocated for housing. Reflecting the outcomes of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment a yield of approximately 10 dwellings should be provided for in the allocation; consequential changes to the Buckland Brewer spatial vision will be required together with related housing supply references and tables.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

Conclusion

4.44 The site to the rear of Tower Hill is now recognised as suitable and available for development. On this basis and having regard to a clear local preference, as presented by Buckland Brewer Parish Council, it is considered appropriate to allocate the site to the rear of Tower Hill for housing.

Agreed Actions

1. The following are agreed as Main Changes to the Local Plan:

a. allocate the site to the rear of Tower Hill for housing, with an associated yield of approximately 10 dwellings; b. amend the Buckland Brewer development boundary to include the proposed housing allocation to the rest of Tower Hill; and c. undertake consequential changes to housing supply figures and Policy BBR to take account of the proposed housing allocation to the rest of Tower Hill.

Comments made in response to Policy BBR01: Land Adjoining Football Pitch

Total Number of Responses 1

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” - -

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy BBR01: Land Adjoining Football Pitch and supporting text plp number

BBR01 not a sustainable site as it is in open countryside and will have impacts on 1228 (EH) listed church and Conservation Area. No reference to it in the SA.

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.45 English Heritage raises concerns at the location of the economic development allocation, the absence of testing through Sustainability Appraisal and its potential impacts on heritage assets. It is accepted that a Sustainability Appraisal for the site was not available with the publication North Devon and Torridge Local Plan. A Sustainability Appraisal has subsequently been undertaken, from which it is considered necessary to refer to acceptable impacts on the listed church and conservation area within the village.

4.46 It is accepted that the site is in a countryside location, divorced from the built form of Buckland Brewer and that such would not normally represent an acceptable location having regard to sustainability considerations. However, the Parish Council are clear that the employment allocation, in its current location, forms a necessary part of the delivery strategy for the settlement’s future growth.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

The Local Plan has sought to reflect community based aspirations and development preferences where possible; no change to the Local Plan is sought with regard to the location of the allocated employment site.

Other matters

4.47 Policy BBR01 (2)(b) requires a very high standard of design…, it is considered unnecessary to require a very high standard of design.

Conclusion

4.48 It is considered necessary to address the concerns raised by English Heritage with regard to the potential for development to negatively affect the village’s conservation area and Grade II* Church of St Mary and St Benedict.

Agreed Action

1. The following is agreed as a Main Change to the Local Plan:

a. Amend Policy BBR01 (2:)The site should be developed in accordance with the following site specific development principles:(b): a very high standard of unified design and appearance in view of the location of the site in the countryside that provides an acceptable impact on local heritage assets.

Comments made in response to Policy BBR02: Land at Orleigh Close

Total Number of Responses 4

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 1 -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 1 -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1 -

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy BBR02 Land at Orleigh Close and supporting text plp number

Amend para 13.58 to correct a property reference to Higher Turnaway from Cock 1069 Pheasant. (BBPC)

Support inclusion of site. 585, 570

Sustainability Appraisal of BBR02 unsure of impact of development but policy requires 1229 (EH) mitigation in form of tree planting. Questions rigour of SA

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.49 Two respondents support the inclusion of the allocated site and the Parish Council seek correction to a locational reference.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

4.50 English Heritage questions the rigour of the Sustainability Appraisal relating to Policy BBR02. An inconsistency is suggested between the Sustainability Appraisal outcomes and the mitigation measures provided to minimise any impact on the historic environment. The mitigation measures are provided through a requirement for a substantial tree and hedge screen on all boundaries with open countryside. It is considered appropriate to maintain the required screening to provide a suitable boundary point and transition to the Countryside beyond the proposed housing development. The comment raised by this comment is not considered to represent a soundness or legal challenge to the Local Plan.

Conclusion

4.51 Circumstances, including the evidenced position, have not altered to necessitate a review of the Local Plan in respect of this matter and no soundness or legal compliance challenge is considered to be raised. Further consideration of Policy BBR02 is not required to allow the draft Local Plan to progress to Submission. A minor change is however recommended to correct an inaccurate locational reference.

Agreed Actions

1. No Main Change to Policy BBR02 or the associated supporting text. 2. Minor change to the Local Plan to amend paragraph 13.58 to correct a property reference.

Comments made in response to Policy BBR03: Land to the North East of Orleigh Close

Total Number of Responses 2

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 1 -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 1 -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1 -

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy BBR03: Land to the North East of Orleigh Close and supporting plp number text

Support BBR03 allocation 78, 571

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.52 There were no main issues identified against Policy BBR03 as a consequence of consultation undertaken. One respondent supported the allocation.

Conclusion

4.53 No areas of change, correction or clarification are sought in respect of Policy BBR03: Land to the North East of Orleigh Close.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

Agreed Actions

1. No change to the Policy BB03 or the associated supporting text . Chulmleigh

Comments made in response to Policy CHU and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 2

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” ~ ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on Chulmleigh Spatial Strategy Policy CHU: and supporting text plp number

Review the Chulmleigh Spatial Strategy to better recognise transportation matters 2215 and employment opportunities.

Given the findings of the Inspector in relation to land at Leigh Road (PINS ref. 2675 APP/X1118/A/13/2209479) where outline planning permission for up to 95 dwellings was granted in the decision letter dated 23rd July 2014, the strategy relating to Chulmleigh needs significant amendment by amending Policy CHU: Chulmleigh Spatial Strategy to state that approximately 95 dwellings will be expected in the village within the plan period.

Additional Information

56158 – Outline planning permission for up to 95 dwellings at Land off Leigh Road was allowed on appeal on 23 July 2014.

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.54 Chulmleigh has some local employment and reasonable transport links, which justify its designation as a local centre. The settlement hierarchy assessment (Dec 2012) identified the five requirements for a settlement to be classified as a local centre, which includes an employment score of at least 5 points and access to public transport of at least 2 points. Chulmleigh exceeds both of these minimum requirements. The spatial strategy also seeks to provide additional business development. Following review, no change is necessary.

4.55 The Leigh Road appeal substantially increases the level of growth anticipated for Chulmleigh. Land off Leigh Road (CHU01) would deliver up to 95 dwellings rather than 20, hence an increase of 75. Consequently, the spatial strategy would increase from an overall provision of 87 to 162 homes over the plan period.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

Other Matters

4.56 Amendment to the pre-fix to the housing numbers is additionally recommended to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of” through Policy ST08: Scale and Distribution of New Development in Northern Devon.

Conclusion

4.57 Issues raised are not considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan, but the spatial strategy should be updated to reflect current commitments, even though they occurred after April 2013.

Agreed Actions

The following are agreed as Main Changes to the Local Plan:

1. To undertake a Main Change to Policy CHU, consequential of agreed Main Changes to Policy ST08 to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of”. 2. Acknowledge the need to update housing numbers within Policy CHU(a) from 87 dwellings to 162 dwellings in total for the town with two sites delivering 115 dwellings.

The following is an agreed Minor Change:

1. Acknowledge the need to update footnote (63) in paragraph 13.76. 2. Amend paragraph 13.76 to read “Additional housing is proposed to meet the needs of Chulmleigh over the plan period. At April 2013 there was a relatively high level of housing commitments in Chulmleigh. The plan allocates two additional sites that will be released in response to local needs and demands over the plan period. A planning permission has been granted for the development of the site subject of policy CHU01. There is no preference for the order in which these sites are released for development”.

Comments made in response to Policy CHU01: Land off Leigh Road and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 1

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” ~ ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy CHU01: and supporting text plp number

Given the findings of the Inspector in relation to land at Leigh Road (PINS ref. 2676 APP/X1118/A/13/2209479) where outline planning permission for up to 95 dwellings was granted in the decision letter dated 23rd July 2014, the strategy relating to Chulmleigh needs significant amendment by amending Policy CHU: Chulmleigh

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

Spatial Strategy to state that approximately 95 dwellings will be expected in the village within the plan period; and amending Policy CHU01: Land off Leigh Road to increase the required provision from 20 to 95 dwellings .

Additional Information

56158 – Outline planning permission for up to 95 dwellings at Land off Leigh Road was allowed on appeal on 23 July 2014.

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.58 As set out above under the spatial strategy , the Leigh Road appeal substantially increases the level of growth anticipated for Chulmleigh delivering up to 95 dwellings rather than 20, hence an increase of 75. The planning permission covers a much larger site than that identified on Policies Map 13 (see attached plan) so the site capacity and site boundary should be extended to reflect the recent permission.

Conclusion

4.59 Issues raised are not considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan, but the Policy CHU01 should be updated to reflect the quantum and site area of current commitments, even though they occurred after April 2013.

Agreed Actions

The following are agreed as Main Changes to the Local Plan:

1. Update housing numbers within Policy CHU01 from 20 to 95 homes to better reflect the extant planning permission allowed on appeal. 2. Amend criterion (2a) the delete reference to a vehicular access “via Leigh Villas or” to better reflect the extant planning permission. 3. Amend paragraph 13.77 to read “A site is proposed to the south of Leigh Road, adjacent Leigh Villas, for housing development. The site will help to provide the scale and type of development to meet the identified needs of the local community. It is well related to existing development and, with suitable design and landscaping, development of the scale proposed can be accommodated without undue harm to the landscape setting of the village or neighbouring properties. There is little natural vegetation on the site and proposals will need to provide adequate new or reinforced boundary treatment to integrate the development into the largely open landscape. Landscaping within and around the site will be expected to enhance the range of habitats and the local biodiversity network”. 4. Amend paragraph 13.78 to read “A single, safe, vehicular and pedestrian access to the site is required from Leigh Villas, or alternatively directly from Leigh Road subject to suitable design and enhanced pedestrian and cycle links towards the town centre, possibly through improved links to the existing public footpath along Ladywell Lane to the east. A number of residential properties border the site, and a satisfactory relationship between these properties and new housing is required in order to protect the amenities of both. The site may be developed in phases”. 5. Extend site area for CHU01 on Policies Map 13 to cover the appeal planning permission (see attached plan). 6. Amend the development boundary on Policies Map 13 to include the whole of extended site CHU01 to cover the appeal planning permission (see attached plan).

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

Combe Martin

Comments made in response to Policy CMA and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 7

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1 ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on Combe Martin Spatial Strategy Policy CMA: and supporting text plp number

The following needs to be added to conform with paragraph 114 of the NPPF: 244

The village is within the designated AONB. Consequently great weight will be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in consideration of proposals for development.

Make reference to the Combe Martin Historic Environment Action Plan, produced 247, 1564 by the AONB team last year, when discussing the Combe Martin Section. (AONB)

Amend Spatial Strategy, recognise the settlements location in the AONB, from which 2052 (NE) greater weight should be given the landscape impacts of development.

Support for Combe Martin chapter. 2275 (PC)

Support subject to amendments. The inclusion of clause (b) safeguarding the dark 2368 skies over Exmoor National Park – insert the word ‘night’ to read ‘dark night skies’. (ENPA) Retaining and reinforcing existing landscape features such as hedgerows and trees is also supported.

Site Proposals

Additional housing site promoted in Combe Martin. 2270

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.60 A range of responses have been submitted to the Combe Martin spatial strategy, including support from the Parish Council. Whilst paragraph 13.86 indicates that Combe Martin is within the AONB, this could be made more explicit in view of concerns that it is not been mentioned. It is considered the spatial strategy for Combe Martin could be strengthened by the inclusion of a new criterion to protect the special landscape character and qualities of the AONB. The published Combe Martin Historic Environment Action Plan has not been mentioned but is relevant to the settlement’s heritage and should be added to paragraph 13.87 alongside recognition of the village’s heritage assets.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

4.61 Exmoor National Park’s comment about ‘dark night skies’ is accepted and can be amended for clarification and consistency.

4.62 An additional housing site was promoted south of Park Lane. A larger site was considered ‘developable’ in part by the SHLAA panel and considered previously as a site option in drafting the Combe Martin chapter. The strategy for Combe Martin has already been established through community consultation during 2013 and alternative sites have been through a robust assessment prior to publication of the draft Local Plan. The local community did not support this site beyond the lower field which was identified as allocation CMA01. However, if CMA02 is to be deleted (see comments below) then either an alternative site could be considered in amending the spatial strategy or housing growth further reduced. 10% growth for Combe Martin would amount to approximately 139 homes, whereas the spatial strategy currently proposes 58 homes (4.2%), which is justified by a lack of suitable site options and the village’s location within the AONB and Heritage Coast. The site is on elevated land and is potentially prominent across the Umber valley in the AONB and Heritage Coast. It is also relatively small, accommodating less than 5 dwellings.

4.63 In view of environmental constraints, it is not considered necessary to allocate this additional site, with a small reduction in the proposed growth for Combe Martin (down to 3.4%) not undermining the overall spatial strategy or strategic land supply. Additional residential development within the village is permitted where it meets the requirements of Policy ST19 (Affordable Housing on Exception Sites).

Other Matters

4.64 Amendment to the pre-fix to the housing numbers is additionally recommended to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of” through Policy ST08: Scale and Distribution of New Development in Northern Devon.

Conclusion

4.65 Issues raised are not considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan, but minor amendments are required for consistent and clarity.

Agreed Actions

The following are agreed as Main Changes to the Local Plan:

1. To undertake a Main Change to Policy CMA, consequential of agreed Main Changes to Policy ST08 to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of”. 2. Acknowledge the need to update housing numbers within Policy CMA(a) from 58 dwellings to 48 dwellings in total for the village with two sites delivering 11 dwellings. 3. Add new criterion (c) to spatial strategy to read “protecting the important landscape setting of Combe Martin including the special landscape character and qualities of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty;” 4. Amend criterion (b) of Policy CMA to recognise “safeguarding the dark night skies over Exmoor National Park.

The following are agreed as Minor Changes to the Local Plan:

1. Acknowledge the need to change paragraph 13.86 to read “The village has a long, linear form astride the A399 within the Umber Valley on the edge of Exmoor National Park, about 8 kilometres (5 miles) from Ilfracombe. The village is located within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

(AONB) and the coastal and estuarine zone (Policy ST09). Land alongside the river is liable to flooding and the valley is in the ‘Coastal Slopes and Combes’ landscape character type within the AONB. The coastline at Combe Martin forms part of a Voluntary Marine Conservation Area (VMCA) and Combe Martin Bay has been designated as a SSSI to protect the ecology and geology of the coastline”. 2. Acknowledge the need to change paragraph 13.86 to read “A conservation area has been designated covering areas near the beach (Seaside) and around the parish church (Head Town). Combe Martin has a history of silver mining and there are remains of a medieval field system on slopes around the village. A 'Historic Environment Action Plan' for the settlement has been published.

Comments made in response to Policy CMA01: Land North of Rectory Road and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 1

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1 ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy CMA01: and supporting text plp number

Support the inclusion of clause (e) safeguarding the dark night skies over Exmoor 2369 (ENPA) National Park.

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.66 The only representation to CMA01 was one of support.

Conclusion

4.67 This representation is not considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan.

Agreed Actions

1. No change to Policy CMA01 of the Local Plan is recommended in response to the issues raised through consultation.

Comments made in response to Policy CMA02: Land at Lavercombe Farm and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 3

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ 2

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ 2

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1 2

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy CMA02: and supporting text plp number

CMA02 is not suitable for development. Any access would need to be through land 575 which would be compromised by a necessary access road. The site topography, geology and levels necessary for a new access road and drainage will be unviable.

Support the inclusion of clause (c) safeguarding the dark night skies over Exmoor 2370 National Park. (ENPA)

Access cannot be achieved through Spurway Gardens in to the proposed housing 991 allocation on land at Lavercombe Farm (Policy CMA02).

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.68 Land at Lavercome Farm was considered ‘developable’ by the SHLAA panel. The owner of adjoining land at Spurway Gardens now indicates that vehicular access cannot be achieved through that site. Without adequate access, the Lavercome Farm site is no longer considered ‘developable’. As such the site should be deleted from the Local Plan with the spatial strategy amended accordingly.

4.69 The National Park’s support for protecting dark night skies is noted.

Conclusion

4.70 Inclusion of a site that is not developable could threaten the soundness of the local plan.

Agreed Actions

The following are agreed as Main Changes to the Local Plan:

1. Delete Policy CMA02 and supporting paragraphs 13.95 to 13.96. 2. Amend Policies Map 14 to delete site CMA02, delete the proposed access road and amend the development boundary accordingly to exclude this site.

Comments made in response to Policy CMA03: Land North of Park Hills and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 1

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1 ~

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy CMA03: and supporting text plp number

Support the inclusion of clause (c) safeguarding the dark night skies over Exmoor 2371 (ENPA) National Park.

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.71 The only representation to CMA03 was one of support.

Other Matters

4.72 A consequential amendment to Paragraph 13.98 following Government changes to S106 obligations and the delivery of affordable housing within national planning policy.

Conclusion

4.73 This representation is not considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan.

Agreed Actions

The following is agreed as a Main Change to the Local Plan:

1. Add new text to paragraph 13.98 to read “A financial contribution will be required towards the delivery of affordable housing in accordance with Policy ST18 (Affordable Housing on Development Sites)”.

Comments made in response to Policy CMA04: Combe Martin Field System and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 1

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1 ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy CMA04: and supporting text plp number

The protection of the medieval field system, which forms the setting to Combe Martin 2372 and to the National Park, as a heritage asset is supported. (ENPA)

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.74 The only representation to CMA04 was one of support.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

Conclusion

4.75 This representation is not considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan.

Agreed Actions

1. No change to Policy CMA04 of the Local Plan is recommended in response to the issues raised through consultation. Dolton

Comments made in response to Policy DOL: Dolton Spatial Strategy

Total Number of Responses 3

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” - -

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy DOL: Dolton Spatial Strategy and supporting text plp number

Clarify reasons why housing figures have changed from 34 to 45 and where the 993 additional development will be sited.

The two allocations are not capable of delivering 45 units. Proposed new site north 1832 of West Lane – site considered more sustainable

Add traffic and transport objectives to Dolton Spatial Strategy relating to car parking 2163 – the use of the proposed car park, pavements and traffic calming. (DPC)

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.76 Comment is made with regard to the housing numbers in the strategy. The referenced 45 dwellings are provided for by extant planning consents (at 1st April 2013) and the yield from allocated sites. There is no need to allocate an additional site to deliver 45 dwellings.

4.77 A new site allocation has been proposed north of West Lane (plp 1832); it is presented as a more sustainable alternative to DOL01 and DOL02. The existing strategy for the village has been established through community consultation and all allocations have been through a Sustainability Appraisal and SHLAA assessment which demonstrates site suitability and availability for development. The allocation of further sites would counter the clear strategy for the village established through engagement with the Parish Council. Amendment to the Local Plan to include an additional housing allocation is not considered necessary in respect of a soundness or legal compliance challenge.

4.78 Additional traffic and transport objectives have been suggested by the Parish Council relating to car parking, the provision of off road parking and traffic calming measures. The former point is considered to be valid, in respect of adding clarity and is proposed as a minor change. The points

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

relating to pavements and traffic calming, do not necessitate revision, such matters will be addressed through Policy DM05: Highways; no change is recommended to the Local Plan to address these issues which raise no soundness or legal compliance challenge.

Conclusion

4.79 No major areas of change, correction or clarification are sought in respect of the Dolton Spatial Strategy. A minor change is proposed to correctly reflect the intended use of the sought car park.

Agreed Change

1. The following is agreed as a Minor Changes to the Local Plan:

a. amend Policy DOL (f): providing a car park for the village hall and for general use of village.

Comments made in response to Policy DOL01: Land at Aller Road

Total Number of Responses 1

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1 -

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy DOL01: Land at Aller Road and supporting text plp number

Objects to policy DOL01 due to impact on wildlife and loss of habitats. 2107

Questions need for market housing given the number of unsold properties – village 2107 needs sheltered housing and affordable housing

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.80 An objection to the allocation is made with regard to potential adverse impacts on wildlife. All allocations have been subject to a robust appraisal process, which has determined the in principle acceptability of development. The need for biodiversity gain is recognised and Policy DM08: Biodiversity and Geodiversity will be applied. Wildlife surveys may be required at the time of a planning application in order to assess specific impacts on wildlife. No change is sought to Policy DOL01; the raised issue is not considered to represent a soundness or legal compliance challenge.

4.81 The respondent also questions the need for additional market housing in the village having regard to the number of unsold properties currently on the market. It is the respondent’s view that the village needs more sheltered and affordable housing. The Local Plan is required to demonstrate the delivery of objectivity assessed needs and demands; the site subject to Policy DOL01 makes a necessary contribution to this requirement. Policy DOL01 will additionally contribute to the local spatial strategy, which requires it to response to a range of housing needs, including affordable housing.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

Conclusion

4.82 The comments made in response to Policy DOL01 do not raise issues that are considered to challenge the soundness of the Local Plan.

Agreed Change

1. No change to Policy DOL01 or the or the associated supporting text.

Comments made in response to Policy DOL02: Land South of Village Hall

Total Number of Responses 4

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - 4

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” - 2

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy DOL02: Land South of Village Hall and supporting text plp number

Add a requirement for allotments subject to demand. 2162 DPC)

Car parking spaces are not needed as most people who use the hall live in the 930 village and walk to events.

A review of the safety of the proposed access point in South Street should be done 930 before being included in the plan.

Questions why whole field is allocated. 952

The new road from South Street should not be an enabler of future development 952 in the adjacent fields.

Want statement from the Council that there will be no development on land to the 956 south of the village hall to ensure there is no confusion in the future about development on this site.

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.83 Dolton Parish Council has requested allotments on the allocated site. Allotments have not previously been sought in this location by the Parish Council. The policy could however enable allotments to be provided by virtue of Policy DOL02(2)(e) which states that community uses on site will include ‘amenity use of the land south of the village hall’.

4.84 The need for additional car parking at the village hall has been questioned. The village strategy and related proposals directly relate to community consultation through which the Parish Council identified the need for a new car park on the basis provided by Policy DOL02.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

4.85 A respondent questions the extent of the site allocation. The proposal provides an area for community uses including a sizable car park and public amenity uses; the housing element of the proposal is limited to a maximum of three dwellings. The allocation in size, location and requirements reflects the outcomes of consultation with the Parish Council.

4.86 Concern is raised that the new road to serve the village hall and three dwellings should not act as an enabler of future development in adjacent fields. Policy DOL02 is an enabling policy, the housing element providing the means to deliver the stated community uses, at this time there are no proposals to facilitate further development beyond the allocated site.

4.87 A respondent requests a review of the safety of the proposed access onto South Street before it is included in the Local Plan. All proposals have been subject to a robust assessment and Devon County Council (Highways) has raised no concerns over the proposed access. A more detailed assessment of access arrangement will be necessary at the planning application stage, at which time Policy DM05: Highways, will apply.

4.88 The above points are not considered to raise any issues of soundness or legal compliance; no change to the Local Plan is therefore recommended in response.

Conclusion

4.89 The comments made in response to Policy DOL02 do not raise issues that are considered to challenge the soundness of the Local Plan.

Agreed Actions

1. No change to Policy DOL02 or the or the associated supporting text. Halwill Junction

4.90 No comments received in relation to Policy HAL: Halwill Junction Spatial Strategy and HAL01: Land at Halwill Junction Industrial Estate

Comments made in response to Policy HAL02: Land East of Chilla Road

Total Number of Responses 2

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” - -

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy HAL02: Land East of Chilla Road and supporting text plp number

SA highlights adverse impacts on historic assets but the policy makes no reference 1231 (EH) to mitigation measures, other than as a landscape issue. With the recognition of harm to a historic asset the justification for the site to be allocated is questioned.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

Existing school at capacity, development funded expansion may be needed to fund 1363 (DCC) extra places.

Consideration of Issues and Arising

4.91 English Heritage raises concerns relating to the allocation of the site having regard to the identified impacts on heritage assets and in relation to which at the absence of mitigation measures. The Sustainability Appraisal highlights limited impacts on the Grade II* listed Winsford Centre which lies beyond the sites southern boundary. The site of the allocation and its contained provisions represents the Parish Council’s preference for development to meet a range of housing and other locally identified needs. The site is identified as developable through the Strategic Housing Land Availably Assessment. The site provides the only opportunity in the village to deliver the range of uses sought by the Parish Council. The allocation of the site is considered justified not only with regard to local preference, delivery potential but through the absence of comparable alternative sites. With regard to the proximity of Winsford Centre Policy DM07: Historic Environment will be applied to address any impacts on the historic asset and its settings. Policy HAL02 includes as a development principle that the access to the proposed recreation facilities has an acceptable impact on the setting of the Winsford Centre. However, in response to the comment from English Heritage it is considered necessary to explicitly state that development on the site will be required to have regard to the setting of the Winsford Centre.

4.92 Devon County Council notes that the existing School at Halwill is at capacity as a result of which development funded expansion may be required. Policy ST23: Infrastructure will require development to provide or contribute towards the timely provision of infrastructure made necessary by development, this policy will be applied if required to secure education contribution to address generated needs. No change to the Local Plan is considered necessary in response to this point.

Conclusion

4.93 The comment from English Heritage relating to the potential impact on the setting of a Grade II* listed building is considered to be significant with regard to the NPPF’s approach to conserving and enhancing historic assets and on which basis an amendment to the Local Plan is recommended. The comment relating to the justification for the allocation is not considered to be a justifiable challenge; no amendment is recommend in response to this or the Devon County Council comment.

Agreed Action

1. The following is agreed as a Main Change to Policy HAL02, with associated supporting text revisions;

a. Amend HAL02 (2): require development that has an acceptable impact on the setting on the Winsford Centre, including as necessary mitigation measures. Hartland

Comments made in response to Policy HAR: Hartland Spatial Strategy

Total Number of Responses 6

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - -

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” -

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy HAR: Hartland Spatial Strategy plp number

Recognition of settlements location in AONB. Suggested addition to policy to conform 245, 2054 to para 114 of NPPF. (NE)

245(NE)

Land already part of existing plan and hasn’t been developed due to fragmented 986 ownership, economic factors and requirement for comprehensive development of whole site.

Owners of land support footpath between Harton Cross and the village. 1144

Confused at aspiration ‘to reflect existing local style’ when development over last 20 1149 years has resulted in a range of styles. Reference to vernacular style more meaningful.

Site Proposal - land off School Corner Ball Hill. 1681

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.94 Natural England seek recognition of the settlement’s location within the AONB, with the following proposed in order to conform to paragraph 114 of NPPF: ‘The village is within the designated AONB. Consequently great weight will be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in consideration of proposals for development’.

4.95 The suggestion from Natural England is considered acceptable having regard to the quoted paragraph of the NPPF. The addition of the provided text within the strategy is considered to be a minor change having regard to the established provisions of ST14: Enhancing Environmental Assets.

4.96 Natural England seek the inclusion of a reference to a Village Design Guide, such is not considered to represent a soundness challenge but it is considered to add value with regard to encouraging appropriate forms of development within the protected landscape. Paragraphs 12.36 (in support of Policy DM04: Design Principles) provides that village design statements prepared by communities will be used to achieve high quality design.

4.97 An additional housing site is proposed on land off School Lane, Ball Hill. The development strategy for the village has been established through community consultation and all allocations have been through a Sustainability Appraisal and SHLAA assessment. It is recognised that the proposed site is considered developable through the SHLAA process (SHA/HAR/3) with the adjoining site (SHA/HAR/13), however, development in this location is not favoured by the Parish Council, which have provided a clear view on the local development preference, which is provided by Policy HAR01: Land East of Pengilly Way. No change to the Local Plan is recommended in response to this matter.

4.98 A respondent provided support for the proposed footpath link between Harton Cross and the village, the comment is noted.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

4.99 The aspiration ‘to reflect existing local style’ is questioned with regard to the range of styles that have been delivered through development over last 20 years. It is suggested that the use of “vernacular style” would be more meaningful. The point is not considered to represent a soundness challenge but it is considered that the proposed amendment would add clarity in respect of the intent that development should reflect the indigenous building style.

Conclusion

4.100 The comments in response to the draft Local Plan Policy HAR are considered not to raise any issues that challenge the soundness of the Local Plan. A number of minor changes are proposed which are considered appropriate in the interest of adding clarity to the Local Plan in providing a clearer emphasis on the nature of development required as a consequence of Hartland’s location within the AONB.

Agreed Actions

1. No Main Change is recommended to Policy HAR or the or the associated supporting text. 2. The following are recommended as minor changes to Policy HAR and the supporting text:

a. add: The village is within the designated AONB. Consequently great weight will be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in consideration of proposals for development; b. add a reference to the Hartland Village Design Guide; and c. replace existing local style with vernacular style.

Comments made in response to Policy HAR01: Land East of Pengilly Way

Total Number of Responses 8

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” - -

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy HAR01: Land East of Pengilly Way and supporting text plp number

Site owners supportive of allocation and indicate confidence in deliverability. 1143

Greater flexibility needed in access arrangements for the site – alternative access 1473, 1145, suggestions - Fore Street or Harton Cross. Pengilly Way is in third party ownership. 1147, 2709 Landscaping and pedestrian link would need revision.

Current access arrangements do not address safety concerns regarding vehicle 1146 speeds and visibility.

Land value needs to be zero as a result of the high development costs which is 2191 prejudicial to development.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

Supportive of enhanced biodiversity and respect given to AONB location but 1148 concerned with sought retention of internal hedgerows which could compromise a sensible layout (hedges of poor quality and lacking biodiversity).

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.101 The supportive comments from the site owner are noted.

4.102 Flexibility in relation to the access arrangements for the site is sought on the basis that the proposed access is in third party ownership; an opportunity to alternatively access the site is requested. It is recognised that by prescribing the access point from Pengilly Way, the deliverability of the site both in timescale and the opportunity to achieve community benefits could be negatively affected. In the interest of increasing the sites delivery potential amendment is recommended to remove the requirement for the housing allocation to be developed with an access from Pengilly Way.

4.103 Comment is provided that is supportive of the sought enhanced biodiversity and the respect given to the AONB location but concern is raised with the required retention of internal hedgerows. It is suggested that the required retention of natural features could compromise delivery of a sensible site layout. The location of the site within the AONB adds significance to the form and impacts of development and the need for it to secure an appropriate relationship with the countryside beyond. It is however recognised that an improvement in a development proposal may result from applying a flexible approach to existing natural features while achieving the sought development objectives, including a net increase in biodiversity.

Conclusion

4.104 Revision to Policy HAR01 is considered prudent in the interests of improving site delivery and the potential to gain a housing development that reflects the sensitivities of the sites location within the AONB.

Agreed Actions

1. The following are agreed as Main Changes to Policy HAR01 with associated supporting text revisions: a. deletion of Policy HAR01(2): provide vehicular access from Pengilly Way; and b. amend Policy HAR01(2): maximise the retention of the mature trees and hedge along Fore Street/ Harton Cross and enhancement of the biodiversity based on existing site features.

Comments made in response to Policy HAR02: Land at Eastdown Park

Total Number of Responses 2

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” - -

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy HAR02: Land at Eastdown Park and supporting text plp number

Needs to be visually connected to existing housing development south of the site, 246 to avoid it looking like an isolated settlement in the countryside

Policy difficult to implement due to fragmented ownership, economic factors and 1480 the requirement for comprehensive development.

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.105 Comment is provided that the site is difficult to development in the sought comprehensive manner as a result of its fragmented ownerships. The objective for the site at Eastdown Park is to achieve an overall improvement in the appearance of the site which is largely vacant and derelict; it is divorced from Harland Village and within the AONB. The location of the site would not normally gain support for housing development but such is considered necessary in part to achieve the stated objective. If the sites development were enabled in a piecemeal manner delivery of the objectives for the site would be difficult to achieve. Given the location of the site and recognised delivery issues any housing yield achieved from the site would add to the housing supply provided for in Policy HAR. The issues raised through this comment are not considered to represents a soundness or legal challenge.

4.106 Comment is provided that the allocated site should be visually connected to the existing housing to avoid it looking like an isolated settlement. Policy HAR02 provides a framework for how the site should be developed, which is considered appropriate given its AONB location, its existing nature and the objectives relating to landscape restoration and visual improvement. The policy currently allows for housing on the southern aspect of the site, subject to an acceptable impact on the amenity of the existing dwellings. No change to the policy is considered necessary in the interest of achieving soundness or legal compliance.

Conclusion

4.107 The comment made in response to Policy HAR02 does not raise issues that are considered to challenge the soundness of the Publication Local Plan.

Agreed Actions

1. No change to Policy HAR02 or the associated supporting text. High Bickington

Comments made in response to Policy HBK: High Bickington Spatial Strategy

Total Number of Responses 1

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - -

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” - -

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy HBK: High Bickington Spatial Strategy and supporting text plp number

Support 1257

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.108 No issues provided as a result of consultation.

Other Matters

4.109 No minor changes have been identified through consultation comments or by officers.

Conclusion

4.110 No areas of change, correction or clarification are sought in respect of Policy HBK: High Bickington Spatial Strategy.

Agreed Action

1. No change to the Policy HBK or the associated supporting text.

HBK01: Land at Little Bickington Lane

Comments made in response to Policy HBK01: Land at Little Bickington Lane

Total Number of Responses 1

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” - -

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy HBK01: Land at Little Bickington Lane and supporting text plp number

Little reference to guide decision makers or applicants how to consider and mitigate 1233 (EH) harm to the Conservation Area and Grade 1 Listed Church, as identified in the SA. Believe there is harm to the historic assets and their setting, an alternative site should be allocated without the identified harm; question the justification for the allocation.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.111 English Heritage raises concerns regarding the justification for the site allocation subject to HBK01 having regard to the recognised impacts on heritage assets identified by the Sustainability Appraisal. While accepting the concerns relating to the referenced heritage assets, the spatial strategy and related delivery mechanism reflects the presented position of the Parish Council. The Parish Council in setting out its development preference seeks to deliver and develop on a parish plan (adopted by the Parish Council 2003) that aims to improve the range of services within the settlement which is supported by housing growth. Within this context and having regard to housing site options assessed through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, it is considered that there are no alternative sites that could replace the Local Plan allocation at HKB01.

4.112 English Heritage are further concerned that there is little reference to guide decision makers or applicants on how to consider and mitigate harm to the Conservation Area and Grade 1 Listed Church. Impacts on heritage assets will be considered having regard to Policy DM07: Heritage Environment, however a policy reference which seeks to secure acceptable impacts on the heritage assets is considered appropriate having regard NPPF guidance on conserving and enhancing the historic environment.

Conclusion

4.113 English Heritage’s concerns relating to the allocation of the site subject to Policy HBK01are not considered to represent a soundness challenge based on the absence of alternative suitable sites to meet locally identified objectives. The need to reference the heritage assets that could be affected by development is accepted and on which basis amendment is recommended to Policy HBK01.

Agreed Action

1. The following is an agreed Main Change to the Local Plan:

a. an additional point HBK01(f): a layout and design that provides an acceptable impact on the Conservation Area and the Church of St Mary.

Policy HBK02: Land at North Farm and Policy HBK3: Land south of Community Centre

4.114 No consultation comments were received in response to Policy HBK02 (including supporting text) and HBK03 (including supporting text).

4.115 No main or minor changes are identified as other issues; no areas of change, correction or clarification are sought in respect of the High Bickington Policies

Agreed Action

1. No change Policies HBK2 and HBK3 or the associated supporting text.

Comments made in response to Policy HBK4: Land at Little Bickington Lane

Total Number of Responses 1

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - -

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” - -

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy HBK4: Land at Little Bickington Lane plp number

DCC are considering phased relocation of existing primary school, subject to funding. 1359 (DCC) Description that new school is likely within plan period should be deleted.

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.116 Devon County Council seeks the removal of wording in paragraph 13.195 that construction of the new school ‘is likely’ within the plan period. The comment is accepted having regard to the need to plan for delivery that will come forward during the plan period.

Conclusion

4.117 In response to comment from Devon County Council amendment is considered necessary to paragraph 13.195, to remove the suggestion that the proposed new primary school could be delivered beyond the plan period.

Agreed Action

1. The following is agreed as Main change to paragraph 13.195: a. amend to read: A new primary school, which is expected to be incorporated with, and make use of the community hall and adjoining recreation site (Policy HBK03), will be constructed during the plan period. Instow

Comments made in response to Policy INS and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 1

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 1 ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1 ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy INS: and supporting text plp number

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

Generally supportive of policy INS which sets out the proposed strategy for the future 1447 development of Instow. The Estate is however concerned that the policy is too prescriptive with regards to the number of dwellings to be provided over the coming plan period. The inclusion of the words ‘at least’ provides the flexibility required by the Framework

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.118 The provision of 38 homes within the strategy for Instow is not an upper limit. It is a contribution from identified sites within Instow towards the strategic housing needs of the local plan as a whole. The strategy for Instow has already been established through community consultation during 2013 prior to publication of the draft Local Plan. Additional residential development within the village is permitted where it meets the requirements of Policy ST19. There is no need for this spatial strategy (and all other spatial strategies) to be amended to’ at least’ the identified number of homes.

Other Matters

4.119 Amendment to the pre-fix to the housing numbers is additionally recommended to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of” through Policy ST08: Scale and Distribution of New Development in Northern Devon.

Conclusion

4.120 Issues raised are not considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan.

Agreed Actions

The following is agreed as a Main Change to the Local Plan:

1. To undertake a Main Change to Policy INS, consequential of agreed Main Changes to Policy ST08 to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of”.

Comments made in response to Policy INS01: Land at Barton Cross and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 1

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 1 ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 1 ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1 ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy INS01: and supporting text plp number

Support Policy INS01 for development of approximately 10 dwellings. 1448

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.121 The only representation to INS01 was one of support.

Conclusion

4.122 This representation is not considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan.

Agreed Actions

The following are agreed as Main Changes to the Local Plan:

1. Add new text to paragraph 13.205 to read “A financial contribution will be required towards the delivery of affordable housing in accordance with Policy ST18 (Affordable Housing on Development Sites)”. 2. The following is an agreed Minor Change

Amend paragraph 13.206 to read “The north-eastern part of the site is identified by the Environment Agency as at risk of flooding where vulnerable development will not be permitted. Safeguarding this land from development will also protect the setting of the Grade I listed Church of St. John the Baptist . This area should remain free of vulnerable development and provide a landscaped edge to the site. A high standard of design is required that reflects the characteristics of the village”.

Comments made in response to Policy INS02: Land at Anstey Way and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 1

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 1 ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1 ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy INS02: and supporting text plp number

The site boundary needs to change along with the number of housing allocated for 1450 this site. The site can accommodate 8 dwellings if extended without harming the character and appearance of the landscape. Amend the policy to reflect the proposed amount.

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.123 Land between Valeridge & Millard's Hill House, the site allocated as INS02, was considered ‘developable’ by the SHLAA panel. The site identified through the SHLAA was the same as the site allocated. The availability of the additional site further up the hillside is uncertain and has not been

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

considered by the SHLAA Panel, so could not be included in the local plan. However, the objector to its omission is the land owner so its availability is now assumed. The site could be extended but it is not considered necessary to do so.

Conclusion

4.124 Inclusion of land that is not developable could threaten the soundness of the local plan.

Agreed Actions

1. No change is recommended to Policy INS02 or Policies Map 19 of the Local Plan in response to the issue raised through consultation.

Comments made in response to Policy INS03: Land North of Marine Parade and the associated supporting text.

Total Number of Responses 1

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 1 ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 1 ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1 ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy INS03: and supporting text plp number

Support Policy INS03 for development of 10 dwellings and an area of public open 1452 space.

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.125 The only representation to INS03 was one of support.

Conclusion

4.126 This representation is not considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan.

Agreed Actions

The following are agreed as Main Changes to the Local Plan:

1. Add new text to paragraph 13.208 as a final sentence to read “A financial contribution will be required towards the delivery of affordable housing in accordance with Policy ST18 (Affordable Housing on Development Sites)”. 2. The following is an agreed Minor Change:

Add new text to start of paragraph 13.208 to read “The site north of Marine Parade is well related to the services available in the village and the Tarka Trail. A small residential development here will secure community benefits of a children's play area and amenity greenspace with

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

good access to the Tarka Trail. The northern part of the site is identified by the Environment Agency as at risk of flooding where vulnerable development will not be permitted. Safeguarding this land from development will also protect the setting of the Grade I listed Church of St. John the Baptist . Residential development will be restricted to the area outside of the flood zone and will comprise a mixture of house types, sizes and tenures to meet local needs”.

Comments made in response to Paragraph 13.211

Total Number of Responses 1

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” ~ ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on Paragraph 13.211 plp number

It is unclear how an additional or replacement school will be funded. Necessary 1365 expansion to meet future demand would be supported by DCC, it is unlikely that a (DCC) replacement school would be a DCC funding priority; other areas having a more significant need.

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.127 Paragraph 13.211 recognises the need for additional primary school provision but its provision or funding is not identified specifically in the local plan or the infrastructure delivery plan. The local plan is not relying on its delivery. Recognition of support for an additional or replacement school near Instow is considered to be beneficial should a major development be proposed in the vicinity (e.g. at West Yelland) which could help to provide a suitable location and funding mechanism.

4.128 By way of contrast, new primary schools within and related to urban extensions elsewhere in the plan area are included within relevant policies, identified within the CIL and infrastructure delivery plan. This coincides with the County Council’s assessment that these other areas have a more significant need and a higher funding priority.

Conclusion

4.129 This representation is not considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan.

Agreed Actions

No change to paragraph 13.211 of the Local Plan is recommended in response to the issue raised through consultation.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

North Molton

Comments made in response to Policy NMO and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 5

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 1 ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 1 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 2 ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on North Molton Spatial Strategy Policy NMO: and supporting text plp number

Agree the Local Plan meets the requirements of the village. 987

Housing growth through current planning applications will take the existing school 1371 over capacity, some expansion will be required. (DCC)

Support the inclusion of criterion (b) ‘safeguarding the dark night skies over ENP’ 2373 (ENPA)

Insufficient housing proposed for North Molton given its key position as one of only 2389 two Local Centres in the area, bounded by Exmoor National Park. Lack of affordable housing which can only be resolved by ensuring sufficient levels of both affordable and market housing are delivered.

The plan is unsound on the basis that:

Background evidence is absent to establish the exact housing needs of North Molton and the wider rural area. The spatial strategy for North Molton is therefore unjustified , as it is based upon an arbitrary growth figure and the position of the settlement within a settlement hierarchy. The SA process in respect of site selection at North Molton is flawed as it does not make clear how and when the decisions have been made in respect of which of the North Molton sites to include and provide the reasons why the reasonable alternatives were rejected. No transparent audit has been provided in relation to the site selection process. As such we consider the proposed allocations to be unjustified . The level of public involvement in the site selection process has not been effective, to ensure that the local community has had the opportunity to influence the sites selected for allocation.

Questions the need for archaelogical investigation, as the site is separated by the 437 wall and road from the Court Castle Mound.

Site Proposal

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

Land west of North Molton Primary School on land immediately adjacent the existing 2389 development boundary.

Additional Information

57361: Outline application for development of up to 45 dwellings, approximately 3.89ha of public open space, playground, forest school & additional parking for the school, access, foot & cycle paths, pumping station, attenuation ponds & associated landscaping & infrastructure. Refused 17th July 2014. Appeal lodged with the Planning Inspectorate.

58144 : Outline application for development of up to 45 dwellings, approximately 3.89ha of public open space, playground, forest school and additional parking for the school, access, foot and cycle paths, pumping station, attenuation ponds and associated landscaping and infrastructure. Pending a decision.

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.130 The response from Exmoor National Park regarding the recognition within the spatial strategy to safeguarding the dark night skies over the National Park is noted and welcomed.

4.131 Devon County Council are concerned that the current housing growth proposed for North Molton will take the existing primary school over capacity and to alleviate this some expansion will be required. Criterion (d) of the spatial strategy already recognises the need to support the retention and expansion of existing village facilities and services to meet the needs of the local community. Devon County Council are concerned over proposed housing growth through current planning applications and the potential impact these developments may have on the primary school if all are approved. Policy ST23: Infrastructure will require developments to provide or contribute towards the timely provision of infrastructure made necessary by the specific and/or cumulative impact of those developments either through on site provision or an off site contribution. These issues should be resolved through negotiation as part of current planning applications. Therefore, it is not an issue for the Local Plan.

4.132 The assumption that North Molton should provide a greater level of housing to meet future needs in the village, particularly in terms of affordable housing as well as helping to meet the needs of Exmoor National Park is noted. This issue will be discussed further when the alternative site is considered. However, across the parish of North Molton there was a recommendation for the local community to deliver at least 50 dwellings over the Plan period (10% housing growth for Local Centres). Therefore, the 96 dwellings proposed for North Molton within the spatial strategy equates to about a 20% growth for the parish, a strategy that is considered will help address some, but not all of the affordable need in the North Molton as well as the housing need for parts of Exmoor National Park.

4.133 The provision of approximately 46 additional dwellings as set out in the spatial strategy is made up of houses already built since 2011 (start of the Plan period) and existing commitments. This is explained in the footnote(66) to paragraph 13.320. It is not accepted that the additional housing sites will not deliver any affordable housing. In the latest HLA (2013/2014), there were three affordable homes built with a further twelve dwellings (including a 15% discount) currently in the planning system as extant permissions. It is accepted that the level of affordable housing proposed in North Molton, 15 houses through extant permissions and built units as well as approximately 16 houses through allocations may not meet the overall affordable housing need in North Molton as discussed earlier. The Local Plan has identified 16,469 dwellings for North Devon and Torridge which equates to 8,350 dwellings for North Devon and 8,119 dwellings for Torridge. The HMA identified an objectively assessed need for North Devon of approximately 6,600 dwellings but as the Plan is seeking growth for the area

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

and North Devon is seeking to deliver approximately 27% over the baseline demographic need. However, the HMA is currently being reviewed. The delivery of affordable housing in both North Devon and Torridge is an issue for the whole Plan to recognise and will be considered further in Policy ST08 (Scale and Distribution of New Development in Northern Devon). However, there is an acceptance that viability is a key factor of delivering sustainable development and therefore the Plan will not meet all the identified affordable need in northern Devon without allocating many thousands of more houses which is unlikely to be supported by the market.

4.134 The comments that the SA appraisal is flawed as it does not make clear how and when the decisions have been made in respect of which of the North Molton sites to include and provide the reasons why the reasonable alternatives were rejected and that there is no transparent audit of site selection are noted. The SA identified that all developable housing sites in North Molton had no significant negative impacts, but where landscape impact was considered a negative against Policy NMO02, this was addressed through policy by requiring strategic landscaping on the higher southern part of the site and development should safeguard the dark night skies over Exmoor National Park. To ensure appropriate growth was planned for, at a scale and in locations that reflects local aspirations, community consultation on Part 3 of the Local Plan was undertaken during the early part of 2013 (March to June) through Parish Councils to enable draft development boundaries and allocations to be discussed and defined in advance of inclusion within the Local Plan. The outcome of this engagement resulted in North Molton Parish Council identifying land adjacent Oakford Villas (Policy NMO01) and land north of the Sports Club (Policy NMO02) for additional housing growth in the village.

4.135 The District Councils were very much of the view that the Parish Council would be integral to the process of site selection and boundary review for the village of North Molton. The intention of this approach to housing growth within the rural areas was to provide the opportunity to North Molton Parish Council to guide how development is managed and delivered within their community so that growth in rural settlements was locally informed. The District Councils did not prescribe how the consultation with the local community should be undertaken, the whole process on engagement was the responsibility of the Parish Council. Whilst there may be some concern with how the process was undertaken in North Molton, it was nevertheless a democratic one which formed part of an open meeting with the local community and a vote taken by the Parish Council based on the arguments heard by all sections of the community.

4.136 In addition to the housing proposed for North Molton in the Local Plan, including a site allocation to the north of the village (NMO01) and south of the village (NMO02), one additional housing site has been promoted on land west of North Molton Primary School, immediately adjacent the existing development boundary. The site has been proposed by a Planning Agent on behalf of the landowner and has been fully assessed by the SHLAA Panel. The recommendation from the Panel was that the site is considered developable in principle should additional housing land be required to meet overall housing supply. Whilst the additional promoted sites are developable, the strategy for North Molton has already been established through community consultation during 2013 and alternative sites have been through a robust assessment prior to publication of the draft Local Plan. It is not considered necessary to allocate this additional site. Additional residential development within the village is permitted where it meets the requirements of Policy ST19 (Affordable Housing on Exception Sites).

4.137 However, since the working group meeting in November 2014, the outline application to the west of North Molton Primary School (58144) was approved by Planning Committee on the 4th December 2014 for 45 dwellings, approximately 3.89ha of public open space, playground, forest school and additional parking for the school, access, foot and cycle paths, pumping station, attenuation ponds and associated landscaping and infrastructure.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

4.138 As the site now has an extant outline planning permission, an amendment to Policies Map 20 is required to amend the development boundary to clarify the extent of the housing and to show approved green infrastructure provision including the proposed footpath link between the primary school and the sports club. A plan showing these proposed map changes, in combination with those agreed previously, is attached to this report. Such an approach to extend the development boundary is consistent with the working group’s decision for Chulmleigh, on land off Leigh Road (CHU01), that was granted permission on appeal for 95 dwellings.

4.139 As a result of this map change, it is also recommended to make a main change to criterion (a) of Policy NMO to reflect the additional 45 dwellings approved in the village. Therefore, the spatial vision for North Molton will be delivered through the provision of 141 new dwellings to meet the range of need in the local community. A further amendment is recommended to paragraph 13.220 with a consequential change to ‘Footnote’ (66) to 91 dwellings under construction and extant planning permissions.

Other Matters

4.140 Amendment to the pre-fix to the housing numbers is additionally recommended to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of” through Policy ST08: Scale and Distribution of New Development in Northern Devon.

Conclusion

4.141 Several issues were raised through representations received, but none are considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan.

Agreed Actions

The following are agreed as Main Changes to the Local Plan:

1. To undertake a Main Change to Policy NMO, consequential of agreed Main Changes to Policy ST08 to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of”. 2. Acknowledge the need to update housing numbers within Policy NMO(a) from 96 dwellings to 141 dwellings in total for the village with two sites delivering 50 dwellings. 3. Amend Policies Map 20 to include land west of the Primary School within the defined development boundary and to show the approved green infrastructure provision including the proposed footpath link between the primary school and the sports club.

The following are agreed as Minor Changes to the Local Plan:

1. Acknowledge the need to update footnote (66) in paragraph 13.220 to read “91 dwellings under construction and extant planning permissions”. 2. Amend paragraph 13.220 to read “Additional housing is proposed to meet the needs of North Molton over the plan period. At April 2013 there was a relatively high level of housing commitments in North Molton which includes a further 45 dwellings approved post April 2014. The plan allocates two sites that will be released in response to local needs.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

Comments made in response to Policy NMO01: Land off Back Lane and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 3

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1 ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy NMO01: and supporting text plp number

Assessment makes no reference to the setting of either the conservation area or the 1237 (EH) listed buildings. The SAs landscape and townscape assessment suggests that the proposal would be positive and yet the location and views across from the other side of the valley immediately highlight the importance of that field to the setting of the village and church.

Support the inclusion of clause (1)(d) safeguarding the dark night skies over Exmoor 2374 National Park. (ENPA)

Object to the allocation with regards to the lack of a fair and transparent selection 2390 process, which has failed to sufficiently analyse the reasonable alternatives within North Molton. The submitted planning application does not comply with policy and only proposes 25% affordable housing. The findings of the SHLAA process had no impact on the subsequent selection process and no transparent audit of site selection.

Additional Information

57625 : Outline planning application for 25 dwellings, associated landscaping & formation of new road access (amended description & amended plans). Approved subject to S106.

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.142 The response from Exmoor National Park regarding the recognition within Policy NMO01(d) to safeguarding the dark night skies over the National Park is noted and welcomed.

4.143 The issue regarding the objection from English Heritage is noted. However, Policy NMO01(a) and supporting text make it clear that development of land off Back Lane will be required to deliver a design and layout that respects the location of the site adjacent to the conservation area and safeguards the historic setting of the Grade II* listed Court House. It is considered the relevant detail on how this very important issue should be resolved would be through negotiation as part of the current planning application and heritage policies elsewhere in the plan. It is also worth noting that the allocation of sites within the Local Plan was partly informed by the Council’s in house ‘Heritage Assets Assessment’ evidence base which identified and assessed the particular significance of the heritage asset that may be affected by the proposal and appropriate criteria included to avoid or mitigate against any harm to the heritage asset as advocated by the NPPF.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

4.144 The process for selection of housing sites within North Molton has been discussed above under representations to the spatial strategy. The issue concerning the current planning application and its compliance with policy is not an issue of soundness with the Local Plan. However, it is worth noting that the site off Back Lane is allocated for housing in the current adopted Local Plan, therefore the application could be considered against the saved policies of the Adopted Local Plan.

Conclusion

4.145 The issues raised through the representation received are not considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan.

Agreed Actions

1. No change to Policy NMO01 of the Local Plan is recommended in response to the issues raised through consultation.

Comments made in response to Policy NMO02: Land at Old Road and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 2

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1 ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy NMO02: and supporting text plp number

Support the inclusion of clause (2)(d) safeguarding the dark night skies over Exmoor 2375 National Park. (ENPA)

Object to the allocation of this site on the basis of its unsuitability for development 2391 and its likely significant effects in terms of impact on the countryside, on the setting of the Conservation Area and Listed Buildings at the core of the village and the impacts on the Exmoor National Park. We also object to the allocation with regards to the lack of fair and transparent selection process which has been undertaken, which has failed to effectively consider the reasonable alternatives within North Molton. Strong level of public objection regarding the allocation of this site. Despite this, the Parish Council have recommended it for allocation in preference to other more suitable sites.

The plan is unsound on the basis that:

The SA process in respect of site selection at North Molton is flawed as it does not make clear how and when the decisions have been made in respect of which of the North Molton sites to include and provide the reasons why the reasonable alternatives were rejected. Evidence provided by the SHLAA

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

demonstrated that there were more suitable sites available at the time of the assessment than Site NMO01 and Site NMO02 was not even assessed. As such we consider the proposed allocations to be unjustified . The SA of Site NMO02 highlights that the impact on the countryside would present a significant adverse effect. The purpose of the SA is to highlight likely significant effects and first and foremost avoid them. Only when this cannot be done, should the mitigation of those effects be considered as an alternative. This approach has not been undertaken by the plan. In order to avoid the significant effects, the plan should look at the alternatives to establish the comparative sustainability aspects of these. The proposal to allocate this site is therefore considered unjustified.

Additional Information

57449 : Outline planning application for erection of 37 dwellings & associated site entrance, services & landscaping (amended drawings). Refused 4/3/15.

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.146 The response from Exmoor National Park regarding the recognition within Policy NMO02(d) to safeguarding the dark night skies over the National Park is noted and welcomed.

4.147 The supporting SA for Policy NMO02 recognised the potential landscape impact from development on the upper slopes of this site. This issue has been raised previously under comments to Policy NMO. As discussed above, this was addressed through appropriate criteria within Policy NMO02 by requiring strategic landscaping on the southern part of the site and development should safeguard the dark night skies over Exmoor National Park. It is unclear how housing development on this site would have a significant impact on the setting of North Molton conservation area and listed buildings at the core of the village. It is accepted the land rises steeply from north to south where parts of the land to the south are particularly prominent in the wider landscape and from the historic core of the village. However, the site is not adjacent to North Molton conservation area, nor any listed buildings and the Plan makes it clear that development should be proposed along the lower slopes and the more prominent parts of the southern boundary will be required to deliver strategic planting in order to reduce the visual impact of the site from Exmoor National Park and the historic core of the village.

4.148 The Policies Map should differentiate which parts of the site are proposed for housing and which areas are proposed for the required strategic planting and accessible natural greenspace. There is a current outline planning application on the north-eastern (lower) part of the site for 25 dwellings and allotments (57449). It is recommended to amend Policies Map 20 to clarify the extent of the housing (pink)and green infrastructure, including the allotments (green)components proposed. A plan showing these proposed map changes is attached to this report.

4.149 The process for selection of housing sites within North Molton has been discussed previously so it is not intended to repeat the comments above regarding alternative housing sites in North Molton.

Conclusion

4.150 The issues raised through the representation received are not considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

Agreed Actions

The following are agreed as Main Changes to the Local Plan:

1. Amend Policies Map 20 of the Local Plan as shown on the map within the Main Changes document. 2. Retain the extent of the current planning application 57449 (excluding proposed allotments) as residential development (pink); 3. Amend the rest of the current allocation (NMO02), including the proposed allotments on the upper slopes, to green infrastructure / structural planting (green); 4. Amend the development boundary to include the proposed residential development, but exclude the allotments and structural landscaping proposed on the upper slopes. Shebbear

Rural Strategies - Shebbear

4.151 No consultation comments were received in response to the Shebbear Strategy Policy SHB and Policies: SHB01 Land at Lake Workshops and SHB02: Land West of Haycross Hill.

4.152 No main or minor changes are identified as other issues; no areas of change, correction or clarification are sought in respect of the High Bickington Policies

Agreed Action

1. No change to Policies SHB, SHB01 and SHB02 or the associated supporting text . Winkleigh

Comments made in response to Policy WIN: Winkleigh Spatial Strategy

Total Number of Responses 21

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 2 8

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 1 11

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 4 4

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy WIN: Winkleigh Spatial Strategy and supporting text plp number

No mention that setting of scheduled monument and Conservation Area was 1234 (EH) considered in the SA. Questions the evidence on which the allocation is based.

Recognition of potential archaeological deposits welcome but provision of surface 1234(EH) level parking is predetermining the nature of those assets.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

No evidence or assessment as to how much housing would be developed in the 1474 local area to sustainably support WIN01 strategic employment site.

Support for the two allocated housing sites to the north of the village. 2322

Pleased to see that the village policy supports the local economy and have explicitly 2324 named live/work as a concept that would be considered.

Broad support for Policy WIN – pleased to see that the council recognises the 2476 sustainability of the settlement and the requirement for future growth.

Site proposal – South West of Old Barn Close. Considered more appropriate than 1469, other allocations in the plan. The site is presented as a housing site to meet current and future needs. 1478

Site proposal - Bellinster Industrial Estate should be included within the plan for 2323 mixed use development.

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.153 Two respondents’ expressed support for the Winkleigh strategy, the comment are noted.

4.154 Two alternative site proposals have been put forward for Winkleigh; south west of Old Barn Close (plp 1469, 1478) and Bellinster Industrial Estate (plp2323).

4.155 The site to the south west of Old Barn Close is a sizeable site (18 hectares) presented for housing to meet current and future needs, it suggested that the site provides a more suitable location for development than the allocations subject Policies WIN02 and WIN03. A 2.7 hectare element of the northern part of the site has been assessed through the Strategic Housing Land Availably Assessment process, which considered it to be developable; the balance of the site has not been subject to such an assessment or Sustainability Appraisal. The strategy for the village has been established through community consultation and extended dialogue with the Parish Council. The strategy and development proposal presented in the Local Plan represents the clear preference of the Parish Council, in relation to which it has been stressed that modest development in relation to the settlements role is sought having regard to the considered significant development delivered over the last 15-20 years.

4.156 Allocation of land at the Bellinster Industrial Estate is additionally sought for a range of employment, live/work units and residential use. The site is currently in employment use; it is divorced from the village. The site owners seek an extended range of uses to support a business relocation. The site has not been subject to assessment through the Strategic Housing Land Availably Assessment process or Sustainability Appraisal. The site is not considered to represent a sustainable location for residential uses, it is located in a countryside location and it falls outside the scope of the Parish Council’s identified development preferences to meet the local strategy. No change to the Local Plan is recommended in response to this request.

4.157 Circumstances, including the evidenced position, have not altered to necessitate a review of the Local Plan in response to issues presented in support of alternative and additional allocated sites, no soundness or legal compliance challenge is considered to be raised. Further consideration of the allocated development sites at Winkleigh is not required to allow the draft Local Plan to progress to Submission.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

4.158 English Heritage is concerned that the setting of the scheduled ancient monument and conservation area has not been appropriately considered in the allocation process. The site allocations have been assessed through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) process and subject to Sustainability Appraisal which identified the presence of heritage assets; the allocation WIN02 was made with an understanding of the potential impacts. The allocation subject to Policy WIN02: Land North of Chulmleigh Road consequently requires there to be no adverse impact on the setting of the ancient monument or disturbance to archaeological interests. It is recognised that alternative developable sites where identified through the SHLAA process, including sites that would potentially have a reduced impact on heritage assets. However, the Parish Council have a clear preference for the development strategy provided by Policy WIN.

4.159 Comment is made that there is no evidence as to how much housing would be developed in the local area to sustainably support the WIN01 employment site. Additional housing has been proposed in Winkleigh through allocations WIN02 and WIN03, to meet the needs and demands of the settlement and its surrounding area over the plan period. The Local Plan has identified WIN02 and WIN03 as housing sites that are considered deliverable and provide for a scale of development consistent with local preference. The approach to enabled development in Local Centres is set out at paragraph 4.13 in support of Policy ST07: Spatial Development Strategy for Northern Devon’s Rural Area. It is worth noting that the site subject to Policy WIN01 does not provide for the sites complete use for employment, such uses will be managed with supplementary guidance.

Conclusion

4.160 No major areas of change, correction or clarification are sought in respect of Policy WIN: Winkleigh Spatial Strategy.

Agreed Action

1. No change to Policy WIN or the associated supporting text.

Comments made in response to WIN01: Winkleigh Airfield

Total Number of Responses 2

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1 -

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy WIN01: Winkleigh Airfield and supporting text plp number

Objection that development will be ‘in accordance with the development brief’. Site 572 Development Brief was in draft in 2010 and is significantly out of date.

Site is isolated and unsustainable and would increase travel by unsustainable modes 1475 of transport.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.161 Comment is made that objects to development on the airfield being linked to a development brief. As stated in paragraph 13.262 of the Local Plan: in view of the size, complex mix of existing uses, environmental and heritage assets, a detailed framework, such as a development brief is considered necessary to enable positive proposals for future development and use of the area. Policy WIN01 sets out the long standing objectives for the airfield (landscape restoration and enhancement) and provides an opportunity for some development that is able to contribute to the stated objective. It is considered that without the development brief the site objectives could not be achieved and the scope of enabled development in the countryside location would be reduced.

4.162 It is suggested that the Winkleigh Site Development Brief (2010) is out of date and that development would be delayed if alternative guidance is to be prepared. The development brief has been agreed by the local planning authority for development management purposes, it is not considered to be out of date. The document has remained in draft form as a consequence of its divergence form the policy position in the adopted Torridge District Local Plan; it was prepared to provide increased flexibly particularly in respect of employment development and to better link development to the landscape and restoration objective. The Development Brief can be formally adopted with adoption of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan; its provisions are not inconsistent with Policy WIN01. Policy WIN01 provides the opportunity for alternative guidance to be prepared; the Winkleigh Site Development Brief would remain relevant until it is formally replaced. However, having regard to the agreed opportunity for further supplementary guidance to be provided in Policy WINK1, it is consider appropriate to include a reference within the supporting text, as a minor amendment, on the basis that the District Council will undertake an early review of the Winkleigh Site Development brief.

4.163 Circumstances, including the evidenced position, have not altered to necessitate a review of the Local Plan in respect of Policy WINK01 and no soundness or legal compliance challenge is considered to be raised. Further consideration of the provisions of Policy WIN01 is not required to allow the draft Local Plan to progress to Submission.

4.164 The comment that the site is isolated is noted. It is accepted that the site is in a countryside location, and having regard to sustainability considerations, development would not normally be supported. However, given the nature of the airfield, which includes a range of sporadic uses and the objective for landscape restoration and enhancement, some limited development, focused on employment activities is considered appropriate. No change is recommended to the Local Plan in response to the raised issue.

Other Matters

4.165 The wording of the Policy WIN01 is considered to be confusing, the following is recommended as a minor amendment:

1. Development at Winkleigh Airfield, as defined on Policies Map 23, will be in accordance with a Development Brief, or other supplementary planning document approved by the local planning authority, to ensure restoration and enhancement of the landscape and that provides for:

4.166 (a) a continued use of land at the airfield for agriculture; and,

4.167 (b) other acceptable uses, including B1, B2 and B8 Business uses, which have no adverse impact on existing business, residential properties or environmental and heritage assets.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

Conclusion

4.168 The comments made in response to Policy WIN01 do not raise issues that are considered to challenge the soundness of the Local Plan.

Agreed Actions

1. No Main Change is recommended to Policy WIN01 or the associated supporting text . 2. The following are agreed as Minor Changes to Policy WIN01: a. Development at Winkleigh Airfield, as defined on Policies Map 23, will be in accordance with a Development Brief, or other supplementary planning document approved by the local planning authority, to ensure restoration and enhancement of the landscape and that provides for:

4.169 (a) a continued use of land at the airfield for agriculture; and,

4.170 (b) other acceptable uses, including B1, B2 and B8 Business uses, which have no adverse impact on existing business, residential properties or environmental and heritage assets.

4.171 (c) amend: A Site Development Brief has been prepared for Winkleigh Airfield, which will be subject to an ealry review. Development will be required to be in accordance with this Brief or an alternative form of supplementary planning document or Neighbourhood Plan. The development Brief identifies specific areas for future development that accord with Policy WIN01 and other policies of the Local Plan, as will be the requirement from any successor guidance for Winkleigh Airfield.

Comments made in response to Policy WIN02: Land North of Chulmleigh Road

Total Number of Responses 6

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 1 -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” - 1

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy WIN02: Land North of Chulmleigh Road and supporting text plp number

WIN02 and WIN03 shouldn’t be two separate sites – needs to be single vehicle 432, 939 access near the entrance to the sports centre and cemetery. (WCP)

Site does not have size or critical mass potential to accommodate the housing 1476 needs of Winkleigh over the longer term.

Questions need for archaeological investigation as the site is separated by the wall 436,437, 440 and road from Court Castle Mound.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.172 Comment is made, including from the Parish Council that the allocations WIN02 and WIN03 should be brought together as a single allocation. This point is considered valid in the interest of improved site viability and delivery having regard to the development requirements sought as community benefits to be delivered by the site. It is recommended that the policy provisions of WIN02 and WIN03 are combined into a single new policy. The Parish Council’s comment with regard to a single access point is noted; this provision is however already provided for in Policy WIN02 and will be maintained in the proposed new policy.

4.173 Comment is made which questions the need for archaeological investigation on the basis that the site is separated by the wall and road from Court Caste Mound. The need for an archaeological assessment is consistent with NPPF requirements (paragraph 128/129) and the Council has been given clear advice from Devon County Council (archaeology) through the SHLAA process that such will be required. It is appropriate that archaeological investigation is undertaken to ensure there would be no unacceptable impact on the setting of the ancient monument or any archaeological remains on site. No amendment to the Local Plan is recommended in response to the issues raised.

4.174 It is suggested that the site is not sufficient in scale to accommodate the future needs of Winkleigh. The level of development is entirely consistent with the approach set in paragraph 4.13 in support of Policy ST07: Spatial Development Strategy for Northern Devon’s Rural Area, which provides that growth in Local Centres will be planned on the basis of at least 10% growth. 10% growth for Winkleigh over the plan period equates to 54 dwellings, the Local Plan provides for about 60 dwellings of which 55 are provided on allocated sites. The scale of development is additionally reflective of the Parish Council’s aspirations for local growth, additional development was not favoured. No amendment to the Local Plan is recommended in response to the issues raised.

Conclusion

4.175 It is considered prudent in the interests of improving site delivery to combine the sites subject to Policy WIN02 and WIN03. The comments raised in respect of archaeology and the scale of the allocation are considered not to challenge the soundness of the Local Plan.

Agreed Action

1. The following is agreed as a Main Change to the Local Plan:

a. combine the site area of Policies WIN02 and WIN03 and bring together the site provisions into a single policy with consequential adjustment to the supporting text.

Comments made in response to Policy WIN03: Land South of Cemetery

Total Number of Responses 4

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” - -

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy WIN03: Land South of Cemetery and supporting text plp number

WIN02 and WIN03 should be one site. 434(WCP)

Development of this site would result in change to existing nuclear urban form of 1477 village.

Questions the need for archaeological investigation as the site is separated by the 442 wall and road from Court Castle Mound.

Existing school is at capacity. Development funded expansion may be required to 1374 (DCC) provide additional places.

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.176 Comment from the Parish Council suggests that the site subject to Policies WIN02 and WIN03 should be brought together as a single allocation. This point is considered valid in the interest of improved site viability and delivery having regard to the development requirements sought as community benefits to be delivered by the site; it is recommended that the policy provisions of WIN02 and WIN03 are combined into a single new policy.

4.177 Devon County Council suggests the school is at capacity and that development funded expansion may be required. This point is noted, Policy ST23: Infrastructure will apply to provide, as necessary, contributions to address infrastructure impacts of development.

4.178 The comment relating to archaeological investigations is misplaced against Policy WIN03. However, in response: the need for an archaeological assessment is consistent with NPPF requirements (paragraph 128/129) and the Council has been given clear advice from Devon County Council (archaeology) through the SHLAA process that such will be required. It is appropriate that archaeological investigations are undertaken to ensure there would be no unacceptable impact on the setting of the ancient monument or any archaeological remains on site. No amendment to the Local Plan is recommended in response to the issues raised.

4.179 A respondent is concerned that development of the site would result in a change to the existing nuclear urban form of the village. It is recognised that development of the allocated site will alter the physical form of the village, the site is however, together with the site subject to WIN02, considered to be well related to the existing built form. There are no identified development opportunities within the village that would provide for the required scale of development without extending the built form of the settlement. The strategy for the village has been established through community consultation and all allocations and development boundary alterations have been subject to assessment.

Conclusion

4.180 It is considered prudent in the interests of improving site delivery to combine the sites subject to Policy WIN02 and WIN03. The comments raised in respect of archaeology, education capacity and the urban form are considered not to challenge the soundness of the Local Plan.

Agreed Action

1. The following is agreed as a Main Changes to the Local Plan:

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

a. combine the site area of Policies WIN02 and WIN03 and bring together the site provisions into a single policy with consequential adjustment to the supporting text. Witheridge

Comments made in response to Policy WIT and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 2

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 1 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” ~ ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on Witheridge Spatial Strategy Policy WIT: and supporting text plp number

Support for WIT as it will allow the village to grow. However, evidence from ONS 1013 (average household size of 2.37 people per home)would suggest that Witheridge requires 96 new dwellings across the Plan period and not 81.

The remaining 16 dwellings required in Witheridge must be met within the 1013 development boundary, which would be difficult to accommodate.

Site Proposals

Land south of North Street on land immediately east of the existing development 1013 boundary.

Land south-east of Cannington Road, Brooke Meadow 1833

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.181 The main focus of responses to the Witheridge spatial strategy include the perceived limited level of future housing growth for the village over the Plan period to 2031. The assumption is that Witheridge should provide a greater level of housing to meet future needs in the village, as a 10% population growth would equate to an extra 231 people against the existing population. Based on recent figures provided by ONS, the average household size is 2.37 persons per home, for Witheridge this would equate to a housing requirement of approximately 97 dwellings. However, the 10% housing growth strategy for local centres (recommended by paragraph 4.13 of the Plan)was to support their role as rural service centres, enabling wider than local needs to be addressed. The 10% figure was not a minimum or maximum requirement but a guide for local communities to plan for their future housing growth based on a 10% increase in ‘households’ and not ‘population’ growth. Across the parish of Witheridge there was a recommendation for the local community to deliver at least 67 dwellings over the Plan period. Therefore, the 81 dwellings proposed for Witheridge within the spatial strategy equates to about a 12% growth for the village.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

4.182 The provision of approximately 16 additional dwellings as set out in the spatial strategy is made up of houses already built since 2011 (start of the Plan period) and existing commitments. This is explained in the footnote(67) to paragraph 13.300.

4.183 In addition to the housing proposed for Witheridge in the Local Plan, including a single site allocation to the south of the village (WIT01), two additional housing sites have been promoted. The first is on land south of North Street, to the east of the existing development boundary, the second is on land south-east of Cannington Road, Brooke Meadow. Both sites have been proposed by Planning Agents on behalf of the landowner and have been fully assessed by the SHLAA Panel. The recommendation from the Panel was that both sites are considered developable in principle should additional housing land be required to meet overall housing supply. Whilst the additional promoted sites are developable, the strategy for Witheridge has already been established through community consultation during 2013 and alternative sites have been through a robust assessment prior to publication of the draft Local Plan. It is not considered necessary to allocate these additional sites. Additional residential development within the village is permitted where it meets the requirements of Policy ST19 (Affordable Housing on Exception Sites).

Other Matters

4.184 Amendment to the pre-fix to the housing numbers is additionally recommended to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of” through Policy ST08: Scale and Distribution of New Development in Northern Devon.

Conclusion

4.185 Two key issues were raised through representations received, but none are considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan. However, a consequential change is required following amendments to Policy ST08.

Agreed Actions

The following is agreed as a Main Change to the Local Plan:

1. To undertake a Main Change to Policy WIT, consequential of agreed Main Changes to Policy ST08 to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of”.

Comments made in response to Policy WIT01: Land off Butts Close and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 1

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” ~ ~

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy WIT01: and supporting text plp number

Not aware of the proposal to build 65 dwellings on land west of the B3137 and new 2555 playing fields to the east (within Mid Devon). Difficult to see why you would want to (Late) build many more houses in this area where there are very few prospects of local employment and the transport and other physical infrastructure is poor. Great reservations about removing the existing adventure playground which is safely accessible for the children of the village, and establish new playing fields round a very dangerous blind bend at the south of the village.

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.186 The principal issue regarding the objection would appear to be the perceived lack of information about the housing allocation (WIT01). To ensure appropriate growth was planned for, at a scale and in locations that reflects local aspirations, community consultation on Part 3 of the Local Plan was undertaken during the early part of 2013 (March to June) through Parish Councils to enable draft development boundaries and allocations to be discussed and defined in advance of inclusion within the Local Plan. The outcome of this engagement resulted in Witheridge Parish Council identifying land adjacent the existing adventure playground off the B3137 for additional housing growth in the village as well as a requirement for additional sports provision, the preferred site was to the east of the main road within Mid Devon district.

4.187 The District Councils were very much of the view that the Parish Council would be integral to the process of site selection and boundary review for the village of Witheridge. The intention of this approach to housing growth within the rural areas was to provide the opportunity to Witheridge Parish Council to guide how development is managed and delivered within their community so that growth in rural settlements was locally informed. The District Councils did not prescribe how the consultation with the local community should be undertaken, the whole process on engagement was the responsibility of the Parish Council. However, the publication draft Local Plan was published in June 2014 for six weeks public consultation, ending in August 2014. As part of this consultation, the Plan was advertised in the local press (North Devon Journal and North Devon Gazette), who also ran a number of feature articles discussing the growth proposed for both North Devon and Torridge. Consultation on the draft Local Plan was also featured on local radio and television as well as a CD version of the whole Plan being sent to Witheridge Parish Council as well as the local Ward Member, where the Plan was available for viewing through the Parish Clerk. The draft Local Plan and supporting materials was also available to be viewed through both North Devon and Torridge Councils’ websites.

4.188 Within Policy WIT01, there will be a requirement to deliver physical infrastructure, community facilities and green infrastructure. As part of developing the new housing, the site will be required to deliver specific development principles including a new access on to the B3137, including traffic management measures as well as adequate contributions toward upgrading the foul and surface water sewers and sewage treatment works to provide additional capacity to enable the development to proceed. It is not accepted that Witheridge has very few prospects of local employment. As highlighted in paragraph 13.296, a range of manufacturing based industries operate from the Old Market Field industrial estate as well as Mole Valley Farmers, a well established agricultural engineer. The Plan also seeks to safeguard these economic uses from alternative uses.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

4.189 Policy WIT01 and corresponding site allocation on Policies Map 24 does not propose the removal of the existing adventure playground. This facility will be retained and will continue to serve the children of the village. As discussed earlier, the Parish Council require land for additional sports provision within the village as part of the delivery of this development. The consultation process identified land to the east of the B3137, which is within Mid Devon district. Details on providing a safe and accessible vehicular access in to the new sports field will be considered as part of any future planning application which will be determined by Mid Devon District Council.

Other Matters

4.190 The allocation of this housing site and the new sports provision has been discussed with officers from Mid Devon District Council under the Duty to Cooperate.

Conclusion

4.191 The issues raised through the representation received are not considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan.

Agreed Actions

No change to Policy WIT01 of the Local Plan is recommended in response to the issues raised through consultation. Woolacombe and Mortehoe

Comments made in response to Policy MOR and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 8 (from 6 separate individuals)

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 1 ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 1 3

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1 ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on Woolacombe and Mortehoe Spatial Strategy Policy MOR: and plp number supporting text

Paragraph 13.310 and spatial strategy need to be amended to conform with 248, 250 paragraph 115 of the NPPF: The village is within the designated AONB. Consequently great weight will be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in consideration of proposals for development.

The recognition of Woolacombe & Mortehoe as a location for sustainable 249, 1613, development is welcomed. Additional sites within and in close proximity to the two settlement boundaries will be able to contribute to the Plan’s Housing requirements. 2063(NE), 2289

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

Significant number of houses proposed but no allocation, development in the countryside could be achieved on an ad hoc basis, inconsistent with the NPPF. Strategy is not justified in the absence of evidence that housing would not harm the protected landscapes. Concerns regarding the planned housing growth.

General support. Important to ensure that new development will adhere to the 2289 principles of the conservation area in preserving the built and natural environment.

Amend paragraph 13.320 - Omit ‘ the relevant development management policies’ 249, 2099(NT) and add ‘other policies of the Local Plan’. Needs to be a consistency of acceptable development outside a boundary between paragraphs 13.320 & 13.316.

Site Proposals

Land west of Beach Road to the north of the existing development boundary. 2289(PC)

Amend development boundary around The Grange, Mortehoe to allow a more 19 aesthetically pleasing development for the extant planning permission 55714, more in keeping with the character of the area.

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.192 A range of responses to the Woolacombe and Mortehoe spatial strategy have been submitted, including impact of future development on the AONB and inconsistency with the NPPF. The perceived concern regarding the chapter not being in conformity with paragraph 115 of the NPPF is noted. However, it is not considered necessary to replicate wording within the NPPF, although the Local Plan must be in general conformity with the Framework within which, the LPA and local communities can produce their own distinctive Plan(s). As the Plan must be read as a whole, it is considered there is adequate protection afforded to the AONB within Policies ST09 (Coast and Estuary Strategy) and ST14 (Enhancing Environmental Assets) which seeks to conserve the setting and special character and qualities of the North Devon AONB. There is no need to give greater weight to conserving the AONB although the strategy could be more explicit in terms of recognising the AONB and the need to protect its landscape character.

4.193 Criteria (b) and (c) of the spatial strategy for Woolacombe and Mortehoe are explicit in terms of the need to protect the important landscape setting of both settlements as well as protecting the natural and built environment. It is accepted that additional wording could be added to specifically mention the AONB and historic built environment within the designated conservation areas. The housing provision for Woolacombe and Mortehoe within the spatial strategy does not include any growth through new site allocations, nor does it advocate ad hoc development in the countryside. The provision of approximately 39 dwellings as set out in the spatial strategy is made up of houses already built since 2011 (start of the Plan period) and existing commitments. This is explained in the footnote(68) to paragraph 13.319. However, it is accepted there is some inconsistency between the intentions of accepting new residential development outside the development boundaries of Woolacombe and Mortehoe. Paragraph 13.320 could ensure that any new housing development is in accordance with ‘other relevant policies of the Plan’ and ‘it will be considered for residential development on an exceptional basis even though located outside the development boundaries within the undeveloped parts of the Coastal Zone’.

4.194 Due to the landscape and land ownership constraints around Woolacombe and Mortehoe, no sites have been allocated for housing in the Plan, despite the fact that Woolacombe is a local centre. However, a housing site has been promoted in Woolacombe and Mortehoe on land off Beach

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

Road, Woolacombe to the east of the existing development boundary. The site was proposed by Mortehoe Parish Council. Whilst the site has been promoted by the parish council, the land has not been formally submitted through the SHLAA process therefore, the site’s availability is unknown. Without availability being known and consideration being given by the Panel to the site’s suitability and achievability, the land cannot be included within the Local Plan as deliverability must be certain to count toward overall housing supply. The possibility of windfall sites outside the development boundary is set out above and in paragraph 13.320.

4.195 The second site promotion is a minor change to the existing development boundary around the garden of The Grange, North Morte Road, Mortehoe (see attached plan). The proposed site has an extant planning permission (55714) for the erection of a single dwelling within the extensive grounds of The Grange. The position of the dwelling approved under this permission was sited to ensure it was located within the existing development boundary for Mortehoe, meaning the new house has a very close relationship with the existing property. By slightly extending the extent of the development boundary would allow for the consented dwelling to be more appropriately located away from the existing dwelling which is more in keeping with the character of the surrounding area. Such a change would be consistent with the advice note on ‘Development Boundary Review and Rural Village Allocations’ which advocates areas with planning permission that are physically connected to the built form of the settlement are included within a boundary. However, this would need to be subject to an amended scheme which retained landscaping to the boundaries of the site and did not substantially increase the height of the dwelling above that approved or neighbouring properties or result in a development which has a detrimental impact on the amenity currently enjoyed by occupiers of neighbouring properties.

Other Matters

4.196 Amendment to the pre-fix to the housing numbers is additionally recommended to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of” through Policy ST08: Scale and Distribution of New Development in Northern Devon.

Conclusion

4.197 Several issues were raised through representations received, but none are considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan. However, main and minor amendments are required to clarify wording and intentions of a particular paragraph or the strategy.

Agreed Actions

The following are agreed as Main Changes to the Local Plan:

1. To undertake a Main Change to Policy MOR, consequential of agreed Main Changes to Policy ST08 to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of”. 2. Amend criterion (c) of Policy MOR to read “protecting the natural and built environment within and adjoining the designated conservation areas” . 3. Amend Criterion (b) of the strategy in terms of recognising the AONB and the need to protect its landscape character. Amended wording should read “protecting the important landscape setting of both Woolacombe and Mortehoe including the special landscape character and qualities of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty”.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

4. Amend development boundary around The Grange (Policy Map 26) to reflect the extant planning permission to allow an improved relationship between the existing and proposed dwelling (see attached plan). 5. Amend paragraph 13.320 to read “Where land is genuinely available for development that meets local needs, has local support, is appropriate in terms of scale and location and is in accordance with the relevant development management other relevant policies of the plan, it will be considered for residential development on an exceptional basis even though located outside the development boundaries within the undeveloped parts of the Coastal Zone. Acceptable development will also need to meet the respective requirements for a local centre (Woolacombe) or a village (Mortehoe) in Policy ST07. Other opportunities to secure additional housing to meet local needs will continue to be explored”. Villages Abbotsham

Comments made in response to Policy ABS: Abbotsham Spatial Strategy

Total Number of Responses 2

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 2

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 2

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 2

Summary of Issues

Comments to Policy ABS: Abbotsham Spatial Strategy and supporting text plp number

New Site proposal - Bowood House 588

New Site Proposals – Land south of Abbotsham 579

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.198 Two new site proposals have been put forward for Abbotsham (plp588 and 579). Whilst the merit of introducing these sites into the Plan has been considered, the strategy for the village, including establishing the appropriate scale of growth, the selection of sites for allocation and the location of the development boundary have been established through a comprehensive process including local community engagement. The selected strategy and included site allocations have been subject to appraisal prior to publication of the draft Local Plan including consideration through the SHLAA (for housing sites) and the Sustainability Appraisal process. Sufficient land has already been proposed for allocation through the Draft Local Plan to meet the baseline scale of growth sought from the settlement. It is therefore not considered necessary to allocate either of these additional sites.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

Conclusion

4.199 The comments in response to the draft Local Plan Policy ABS are considered not to raise any issues that challenge the soundness of the Local Plan. In not allocating the promoted sites, the Local Plan is not considered to be subject to a soundness or legal compliance challenge. No areas of change, correction or clarification are sought in respect of Policy ABS: Abbotsham Spatial Strategy.

Agreed Action

1. No change to Policy ABS or the associated supporting text.

Comments made in response to Policy ABS01: Land at the Glebe

4.200 No consultation comments were received in response to Policy ABS01 (including the associated supporting text).

4.201 No main or minor changes are identified; no areas of change, correction or clarification are sought in respect of the ABS01: Land at the Glebe.

Recommendation

4.202 1. No change to Policy ABS01 or the associated supporting text Ashwater

Comments made in response to Policy ASH: Ashwater Spatial Strategy

Total Number of Responses 1

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1

Summary of Issues

Comments to Policy ASH: Ashwater Spatial Strategy plp number

Financially unviable to deliver ‘principally only affordable dwellings’. Consider that 154 20% affordable housing is a deliverable proportion. Policy needs to serve young people who want a sub-open market house.

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.203 The respondent questions the viability of delivering ‘principally affordable dwellings’ and requests a percentage of 20% is included instead. This is not considered necessary as the proposed affordable housing growth advocated through the policy has already been secured through the planning system. A site to the east of the village achieved planning consent last year and has recently commenced development for the construction of 6 local needs dwellings and 4 open market dwellings. A further site in the village is under construction at present. Together these two schemes will deliver

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

the 11 dwellings ‘principally’ for local people, as stated in the spatial vision. As such, the strategy is considered to be appropriate with the the focus on affordable housing delivery representative of the proposals in and around the settlement. Should additional affordable housing be required for the settlement over the lifetime of the Plan, Policy ST19: Affordable Housing on Exception Sites will enable affordable-led housing development to occur on sites outside but well related or adjoining the defined development boundary. As such, no change is considered necessary to the Policy in response to the matters raised.

Conclusion

4.204 The comments in response to the draft Local Plan Policy ASH are considered not to raise any issues that challenge the soundness of the Local Plan. No areas of change, correction or clarification are considered necessary to Policy ASH: Ashwater Spatial Strategy in response to matters raised.

Agreed Action

No change to Policy ASH or the associated supporting text. Atherington

Comments made in response to Policy ATH and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 2

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” ~ ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on Atherington Spatial Strategy Policy ATH: and supporting text plp number

Consider ‘playing pitch’ should read ‘playing field’. 2504(PC)

Policy should only seek provision of four new dwellings as this equates to 5% of 2506(PC) current housing stock in village

Site Proposals

No additional sites have been promoted -

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.205 The response from the Parish Council regarding paragraph 13.349 is noted and the appropriate change can be made to amend “playing pitch” to “playing field”.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

4.206 The assumption from the Parish Council is that Atherington should provide a lower level of housing to meet future needs in the village. The 5% housing growth strategy for villages (recommended by paragraph 4.13 of the Plan) is to maintain the existing population levels and to support existing services and facilities. This figure was not a minimum or maximum requirement but a guide for local communities to plan for their future housing growth based on a 5% increase in households. Across the parish of Atherington there was a recommendation for the local community to deliver approximately 10 dwellings over the Plan period, albeit part of the parish is included within Umberleigh. The 7 dwellings proposed by the spatial strategy for Atherington only equates to about a 3% growth for the parish. Therefore, it is not considered appropriate to further reduce the housing requirement in Atherington to four dwellings over the Plan period to 2031, which includes the two houses built since 2011. There is an undetermined planning application for 10 dwellings at Bonds Farm, but the 7 dwellings proposed by the spatial strategy is not a maximum number.

Other Matters

51449 : Erection Of 10 Dwellings (5 Affordable) with new access and residential access road at Bonds Farm, submitted in 2011 but has not yet been formally determined.

4.207 Amendment to the pre-fix to the housing numbers is additionally recommended to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of” through Policy ST08: Scale and Distribution of New Development in Northern Devon.

Conclusion

4.208 Two key issues were raised through representations received, but neither are considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan. However, amendments are required to clarify wording and intentions of the policy and associated paragraph.

Agreed Actions

The following is an agreed Main Change:

1. To undertake a Main Change to Policy ATH, consequential of agreed Main Changes to Policy ST08 to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of”.

The following is an agreed Minor Change:

1. Acknowledge the need for a minor change to Paragraph 13.349 of the Local Plan with paragraph 13.349 amended to read “playing field” and not “playing pitch”.

Comments made in response to Policy ATH01: Land north of Torrington Road and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 2

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” ~ ~

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy ATH01: and supporting text plp number

The owner of the land wants to build two dwellings. There are several planning 2507 (PC) applications pending that will more than fulfil the number of new homes required in the plan. We do not need to have an extra number foisted upon on us on the land mentioned 2510 (PC) and this number was NOT in the proposal originally submitted by the parish council which had been extensively consulted upon within the village.

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.209 The land north of Torrington Road lies on the western edge of the village and is well related to the services and facilities available. The site is the only housing allocation for Atherington to meet the community’s need over the Plan period to 2031. The approach to housing development of this site, as set out in Policy ATH01, has been supported by the SHLAA Panel to deliver approximately 5 dwellings based on an assumption of 25dph. A development of terraced or semi-detached properties would be acceptable in principle on this site, a form of development that would reflect the existing form of housing to the east (Coronation Cottages), which equates to approximately 21dph. Such an approach to housing density is supported by the NPPF paragraph 58 to ‘optimise the potential of the site to accommodate development’, as well as Policy DM04 (Design Principles) which requires development to be ‘appropriate and sympathetic to setting in terms of scale, density, massing, height, layout appearance etc’. The development aspirations of the landowner are understood but the Plan must retain potential to deliver a level of housing to meet the need to 2031. Delivering two dwellings on this site could be considered an inefficient use of land. However, should a future planning application be submitted for a lesser number than five houses then such a scheme could still be considered on its own merits.

Other Matters

4.210 A typographical error in criterion 2(b) of Policy ATH01 and paragraph 13.355 needs correcting to amend “sewerage” to “sewage”. Also, a consequential amendment to Policy ATH01 to delete the wording “including a proportion of affordable homes” following Government changes to S106 obligations within national planning policy.

Conclusion

4.211 The issues raised through the representation received are not considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan. However, main and minor amendments are required to clarify wording and intentions of a particular paragraph.

Agreed Actions

The following is an agreed Main Change to the Local Plan:

1. To undertake a Main Change to Policy ATH01, to delete the wording “including a proportion of affordable homes” from criterion 1. 2. Amend criterion 2(b) of Policy ATH01 to delete the word “sewerage” and replace with “sewage”.

The following is an agreed Minor Change to the Local Plan:

1. A minor change is recommended in paragraph 13.355 to amend the word “sewerage” to “sewage”.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

Comments made in response to Paragraph 13.358

Total Number of Responses 1

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” ~ ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on Paragraph 13.358 plp number

This should read ‘ . . . the church hall at Atherington and the primary schools at 2512 (PC) Umberleigh and High Bickington . . .’ The reason for the amendment is that Atherington is within the catchment area of the High Bickington School and not that at Umberleigh, albeit children could attend either.

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.212 The requested change to this paragraph should be made for accuracy and clarification.

Conclusion

4.213 The issue raised through the representation received is not considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan. However, minor amendments are required for accuracy.

Agreed Actions

The following agreed as a Minor Change to the Local Plan

1. First sentence of paragraph 13.358 should be amended to read “The church hall at Atherington and the primary schools at Umberleigh and High Bickington provide important facilities for the local community.”

Comments made in response to Policy BEA: Beaford Spatial Strategy

Total Number of Responses 8

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 3 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 1 3

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 3 1

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

Summary of Issues

Comments to Policy BEA: Beaford Spatial Strategy and supporting text plp number

Supports strategy for Beaford. 322 (BPC), 1247, 1248

Support for the 43 dwellings at Beaford but this should not be considered 2124 a cap on development. Councils should increase total dwellings to 68 to reflect SHLAA report findings.

Site Proposals

Car Park and garden to rear of Globe Inn for residential development. 2159, 2143

Land north of village should be included as an allocation for self build 668 properties. Could provide a road link which reduces traffic past School.

Land south of Marshalls Mead for mixed use development for housing, 278 employment,, open space for school, allotments and landscaping.

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.214 Three respondents, including the Parish Council offer support for the Beaford Spatial Strategy.

4.215 A respondent offers support for the proposed level of housing growth (43 dwellings) but advocates that the SHLAA considered development potential on the allocated sites should be reflected in the Spatial Strategy. A growth level of 68 dwellings is proposed, which it is suggested would provide flexibility to deliver a higher level of growth. It is acknowledged that the SHLAA conclusions attributed higher potential yields to the allocated sites (SHA/BEA/8: 25 dwellings – Policy BEA01: 12 dwellings and SHA/BEA/3/4: 43 dwellings - Policy BEA02: 30 dwellings). However the variation in yields reflects the non housing elements that are required from each site. The focus for Policy BEA01 is to secure the retention and enhancement of an existing amenity space at Towell Meadow, which is supported by enabling housing development. It is recognised that the site could deliver an increased housing yield but such would prejudice the retention of the majority of Towell Meadow. Policy BEA02 includes a requirement for the garage and workshop in a revised format, which will reduce the sites potential housing yield. No change to the draft Local Plan is recommend in response to the representation, which is not considered to constitute a soundness risk.

4.216 A site to the north of the village is proposed (plp 668) with the suggestion that self build housing could be provided and that the development would achieve a road link to the school. The site was assessed as developable through the Strategic Housing Land Availably Assessment process (SHA/BEA/1), with a considered 16 dwelling capacity but no evidence has been provided as to the deliverability of the suggested highway improvements. It is not however considered necessary to provide for additional housing at Beaford, the level of planned growth and the allocated sites reflect local aspirations as presented by the Parish Council through direct engagement.

4.217 Respondents (plps 2159 and 2143) seek an alteration to the draft development boundary to include the Globe Inn car park and garden. A review of the development boundary criteria suggests a consistency issue with the omission of the curtilage of the Globe Inn; it is therefore recommended that the Beaford development boundary is accordingly amended. An amendment to the development boundary will constitute a main change, it is proposed not to address a soundness issue but in the interest of plan wide consistency.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

Conclusion

4.218 The comments in response to the draft Local Plan Policy BEA are considered not to raise any issues that challenge the soundness of the Local Plan. In not allocating the promoted sites, the Local Plan is not considered to be subject to a soundness or legal compliance challenge.

4.219 One comment is considered to raise an issue over the consistency of the development boundary in Beaford. An alteration to the development boundary to include the curtilage of the Globe Inn is considered necessary to ensure uniformity with other development boundaries within the plan. This is a major change to policy.

Agreed Action

1. The following is an agreed Main Change to the Local Plan:

a. a change to the development boundary to incorporate the curtilage of the Globe Inn.

Comments made in response to Policy BEA01: Land North of Towell Lane/Towell Meadow

Total Number of Responses 1

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” - -

Summary of Issues

Comments to Policy BEA01: Land North of Towell Lane/ Towell Meadow plp number

The allocated number of dwellings is not proportional to site area due to 1250 proposed open space to be included. Suggested the site could have 14 dwellings

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.220 A respondent states that the allocated number of dwellings is not proportional to the site area due to the proposed open space to be included. The respondent suggests the site could accommodate 14 dwellings. The dwelling yield has been calculated based on the provision of the western part of the site as public open space and a yield of 12 dwellings is considered appropriate and proportionate to the community benefit sought from the site, which could include an element of housing on the southern element of Towell Meadow. No change is recommended to the policy, which is not considered to constitute a soundness risk. It is worth noting the Policy provides for a scale of housing on a flexible basis, referring to an approximate number, a scheme with a higher number may be appropriate but such will be a matter for the development management process. No change to the draft Local Plan is recommended in response to this representation.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

Conclusion

4.221 The comments in response to the draft Local Plan Policy BEA01 are considered not to raise any issues that challenge the soundness of the Local Plan.

Agreed Action

1. No change to Policy BEA01 or the associated supporting text.

Comments made in response to Policy BEA02: Land at Rye Park Close, Beaford Garage and Land to Rear

Total Number of Responses 5

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 2 2

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 1 3

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 2 2

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy BEA02: Land at Rye Park Close, Beaford Garage and Land to plp number Rear and supporting text

Support BEA02 2127

Current policy requires retention of the garage without any rationale for such a 2129 requirement. The draft wording provides no flexibility for the provision of future uses. Policy wording should be revised.

Support provision of a principal access via the A3124 but recognise this would require 2130 removal of garage.

Support for retaining garage. 671

Provision of a small roundabout on the A3124 at the proposed entrance to BEA02 1254 would help substantially with traffic calming.

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.222 One respondent supports the proposal, with another respondent specifically supporting the retention of the garage; the comments are noted and welcomed.

4.223 A respondent supports provision of the principal access via the A3124 (point 2(a)) but suggests that this would require removal of the existing garage. The policy however requires retention of the garage, but in a revised format, as set out in point 1(b), which allow for the sought access to be achieved.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

4.224 Comment is made that suggests a small roundabout on the A3124 at the proposed site entrance to assist with traffic calming. The site has been assessed as developable through the Strategic Housing Land Availably Assessment process (SHA/BEA/3), which included consideration of the deliverability of a suitable access by Devon County Council (Highways). The need for highway improvements was recognised but the nature of such was not specified. The detail of any required improvements will a matter for determination at the planning application stage, at which time Policy DM05: Highways will apply.

4.225 A respondent questions the need to retain the garage and feels the wording of the policy is inflexible for the provision of future uses. Alternative wording is proposed: ‘the replacement of the existing garage/workshop with a community facility considered appropriate at the time of delivery’.

4.226 The policy provides for the retention of the garage/workshop, which is an important local asset and thus its continuation is planned for. If in the future the use of the employment element of the site is questioned, then alternative uses will be considered on the basis of Policy DM13: Safeguarding Employment Land. The selected strategy for Beaford and the form and location of the allocated sites reflects community aspirations as set out through the Parish Council, which included the retention of the garage/workshop. No change to the Local Plan is recommended in response to the issue raised.

4.227 Circumstances, including the evidenced position, have not altered to necessitate a review of the Local Plan in respect of the issues raised in response to Policy BEA02 and no soundness or legal compliance challenge is considered to be raised.

Conclusion

4.228 The comments in response to the draft Local Plan Policy BEA02 are considered not to raise any issues that challenge the soundness of the Local Plan.

Agreed Actions

1. No change to Policy BEA02 or the associated supporting text.

Berrynarbor

Comments made in response to Policy BER and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 2

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” ~ ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on Berrynarbor Spatial Strategy Policy BER: and supporting text plp number

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

The spatial strategy needs to be amended to conform with paragraph 115 of the 251, 2059 NPPF: The village is within the designated AONB. Consequently great weight will (NE) be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in consideration of proposals for development.

Site Proposals

No additional sites have been promoted

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.229 The main focus of responses to the Berrynarbor spatial strategy include recognition of the village as being within the AONB and the need for great weight to be given to conserve the landscape and scenic beauty when considering development proposals. Pargraph 13.383 already states explicitly that the village lies within the AONB. The perceived concern regarding the chapter not being in conformity with paragraph 115 of the NPPF is noted, however it is not considered necessary to replicate wording within the NPPF. The Local Plan must be in general conformity with the Framework within which, the LPA and local communities can produce their own distinctive Plan(s). As the Plan must be read as a whole, it is considered there is adequate protection afforded to the AONB within Policies ST09 (Coast and Estuary Strategy) and ST14 (Enhancing Environmental Assets) which seeks to conserve the setting and special character and qualities of the North Devon AONB. There is no need to give greater weight to conserving the AONB although the strategy could be more explicit in terms of recognising the AONB and the need to protect its landscape character.

4.230 Criterion (c) of the spatial strategy for Berrynarbor is explicit in terms of the need to protect the natural environment. However, additional wording could be added to conserve more explicitly the AONB and landscape setting of the village.

Other Matters

4.231 A need to clarify paragraph 13.387 has been identified as the first sentence has been confusing. The extent of the developed coast needs to be defined in the absence of a development boundary. The edge of the main built up area should define the extent of the development coast. Paragraph 13.387 should be amended to clarify this.

4.232 Amendment to the pre-fix to the housing numbers is additionally recommended to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of” through Policy ST08: Scale and Distribution of New Development in Northern Devon.

Conclusion

4.233 The main issues raised through representations received relate to the AONB, but neither are considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan. However, a major amendment is required to clarify the intentions of the spatial strategy.

Agreed Actions

The following are agreed as Main Changes to the Local Plan:

1. To undertake a Main Change to Policy BER, consequential of agreed Main Changes to Policy ST08 to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of”. 2. Acknowledge the need amend Criterion (c) of Policy BER to protect more explicitly the landscape character of the AONB.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

“protection of the natural environment including the special landscape character and qualities of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty”.

The following is agreed as a Minor Change to the Local Plan:

1. Acknowledge the need for a minor change to the first sentence of paragraph 13.387:

“Berrynarbor has no defined development boundary, the absence of which will define so the extent of the developed coast (ST09: Coast and estuary Strategy) will be defined by as the main built up area of the village.”

Comments made in response to Paragraph 13.391

Total Number of Responses 1

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” ~ ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on Paragraph 13.391 plp number

DCC has not declared the existing school unfit for purpose. No site has been allocated 1375 for a replacement school, there is no clear funding strategy particularly in the context (DCC) of low levels of planned growth; project delivery is uncertain. DCC considers the assumption of a new school to be unrealistic.

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.234 Paragraph 13.391 recognises the community desire for a new environmentally friendly primary school. Such a facility was recognised through community consultation but a potential site or funding is not identified specifically in the local plan or the infrastructure delivery plan. The wording could be amended to clarify the community’s aspirations rather than the fitness of the school.

4.235 The local plan is not relying on the delivery of a replacement school. Recognition of support for an additional or replacement school near Berrynarbor within the plan would be considered if a suitable location and funding mechanism were to be identified. By way of contrast, new primary schools within and related to urban extensions elsewhere in the plan area, such as Ilfracombe, are included within relevant policies, identified within the CIL and infrastructure delivery plan. This coincides with the County Council’s assessment that these other areas have a more significant need and a higher funding priority.

Conclusion

4.236 This representation is not considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan, but a minor change is recommended for clarity.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

Agreed Actions

The following is agreed as a Main Change to the Local Plan:

1. Acknowledge the need to change the second sentence of paragraph 13.391.

“Following community consultation, the existing primary school site is not longer considered fit for purpose and There is a community aspiration for a new environmentally friendly school which would be supported, although no site has been allocated and delivery is uncertain.” Bishop's Nympton

Comments made in response to Policy BNY and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 3

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 1 ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ 2

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” ~ ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on Bishop’s Nympton Spatial Strategy Policy BNY: and supporting text plp number

Support is given to the overall strategy for development in Bishops Nympton. The 1835 level of housing allocation may not be fully met. Site BNY01 contains significant archaeological remains, therefore a further allocation on land to the west of Joey’s Field should be made to guard against under delivery.

The Bishop’s Nympton strategy is not the most appropriate, when considered against 2478, 2482 reasonable alternatives. The housing allocation at the Glebe Field, a sensitive site, is not justified. To comply with national policy an alternative allocation in a location that complements and enhances the village’s setting and heritage assets should be provided. Capitol Farm site should be allocated for future residential development. Development on this site is considered to be entirely justified as it will deliver a range of economic, social and environmental benefits, which the Glebe Field site cannot bring about.

Site Proposals

Land at Capitol Farm, West Street 2478, 2482

Land east of Joey’s Field 1835

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.237 There is some support for the spatial strategy of Bishop’s Nympton, although the proposed housing requirement (approximately 39 dwellings) may not be fully met as there is some concern over the site allocated at the Glebe Field (Policy BNY01). Therefore, two representations consider alternative housing sites should be allocated to meet the future housing needs of Bishop’s Nympton.

4.238 The assumption that Bishop’s Nympton should provide a greater level of housing to meet future needs in the village is noted. This issue will be discussed further when the alternative sites are considered. However, across the parish of Bishop’s Nympton there was a recommendation for the local community to deliver at least 24 dwellings over the Plan period (5% housing growth for Villages). The suggested level of housing growth for villages (indicated in paragraph 4.13 of the Plan) is to maintain the existing population levels and to support existing services and facilities. This figure was not a minimum or maximum requirement but a guide for local communities to plan for their future housing growth based on a 5% increase in households. The provision of approximately 39 additional dwellings as set out in the spatial strategy is made up of houses already built since 2011 (start of the Plan period) and existing commitments. This is explained in the footnote(73) to paragraph 13.399 together with a single site allocation of 20 dwellings. Therefore, the 39 dwellings proposed for Bishop’s Nympton within the spatial strategy equates to about an 8% growth for the parish, so an increase in housing numbers is not justified.

4.239 To ensure appropriate growth was planned for, at a scale and in locations that reflects local aspirations, community consultation on Part 3 of the Local Plan was undertaken during the early part of 2013 (March to June) through Parish Councils to enable draft development boundaries and allocations to be discussed and defined in advance of inclusion within the Local Plan. The outcome of this engagement resulted in Bishop’s Nympton Parish Council identifying land at The Glebe (Policy BNY01) for additional housing growth in the village, a site that was considered developable for approximately 20 dwellings in the SHLAA. However, the Parish Council also decided to remove the development boundary around the village in order not to restrict housing on other current developable SHLAA sites in and around the village in accordance with Policy DM23: Residential Development in Defined Settlements without Development Boundaries. However, the local community are concerned that existing infrastructure is inadequate for a higher level of housing growth.

4.240 The District Councils were very much of the view that the Parish Council would be integral to the process of site selection and boundary review for the village of Bishop’s Nympton. The intention of this approach to housing growth within the rural areas was to provide the opportunity to Bishop’s Nympton Parish Council to guide how development is managed and delivered within their community so that growth in rural settlements was locally informed.

4.241 Responses commenting on the suitability of the Glebefield site are considered under Policy BNY01 below. In addition to the housing proposed for Bishop’s Nympton in the Local Plan, including a single site allocation at The Glebe (BNY01), two additional housing sites have been promoted. The first is on land at Capitol Farm, West Street, the second is on land east of Joey’s Field, to the north of the village, although the site promotion within representation (1835) identifies a site west of Joey’s Field. Both sites have been proposed by Planning Agents on behalf of the landowner, although only one has been fully assessed by the SHLAA Panel. The recommendation from the Panel was that the site at Capitol Farm was considered ‘developable’ by the SHLAA Panel.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

Other Matters

4.242 Amendment to the pre-fix to the housing numbers is additionally recommended to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of” through Policy ST08: Scale and Distribution of New Development in Northern Devon.

Conclusion

4.243 Key issues were raised through representations received, mainly around proposing additional housing sites in the village, but they are not considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan. However, amendments are required to clarify wording and intentions of the policy and associated paragraph.

Agreed Actions

The following are agreed as Main Changes to the Local Plan:

1. To undertake a Main Change to Policy BNY, consequential of agreed Main Changes to Policy ST08 to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of”. 2. Amend criterion (b) of Policy BNY to read “protection and enhancement of the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

Comments made in response to Policy BNY01: Glebe Field and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 4

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 1 ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ 3

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1 ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy BNY01: and supporting text plp number

Housing in the Glebe Field should be accessed by vehicles from Glebeland Villas. 759 The proposed access in the village street will cause more congestion as the street is narrow, with several bottlenecks.

Removal of (d) on Policy BNY01: contribution to addressing the capacity or 155 performance of the sewage treatment work is not required.

Site BNY01 may contain significant archaeological remains, therefore a further 1837 allocation on land to the west of Joey’s Field should be made to guard against under delivery.

Not possible to provide residential development site BNY01 without significantly 2480 altering the historic character of the village. New residential development will adversely impact the setting of heritage assets.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

Additional Information

4.244 Pre-application discussions have commenced on this site for 17 dwellings (C107708).

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.245 As noted above, pre-application discussions have taken place on this site for a development of 17 approximately dwellings, although there were a number of concerns with this level of development and negotiations are continuing. Policy BNY01 requires access from the village street. Highway access on to the village street was not a fundamental concern for the highway authority although there were some concerns regarding the proposed visibility splays which were considered inadequate in each direction. It was noted by the highway authority that such a standard may not be available to the south (indicated on the submitted sketch) and that the access may therefore need to be located slightly further north, however adequate spacing would need to be provided between the access and the junction with Parsonage Lane. Due to existing site levels, access would require considerable cutting, with perhaps retaining walls to achieve the access, footway and visibility splays. Acceptable gradients would need to be provided for the site access and internal road layout.

4.246 Glebeland Villas is a private road owned by North Devon Homes. In order to achieve access off this un-adopted highway, the developer would be required to potentially upgrade the highway from the proposed access in to Policy BNY01 north toward Parsonage Hill to an adoptable standard. Whilst this could be achieved through negotiation with the landowner and highway authority, there would still be highway concerns with regard to access west along Parsonage Hill toward the village centre. Therefore, it is not considered necessary to amend criterion (b) of Policy BNY01 and the requirement to deliver an acceptable vehicular access on to the village street.

4.247 Paragraph 13.400 recognises the existing sewage treatment works has limited spare capacity for additional development. Detailed evaluation may be required to establish the level of upgrading required to enable development of the allocated site plus any other developable sites in the village, as identified in criterion (e) of Policy BNY. Criterion (d) of Policy BNY01 is required in order to contribute towards addressing the identified deficiency in the capacity of the sewage treatment works. There is no new evidence from the statutory undertaker (SWW) to suggest there is spare capacity in the sewage treatment works sufficient for the additional development proposed. Unless the appropriate evidence from the developer is presented to the LPA, it is considered inappropriate to delete criterion (d) of Policy BNY01 and supporting text to require financial contributions toward upgrading the existing sewage treatment works in accordance with Policies BNY01, BNY and ST23.

4.248 As discussed above, the greenfield site known as The Glebe has been fully considered by the SHLAA Panel and the outcome was that the site is ‘developable’ in principle for approximately 20 dwellings, discounting the area closest to the listed building. Some concerns have been expressed as part of pre-application discussions regarding the impact a housing development may have on the setting of the Grade II listed building (The Vicarage) and the character and appearance of the conservation area. Criterion (a) of BNY01 seeks to ensure the setting of the listed building is protected. The response from DCC’s archaeologist through the SHLAA process for this site was that the ‘assessment of the Historic Environment Record suggests that the development of this site will have no archaeological impact’.

4.249 No development boundary around the village will allow a degree of flexibility to consider windfall sites subject to not adversely impacting on capacity of infrastructure. It is not accepted that, if the Glebe site it cannot deliver 20 houses, the village will need further allocations to guard against under delivery.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

Conclusion

4.250 Key issues were raised through representations received, mainly around proposing additional housing sites in the village and alternative highway access, but none are considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan.

Agreed Actions

No change to Policy BNY01 of the Local Plan is recommended in response to the issues raised through consultation.

Comments made in response to Paragraph 13.404

Total Number of Responses 1

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” ~ ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on Paragraph 13.404 plp number

The existing school is at capacity, development funded expansion may be required 1375 (DCC) to provide additional places.

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.251 Devon County Council are concerned the proposed housing growth for Bishop’s Nympton may take the existing primary school over capacity and to alleviate this some expansion will be required to provide additional places through developer contributions. Criterion (c) of the spatial strategy already recognises the need to retain and enhance local facilities and services to meet locally generated needs of the local community, as does paragraph 13.404 which supports appropriate additional facilities to meet locally generated needs. Policy ST23: (Infrastructure) will require developments to provide or contribute towards the timely provision of infrastructure made necessary by the specific and/or cumulative impact of those developments either through on site provision or an off site contribution. These issues should be resolved through negotiation as part of any future planning applications. Therefore, no amendments are required to the Local Plan.

Conclusion

4.252 This representation is not considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan.

Agreed Actions

No change to paragraph 13.404 of the Local Plan is recommended in response to the issue raised through consultation.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

Bishop's Tawton

Comments made in response to Policy BTA and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 7

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ 6

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ 6

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” ~ 6

Summary of Issues

Comments on Bishop’s Tawton Spatial Strategy Policy BTA and supporting text plp number

Site Proposals

Land between Bishop's Tawton Service Station and Dairy Cottage 684

Land off Whitemoor Hill 2282

The Orchard, Whitemoor Hill 608

Land adj. 23 Mount Pleasant, Hammets Lane 611

Land at LHS Whitemoor Grange 612, 613

Land at Point House, Codden Hill 614

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.253 All responses to the spatial strategy were promoting alternative housing sites. To ensure appropriate growth was planned for, at a scale and in locations that reflects local aspirations, community consultation on Part 3 of the Local Plan was undertaken during the early part of 2013 (March to June) through Parish Councils to enable draft development boundaries and allocations to be discussed and defined in advance of inclusion within the Local Plan. The District Councils were very much of the view that the Parish Council would be integral to the process of site selection and boundary review for the village of Bishop’s Tawton. The intention of this approach to housing growth within the rural areas was to provide the opportunity to Bishop’s Tawton Parish Council to guide how development is managed and delivered within their community so that growth in rural settlements was locally informed. Identified sites (BTA01 and BTA02)were considered developable by the SHLAA panel for approximately 20 dwellings in the SHLAA.

4.254 In addition to the housing proposed for Bishop’s Tawton in the Local Plan, six additional housing sites have been promoted. The proposed sites are listed above and are shown on the attached plan of promoted sites. These sites have been proposed by Planning Agents on behalf of the landowners and have been fully assessed by the SHLAA Panel. The recommendation from the Panel was that sites off Whitemoor Hill (plp608, plp613 and plp2282) were considered ‘developable’ in principle by the SHLAA Panel but the sites at Whitemoor Grange (plp611 and plp612), Point House (plp614) and land between Bishop’s Tawton Service Station and Dairy Cottages (plp684) are ‘not

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

currently developable’. Whilst a number of the additional promoted sites were developable, the strategy for Bishop’s Tawton has already been established through community consultation during 2013 and alternative sites have been through a robust assessment prior to publication of the draft Local Plan. Also, such a change to the development boundary around Whitemoor Grange would not be consistent with the advice note on ‘Development Boundary Review and Rural Village Allocations’ which advocates the exclusion of garden curtilages where the land has the capacity to significantly extend the built form of the settlement.

4.255 It is not considered necessary to allocate these additional sites. Additional residential development within the village is permitted where it meets the requirements of Policy ST19 (Affordable Housing on Exception Sites).

Other Matters

4.256 Amendment to the pre-fix to the housing numbers is additionally recommended to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of” through Policy ST08: Scale and Distribution of New Development in Northern Devon.

Conclusion

4.257 Several issues were raised through representations received, mainly around proposing additional housing sites in the village, but none are considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan. However, amendments are required to clarify wording and intentions of the policy and associated paragraph.

Agreed Actions

The following is agreed as a Main Change to the Local Plan:

1. To undertake a Main Change to Policy BTA, consequential of agreed Main Changes to Policy ST08 to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of”.

Policy BTA01: Former Engineering Works, Village Street

4.258 No consultation comments were received in response to BTA01 (including supporting text).

Other Matters

4.259 A consequential amendment to Policy BTA01 to delete the wording “including a proportion of affordable homes” following Government changes to S106 obligations within national planning policy.

Agreed Actions

The following is agreed as as Main Change to the Local Plan:

1. To undertake a Main Change to Policy BTA01, to delete the wording “including a proportion of affordable homes” from criterion 1.

Comments made in response to Policy BTA02: Land off Exeter Road and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 1

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” ~ ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy BTA02: and supporting text plp number

What heritage assessment of the site has been undertaken by the Authority to 1220 (EH) determine whether the development of this site will cause in principle harm or not to the historic assets? It seems incongruous that 15 dwellings is considered appropriate when the issues relating to the historic environment are still the same. Development of this green boundary will result in the over urbanisation of the plot, which would have an adverse impact upon the open aspect and rural setting that is a key characteristic of the conservation area as well as visually disrupt the clear sense of inter-visibility that the conservation area has with the Conservation Area. The current proposal therefore does not appropriately reflect the character and appearance of the conservation area. Impact on the setting of the Law Memorial Almshouses is considered to result in harm.

Additional Information

4.260 57600 : Outline application (with all matters reserved except access) for demolition of existing buildings & erection of 46 dwellings & associated works including new access, open space, flood alleviation scheme & provision of 15 space public car park. Decision pending.

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.261 The issue regarding the objection from English Heritage is noted. However, Policy BTA02(2b) and paragraph 13.417 make it clear that development of land off Exeter Road will be required to deliver a design and layout that respects the respects the special character and appearance of the adjoining conservation area, as well as safeguarding the setting of the Grade II listed Law Memorial Almshouses on the opposite side of the A377. The relevant detail on how this important issue should be resolved would be through negotiation as part of the current planning application (57600) and heritage policies elsewhere in the plan (including ST15 and DM07). The allocation of sites within the Local Plan was partly informed by the Council’s in house ‘Heritage Assets Assessment’ evidence base which identified and assessed potential impacts on the range of heritage assets that may be affected by the proposal with appropriate criteria included to avoid or mitigate against such harm to the heritage asset as advocated by the NPPF.

4.262 It is accepted that under the adopted Bishop’s Tawton Conservation Area Character Appraisal recognises that this site does provide some of the key long distant vistas from Bishop’s Tawton across the Taw Valley to Tawstock parish church (Grade I) and Tawstock Court (Grade II), both within the nearby Tawstock Conservation Area. It is considered in the appraisal that such views are important and any form of development to the west of the A377 must be sensitive to these views which should be protected as much as possible. These distant views are equally as important back toward Bishop’s Tawton conservation area and listed buildings. It is recommended that additional wording be added to Policy BTA02 and paragraph 13.417 to recognise that housing development on this site should be

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

located and designed to protect and enhance these long distance views. The paragraph should also cross reference to Policy DM07 (Historic Environment) which identifies important vistas as part of the setting of a listed building.

Conclusion

4.263 The issues raised through the representation received are not considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan. However, it is considered that main and minor wording changes are required to strengthen Policy BTA02 and its supporting text.

Agreed Actions

The following is agreed as a Main Changes to the Local Plan:

1. Amend criterion (2b) to clarify that safeguarding the historic setting of the listed Law Memorial Almshouses, including long distance views of and from Tawstock conservation area.

The following is agreed as a Minor Change to the Local Plan:

1. Amend paragraph 13.417 to recognise the importance of long distant vistas between Bishops Tawton and Tawstock Conservation Areas with a cross reference to Policy DM07 (Historic Environment) and amend part of second sentence to read Grade II listed Law Memorial Almshouses.

Comments made in response to Paragraph 13.419

Total Number of Responses 3

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” ~ ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on Paragraph 13.419 plp number

Amendment suggested to the third sentence in paragraph 13.419 to 204, 1397 specifically refer to high quality holiday accommodation.

Site Proposals

Suggested dry ski slope at Venn Quarry 1324

Additional Information

51653 : County Matters Application In Respect Of Retrospective Application To Continue Development Without Compliance With Condition 2 Of Permission 02/07/27949/99 (Dated 10/01/2002) - Retention Of Temporary Settling Lagoons As Detailed On Plan No 7820-8 - For A Period Expiring 31/12/2001. Approved 6/9/11.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

54676 : County Matters Application In Respect Of Devon County Council Review Of Mineral Permission (ROMP) - Scheme Of New Planning Conditions For The Operating & Restoration Of The Mineral Site. No Objection 9/10/12.

Pre-application discussions have commenced on this site for holiday accommodation.

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.264 It is not accepted that the existing wording in paragraph 13.419 ‘if the site were to become available for re-development during the plan period, the re-use of the area for economic development, or tourism related industries’ is insufficiently flexible in so much as it would not consider favourably a scheme for high quality holiday accommodation or a dry ski slope. It is considered the paragraph is sufficiently flexible so that it would ‘support sustainable economic growth’ (paragraph 19 – NPPF) subject to meeting other strategic and development management policies of the Plan, including highway considerations. This could include either high quality holiday accommodation or a dry ski slope. Paragraph 13.419 could make a reference to cross refer to Policy ST13 (Sustainable Tourism).

Conclusion

4.265 The representations are not considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan.

Agreed Actions

The following is agreed as a Main Changes to the Local Plan:

1. Acknowledge the need for a minor change to Paragraph 13.419 of the Local Plan to cross refer to Policy ST13 (Sustainable Tourism).

Black Torrington

Comments made in response to Policies BTR: Black Torrington Spatial Strategy and BTR01: Land at Long Cross Farm

4.266 No consultation comments were received in response to Policies BTR and BTR01 (including the associated supporting text).

4.267 No main or minor changes are identified; no areas of change, correction or clarification are sought in respect of BTR: Black Torrington Spatial Strategy or BTR01: Land at Long Cross Farm.

Recommendation

4.268 1. No change to Policies BTR and BTR01 or the associated supporting text. Bridgerule

Comments made in response to Policy BRI: Bridgerule Spatial Strategy

Total Number of Responses 2

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - -

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to - - Co-operate?”

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy BRI: Bridgerule Spatial Strategy and supporting text plp number

The local Primary School is at capacity and as such, additional places are 1379 (DCC) required.

Site Proposals

Field to west of Telephone Exchange promoted for residential development. 1705 Consider that the scale of housing growth proposed for Bridgerule will not meet the scale of identified housing need for the locality.

A brownfield site currently in use as a yard, to the north of Littlebridge Farm 2117 promoted for residential development, with access to be provided through residential development on Littlebridge Farm.

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.269 Devon County Council highlight that the local primary school is at capacity and additional places will be required to support any additional housing growth and the additional places will need to be funded by development. This is noted. Policy ST23: Infrastructure is considered to adequately address this matter. The policy states that developments that increases the demand for off-site services and infrastructure will only be allowed where sufficient capacity exists or where the extra capacity can be funded, if necessary through developer-funded contributions.

4.270 A representation has promoted an additional site, the field to the west of the telephone exchange (plp1705). The respondent advocates the inclusion of the site on the basis that the existing allocation is not sufficient to meet the scale of identified housing need within the locality, citing that the Parish Plan from 2009-10 identifies a need for 34 low cost starter homes in the Parish. Whilst only one allocation is included within the Local Plan to provide housing in Bridgerule (for 10 dwellings), the strategy provides for the delivery of 31 dwellings, reflecting the scale of housing that is subject to extant planning consents in and around the village.

4.271 Should additional affordable housing be required for the settlement over the lifetime of the Plan, Policy ST19: Affordable Housing on Exception Sites will enable affordable-led housing development to occur on sites outside but well related or adjoining the defined development boundary. The strategy for the village, including establishing the appropriate scale of growth, the selection of sites for allocation and the location of the development boundary has been established through a comprehensive process including local community engagement. In doing so, the site in question was presented to the community for consideration and at that stage a response was received from the Parish Council indicating that they did not consider the site appropriate for inclusion in the Local Plan. The selected strategy for Bridgerule and the included site allocation has been subject to appraisal prior to publication of the draft Local Plan including consideration through the SHLAA (for housing sites) and the Sustainability Appraisal process. It is considered that sufficient land has already been proposed for allocation through the Draft Local Plan to meet the baseline scale of growth sought from

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

the settlement and that the Plan offers opportunity to enable future affordable housing provision should the need arise. As such, it is therefore not considered necessary to allocate this additional site.

4.272 A representation has been received promoting a brownfield site to the north of Littlebridge Farm for residential development. The site lies within the proposed development boundary for the settlement and as such residential development as windfall development could be supported over the lifetime of the Plan subject to proposals being compliant with the wider policies of the Plan. As noted above, the selected strategy for Bridgerule and the associated site allocation have been subject to a robust process of selection. It is considered that sufficient land has already been proposed for allocation through the Draft Local Plan to meet the baseline scale of growth sought from the settlement. The identification of this additional site isn’t considered to identify any reasons to vary the existing strategy.

Conclusion

4.273 The comments in response to the draft Local Plan Policy BRI are considered not to raise any issues that challenge the soundness of the Local Plan. In not allocating the promoted site, the Local Plan is not considered to be subject to a soundness or legal compliance challenge. No areas of change, correction or clarification are sought in respect of Policy BRI: Bridgerule Spatial Strategy.

Agreed Action

1. No change to Policy BR1 or the associated supporting text.

Comments made in response to Policies BRI01: Land at Merrifield Cross and BRI02: Land West of Southfields

4.274 No consultation comments were received in response to Polices BRI01 and BRI02 (including the associated supporting text).

4.275 No main or minor changes are identified; no areas of change, correction or clarification are sought in respect of Policies BRI01: Land at Merrifield Cross and BRI02: Land West of Southfields.

Agreed Action

1. No change to Policies BRI01 and BRI02 or the associated supporting text. Bucks Cross

Comments made in response to Policy BUC: Bucks Cross Spatial Strategy

Total Number of Responses 2

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” - -

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy BUC: Bucks Cross Spatial Strategy and supporting text plp number

Recognise settlements location within AONB so to conform with para 114 NPPF. 2060 (NE), 252

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.276 Natural England seeks recognition of the settlement’s location within the AONB, with the following proposed in order to conform to paragraph 114 of NPPF: ‘The village is within the designated AONB. Consequently great weight will be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in consideration of proposals for development’.

4.277 The settlement’s location within the AONB is discussed in paragraph 13.449. It does not however currently reference the weight that should be afforded to conserving the landscape and scenic beauty.

4.278 The suggestion from Natural England is considered acceptable having regard to the quoted paragraph of the NPPF. The addition of the provided text within the strategy is considered to be a minor change having regard to the established provisions of ST14: Enhancing Environmental Assets which provides policy provisions to protect northern Devon’s natural environment and in respect of the AONB Clause (d) requires development to ‘conserving the setting and special character and qualities of the North Devon AONB whilst fostering the social and economic well being of the area’.

Conclusion

4.279 The comments in response to the draft Local Plan Policy BUC are considered not to raise any issues that challenge the soundness of the Local Plan. A minor change is proposed which is considered appropriate in the interest of adding clarity to the Local Plan in providing a clearer emphasis on the nature of development required as a consequence of Bucks Cross’ location within the AONB.

Agreed Actions

1. No Main Change to Policy BUC or the associated supporting text. 2. The following is agreed as a Minor Change to Policy BUC and the supporting text:

a. additions to recognise that Bucks Cross lies within the North Devon Coasts Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and that consequently great weight will be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in consideration of proposals for development.

Burrington

Comments made in response to Policy BUR and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 1

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 1 ~

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 1 ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1 ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on Burrington Spatial Strategy Policy BUR: and supporting text plp number

The village pub is called The Barnstaple Inn, not The London Inn. There are two 296 local manufacturers in the village - a blacksmith and a carpenter making traditional doors and windows

Site Proposals

There were no additional sites promoted for housing -

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.280 The incorrect reference to the local pub being known as the London Inn is noted and paragraph 13.456 will be amended accordingly to refer to the Barnstaple Inn. It is also accepted that this paragraph could make reference to the parish supporting a blacksmith and small scale manufacturer of traditional doors and windows.

Other Matters

4.281 Amendment to the pre-fix to the housing numbers is additionally recommended to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of” through Policy ST08: Scale and Distribution of New Development in Northern Devon.

Conclusion

4.282 The issues raised through the representation received are not considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan. However, it is considered that wording changes are required for accuracy.

Agreed Actions

The following are agreed as Main Changes to the Local Plan:

1. To undertake a Main Change to Policy BUR, consequential of agreed Main Changes to Policy ST08 to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of”. 2. Add new criterion (e) to read “improvements to the existing sewage treatment works”, with consequential changes to existing criterion (e) and (f).

The following are agreed as Minor Changes to the Local Plan:

1. Acknowledge the need for minor change to paragraph 13.456 of the Local Plan by amending reference to the ‘Barnstaple Inn’ rather than ‘London Inn’ and recognise the parish supports a blacksmith and small scale carpenter manufacturing traditional doors and windows. 2. Amend paragraph 13.463 to read “A detailed evaluation of the main sewage treatment works is required to establish what upgrading would be required to enable the development of both the allocated sites. Any necessary upgrading or other improvements will require implementation before significant new development takes place.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

Comments made in response to paragraph 13.463

Total Number of Responses 1

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” ~ ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy 13.463 plp number

Pre existing sewage issues with smells created from the pumping station at the 297 recent South Field development when it is pumped into the main sewer.

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.283 Paragraph 13.463 recognises the existing sewage treatment works may have limited spare capacity for additional development. Detailed evaluation will be required to establish the level of upgrading required to enable development of the allocated sites plus any other developable sites in the village. There is no evidence from the statutory undertaker (SWW) to suggest there is currently a capacity issue in the sewage treatment works which is insufficient for the existing and certainly the additional development proposed. Paragraph 13.463 recognises that a detailed evaluation is required. Until such time as an assessment of the existing sewage treatment works is carried out, it is difficult to establish whether there is insufficient capacity. As a community aspiration, the spatial strategy should include ‘improvements to the existing sewage treatment works’. The costs of improving this sewerage infrastructure will be delivered through developer contributions in accordance with Policy ST23 (Infrastructure), but would require implementation before significant new development can take place.

Other Matters

4.284 There are 3 site allocations (BUR01, BUR02 and BUR03) but paragraph 13.463 requires sewage treatment works to be upgraded to enable development on both sites. ‘Both sites’ should become ‘the allocated sites’.

Conclusion

4.285 The issues raised through the representation received are not considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan. However, it is considered that main and minor wording changes are needed to secure delivery if improvements are required.

Agreed Actions

The following are agreed as Minor Changes to the Local Plan:

1. Amend paragraph 13.463 to read “A detailed evaluation of the main sewage treatment works is required to establish what upgrading would be required to enable the development of both the

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

allocated sites. Any necessary upgrading or other improvements will require implementation before significant new development takes place.

2. Acknowledge the need for a minor change to paragraph 13.463 to amend ‘both sites’ to ‘the allocated sites’.

Policy BUR01: Land off Meadow Park Drive

4.286 No consultation comments were received in response to BUR01 (including supporting text).

Other Matters

4.287 A consequential amendment to Policy BUR01 to delete the wording “including a proportion of affordable homes” following Government changes to S106 obligations within national planning policy.

Agreed Actions

The following are agreed as Main Changes to the Local Plan:

1. To undertake a Main Change to Policy BUR01, to delete the wording “including a proportion of affordable homes” from criterion 1. 2. Add new text to paragraph 13.465 to read “A financial contribution will be required towards the delivery of affordable housing in accordance with Policy ST18 (Affordable Housing on Development Sites)”.

Comments made in response to Policy BUR02: Land Rear of Barnstaple Inn and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 1

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” ~ ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy BUR02: and supporting text plp number

Unfair to describe Policy BUR002 as "land rear of Barnstaple Inn" as very little (about 301 2-3 metres) encroaches onto the rear of the pub. Paragraph 13.455 states the village is on a linear pattern, but this development would alter the concept providing a medium sized estate behind 3 existing residences that are on the boundary of the conservation area and affecting views. Policy should exclude the building of new properties immediately behind Mayfair, Cavok Cottage and The Barnstaple Inn - to maintain the linear development within the village. Reduce the number of dwellings to reflect linear development along Barton Road and the main village street

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.288 The land off Barton Road / Village Street (rear of the Barnstaple Inn) lies on the north-western edge of the existing village and is well related to the services and facilities available. It is accepted the description of the site in Policy BUR02 could be amended to more accurately reflect the site’s location.

4.289 The site is one of three housing allocations for Burrington to meet their needs over the Plan period to 2031. The approach to housing development of this site, as set out in Policy BUR02, has been supported by the SHLAA Panel to deliver approximately 20 dwellings based on an assumption of 18dph, which is much lower than the density assumption advocated by the adopted SHLAA methodology at 30 dph in rural settlements.

4.290 Community consultation on Part 3 of the Local Plan was undertaken during the early part of 2013 (March to June) through Parish Councils to enable draft development boundaries and allocations to be discussed and defined in advance of inclusion within the Local Plan. The District Councils were very much of the view that the Parish Council would be integral to the process of site selection and boundary review for the village of Burrington. The intention of this approach to housing growth within the rural areas was to provide the opportunity to Burrington Parish Council to guide how development is managed and delivered within their community so that growth in rural settlements was locally informed. The outcome of this engagement resulted in Burrington Parish Council identifying land rear of Barnstaple Inn (Policy BUR02) for additional housing growth in the village, a site that was considered ‘developable’ by the SHLAA Panel for approximately 20 dwellings.

4.291 As part of Policy BUR02, the local community identified this site to meet the need within the village for an allotment of approximately 0.2 hectares which could be located to the rear of existing properties to reduce the impact of development on the heritage assets and amenity considerations. It is accepted at paragraph 13.455, Burrington has a mainly linear development form, focussed along the main road through the village. The existing policy would not preclude housing development of a similar character on this site along Barton Road as well as along the main road through the village but the site also provides the opportunity to deliver a more comprehensive development that would replicate developments at Meadow Park Drive and Pound Close.

4.292 The protection of heritage assets is more specifically considered in criterion 2(a) which requires development to conserve the setting of nearby listed buildings, the character and appearance of the adjoining conservation area and the character of the village centre. Such an approach to housing density is also supported by the NPPF which advocates at paragraph 58 to ‘optimise the potential of the site to accommodate development’ as well as Policy DM04 (Design Principles) which requires development to be ‘appropriate and sympathetic to setting in terms of scale, density, massing, height, layout appearance etc’. However, it is worth noting the Burrington Conservation Area Character Appraisal does not recognise this site as providing key views in to the conservation area although from the south-western edge of the conservation area there are considered to be important vistas across the wider landscape beyond to the north and west of the village. It is important to ensure housing development on this site be designed to conserve or enhance the significance of the heritage asset and its setting (adjoining listed buildings and conservation area), protect those long distant vistas over the wider landscape as well as protecting the amenities of neighbouring properties, but the loss of an existing view is not a matter for the planning system to consider.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

Conclusion

4.293 This representation is not considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan. However, it is considered that a minor change is required to more accurately reflect the location of the site to the rear of Barnstaple Inn, Cavok Cottage and Mayfair.

Agreed Actions

The following is agreed as a Main Change to the Local Plan:

1. Acknowledge the need for a main change to the title of Policy BUR02 and criterion (1) of Policy BUR02. “Land Rear of Barnstaple Inn, Cavok Cottage and Mayfair”

The following is agreed as a Minor Change to the Local Plan:

1. Acknowledge the need for a minor change to paragraph 13.468 of the Local Plan to reflect the location of the site and the need to protect the setting of the Grade II listed Barnstaple Inn and Cavok Cottage as well as the special character and appearance of the adjacent conservation area.

Policy BUR03: Land South of Hayne View, Balls Corner

4.294 No consultation comments were received in response to BUR03 (including supporting text). No main or minor changes are identified.

Agreed Actions

No change to the Local Plan is recommended in respect of Policy BUR03.

Comments made in response to Map 37 Burrington (Policies Map)

Total Number of Responses 1

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” ~ ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy BUR02: and supporting text plp number

The map has errors as to which property is which. On the main street adjacent to 302 site BUR02 it labels our barn/linhay as Cavok Cottage and labels our house, Cavok Cottage as Barnstaple Inn. It also shows a boundary line between these two buildings that doesn't exist. Barnstaple Inn is the building on the corner of the mai street and Barton Road and only extends as far as the first boundary line shown

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.295 The concerns relating to the incorrect identification of the Barnstaple Inn and Cavok Cottage is noted. The preparation of the policies maps within the Local Plan is under a licence with Ordnance Survey that allows the Council to use their map base. However, the content of the original base map is the responsibility of Ordnance Survey and cannot be amended by the Councils, therefore it is not an issue that the Local Plan can resolve.

Conclusion

4.296 This representation is not considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan.

Agreed Action

No change to Policies Map 37: Burrington. Chilsworthy

Comments made in response to Policy HOH: Chilsworthy Spatial Strategy and HOH01: Land West of Meadowside

4.297 No consultation comments were received in response to Polices HOH or HOH01 (including the associated supporting text).

4.298 No main or minor changes are identified; no areas of change, correction or clarification are sought in respect of Policies HOH: Chilsworthy Spatial Strategy and HOH01: Land West of Meadowside.

Agreed Action

1. No change to Policies HOH and HOH01 or the associated supporting text. Chittlehampton

Comments made in response to Policy CHI and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 5

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 5 ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 2 3

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 5 ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on Chittlehampton Spatial Strategy Policy CHI: and supporting text plp number

Make reference to Chittlehampton’s range of smaller businesses that bring 516 employment opportunities to the village.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

CHI should be framed as a more reasonable approach taking into account 577 possibilities of smaller developments (1-2 homes a year) across a broader view of the village rather than seeking a 'quick fix' within an arbitrary boundary.

Site Proposals

Land south of the Playing Field 581

Land adjacent the Fieldings 273, 763

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.299 The District Councils were of the view that the Parish Council would be integral to the process of site selection and boundary review for the village of Chittlehampton. The intention of this approach to housing growth within the rural areas was to provide the opportunity to Chittlehampton Parish Council to guide how development is managed and delivered within their community so that growth in rural settlements was locally informed. The outcome of this engagement resulted in Chittlehampton Parish Council wishing to define a development boundary around the village, in accordance with the advice note on ‘Development Boundary Review and Rural Village Allocations’ rather than the LPA identifying an arbitrary boundary.

4.300 The key principle of the Plan is to deliver sustainable development, focussed around the main built up areas of the major urban settlements as well as the identified local centres and villages within the rural areas. The strategy is not to allow small scale housing development within the open countryside on sustainability grounds. Developments in the countryside will be considered against other strategic and development management policies within the Plan.

4.301 The Parish Council also identified land to the south of the existing playing field within the defined development boundary for additional housing growth in the village as their preferred option. However, the land has not been formally submitted through the SHLAA process thereforeit has not been considered by the SHLAA panel and the site’s availability and developability is unknown so it cannot be included within the Local Plan as deliverability must be certain to count toward overall housing supply. The housing site allocated under Policy CHI01 has been considered developable by the SHLAA Panel for approximately 28 dwellings although the Councils considered a development of approximately 20 dwellings was more appropriate to meet the housing needs of Chittlehampton parish over the Plan period to 2031. It is the intention of the Plan to continue with this allocation for approximately 20 dwellings.

4.302 If the landowner of the site south of the playing Fields were, in future, to indicate the site’s availability through the SHLAA process then additional residential development within the village is permitted where it meets the requirements of Policy ST19 (Affordable Housing on Exception Sites).

4.303 In terms of the other promoted housing site on land adjacent the Fieldings, whilst the site has not been considered by the SHLAA panel, the land is within the defined development boundary agreed by the Parish Council. Therefore, should a planning application be submitted for housing on this site then it would be considered as a windfall site under relevant policies. The strategy for Chittlehampton has already been established through community consultation during 2013 and alternative sites have been through a robust assessment prior to publication of the draft Local Plan. It is not considered necessary to allocate these additional sites for housing.

4.304 It is accepted that paragraph 13.488 should be amended to recognise that Chittlehampton supports a number of smaller businesses as well as those already listed in Umberleigh.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

Other Matters

4.305 Amendment to the pre-fix to the housing numbers is additionally recommended to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of” through Policy ST08: Scale and Distribution of New Development in Northern Devon.

Conclusion

4.306 The issues raised through the representation received are not considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan. However, it is considered that wording changes are required to Policy CHI and paragraph 13.488 for completeness.

Agreed Actions

The following is agreed as a Main Change to the Local Plan:

1. To undertake a Main Change to Policy CHI, consequential of agreed Main Changes to Policy ST08 to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of”.

The following is agreed as a Minor Change to the Local Plan:

1. Acknowledge the need for minor change to paragraph 13.488 of the Local Plan to recognise Chittlehampton supports a number of smaller businesses besides those already listed in Umberleigh.

Comments made in response to Policy CHI01: Land at Cobbaton Road and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 1

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 1 ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1 ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy CHI01: and supporting text plp number

Scheme difficult to support due to nature and position. Drainage and sewage 589 problematic as well as poor road access. Appreciate need for more housing but could be more comfortably introduced in a naturally incremental way.

Additional Information

Pre-application discussions have taken place on this site previously for 18 dwellings, albeit back in 2012.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.307 The recognition that the local community appreciate the need for more housing in the parish is noted. As discussed above, the site off Cobbaton Road has been fully assessed by the SHLAA Panel, which considered the site was ‘developable’ in principle for approximately 28 dwellings although the Local Planning Authority considered a development of approximately 20 dwellings was more appropriate to meet the housing needs of Chittlehampton parish over the Plan period to 2031. It should be noted that without any alternative options being identified through the SHLAA process, this was the best / only site to allocate in order to meet the at least a 5% housing growth over the Plan period to maintain the existing population levels and to support existing services and facilities in the village.

4.308 There is no recognition in Policy CHI : Chittlehampton Spatial Strategy that drainage and sewage disposal is problematic in the village, nor is there evidence from the statutory undertaker (SWW) to suggest there is a capacity issue in the existing sewage treatment works to accommodate the additional development proposed. However, if a future planning application is submitted on this site where consultation identifies limited or no spare capacity in the treatment works then the developer will be required to make a financial contribution toward upgrading the existing sewage treatment works in accordance with Policy ST23. The existing highway constraints have been recognised by the highway authority although there is considered to be adequate frontage along Cobbaton Road to provide a safe access in to the development in accordance with Policy DM05 (Highways).

4.309 The aspiration for phasing of development to spread delivery of new homes across the plan period is recognised and it is accepted that, due to the limited infrastructure in the village, it would be potentially problematic for Chittlehampton if all 20 houses were delivered at once. However, the phasing of delivery will be determined by market forces and it is not considered likely that the housing market in Chittlehampton would support more than five new dwellings per year, therefore a more realistic delivery strategy for this site under market forces would be over four years. It would be unnecessarily restrictive and inflexible to require a phased approach through policy which could affect the viability of infrastructure delivery in view of the relatively small scale of the development (20 homes).

Conclusion

4.310 This representation is not considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan.

Agreed Actions

The following is agreed as a Minor Change to the Local Plan:

1. Acknowledge the need for a minor change to paragraph 13.498 of the Local Plan to recognise a number of established properties border the site” including the Grade II listed Townsend Cottages”. Also, add additional text to the third sentence to read “A satisfactory relationship between these properties and new housing is required in order to protect the amenities of both as well as the setting of the listed buildings”. Clawton

Comments made in response to Policy CLW: Clovelly Spatial Strategy

4.311 No consultation comments were received in response to Policy CLW: Clovelly Spatial Strategy (including the associated supporting text).

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

4.312 No main or minor changes are identified; no areas of change, correction or clarification are sought in respect of Policy CLW: Clovelly Spatial Strategy.

Agreed Action

1. No change to Policy CLW: Clovelly Spatial Strategy or the associated supporting text. .

Comments made in response to Policy CLW01: Land at Riverside

Total Number of Responses 1

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1 -

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy CLW01: Land at Riverside and supporting text plp number

Allocation of 8 homes makes site financially unviable. Amend numbers or reduce 157 planning gains.

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.313 A respondent has expressed concern that the 8 dwellings provided for in Policy CLW01 are inadequate to deliver the community benefit required by the policy. It is suggested that in providing for only 8 dwellings the site is unviable, consequently the housing numbers should be increased or planning gains reduced. The comment is noted, however, the site’s delivery is not considered to be prejudiced by the sought non housing element. The policy does not require a village green to be provided through the housing development, but for the site for the village green to be provided and for a contribution to its delivery, such is not considered to represent a delivery challenge. With regard to the questioned housing yield, there is no suggested scale of increase. The eastern element of the site, the location for the sought housing, has been assessed through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment process, through which a potential development capacity of 9 dwellings is identified. On this basis and in the interest of achieving a consistency of approach through the Local Plan it is considered appropriate to increase the housing yield to 9 dwellings.

Conclusion

4.314 The comment in response to the draft Local Plan Policy CLW01 is considered not to raise any issues that challenge the soundness of the Local Plan with regard to the site’s delivery potential. It is however considered appropriate, in the interest of achieving plan wide consistency, to increase the attributed housing yield to 9 dwellings, which will reflect the site’s development potential as identified by the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment.

Agreed Action

1. The following is an agree Main Change to Policy CLW01 with associated supporting text and consequential amendment to Policy CLW:

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

a. amend Policy CLW (1): Land at Riverside, as shown on Policies Map 40, is allocated for residential development that includes up to 8 9 dwellings including affordable homes…. Clovelly / Higher Clovelly

Comments made in response to Policy CLO: Clovelly/Higher Clovelly Spatial Strategy

Total Number of Responses 2

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” - -

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy CLO: Clovelly/Higher Clovelly Spatial Strategy and supporting plp number text

Location of village within AONB needs to be mentioned in strategy to conform with 255, 2055(NE) para 114 of NPPF.

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.315 Natural England seeks recognition of the settlement’s location within the AONB, with the following proposed in order to conform to paragraph 114 of NPPF: ‘The village is within the designated AONB. Consequently great weight will be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in consideration of proposals for development’.

4.316 The settlements location within the AONB is discussed in paragraph 13.517 and Policies CLO01 and CLO02 make specific reference to the AONB when setting out specific development principles for the respective sites. It does not however currently reference the weight that should be afforded to conserving the landscape and scenic beauty.

4.317 The suggestion from Natural England is considered acceptable having regard to the quoted paragraph of the NPPF. The addition of the provided text within the strategy is considered to be a minor change having regard to the established provisions of ST14: Enhancing Environmental Assets which provides policy provisions to protect northern Devon’s natural environment and in respect of the AONB Clause (d) requires development to ‘conserving the setting and special character and qualities of the North Devon AONB whilst fostering the social and economic well being of the area’.

Conclusion

4.318 The comments in response to the draft Local Plan Policy CLO are considered not to raise any issues that challenge the soundness of the Local Plan. A minor change is proposed which is considered appropriate in the interest of adding clarity to the Local Plan in providing a clearer emphasis on the nature of development required as a consequence of Clovelly / Higher Clovelly’s location within the AONB.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

Agreed Actions

1. No Main Change to Policy CLO or the associated supporting text. 2. The following is agreed as a Minor Changes to Policy CLO and the supporting text:

a. additions to recognise that Clovelly and Higher Clovelly lie within the North Devon Coasts Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and that consequently great weight will be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in consideration of proposals for development.

Comments made in response to Policy CLO01: Land North of War Memorial

Total Number of Responses 1

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” - -

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy CLO: Clovelly/Higher Clovelly Spatial Strategy and supporting plp number text

Objection due to detrimental impact on scenic beauty of AONB. 256

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.319 The North Devon AONB Partnership objects to allocation due to the potential for a detrimental impact on the scenic beauty of the Area of Outstanding Beauty (AONB). The objection is noted as are the landscape sensitivities of the site. Policy ST14 Enhancing Environmental Assets provides an overarching policy to protect northern Devon’s natural environment and in particular Clause (d) relates to the AONB, requires that development contributes to ‘conserving the setting and special character and qualities of the North Devon AONB whilst fostering the social and economic well being of the area’. Proposals developed on this site would be subject to these provisions. The settlement’s location within the AONB is further discussed in paragraph 13.517 and the recommendation in response to representations received on Policy CLO seeks to reinforce this recognition. Policy CLO01 further makes specific reference to the AONB within clause (2)(c)when setting out detailed development principles for the site, whilst clause (2)(b) requires substantial landscaping to the northern boundary to help integrate the new development into the landscape.

4.320 The site was appraised as part of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) which amongst other matters considered potential landscape impacts of development. The assessment recognised the need for development proposals to be sensitive to its setting but concluded that the site could accommodate residential development without unacceptable harm on the landscape, subject to appropriate design and landscaping measures being introduced. No reasonable alternative sites have been identified that would be preferable to this site for development. It is considered that the Policy and wider Strategy for the settlement adequately takes account of the landscape sensitivities of the site. As such, the representation is not considered raise any matters that impact on the soundness of the proposal, require change to the Policy or associated supporting text.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

Conclusion

4.321 The comments in response to the draft Local Plan Policy CLO01 are considered not to raise any issues that challenge the soundness of the Local Plan. No areas of change, correction or clarification are considered necessary to Policy CLO01: Land North of War Memorial in response to matters raised.

Agreed Action

1. No change to Policy CLO01 or the associated supporting text.

Comments made in response to Policy CLO02: Land at Lower Burscott Farmyard

4.322 No consultation comments were received in response to Policy CLO02 (including the associated supporting text).

4.323 No main or minor changes are identified; no areas of change, correction or clarification are sought in respect of Policy CLO02: Land at Lower Burscott Farmyard.

Agreed Action

1. No change to Policy CLO02 or the associated supporting text.

Croyde and Georgeham

Comments made in response to Policy GEO and the associated supporting text.

Total Number of Responses 8

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ 2

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ 3

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 2 ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on Croyde and Georgeham Spatial Strategy Policy GEO: and supporting plp number text

Paragraph 13.310 and spatial strategy need to be amended to conform with 253, 2056 paragraph 115 of the NPPF: The village is within the designated AONB. (NE) Consequently great weight will be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in consideration of proposals for development.

Concerned Policy GEO appears to limit the delivery of new homes at Croyde by 1522 confirming the supply of new housing will be delivered through extant planning permissions and a single allocation. This housing strategy does not comply with

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

the NPPF which introduces a presumption in favour of sustainable development (Paragraph 14) and requires Local Planning Authorities via their Local Plans to ‘significantly boost the supply of homes’ (Paragraph 47), positively seek development opportunities (Paragraph 14) and ‘focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable’ (Paragraph 17). Policy GEO currently confirms ‘beneficial development’ will be supported; however, this is an ambiguous term that is not defined or replicated in national planning policy or guidance.

The recognition of Georgeham and Croyde Parish as a location for sustainable 1612 development is welcomed. Amend the wording of Policy GEO: Georgeham and Croyde Spatial Strategy to recognise that additional sites within and in close proximity to the two settlements boundaries will be able to contribute to the Plan’s Housing requirements. Specific reference should also be made to support development that enhances the areas tourism offer.

Broadly supports the Council’s approach to the distribution of additional housing at 2564 the District’s villages such as Croyde (strategy seeks the provision of 37 houses over the Plan period). It can contribute positively to the overall supply of housing and needs to be allowed the opportunity to grow in order to help maintain their role and function and to help support existing services provided.

Site Proposals

Land off Cloutmans Lane east of the existing development boundary 2289 (PC)

Land at Mitchums Campsite (Myrtle Meadow), Moor Lane, Croyde 980

Land west of Hobbs Hill, Croyde 980

Fairleigh, Crowborough Road, Georgeham 2414

Additional Information

C106694 : Pre-application discussions regarding proposed housing development, Myrtle Meadow, Moor Lane, Croyde

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.324 A range of responses to the Croyde and Georgeham spatial strategy have been submitted, including impact of future development on the AONB and inconsistency with the NPPF. Although the Local Plan must be in general conformity with the Framework, it is not considered necessary to replicate wording within the NPPF, within which the LPA and local communities can produce their own distinctive Plan(s). As the Plan must be read as a whole, it is considered there is adequate protection afforded to the AONB within Policies ST09 (Coast and Estuary Strategy) and ST14 (Enhancing Environmental Assets) which seeks to conserve the setting and special character and qualities of the North Devon AONB. There is no need to give greater weight to conserving the AONB, although the strategy could be more explicit in terms of recognising the AONB and the need to protect its landscape character. Criterion (c) of the spatial strategy for Croyde and Georgeham is explicit in terms of the need to protect the important natural environment and scenery of both settlements, but additional wording could be added to protect more explicitly the AONB.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

4.325 The recognition of Croyde and Georgeham as a location for sustainable development is noted and welcomed. The provision for Croyde and Georgeham of approximately 54 dwellings (37 dwellings for Croyde and 17 dwellings for Georgeham) as set out in the spatial strategy is made up of houses already built since 2011 (start of the Plan period) and existing commitments. This is explained in the footnote(82) to paragraph 13.541. The assumption that Croyde and Georgeham should provide a greater level of housing to meet future needs in the villages to comply with the NPPF and the presumption in favour of sustainable development is noted, but needs to be balanced with the NPPF’s requirement to give great weight to conserving the AONB (paragraph 115). This issue is discussed further when the alternative sites are considered.

4.326 The 54 dwellings within the spatial strategy meets the 53 homes required to deliver 5% housing growth strategy for villages (recommended by paragraph 4.13 of the Plan) to maintain the existing population levels and to support existing services and facilities. It will help address some, but not all of the housing need in the parish. This 5% figure was not a minimum or maximum requirement but a guide for local communities to plan for their future housing growth based on a 5% increase in households.

4.327 The reference to paragraph 14 of the NPPF and ‘the presumption in favour of sustainable development’ is recognised and is reflected in the Plan. The growth strategy in the Plan rightly focuses the majority of new housing development to Barnstaple and Bideford (49%) with high levels of growth being directed to the main centres (39%), whereas development opportunities in the rural areas will equate to about 12% growth. Opportunities for growth will be more limited in villages within landscape designations, such as the AONB. It is accepted that both Croyde and Georgeham are relatively sustainable locations and would be desirable locations for new housing development where market value would be very high. However, the need for housing growth must be balanced against the area’s high quality natural environment, with both settlements being located within the AONB and Heritage Coast. Paragraph 115 of the NPPF makes it clear that ‘great weight should be given to conserving 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 landscape and scenic beauty’. Therefore, it is not accepted that Croyde and Georgeham should be required to ‘significantly boost the supply of homes’ (paragraph 47); this approach to housing delivery would be more appropriate for the main urban areas such as Barnstaple, Ilfracombe and South Molton. The provision of 54 new dwellings for Croyde and Georgeham (approximately 5% growth) is not considered unreasonable in recognition of the villages’ status and the landscape constraints.

4.328 There is a perception from one representation that the wording in the spatial strategy referring to ‘beneficial development’ is ambiguous in its meaning. The term derived from the local community’s vision for their parish so it is not defined or replicated in national planning policy or guidance. However, it is accepted the vision could be re-phrased to replace the word ‘beneficial’ with new text ‘...... that will address local housing and community needs’.

4.329 To ensure appropriate growth was planned for, at a scale and in locations that reflects local aspirations, community consultation on Part 3 of the Local Plan was undertaken during the early part of 2013 (March to June) through Parish Councils to enable draft development boundaries and allocations to be discussed and defined in advance of inclusion within the Local Plan. The outcome of this engagement resulted in Georgeham Parish Council identifying land off Frogstreet Hill, Georgeham (Policy GEO01) and land off Croyde Road, Croyde (Policy GEO02) for additional housing growth in the villages. The District Councils were very much of the view that the Parish Council would be integral to the process of site selection and boundary review for the villages of Croyde and Georgeham. The intention of this approach to housing growth within the rural areas was to provide

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

the opportunity to Georgeham Parish Council to guide how development is managed and delivered within their community so that growth in rural settlements was locally informed. The District Councils did not prescribe how the consultation with the local community should be undertaken.

4.330 In addition to the two housing sites proposed for Croyde and Georgeham, four additional housing sites have been promoted, three in Croyde village, immediately adjacent to the existing development boundary and one in Georgeham village, outside the proposed settlement boundary. The sites have been proposed by individual landowners, all of which have been fully assessed by the SHLAA Panel, apart from Fairleigh in Georgeham (plp2414) which could be developable in principle for approximately 4 dwellings in recognition of the site history. The recommendation from the SHLAA Panel was that the three other sites are considered developable in principle, but the strategy for Croyde and Georgeham has already been established through community consultation during 2013 and alternative sites have been through a robust assessment prior to publication of the draft Local Plan. It is not considered necessary to allocate these additional sites. Additional residential development within the villages is permitted where it meets the requirements of Policy ST19 and other DM policies within the Plan, although the policies protecting the landscape character of the AONB and the undeveloped coast and estuary zone (ST09 and ST14) may restrict such opportunities.

4.331 Paragraph 13.537 recognises the importance of tourism to the parish where the local economy is dominated by tourism related industries with extensive areas of Croyde dedicated to holiday accommodation including Croyde Bay Holiday Resort, Ruda Holiday Centre and Leadengate. Also, both Croyde and Georgeham have a high level of second home ownership (approximately 23% in 2012) that adds to the overall level of tourism accommodation in the parish. It is not considered necessary to specifically refer to support for additional tourism related proposals in the spatial strategy as the plan should be read as a whole. Other policies in the Plan will permit tourism development within the villages where it meets the requirements of Policy ST13 (Sustainable Tourism), Policy DM17 (Tourism and Leisure Attractions), DM18 (Tourism Accommodation) and complies with Policy ST09 (Coast and Estuary Strategy).

Other Matters

4.332 DCC have indicated that the existing school site is constrained with no capacity for its expansion. As such, criterion (f) is potentially undeliverable notwithstanding the future need and a local community’s aspiration for additional capacity to meet future requirements. An undeliverable policy requirement could threaten the soundness of the plan.

4.333 Contributions could still be collected through CIL (or a S106 agreement where applicable) towards provision of additional capacity at another primary school (eg in Braunton), in which case criterion (f) is misleading as it implies provision at Georgeham Primary school. A more robust alternative would be to delete criterion (f).

4.334 If deleted, paragraph 13.547 would also need to be amended, albeit supporting any future improvements at the school which may be proposed. Improved pedestrian links to the school are still required.

4.335 Amendment to the pre-fix to the housing numbers is additionally recommended to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of” through Policy ST08: Scale and Distribution of New Development in Northern Devon.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

Conclusion

4.336 Several issues were raised through representations received, but none are considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan. Members rejected the recommendation to delete support for the provision of additional primary school capacity to serve the parish which may cause some concern in terms of ‘Soundness’ but it was considered there was sufficient land available to the rear of the site to provide any future expansion subject to it not having an adverse impact on the surrounding AONB. However, amendments are required to clarify wording and intentions of a particular paragraph or the strategy.

Agreed Actions

The following are agreed as Main Changes to the Local Plan:

1. To undertake a Main Change to Policy GEO, consequential of agreed Main Changes to Policy ST08 to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of”. 2. Amend criterion (c) of the strategy to be more explicit in recognising the AONB and the need to protect its landscape character. Amend wording to read “protection of the natural environment and scenery including the special landscape character and qualities of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty”. 3. Amend the spatial strategy to clarify ‘beneficial development’. Amend wording to read “The local community has a vision for the parish that seeks to maintain the character and appearance of the area, for the benefit of both residents and visitors alike, while adopting a positive approach to beneficial development well related to the villages that will address local housing and community needs. ...

Comments made in response to Policy GEO01 and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 1

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” ~ ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy GEO01: and supporting text plp number

Site Proposals

Land off Road, Georgeham (north of Policy GEO01) 2417

Additional Information

C109225 : Pre-application discussions regarding proposed housing development, Land off Frogstreet Hill, Georgeham

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.337 Additional land off Putsborough Road has been proposed by the landowner for the inclusion within the defined development boundary of Georgeham. It lies to the north of GEO01 but has not been assessed by the SHLAA Panel. However, officers consider the site to be developable in principle for approximately 15 dwellings if access can be delivered off Frogstreet Hill (through Policy GEO01) with access being achievable across the existing watercourse. Development would require some major landscaping along the northern boundary, adjacent to the existing dwellings which currently have an open frontage to this field. If a comprehensive development cannot be delivered through GEO01 then the net developable area would be confined to the existing agricultural buildings on the eastern part of the site with access over a private drive on to Putsborough Road.

4.338 Whilst the additional promoted site is likely to be developable in principle, albeit not formally assessed by the SHLAA panel, the strategy for Croyde and Georgeham has already been established through community consultation during 2013 and alternative sites have been through a robust assessment prior to publication of the draft Local Plan. It is not considered necessary to allocate this additional site. Additional residential development within the villages is permitted where it meets the requirements of Policy ST19 (Affordable Housing on Exception Sites) as well as policies protecting the landscape character of the AONB and the undeveloped coast and estuary zone (ST09 and ST14).

Other Matters

4.339 A consequential amendment to Policy GEO01 to delete the wording “including a proportion of affordable homes” following Government changes to S106 obligations within national planning policy.

Conclusion

4.340 A single issue has been raised that would threaten the soundness of the local plan. Therefore, a main change is required to the policy and supporting text.

Agreed Actions

The following are agreed as Main Changes to the Local Plan:

1. To undertake a Main Change to Policy GEO01, to delete the wording “including a proportion of affordable homes” from criterion 1. 2. Add new text to paragraph 13.542 to read “A financial contribution will be required towards the delivery of affordable housing in accordance with Policy ST18 (Affordable Housing on Development Sites)”.

Comments made in response to Policy GEO02 and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 1

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” ~ ~

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy GEO02: and supporting text plp number

The 15 houses proposed in GEO2 should be located close to the road on this site 254 so to have a close relationship to the village. This development could have a detrimental impact on the strip field system to the south of Croyde.

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.341 The proposed housing should be located close to the road in order to have a close relationship to the village the concern regarding the possibility that development could have a detrimental impact on the strip field system to the south of Croyde is noted. The strip fields south of Somerthing Lane are outside both the allocated site and the development boundary so should not be affected.

4.342 The intention of the policy and site allocation is to deliver approximately 15 dwellings on land between Croyde Road and Somerthing Lane in order to ensure the housing development is well related to the main built up area of the village and to reduce any potential impact on the landscape setting of the AONB by restricting development to the lower slopes. This is further reinforced by criterion (c) which requires additional planting along the southern boundary with Somerthing Lane. However, it is accepted that criterion (c) could be more explicit to recognise the reinforced planting is required to ‘provide an appropriate transitional boundary between the development and adjoining countryside’.

Conclusion

4.343 A single issue has been raised through representations received, but it is not considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan. However, a main change is proposed to clarify wording and intentions of a particular paragraph or the strategy.

Agreed Actions

The following is agreed as a Main Change to the Local Plan:

1. Make Criterion (c) of the strategy more explicit in terms of recognising the need for a transitional boundary to protect the adjoining countryside and strip field system. Amended wording could read “replacement of the frontage hedge along Croyde Road and reinforcement of existing boundaries with additional planting, particularly along the southern boundary with Somerthing Lane to provide an appropriate transitional boundary between the development and adjoining countryside”.

The following is an agreed as a Minor Change to the Local Plan:

1. Acknowledge the need for a minor change to paragraph 13.545 of the Local Plan. Amended paragraph would read “Parts of the former strip field system lie to the south of the allocation. Both sites, to the east and west of Leadengate House, can be developed without undue harm to this and to the setting of or approach to the village. Substantial planting along the southern boundary and appropriate design and layout with Somerthing Lane will be required to integrate the site into its landscape setting, minimise its impact on the AONB and provide a transitional boundary between the development and the adjoining countryside”.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

Comments made in response to Map 42 Croyde (Policies Map)

Total Number of Responses 2

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” ~ ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on Map 42 Croyde (Policies Map) plp number

The amended development boundary at Croyde is welcomed, particularly the 1526 inclusion of existing development in the vicinity of Moor Lane. It is considered these changes offer a more appropriate boundary between the built form of Croyde and open countryside.

Site Proposals

Wycliff, Ora Lane / Jones’s Hill, Croyde (extension of development boundary to 77 include garden of Wycliff)

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.344 The response supporting the amended development boundary, particularly around existing development in the vicinity of Moor Lane is noted and welcomed.

4.345 The site promotion is a minor change to the existing development boundary around the garden of Wycliff, Ora Lane, Croyde east of the Moor Land junction(see attached plan). The representation argues there is an inconsistency of approach in defining the development boundary for Croyde in the Local Plan 2014 when other properties with large gardens have been included. Such a change would be consistent with the advice note on ‘Development Boundary Review and Rural Village Allocations’ which advocates that boundaries should include garden curtilages unless it is functionally separate to the dwelling or where land has the capacity to significantly extend the built form of the settlement and as such would result in ribbon development. It is not considered that such a change to the development boundary in this location would be contrary to the above guidance as the boundary would follow a legible boundary feature along the eastern and northern boundary. It is worth noting that the western boundary is a designated TPO and the site’s topography would make development difficult within any extended boundary.

4.346 The development boundary should also be extended to include the planning permission (subject to completion of s106) at Higher Roylands, Moor Lane.

Other Matters

55517 : Erection of Two Affordable Dwellings including Detached Garages with Local Connection to Parish (Amended Plans) – approved in principle subject to a section 106 agreement (Sept 2014)

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

Conclusion

4.347 The issue raised is not considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan. However, main changes are required to the development boundary for consistency.

Agreed Actions

The following are agreed as Main Changes to the Local Plan:

1. Amend development boundary around Wycliff, Ora Lane, Croyde (Policies Map 42) (see attached plan). 2. Amend development boundary around Higher Roylands, Moor Lane (Policies Map 42) (see attached plan). East Anstey

Comments made in response to Policy EAN and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 1

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1 ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on East Anstey Spatial Strategy Policy EAN: and supporting text plp number

Support the inclusion of clause (3)(d) safeguarding the dark night skies over Exmoor 2376 (ENPA) National Park.

Site Proposals

There are no additional housing sites promoted

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.348 The response from Exmoor National Park regarding the recognition within the spatial strategy to safeguarding the dark night skies over the National Park is noted and welcomed.

Other Matters

4.349 Amendment to the pre-fix to the housing numbers is additionally recommended to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of” through Policy ST08: Scale and Distribution of New Development in Northern Devon.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

Conclusion

4.350 The issues raised through the representation received are considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan. Main changes are required to Policy EAN.

Agreed Actions

The following are agreed as Main Changes to the Local Plan:

1. To undertake a Main Change to Policy EAN, consequential of agreed Main Changes to Policy ST08 to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of”. 2. Amend criterion 3(d) of Policy EAN to recognise “safeguarding the dark night skies over Exmoor National Park.

Policy EAN01: Land at East Anstey

4.351 No consultation comments were received in response to EAN01 (including supporting text).

Other Matters

4.352 A consequential amendment to Policy EAN01 to delete the wording “including a proportion of affordable homes” following Government changes to S106 obligations within national planning policy.

Agreed Actions

The following is an agreed Main Change to the Local Plan:

1. To undertake a Main Change to Policy EAN01, to delete the wording “including a proportion of affordable homes” from criterion 1. East Worlington

Policy EWO: East Worlington Spatial Strategy

Comments made in response to Policy EWO and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 0

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty ~ ~ to Co-operate?”

Summary of Issues

Comments on East Worlington Spatial Strategy Policy EWO: and plp number supporting text

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

~ ~

Additional Information

N/A

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.353 No issues were raised relating to the East Worlington chapter through public consultation.

Other Matters

4.354 Amendment to the pre-fix to the housing numbers is additionally recommended to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of” through Policy ST08: Scale and Distribution of New Development in Northern Devon.

Conclusion

4.355 The issue raised is considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan.

Agreed Actions

4.356 The following is an agreed Main Change:

1. To undertake a Main Change to Policy EWO, consequential of agreed Main Changes to Policy ST08 to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of”.

Policy EWO01: Land at Town Barton, East Worlington

4.357 No consultation comments were received in response to EWO01 (including supporting text).

Other Matters

4.358 A consequential amendment to Policy EWO01 to delete the wording “including a proportion of affordable homes” following Government changes to S106 obligations within national planning policy.

Agreed Actions

4.359 The following is an agreed Main Change:

1. To undertake a Main Change to Policy EWO01, to delete the wording “including a proportion of affordable homes” from criterion 1. Filleigh

Comments made in response to Policy FIL and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 1

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” ~ ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on Filleigh Spatial Strategy Policy FIL: and supporting text plp number

For completeness under employment : The development of business uses at North 13 (PC) Aller with possible further development of business workshops. We take it Stag's Head employment will be assumed.

Site Proposals

There are no additional housing sites promoted

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.360 It is accepted that paragraph 13.576 could be amended to recognise the parish of Filleigh supports a number of smaller businesses at North Aller and Stag’s Head as well as those already listed in the paragraph.

Other Matters

4.361 The spatial strategy does not protect the setting of the listed building and important vistas within Castle Hill Historic Park and Garden. Amendments should be made to the spatial strategy to recognise and safeguard the setting of Castle Hill.

4.362 Amendment to the pre-fix to the housing numbers is additionally recommended to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of” through Policy ST08: Scale and Distribution of New Development in Northern Devon.

Conclusion

4.363 The issues raised are considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan.

Agreed Actions

The following are agreed as Main Changes to the Local Plan:

1. To undertake a Main Change to Policy FIL, consequential of agreed Main Changes to Policy ST08 to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of” 2. Add a new criterion to Policy FIL: ‘protection of listed buildings and their setting, and the character and appearance of Castle Hill historic park and garden including key vistas within it”. Consequential change to labelling of existing criteria following the insertion of a new criterion (d).

The following is agreed as a Minor Change to the Local Plan:

1. Acknowledge the need for minor changes to paragraph 13.576 of the Local Plan to recognise Filleigh supports a number of smaller businesses at North Aller and Stag’s Head as well as those already listed in the paragraph.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

Policy FIL01: Land adjoining Filleigh Village Hall

4.364 No consultation comments were received in response to FIL01 (including supporting text).

Other Matters

4.365 A consequential amendment to Policy FIL01 to delete the wording “including a proportion of affordable homes” following Government changes to S106 obligations within national planning policy.

Agreed Actions

The following are agreed as Main Changes to the Local Plan:

1. To undertake a Main Change to Policy FIL01, to delete the wording “including a proportion of affordable homes” from criterion 1. 2. Add new text to paragraph 13.579 to read “This site is well related to the village hall and primary school. The principle of residential development is supported as the site can meet the community’s need for a variety of housing types and sizes affordable housing facilitated by provision of some open market housing. A financial contribution will be required towards the delivery of affordable housing in accordance with Policy ST18 (Affordable Housing on Development Sites)”. 3. Amend paragraph 13.580 to protect the “character of Castle Hill Historic Park and Garden” alongside the setting of the listed buildings already stated. Goodleigh

Comments made in response to Policy GDL and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 1

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” ~ ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on Goodleigh Spatial Strategy Policy GDL: and supporting text plp number

Amend Spatial Strategy, recognise the settlement’s location in the AONB, from 2058 (NE) which greater weight should be given the landscape impacts of development.

Site Proposals

There are no additional housing sites promoted

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.366 The representation from Natural England seems to infer the settlement of Goodleigh is within the designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and the spatial strategy should reflect this fact. The North Devon Coast Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) is a nationally important

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

landscape covering the coastal area. The area’s special character and qualities are identified in the Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty management plan and the Councils have a duty to conserve and enhance this area’s natural beauty.

4.367 The extent of the AONB covers an area along the coastline from Combe Martin, on the border of Exmoor National Park down to Welcombe on the border with Cornwall. However, the AONB does not include Goodleigh which is approximately 5 kilometres (3 miles) north-east of Barnstaple and approximately 10 kilometres (6 miles) from the nearest part of the AONB. Natural England would have been expected to know this.

Other Matters

4.368 Amendment to the pre-fix to the housing numbers is additionally recommended to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of” through Policy ST08: Scale and Distribution of New Development in Northern Devon.

Conclusion

4.369 The issue raised is considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan.

Agreed Actions

The following is agreed as a Main Change to the Local Plan :

1. To undertake a Main Change to Policy GDL, consequential of agreed Main Changes to Policy ST08 to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of”.

Policy GDL01: Land adjacent Village Hall, Coombe Cross

4.370 No consultation comments were received in response to GDL01 (including supporting text).

Other Matters

4.371 A consequential amendment to Policy GDL01 to delete the wording “including a proportion of affordable homes” following Government changes to S106 obligations within national planning policy.

Agreed Actions

The following is agreed as a Main Change to the Local Plan:

1. To undertake a Main Change to Policy GDL01, to delete the wording “including a proportion of affordable homes” from criterion (1a). 2. Add new text to paragraph 13.592 to read “A financial contribution will be required towards the delivery of affordable housing in accordance with Policy ST18 (Affordable Housing on Development Sites)”.

Policy GDL02: Land off Hill

4.372 No consultation comments were received in response to GDL02 (including supporting text).

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

Other Matters

4.373 A consequential amendment to Policy GDL02 to delete the wording “including a proportion of affordable homes” following Government changes to S106 obligations within national planning policy.

Agreed Actions

The following is agreed as a Main Change to the Local Plan:

1. To undertake a Main Change to Policy GDL02, to delete the wording “including a proportion of affordable homes” from criterion (1a).

Comments made in response to Policy GDL03 and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 1

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” ~ ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy GDL03: Land adjacent Goodleigh Primary School and supporting plp number text

The primary school is oversubscribed; DCC supports policy provision which will 1380 (DCC) assist in securing additional land for expansion.

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.374 The response from Devon County Council regarding support for Policy GDL03 is noted and welcomed.

Conclusion

4.375 The issues raised through the representation received are not considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan.

Agreed Actions

No change to Policy GDL03 of the Local Plan is proposed in response to the issue raised through consultation.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

Kentisbury / Kentisbury Ford

Comments made in response to Policy KKF and the associated supporting text.

Total Number of Responses 2

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 2 ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on Kentisbury / Kentisbury Ford Spatial Strategy Policy KKF: and plp number supporting text

Welcome the recognition of the setting of the settlements and their relationship with 2377, 2378 the National Park. (ENPA)

Site Proposals

There are no additional housing sites promoted

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.376 The response from Exmoor National Park Authority regarding the recognition within the spatial strategy and supporting text of the setting of the settlements and their relationship with the National Park is noted and welcomed.

Other Matters

4.377 The spatial strategy does not adequately protect the setting of listed buildings within the village. The spatial strategy should be amended to reflect this.

4.378 Amendment to the pre-fix to the housing numbers is additionally recommended to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of” through Policy ST08: Scale and Distribution of New Development in Northern Devon.

Conclusion

4.379 The issues raised through the representation received are not considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan.

Agreed Actions

The following are agreed as Main Changes to the Local Plan:

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

1. To undertake a Main Change to Policy KKF, consequential of agreed Main Changes to Policy ST08 to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of”. 2. Amend criterion (c ) of Policy KKF: ‘... protection of the high quality local environment including the setting of listed buildings’.

Comments made in response to Paragraph 13.614

Total Number of Responses 1

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1 ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on paragraph 13.614 plp number

Paragraph 13.614 states that “The establishment of appropriate small-scale renewable 2379 energy schemes will also be supported outside of Exmoor National Park where such (ENPA) development would not cause significant harm to the area’s special landscape qualities including its tranquillity, dark skies and the setting of the National Park, in accordance with Policy ST14 ” – the Authority supports this statement subject to amending ‘dark skies’ to ‘dark night skies’.

Site Proposals

There are no additional housing sites promoted

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.380 The response from Exmoor National Park supporting the paragraph and the recognition to safeguarding the dark night skies over the National Park is noted and welcomed.

Conclusion

4.381 The issues raised through the representation received are not considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan.

Agreed Actions

The following is an agreed Minor Change to the Local Plan:

1. Acknowledge the need for a minor change to paragraph 13.614 of the Local Plan to amend paragraph 13.614 from ‘dark skies’ to ‘dark night skies’.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

King's Nympton

Comments made in response to Policy KGN and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 1

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” ~ ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on King’s Nympton Spatial Strategy Policy KGN: and supporting text plp number

Support is given to the overall strategy set out in the policy and recognise that 1838 sufficient land exists within the development boundary. However no land is identified for allotments and the proposed car park within the development boundary. It is not clear from the text whether a flexible approach will be taken to the development boundary when considering proposals. Land has been identified at a property known as Skibbows House; the owner is prepared to make a provision on this land and should be identified as such and incorporated into the development boundary.

Site Proposals

Development boundary change to include Land west of Molehayes 1025 (PC), 1136

Land at Skibbows 1838

Additional Information

Pre-application discussions have commenced on land at Skibbows for 14 dwellings (C109852).

57177 : Erection Of New Dwelling (Corrected Site Plan). Decision Pending (Deferred by committee for one cycle to seek an amended design to lower the ridge height having regard to the views of the conservation officer and to secure provision of a local needs dwelling).

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.382 The general support for the King’s Nympton Spatial Strategy is noted and welcomed. Policy KGN and paragraph 13.623 recognise the local community’s aspirations to deliver a site for allotments and a village car park for the village in accordance with the spatial strategy and general local plan policies. No sites have been promoted or identified, but a specific site does not need to be allocated in the Plan nor it they have to be within the defined development boundary as Policy ST22 will support new community facilities within, or adjoining identified settlements where it does not harm the character of the area and the amenities of surrounding uses.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

4.383 The housing provision for King’s Nympton within the spatial strategy does not include any growth through new site allocations. The provision of approximately 20 dwellings as set out in the spatial strategy is made up of houses already built since 2011 (start of the Plan period) and existing commitments. This is explained in the footnote(88) to paragraph 13.621.

4.384 In addition to the housing proposed for King’s Nympton in the Local Plan, two additional housing sites have been promoted. The first is on land west of Molehayes through a change to the existing development boundary around the garden (see attached plan). The proposed site has an in principle planning permission (57177) for the erection of a single dwelling within the extensive grounds of Molehayes, subject to an amended design being agreed to lower the ridge height in order to reduce the potential impact on the adjoining listed building and to secure provision of a local needs dwelling. Extending the development boundary slightly would allow for the proposed new dwelling to be more appropriately located away from the existing Grade II listed house, which is more in keeping with the character of the surrounding area. Such a change would be consistent with the advice note on ‘Development Boundary Review and Rural Village Allocations’ which advocates areas with planning permission (albeit an’ in principle’ planning permission) that are physically connected to the built form of the settlement should be included within a boundary.

4.385 The second promoted site is on land at Skibbows which has been proposed by the landowner. This site has been fully assessed by the SHLAA Panel, which indicated the site was ‘not currently developable’ but ‘considered the site would be acceptable if a suitable vehicular access could be achieved’. Whilst there are access issues to this site that need to be resolved, it is recognised the existing redundant agricultural land and buildings are in a poor state of repair which is very over grown with vegetation and builders’ rubble, detracting from the character and appearance of the adjoining conservation area. A small scale development would enhance the area and the site is already included in the defined development boundary as it could potentially deliver three houses off a private drive together with the community facilities.

4.386 The strategy for King’s Nympton has already been established through community consultation during 2013 and alternative sites have been through a robust assessment prior to publication of the draft Local Plan. It is not considered necessary to allocate sites for housing. Additional residential development within the village is permitted where it meets the requirements of Policy ST19 (Affordable Housing on Exception Sites).

Other Matters

4.387 Amendment to the pre-fix to the housing numbers is additionally recommended to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of” through Policy ST08: Scale and Distribution of New Development in Northern Devon.

Conclusion

4.388 The issues raised are not considered to threaten the soundness of the Plan.

Agreed Actions

The following are agreed as Main Changes to the Local Plan:

1. To undertake a Main Change to Policy KGN, consequential of agreed Main Changes to Policy ST08 to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of”.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

2. Amend criterion (d) to read “retention of the character and setting of the village, King’s Nympton Park and its relationship with the countryside”. 3. Amend development boundary around Molehayes (Policies Map 49) to reflect the planning permission (57177) to allow an improved relationship between the existing and proposed dwelling (see attached plan). It is suggested the development boundary should not include the full extent of the new garden curtilage as this may allow further housing development to the west of the site.

The following is agreed as a Minor Change to the Local Plan:

1. Amend paragraph 13.622 to read “Where suitable land is available for development that meets a locally generated and quantified need and is appropriate in terms of its scale and location, it will be considered for development in accordance with the requirements of Policy ST07: Spatial Development Strategy for Northern Devon's Rural Area and the relevant development management polices. Development that adversely impacts on the historic character and appearance of the village, King's Nympton Park or Conservation Area will not be supported”. Knowle

Comments made in response to Policy KNW and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 12 (from 4 separate individuals)

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 9 3

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ 12

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 11 1

Summary of Issues

Comments on Knowle Spatial Strategy Policy KNW: and supporting text plp number

Give greater recognition to Knowle as an important rural settlement. 2466

Amend paragraph 13.625 to better reflect the pattern of housing growth within the 2468 village east and not west of the village.

The area of land west of the A361 should be retained primarily as green infrastructure 2474 and to enhance the link to be created in the Tarka Trail.

Support that Knowle has an important role to play in providing services and 2479 development opportunities to address locally generated and quantified need. Whilst it recognises the need for housing, there is no acknowledgement to recognise the importance of protecting existing employment land so that both existing and further commercial activity is not stifled. This is not in line with the Strategic Aims and Objectives of the plan.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

The existence of Knowle Industrial Estate represents a most important land use 2481 within the settlement. The businesses that it supports help to maintain Knowle as a self contained and sustainable rural community. The Plan acknowledges the location of the estate adjacent the River Caen and close to residential property and its protection for employment purposes.

No objection to wording in paragraph 13.631, although the site identified on policies 2486 map 50 should refer to land east of Church Hill Lane rather than Chalwells.

Site Proposals

Whilst there are limited employment opportunities within the village there is a need 2477 to ensure that local business enterprise can expand within the settlement. Additional land adjacent the Knowle Industrial Estate should therefore be allocated to allow employment opportunities to be safeguarded, and for existing businesses to thrive. Existing employment in the local garage and its associated shop and post office and Knowle Industrial Estate are important to the local economy and will be safeguarded for employment. Amend paragraph 13.627

Alternative housing site east of Church Hill Lane and north of Whitestone Lane. 2487

Proposes an alternative housing site and area for public open space on land east 2484 of Church Hill Lane and and land at Chalwells should be proposed for an extension to Knowle Industrial Estate and green infrastructure.

Alternative housing site south of Whitestone Lane. 517, 652, 863

Additional Information

58133 : Outline application for 3 dwellings at land off Whitestone Lane, Knowle. Pending a decision

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.389 Knowle is identified as a Village as set out in Policy ST07, which recognises its role in the settlement hierarchy. The village’s role and importance is set out in paragraphs 13.624 to 13.627. The range of community facilities within Knowle is good for a village of its size. It scores 11 community facility points (out of 29), within the settlement hierarchy assessment (Dec 2012), well above the minimum of 5 community facility points to qualify as a village. No additional recognition for Knowle is required.

4.390 The village is located either side of the A361, with most housing to the east of the road and most employment to the west. This distribution is readily seen from Policies Map 50 so it is not considered necessary to state this explicitly.

4.391 The Tarka Trail provides an important link in the green infrastructure network with the woodland and hedgerows alongside the River Caen recognised as contributing to an important network of habitats. This is recognised in paragraph 13.626. Whilst further green infrastructure provision or enhancement alongside the river would be welcome, it is considered neither necessary nor appropriate to safeguard land west of the A361 for green infrastructure provision.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

4.392 The importance of Knowle industrial estate is recognised in paragraph 13.627. Protecting employment land is in accordance with the local plan’s strategic aims and objectives. Employment land is safeguarded under Policy DM13, as referenced in this paragraph, so further protection of existing employment land is considered unnecessary.

4.393 There is no site identified for proposed extension to Knowle industrial estate. In view of potential over-provision of employment land, a new allocation is not required. Paragraph 13.630 already supports expansion of existing businesses if required during the plan period, subject to flood risks and any impacts on neighbouring properties.

4.394 Two alternative or additional housing sites have been promoted in Knowle, north and south of Whitestone land on the eastern edge of the village. Land north of Whitestone Lane, east of Church Hill Lane, was considered ‘developable’ by the SHLAA panel for approximately 15 dwellings on the western part of the site with the rest providing public open space. The site south of Whitestone Lane but has not yet been considered formally by the SHLAA panel. The site has been proposed by the owners, so is likely to be available. There is a current planning application for 3 dwellings on this site, not yet determined.

4.395 A number of objections to the site south of Chalwells (KNW01) have been received, which are set out and considered under Policy KNW01. The strategy for Knowle has already been established through community consultation during 2013 and alternative sites have been through a robust assessment prior to publication of the draft Local Plan. It is not considered necessary to allocate these additional sites for housing.

Other Matters

4.396 Amendment to the pre-fix to the housing numbers is additionally recommended to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of” through Policy ST08: Scale and Distribution of New Development in Northern Devon.

Conclusion

4.397 The issue raised is not considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan.

Agreed Actions

The following is an agreed Main Change:

1. To undertake a Main Change to Policy KNW, consequential of agreed Main Changes to Policy ST08 to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of”.

Comments made in response to Policy KNW01: Land South of Chalwells and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 10 (from 5 separate individuals)

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 6 4

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ 10

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 9 1

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy KNW01: and supporting text plp number

Remove KNW01 as it's unviable due to being on the site of a former tip. There are 158 more favourable sites identified through the SHLAA.

Objection to KNW01 due to issues concerning potential contamination of site (previous 517, 863 landfill site). Allocated site is inconsistent with the built form of the village and there are other more suitable sites for development (e.g. parcel of land accessed from Whitestone Lane directly to the north of dwellings on Stepstone Lane)

Objects to KNW01 for the following reasons: 652

1) Potential land contamination on allocated site

2) Development inconsistent with built form

3) Availability of other more suitable development sites

(See attachment for further supporting details)

The development of low volume housing on this site would not be viable in comparison 2487 with greenfield sites in the village. Alternative greenfield sites in the village do not suffer from flooding, therefore additional development costs to provide a significant and comparatively costly SUDS scheme would not be required. Alternative greenfield sites in the village have better vehicular access and visibility. Reasonable and cost effective improvements could be made to Steppingstone Cross as well as improvements to existing residential roads. Delete Policy KNW01 and replace with alternative housing proposal on land east of Church Hill Lane.

The paragraph (13.633) wording is acceptable but it should relate to the alternative 2489 greenfield site on land east of Church Hill Lane.

In terms of the traditional settlement pattern of Knowle, east of the A361, it is not 2488 considered this previously developed site is relatively well related to the existing settlement as far as residential development is concerned. Expansion to the west of the A361 would be unrelated in context, character and nature to the remainder of the village and its main residential/service core. To the west of the A361 predominantly comprises commercial and utilitarian uses. To the east is the residential function of the village, important village/community facilities such as the garage, shop and post office, pub and children’s playground. Developing west of the A361 will divorce the residents of the new housing from the main village facilities, requiring them to cross the busy main road, this is not sound land use planning, irrespective of the previous use of the site.

The site may not be fit for residential purposes due to the fact it was used for landfill, 2490 any potential contamination will need to be dealt with as well as significant additional engineering works to stabilise the site, imposing additional costs to the development.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

Any development will also require a detailed FRA to highlight the significant steps for flood protection and the handling of surface water run-off. All requirements will make the development unviable.

The additional cost to improve the existing access on to the A361 and additional 2495 traffic speed measures on the highway would make the development of KNW01 for residential development prohibitive. Whilst other sites would have to contribute toward traffic speeds on the A361, they will not have all the expensive on-costs like development at Chalwells. Residents of the new housing development will be required to cross the very busy A361 to access the services and facilities in Knowle which is neither safe nor sensible.

The former railway line lies to the west of KNW01. Where the link is to be provided, 2495 this would most likely necessitate a degree of inter-relationship between its provision and the development of the site in terms of construction and drainage to avoid additional flood risk. By developing houses elsewhere in the village would allow part of the current KNW01 to be utilised to more readily accommodate the link in the footpath/cycleway of the Tarka Trail as part of green infrastructure.

The existence of residential development and the high level of human activity 2499 associated with it, as opposed to other types of development, is recognised as having a profound potential impact on habitats. This is particularly in connection with habitats that are based upon, or lie close to watercourses. It is difficult to see how the development of KNW01 with housing would meet some of the objectives set out in Policy ST14. The need set out within the paragraph to enhance existing boundaries between the housing and industrial estate in order to protect the amenities of both further demonstrates why KNW01 is not suitable for housing and development off Church Hill Lane is.

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.398 Alternative or additional sites within the village are considered as representations to the spatial strategy (Policy KNW) above. The Chalwells site is a former landfill site, making it a previously developed site, but it was considered ‘developable’ by the SHLAA panel, which did not identify any specific concerns about its viability or achievability.

4.399 It is accepted that most housing within Knowle is located east of the A361, with most employment to the west. However, the Chalwells site is close to employment opportunities with community facilities readily accessible from both sides of the village. Access to the Tarka Trail and green infrastructure opportunities are much better to the west of the main road. The sustainability appraisal of the Chalwells site did not raise any sustainability concerns, apart from recognition that a small section along the western boundary was liable to flood risk, which is mitigated within the policy. In fact this site was more positive overall in sustainability appraisal terms than the alternative site north of Whitestone Lane, where there are no public rights of way and opportunities for pedestrian links along Church Hill Lane are severely limited. As such, safe access to community facilities is potentially better, if not no worse, from west of the A361.

4.400 The potential for flood risk alongside the River Caen is recognised and addressed within Policy KNW01(2a) and paragraph 13.634. A detailed flood risk assessment will be required, but all sites within Knowle will be required to deliver sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) in accordance with Policy ST03(f) so the cost of SuDS would be borne equally by alternative sites. The flood risk

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

alongside the River Caen will retain this riverside strip as undeveloped (criterion 2a). The riverbank is where biodiversity and green infrastructure features are strongest so the avoidance of new buildings within the identified flood zone will minimise any impact on its biodiversity value.

Conclusion

4.401 Issues raised are not considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan.

Agreed Actions

1. No changes to Policy KNW01 are recommended in response to the issues raised through consultation.

Comments made in response to Paragraphs 13.637

Total Number of Responses 1

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 1 ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1 ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on Paragraphs 13.637 plp number

The policies that seek to retain and protect services and facilities in Knowle are 2500 supported. However, policy must also protect and support the existing industrial estate by ensuring that sufficient land is allocated from KNW01 which is considered to be most suited to meet that need as well as green infrastructure. Limited industrial development would involve a less human intensive land use to meet the future need, taking account of the severe flooding within the existing industrial estate that could be developed more cost effectively than housing. Employment with green infrastructure would have a less profound impact upon river valley based habitats. With most local services and facilities located east of the A361, developing land that has a closer historical and contextual relationship and connectivity with these services and facilities than KNW01 is more likely to lead to them being used and ensure their survival.

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.402 The importance of Knowle industrial estate is recognised in paragraph 13.630. There is no site identified for provision of additional employment land within the village. In view of potential over-provision of employment land, a new allocation is not required. Paragraph 13.630 already supports additional employment uses if required during the plan period.

Conclusion

4.403 This representation is not considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

Agreed Actions

4.404 No changes to Paragraph 13.637 are recommended in response to the issues raised through consultation. Landkey

Comments made in response to Policy LAN and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 17

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 7 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 7 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 6 ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy LAN: and supporting text plp number

Landkey does not have a good range of facilities and compares poorly to many 3 smaller settlements; the village hall is small and badly sited.

Supports number of properties proposed in Landkey. 79

97 dwellings is the maximum number that is sustainable. 413

Support for the Landkey Spatial Strategy within the emerging local plan. 438, 1139, 2236, 2299

Supports the current development boundary and growth strategy for the village. 12

The existing Landkey primary school is oversubscribed due to the impact of 1381 (DCC) existing planning consents. It is likely that children from new development will eventually attend the planned school at Westacott (Policy BAR01).

Supports planned growth and retention of historic character. 1383

After presentation by Devonshire Homes, concerns over integrity of development 1383 boundary and potential for scale of development to be significantly increased. Also concerned over flood risk issues.

We support, as a matter of principle a level of growth commensurate with its role, 2673 function and relationship with Barnstaple. The level of housing required in the plan period as set out in Policy LAN: Landkey Spatial Strategy is broadly supported.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

We support Policy BAR20 and Figure 10.1 regarding the cross town cycle route 2673 incorporating links from Landkey to Barnstaple and beyond. This will support the sustainability of the village and its ability to satisfactorily accept residential development.

We object to the proposed allocations at LAN1 and LAN2 for the reasons set out 2673 later within this document.

The plan reflects the needs of Landkey village within the development boundary. 75 No further need for development outside the boundary up to 2031.

Development boundary needs to be strictly enforced to avoid impact on Landkey 356 and avoid coalescence with Barnstaple.

Good that the plan affirms the value of appropriate small scale employment 414 opportunities.

Site Proposals

An additional housing allocation is proposed. The extant consents in Landkey will 999 not total 37 dwellings (97 identified and sites identified for 60). Two fields to the east of St James Close could provide 25 dwellings to meet the need.

In respect of the Landkey Spatial Strategy, the Birch Road site can deliver the 2673 employment required under paragraph 13.645 and the community facilities referred to under paragraphs 13.656 and 13.657. We consider that the site at Birch Road should form part of the strategy for meeting the development needs of Landkey.

The Mazzard View site in Landkey presents an opportunity to provide a well 2678 considered sustainable extension to the settlement. It demonstrates how a scheme of 77 new market and affordable homes could be integrated into the village. A scheme at Mazzard View would relate positively with existing facilities in settlement, deal with all technical constraints of the site, be deliverable, and provide a mixed use solution with new community and employment space to reinforce the existing community facilities at Millennium Green. The A361 (North Devon Link Road) is close by to the north of the site providing easy road access to Barnstaple and Tiverton and in turn Taunton / Exeter to the east. The site is bounded by Birch Road to the north. The site is immediately north of Millennium Green characterised by broadly rectangular fields that are bounded by hedgerows, have a gentle gradient and are currently laid to pasture.

The Landkey Village section included in the draft Local Plan is supported. The 2248 (PC) Parish Council has identified a specific site adjoining the Football Club for a new Community Centre.

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.405 There is broad support for the growth strategy, the development boundary and number of new homes proposed for Landkey. Several representations oppose development outside the proposed development boundary, to avoid coalescence with Barnstaple. The advice note on ‘Development Boundary Review and Rural Village Allocations’ indicates that development boundaries define the built up area, outside of which further development will be limited and strictly controlled. One

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

representation seeks 97 as a maximum number, but this figure is not intended as a minimum or maximum requirement, but a guide for local communities to plan for their future housing growth based on an appropriate level of new homes. No amendments are considered necessary.

4.406 One response has indicated that the proposed level of growth (97 dwellings) will not be delivered in full. However, of the 37 commitments, 10 have already been completed (since 2011), 21 are under construction, with a further 6 homes from extent permissions after a discount has been applied. Both allocated sites (LAN01 and LAN02) were considered by the SHLAA panel to be ’developable’ and specific issues raised in relation to these sites are considered below under the relevant policies.

4.407 The range of community facilities within Landkey is good for a village of its size. It scores 9 community facility points (out of 29), within the settlement hierarchy assessment (Dec 2012), well above the minimum of 5 community facility points to qualify as a village. Lack of spare capacity of the primary school is noted and it is accepted that the proposed new primary school within the Westacott strategic urban extension (BAR01) will help to provide additional school capacity. There is support for recognition of small scale employment opportunities and retention of historic character. Support for the cross town cycle route is noted, although specific issues for this route (BAR20) are considered in the Barnstaple section.

4.408 A number of additional housing sites have been promoted in Landkey. The site east of St James Close was considered ‘developable’ by the SHLAA panel, albeit within Swimbridge parish. The Mazzard View site east of Acland Road formed part of a much larger SHLAA site which was considered ‘not currently developable’ by the SHLAA panel, because Acland Road and Birch Road are narrow in width. This will restrict highway capacity to serve additional dwellings and these highway restrictions limit the suitability of this site. The strategy for Landkey has already been established through community consultation during 2013 and alternative sites have been through a robust assessment prior to publication of the draft Local Plan. It is not considered necessary to allocate these additional sites for housing.

4.409 The land at Birch Road (LAN01) is proposed for employment land and community facilities. There is no site identified for provision of additional employment land within the village. In view of potential over-provision of employment land, a new allocation is not required. Paragraph 13.645 already supports expansion of existing businesses if required during the plan period. The need for new and additional community facilities is accepted, including the need for a new community centre referenced in paragraph 13.657. The Parish Council have identified a site for a new community centre adjoining the football club, with this paragraph needing to be updated to recognise this. In the interests of flexibility, it is not considered necessary to allocate this site nor to identify it on the Policies Map.

Other Matters

4.410 Amendment to the pre-fix to the housing numbers is additionally recommended to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of” through Policy ST08: Scale and Distribution of New Development in Northern Devon.

Conclusion

4.411 Issues raised are not considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan.

Agreed Actions

The following is agreed as a Main Change to the Local Plan:

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

1. To undertake a Main Change to Policy LAN, consequential of agreed Main Changes to Policy ST08 to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of”.

Comments made in response to Policy LAN01: Land South of Birch Road and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 1

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” ~ ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy LAN01: and supporting text plp number

We consider that this policy should be amended to include the land that currently has 2627 planning permission for 24 dwellings and that the remainder of the proposed allocation should remain undeveloped. We consider that the site forms a green gateway to Landkey that should be protected from further development in much the same way as land is protected under Policy BAR22 relating to Green Wedges.

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.412 The eastern-most field within site LAN01 has permission for 24 homes. The three fields within this allocation were all considered developable by the SHLAA panel and paragraph 13.648 already requires structural landscaping along the northern and western site boundaries, including retention and enhancement of existing boundary hedges, to reduce visual impact and fit into the village’s landscape setting. The strategy for Landkey has already been established through community consultation during 2013 and it is not considered necessary to delete this housing site.

4.413 The land at Birch Road is proposed for employment land and community facilities. There is no site identified for provision of additional employment land within the village. In view of potential over-provision of employment land, a new allocation is not required.

Conclusion

4.414 Issues raised are not considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan.

Agreed Actions

The following are agreed as Minor Changes to the Local Plan:

1. No changes to Policy LAN01 are recommended in response to the issues raised through consultation. However, a minor change is required to paragraph 13.652 to provide greater clarity. Paragraph 13.652 should read “The site is adjacent to a critical drainage area where it has been identified that land to the north of the ridge is at risk of flooding. Development will be required to provide a sustainable water strategy that reduces water usage, manages surface water run-off through water storage and sustainable drainage systems that reduces the rate of surface water

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

run-off entering the Coney Gut and reduces thus reducing the potential flood risk in southern parts of Barnstaple in accordance with Policy ST03:Adapting to Climate Change and Strengthening Resilience”. 2. Amend paragraph 13.649 to read. “The eastern part of the site has an extant planning permission for 24 dwellings. The remaining two fields to the west will deliver approximately 26 additional dwellings. Development will provide a range of housing types and sizes dwellings of sizes and types that address local community needs. A satisfactory relationship is required between the adjoining residential properties and new housing in order to protect the amenities of both. The design and layout of new housing will retain and enhance the character and appearance of the village, in accordance with the Landkey / Swimbridge Newland village design statement”.

Comments made in response to Policy LAN02: Former Watts Depot, Manor Road

Total Number of Responses 2

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1 ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy LAN02: and supporting text plp number

A safer access is available off of Castle Mill. A road safety audit should be taken on 159 the two viable access points to this site.

We consider that there are access difficulties associated with development of this site 2660 and question its deliverability generally.

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.415 The two responses relate to the suitability of the site access. The local highway authority response to the SHLAA panel recognised that “the existing access has substandard visibility and the nearby junction of Manor Road with Blakes Hill Road is substandard in alignment. Therefore the proposed development should be limited such that there is no greater traffic generation from the site than could be generated from the existing authorised use of the site.” The site was considered ‘developable’ by the SHLAA panel with an indicative capacity of 10 units, which reflects the capacity with Policy LAN02. Paragraph 13.655 clarifies that this scale of development would not increase traffic generation over and above the former use.

4.416 The recent completion of Castle Mill to the east of LAN02, provides a road up to the site boundary. This route could provide a potential alternative vehicular access to the site. As such, the policy requirement for vehicular access on to Manor Road should be removed to provide flexibility for alternative vehicular accesses.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

Other Matters

4.417 A consequential amendment to Policy LAN02 to delete the wording “including a proportion of affordable homes” following Government changes to S106 obligations within national planning policy.

Conclusion

4.418 These representations are not considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan, but flexibility to ensure a good site access will help to ensure deliverability and accessibility of the site. However, a main change is required to delete reference to the delivery of affordable housing and the requirement for a financial contribution.

Agreed Actions

The following is agreed as a Main Change to the Local Plan:

1. To undertake a Main Change to Policy LAN02, to delete the wording “including a proportion of affordable homes” from criterion 1. 2. Add new text to paragraph 13.465 to read “A financial contribution will be required towards the delivery of affordable housing in accordance with Policy ST18 (Affordable Housing on Development Sites)”. 3. Delete criterion (2a) requiring “vehicular access onto Manor Road” including a consequential change to the labelling of the remaining criteria. 4. Amend paragraph 13.655. Amended paragraph wording should read “The existing Any vehicular access on to Manor Road is poor but small-scale residential development that would not increase the traffic generation over and above the former use as an agricultural haulage business is considered acceptable. Potential alternative vehicular access may be available from Castle Mill. Pedestrian access to the site should be improved together with traffic management measures along Manor Road. Any residual contamination on site will need to be remediated in accordance with Policy DM02: Environmental Protection.

Paragraph 13.657

4.419 No consultation comments were received in response to Paragraph 13.657.

Other Matters

4.420 The local community identified a preferred site for the new community centre outside of the formal consultation period. However, as the site is now known it is considered appropriate to amend the Plan accordingly to facilitate delivery.

Agreed Actions

The following is agreed as a Main Change to the Local Plan:

1. Amend paragraph 13.657 to read “The local community has identified the need for a new community centre to replace the existing halls and a site adjoining the football club is preferred. Although a site has not been identified, such provision could be provided on either of the identified housing sites (LAN01 or LAN02) to develop a mixed-use scheme. The Council will support improvements in public transport facilities to meet local requirements.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

Comments made in response to Paragraphs 13.656 and 13.659

Total Number of Responses 2

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 2 ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 1 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 2 ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on Paragraphs 13.656 and 13.659 plp number

Landkey has poor facilities for the size of the village. Improved facilities are required. 358 Need to avoid developer driven development on the promise of improved infrastructure.

The inclusion of land to the east of Acland Road is unnecessary and unduly restrictive. 639 Land east of Acland Road and Acland Cross should be removed from Policy BAR22 as it is unnecessary to include this land to achieve the policy aims.

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.421 The range of community facilities within Landkey is good for a village of its size. It scores 9 community facility points (out of 29), within the settlement hierarchy assessment (Dec 2012), well above the minimum of 5 community facility points to qualify as a village. The aspiration for improved facilities is accepted and supported through criterion (c) of Policy LAN: the spatial strategy. The identification of the Millennium Green as a sports hub will provide a focus for developer’s green infrastructure contributions from the surrounding area. Policy for the delivery of new infrastructure funded by development is set out in Policy ST23.

4.422 Comments on the green wedge (policy BAR22) are set out in more detail in the Barnstaple section and in response to Policies Map 51 for Landkey.

Conclusion

4.423 This representation is not considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan.

Agreed Actions

1. No changes to paragraphs 13.656 to 13.659.

Comments made in response to Policies Map 51: Landkey

Total Number of Responses 2

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 1 ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ 1

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1 ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policies Map 51: Landkey plp number

Supports Landkey development boundary. 2300

Land to the east of Acland Road and Acland Cross needs to be removed from Policy 640 BAR22 as it is unnecessary to include this land to achieve the policy aims. The green shaded areas included within Policy BAR22 should be amended to exclude the three fields to the east of Acland Road and Acland Cross.

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.424 The development boundary is supported. The purpose of the green wedge is set out in paragraph 13.659 and the land east of Acland Road helps to prevent coalescence retaining open land between Landkey and the Westacott strategic extension (BAR01). Retention of this land would become more important should land east of Acland Road and south of Birch Road, being promoted by Devonshire Homes, be developed at some time on the future. Retention of the green wedge east of Acland Road is justified.

Conclusion

4.425 These representations are not considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan.

Agreed Actions

1. No change to Policies Map 51 of the Local Plan. Langtree / Stibb Cross

Comments made in response to Policy LAG: Langtree/Stibb Cross Spatial Strategy

Total Number of Responses 5

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 4 -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - 4

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 4 -

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy LAG: Langtree/Stibb Cross Spatial Strategy and supporting plp number text

Consider that the identified levels of housing growth are insufficient to meet 701 identified needs and that a higher level should be enabled through the Local Plan.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

Site Proposals

Consider that the employment area to north east of Stibb Cross should be included 701, 703, 704, in development boundary and that it should be allocated for housing/mixed use 697 development.

Consider that a site to the north side of A388 should be allocated for residential 1841 development to ensure that required levels of housing can be delivered, reflecting that the Cattle market site is likely to be difficult and costly to bring forward.

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.426 A respondent considers that the identified levels of housing growth are insufficient to meet identified needs and that a higher level should be enabled through the Local Plan. The level of development is entirely consistent with the approach set in paragraph 4.13 in support of Policy ST07: Spatial Development Strategy for Northern Devon’s Rural Area, which provides that growth in Villages will be planned on the basis of at least 5% growth. For Langtree and Stibb Cross, 5% growth over the plan period equates to 10 dwellings (5 for each settlement) whilst the Local Plan provides for delivery of approximately 31 dwellings of which 18 are provided on allocated sites. The scale of development is additionally reflective of the Parish Council’s aspirations of the appropriate level of local growth. There is no evidence to suggest that the level of planned housing growth will be insufficient to meet the needs of the community. Should additional affordable housing be required for the settlement over the lifetime of the Plan, Policy ST19: Affordable Housing on Exception Sites will enable affordable-led housing development to occur on sites outside but well related or adjoining the defined development boundary. No amendment to the Local Plan is recommended in response to the issues raised.

4.427 An employment site to the north east side of Stibb Cross has been promoted for either residential or mixed use (residential / employment development). It is suggested that this offers an appropriate location to support additional housing growth that the respondent considers necessary. It is further suggested that there is an over provision of employment land within the settlement, that the site is under utilised and that it could potentially offer some housing development. The site has not been subject to assessment through the Strategic Housing Land Availably Assessment (SHLAA) process or Sustainability Appraisal. The site is in active employment use and there is no demonstration that the site is no longer required for such use. The site falls outside the scope of the Parish Council’s identified development preferences to meet the local strategy. There is a call for the site to be brought within the development boundary for the settlement. This is not considered appropriate as the location, scale and nature of the site do not comply with the criteria used to establish the extent of the development boundaries. Criteria 8 states that “Existing employment sites and proposed Local Plan allocations for employment on the periphery of a settlement, which are significant in size in comparison with the settlement’s scale, or are clearly beyond a settlement and irrespective of scale, are excluded from the development boundary.” . No changes to the Local Plan are recommended in response to these requests.

4.428 A further site to the north of the A388 is also promoted for inclusion in the Plan for the delivery of housing, suggesting that this offers a more deliverable alternative to LAG02: Land at the Former Cattle Market and to the North and indicating that they believe this site to be likely to be difficult and costly to bring forward. The site subject to Policy LAG02 has been subject to a positive SHLAA appraisal and response has been received from planning representatives of the land owner to indicate their support for the allocation and to indicate that they believe the stated proposals to be deliverable. . Furthermore, the proposed site has not been subject to assessment through the Strategic Housing Land Availably Assessment (SHLAA) process nor subject to the Sustainability Appraisal. The site

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

also falls outside the scope of the Parish Council’s identified development preferences to meet the local strategy. As noted above, it is not considered necessary to identify any additional sites to support an increased level of housing growth. To this end, it is not considered that the proposed site offers a necessary and reasonable alternative to the existing identified sites and no change to the Local Plan is recommended in response to this request.

4.429 The strategy for the two villages has been established through community consultation and dialogue with the Parish Council. The strategy and development proposals presented in the Local Plan represents the clear preference of the Parish Council.

Conclusion

4.430 The comments in response to the draft Local Plan Policy LAG are considered not to raise any issues that challenge the soundness of the Local Plan. . In not allocating the promoted sites, the Local Plan is not considered to be subject to a soundness or legal compliance challenge. No areas of change, correction or clarification are considered necessary to Policy LAG: Langtree / Stibb Cross Spatial Strategy in response to matters raised.

Agreed Action

1. No change to Policy LAG or the associated supporting text.

Comments made in response to Policy LAG01: Land West of The Crescent

4.431 No consultation comments were received in response to Policy LAG01 (including the associated supporting text).

4.432 No main or minor changes are identified; no areas of change, correction or clarification are sought in respect of the LAG01: Land West of The Crescent.

Agreed Action

1. No change to Policy LAG01 or the associated supporting text.

Comments made in response to Policy LAG02: Land at Former Cattle Market and Land to North

Total Number of Responses 1

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 1 -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 1 -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1 -

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy LAG02: Land at Former Cattle Market and Land to North plp number

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

Supports allocation. 146 (land owner)

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.433 The land owner offers support towards the allocation and the associated Policy. This support is welcomed and is noted.

Conclusion

4.434 The comments in response to the draft Local Plan Policy LAG02 are considered not to raise any issues that challenge the soundness of the Local Plan. No areas of change, correction or clarification are considered necessary to Policy LAG02: Land at Former Cattle Market and Land to North in response to matters raised.

Agreed Action

1. No change to Policy LAG02 or the associated supporting text.

Comments made in response to Policy LAG03: Land at Langtree Park

4.435 No consultation comments were received in response to Policy LAG03 (including the associated supporting text).

4.436 No main or minor changes are identified; no areas of change, correction or clarification are sought in respect of the LAG03: Land at Langtree Park.

Agreed Action

1. No change to Policy LAG03 or the associated supporting text. Lower Lovacott and Newton Tracey

Comments made in response to Policy HLN and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 1

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 1 ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” ~ 1

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy HLN: and supporting text plp number

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

Amend the Newton Tracey Development boundary to include land to the south 80 of Higher Westaway. Preliminary drawings provide for a development of seven houses, including affordable that would provide highways improvements in the form of an extension to the current footpath within the village.

Site Proposals

No additional sites have been promoted -

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.437 An additional housing site has been promoted on the northern edge of Newton Tracey, west of the main road. This site was proposed by the owner, so is likely to be available but has not yet been considered formally by the SHLAA panel so its ‘developability’ is unknown. The strategy for Lower Lovacott and Newton Tracey has already been established through community consultation during 2013 and alternative sites have been through a robust assessment prior to publication of the draft Local Plan.

4.438 Even if not allocated, the representation seeks the development boundary extended. Such a change to the development boundary would not be consistent with the advice note on ‘Development Boundary Review and Rural Village Allocations’ which advocates the exclusion of garden curtilages where the land has the capacity to significantly extend the built form of the settlement. It is unnecessary to extend the development boundary to include this site.

Other Matters

4.439 Amendment to the pre-fix to the housing numbers is additionally recommended to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of” through Policy ST08: Scale and Distribution of New Development in Northern Devon.

Conclusion

4.440 Issues raised are not considered to threaten the soundness of the Plan.

Agreed Actions

The following is agreed as a Main Change to the Local Plan:

1. To undertake a Main Change to Policy HLN, consequential of agreed Main Changes to Policy ST08 to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of”.

The following are agreed as Minor Changes to the Local Plan:

1. Amend paragraph 13.682 to read “There is little employment in the settlements other than the identified service activities. A wide range of employment opportunities is are available at in Barnstaple with good accessibility to Roundswell Business Park, with a more limited range of opportunities in Great Torrington”. 2. Amend paragraph 13.683 to read “There are a number of listed buildings and other structures in both settlements, the majority at Newton Tracey where the Church of St Thomas of Canterbury is listed Grade ll* listed. Neither settlement has a c Conservation a Area and there are no sites designated in the vicinity for their nature conservation interest or landscape value”. 3. Amend paragraph 13.684 to read “Lower Lovacott has a very small sewage treatment works, the capacity of which is taken up by existing commitments. Newton Tracey does not have any

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

public drainage. Any new additional development will need to ensure the provision of appropriate facilities”.

Policy HLN01: Land South of Orchard Cottages, Lower Lovacott

4.441 No consultation comments were received in response to HLN01 (including supporting text).

Other Matters

4.442 A consequential amendment to Policy HLN01 to delete the wording “including a proportion of affordable homes” following Government changes to S106 obligations within national planning policy.

Agreed Actions

The following are agreed as Main Change to the Local Plan:

1. To undertake a Main Change to Policy HLN01, to delete the wording “including a proportion of affordable homes” from criterion 2. Add new text to paragraph 13.689 to read “A financial contribution will be required towards the delivery of affordable housing in accordance with Policy ST18 (Affordable Housing on Development Sites)”. Merton

Comments made in response to Policy MER: Merton Spatial Strategy

Total Number of Responses 1

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” - -

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy MER: Merton Spatial Strategy and supporting text plp number

Strong support for the strategy. 2146

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.443 Clinton Devon Estates offer strong support the strategy. This support is welcomed and noted.

Conclusion

4.444 The comments in response to the draft Local Plan Policy MER are considered not to raise any issues that challenge the soundness of the Local Plan. No areas of change, correction or clarification are considered necessary to Policy MER: Merton Spatial Strategy in response to matters raised.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

Agreed Action

1. No change to Policy MER or the associated supporting text.

Comments made in response to Policy MER01: Land to South of Primary School

Total Number of Responses 1

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” - -

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy MER01: Land to South of Primary School and supporting plp number text

Strong support offered for this allocation. 2147 (owner)

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.445 The land owner offers strong support towards the allocation and the associated Policy. This support is welcomed and is noted.

Conclusion

4.446 The comments in response to the draft Local Plan Policy MER01 are considered not to raise any issues that challenge the soundness of the Local Plan. No areas of change, correction or clarification are considered necessary to Policy MER01: Land to South of Primary School in response to matters raised.

Agreed Action

1. No change to Policy MER01 or the associated supporting text.

Comments made in response to Policy MER02: Site at Limers Lane

Total Number of Responses 3

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” - -

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy MER02; Site at Limers Lane and supporting text plp number

Support for the allocation of the site for residential development, subject to some 2148 (land amendments (detailed in comments below). owner)

Consider the proposed dwelling yield should be increased to 33 dwellings to reflect 2148 (land the current planning application. owner)

Objection to requirement for vehicular access through MER02 to serve allocation 2149 (land to the north. Pedestrian/cycle link reasonable. Delete 13.709 owner)

Identify that MER02 lies within a Conservation Area. Do not consider that the 1238 (EH) Sustainability Appraisal has adequately addressed this consideration and that it has not been demonstrated that the allocation will not cause harm.

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.447 The support for the allocation of the site for housing, subject to some amendments, by the land owner is noted and welcomed.

4.448 The land owner seeks an amendment to the dwelling yield attributed to the site from the currently proposed figure of 25 dwellings to 33. They cite that this amendment is justified as the higher yield is reflective of the proposed scheme that is subject to a pending planning application. It has not yet been determined whether the scheme that is subject to the planning application is acceptable. As such, following a precautionary principle, it is considered that the lower yield is appropriate. Not withstanding, the yield stated in the Policy is considered an approximation. Should proposals for a higher yield come forward and be acceptable in relation to all other matters then the deviation from the proposed yield would not be a reason to reject a proposal.

4.449 The land owner objects to the provision of highway access through MER02 to facilitate the development of MER03, considering that this could impact on the deliverability of MER02 and that it is not reasonable to impose this requirement on MER02 in order to facilitate the deliver of another site. Vehicular access through MER02 is currently enabled to afford a secondary vehicular access to MER03, with primary vehicular access afforded via an alternative route. On reviewing the position, it is recognised that the development of MER03 is not predicated on securing the secondary vehicular link through MER02. As such, in the interests of enhancing deliverability of the site and not imposing unnecessary burdens on development, it is considered that the proposals could be amended to remove the requirement for the vehicular link. It is however considered appropriate to maintain a pedestrian / cycle link offering emergency vehicular access for both the MER02 development and MER03. As such a series of major amendments are recommended to Policies MER02 and MER03 to reflect these changes.

4.450 English Heritage raise concerns that the potential impact of comprehensive residential development of the site on the integrity and setting of the Conservation Area may not have been adequately considered within the Sustainability Appraisal. In doing so, they suggest that it does not appear that appropriate evidence has been utilised to come to a conclusion about the harm on the conservation area that development of the site may generate. In response, it is suggested that the Sustainability Appraisal does recognise the potential impacts of development of the site on the Conservation Area. The Sustainability Appraisal highlights that the site lies adjacent to several listed

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

buildings and lies within the Conservation Area. It goes on to indicate that development schemes would need to be sensitive to the setting and character of the Conservation Area. Finally, it goes on to recognise that in relation to Heritage Assets that mitigation is identified through the Policy.

4.451 The Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) considered the potential of the site to deliver housing. In doing so, as part of a comprehensive assessment exercise, it reviewed the potential impacts of comprehensive residential development on heritage assets, including the Conservation Area and adjacent Listed Buildings. As part of this process, the Council’s Conservation Officer was consulted on the potential for development, as were Devon County Council’s Historic Environment Team. The Conservation Officer concluded that the site could accommodate comprehensive residential development subject to careful consideration of design and layout.

4.452 The strategy for the future development of Merton has been informed by engagement with the community, directed through engagement with the Parish Council. This identified a very strong preference for housing growth to allow it to become an economically sustainable community and support / safeguard the range of services and facilities that are available within the settlement. This is the approach upon which the strategy for Merton in the Local Plan is predicated. The sites selected for development are those that are considered necessary and appropriate to deliver the preferred strategy for the community whilst balancing the social, economic and environmental impacts of development. There are no other identified developable sites that could form reasonable alternatives to delver the development proposed for those sites that have been selected and it is considered that these sites are necessary to deliver the strategy being presented through the draft Local Plan.

4.453 In terms of the Policy, MER02 does make reference to it’s location within the Conservation Area and clause (2)(b) requires that proposals should be subject to ‘design and layout that provides acceptable impact on existing adjoining properties, including the adjacent nearby listed buildings and reflects the location of the site in the Conservation Area’. Reference is also made within the supporting text.

4.454 To conclude, whilst it is recognised that comprehensive development could have an impact on the conservation area, it is considered that proposals can include appropriate measures to mitigate this harm. In any case, no other sites are identified that could form reasonable alternatives to enable the delivery of the development proposed on this site. It is considered that the Policy satisfactorily addresses the potential impacts of development on the conservation area and as such it is not considered necessary to amend the policy in relation to this matter. Such amendments are subject to confirmation from the highway authority that the secondary vehicular access is superfluous to requirements.

Conclusion

4.455 Change is sought in relation to the vehicular access arrangements to the proposals enabled under Policy MER02 and MER03. The amendments are considered appropriate to enhance the deliverability of proposals and to ensure that unnecessary burdens are not imposed on development in line with the provisions of paragraph 173 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Agreed Action

1. The following are agrees as Main Changes to the Local Plan:

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

a. amendment to Part (2)(c) of Policy MER02 and to paragraph 13.709 to remove the requirement for vehicular access to Back Lane, whilst maintaining the requirement for pedestrian, cycle and emergency access along this route. b. amendment to Part (2)(b) of Policy MER03 and to paragraph 13.713 to remove the requirement for secondary vehicular access to be provided through MER02, whilst maintaining the requirement for pedestrian, cycle and emergency access along this route.

Comments made in response to Policy MER03: Land at Back Lane

Total Number of Responses 1

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” - -

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy MER03: Land at Back Lane and supporting plp number text

Strong support for allocation and associated Policy. 2150 (owner)

Additional Information

4.456 Consideration of representations received on the legitimacy of vehicular access arrangements for MER02 leads to the recommendation of consequential changes to Part (2)(b) of MER03. This is addressed in the consideration of MER02 and not replicated here in the interests of brevity.

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.457 The land owner offers strong support towards the allocation and the associated Policy. This support is welcomed and is noted.

Conclusion

4.458 The comments in response to the draft Local Plan Policy MER03 are considered not to raise any issues that challenge the soundness of the Local Plan. No areas of change, correction or clarification are considered necessary to Policy MER03: Land at Back Lane in response to matters raised beyond those addressed in consideration of Policy MER02 above.

Agreed Action

1. No change to Policy MER03 or the associated supporting text.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

Milton Damerel / Venn Green

Comments made in response to Policy MIL: Milton Damerel/Venn Green Spatial Strategy

Total Number of Responses 2

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 2 0

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 0 2

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 2 0

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy MIL: Milton Damerel/Venn Green Spatial Strategy plp number

Consider that a development boundary should be drawn around Parkfield, Milton 834 Damerel as the settlement is an appropriate location to support some housing development.

Wording of part (a) should be amended to read ‘the provision of housing and 859 community benefits, economic and social benefits to meet the needs of the local community’ as the village is in need of a car park, recreational area and village green.

Consider that a development boundary should be extended to take in the main areas of development and be drawn around Strawberry Bank to accommodate the above development requirements.

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.459 Respondents seek the establishment of development boundaries around Parkfield and Strawberry Bank, the former because they consider it an appropriate location to support some housing and the latter because they consider that some housing should be enabled to facilitate the delivery of a car park, recreational area and village green. The Local Plan establishes a hierarchy of settlements through Policies ST07 and ST08. Within the rural area it establishes a series of defined Local Centres and Villages, based upon their relative settlement sustainability. These settlements have been established following a detailed settlement assessment exercise that takes account of matters such as provision of local services and facilities, local employment opportunities and public transport accessibility. Theses Local Centres and defined Villages are the locations where it is considered acceptable to plan for some housing growth, and this is facilitated in many by setting out development boundaries that enable development and by the provision of site allocations. Parkfield is not considered a sustainable location, being simply formed of a cluster of dwellings and not containing any local services or facilities. It therefore fails to meet the criteria required to establish it as a Local Centre or Village. As such, it is not considered an appropriate location to facilitate the provision of additional housing and be subject to a development boundary. Strawberry Bank is subject to the same considerations, even when recognising that the village hall is located near to, but divorced from, the cluster of housing.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

4.460 A respondent seeks an amendment to part (a) of Policy MIL: Milton Damerel / Venn Green Spatial Strategy to expand the clause to support the provision of community, economic and social benefits alongside housing, citing that the village is in need of a car park, recreation area and village green. Whilst these may be laudable additions, there is no evidence to suggest that these are provisions are reflective of local community aspirations. The existing approach to development and the spatial strategy for the Milton Damerel / Venn Green set out within the Policy has been established by working with the local community through engagement with the Parish Council. As such, it is not considered necessary to amend the Local Plan to address this matter. In any case, Policy ST22: Community Services and Facilities enables the provision of new or improved community facilities to meet identified needs of local communities on land within or adjoining defined settlements (or in even in the open countryside if it can be demonstrated that no alternative sites are available). Policy DM14: Rural Economy provides similarly enables economic development on locations adjoining or well related to a defined settlement. These provisions would potentially support the development advocated through the representations dependant upon the need being justified and the proposed location being considered appropriate.

Conclusion

4.461 The comments in response to the draft Local Plan Policy MIL are considered not to raise any issues that challenge the soundness of the Local Plan. In not allocating the promoted sites, the Local Plan is not considered to be subject to a soundness or legal compliance challenge. No areas of change, correction or clarification are sought in respect of Policy MIL: Milton Damerel / Venn Green Spatial Strategy.

Agreed Action

1. No change to Policy MIL or the associated supporting text. Monkleigh

Comments made in response to Policy MON: Monkleigh Spatial Strategy

Total Number of Responses 1

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy MON: Monkleigh Spatial Strategy and supporting text plp number

Objection – Do not believe that the Strategy conforms with the Parish Council’s 206 (Parish submission to the rural settlement planning exercise. Consider that the proposed Council) level of 10 dwellings would put pressure on existing services. Advocate a preference for 5 dwellings to be delivered through infill development.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.462 The Parish Council objects to the strategy for Monkleigh on the basis that it does not reflect the views that were submitted by the Parish Council through the rural settlement planning exercise that was carried out to inform the preparation of the rural strategies for the Local Plan. In doing so, the Parish Council considers that rather than the 10 dwellings currently proposed for delivery through the Policy, a target of five dwellings should be included, reflecting the minimum level of growth that was sought through the rural settlement planning exercise. They consider that this lower level of housing growth should be delivered through in-fill opportunities that arise over the Plan period rather than through the allocation of a particular site, and that the settlement has capacity to accommodate the required development by following this approach. They go on to note that the proposed delivery of 10 dwellings on the draft allocated site (MON01) would put pressure on services that are already struggling and exacerbate access / congestion problems.

4.463 The minimum level of housing growth sought for Monkleigh through the rural settlement planning exercise, and to meet the strategy of housing growth established through Policy ST07 and associated supporting text, is for the delivery of 5 dwellings over the Plan period(149). In order to demonstrate the deliverability of the rural strategy, a clear objective has been to, where possible and realistic to do so, identify and allocate sufficient specific developable sites to deliver the required level of housing, deviating from this approach only where there is a robust justification to do so (i.e. a lack of potential developable sites, fundamental landscape or environmental constraints, etc.).

4.464 The Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) identifies a range of developable housing sites in and around Monkleigh sufficient to meet the minimum proposed level of housing growth and the settlement is not considered to be subject to any fundamental constraints that would preclude the delivery of housing to meet this requirement. As such, it is not considered that there is appropriate justification to not identify specific sites to meet the proposed housing growth for the settlement.

4.465 In response to the rural settlement planning exercise, whilst supporting the delivery of 5 dwellings over the Plan period, the Parish Council chose not to identify any specific sites to deliver the proposed housing, even after being informed that failure to identify a local community preference might result in sites being selected that aren’t reflective of local community views.

4.466 As such, a site was selected independent of the rural settlement planning exercise, to deliver housing growth in Monkleigh. Reflecting the local community aspiration for housing to be delivered through in-fill development, and whilst having regard to the outcomes of the SHLAA and Sustainability Appraisal, the site subject to Policy MON01 was identified as being the most appropriate developable site to be taken forward to deliver housing. The site is wrapped by the existing built form of the settlement and falls within the draft Development boundary. On this basis, it is considered that there is a reasonable prospect that the site will come forward for residential development, regardless of it being allocated for such use through the draft Local Plan. The alternative SHLAA sites are of a size that would deliver in significant housing growth, would not generally support partial development and do not integrate well with the existing built form. In allocating the site, it is recognised that it offers a yield of 10 dwellings rather than the minimum level of five sought to meet strategy requirements and supported by the local community. However, it is not considered that there are any developable sites capable of delivering only five dwellings that could be reasonably considered as an alternative, nor that it is reasonable or appropriate to artificially suppress the level of housing that could be delivered on the site.

149 The rural settlement planning exercise sought that strategies for Villages provide for, as a minimum, delivery of the greater of 5% housing growth or 5 dwellings.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

4.467 The planned delivery of ten dwellings advocated through the Strategy, is considered to be reasonable given the scale of the settlement and there is no indication that such a level of development is not likely to be sustainable, realistic and achievable. There is no evidence to suggest that such a scale of development, and the delivery specifically through the site allocated under Policy MON01, would place an unacceptable burden on the existing highway network or local services and facilities. No objection to the Local Plan has been received from any statutory service provider or highway authority on this basis.

4.468 It is not considered that the representation raises any matters that are likely to impact on the soundness of the Local Plan and as such, no change is recommended in response to it.

Conclusion

4.469 The comments in response to draft Local Plan Policy MON are not considered to raise any issues that challenge the soundness of the Local Plan. No areas of change, correction or clarification are sought in respect of Policy MON: Monkleigh Spatial Strategy.

Agreed Action

1. No change to Policy MON or the associated supporting text.

Comments made in response to Policy MON01 Land North of Barton Farm

Total Number of Responses 1

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” - -

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy MON01: Land North of Barton Farm plp number

The Sustainability Appraisal highlights adverse impacts upon Grade I listed Church. 1242 (EH) The setting seems to have been given no consideration and the site appears to have had earlier refusal based on harm to this asset.

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.470 English Heritage raise concerns about the potential impact of development on the setting of the Grade 1 listed Church that is located nearby to the south east of the site, stating that the setting of it appears to have been given no consideration. In doing so, they note that the Sustainability Appraisal indicates a likely adverse impact on the heritage asset and highlight that a previous planning application for residential development was subject to refusal on the basis of potential harm to this heritage asset.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

4.471 The concerns raised by English Heritage regarding the potential for harm to the heritage asset arising from development are recognised. However, it is considered that residential development on the site can be accommodated without any significant harm being caused to the Grade I listed Church or its setting, reflecting the advice provided by the Council’s Conservation Officer..

4.472 The previous application (1/0515/2006/OUT) for comprehensive residential development cited by English Heritage related to a larger site than that proposed through Policy MON01, including parcels of land directly adjoining the Church. The site subject to allocation through the draft Local Plan includes the parcel of land from the previous planning application that lies furthest from the heritage asset and one that is relatively self-contained within the landscape. As such, the two proposals are not considered to be directly comparable and therefore the conclusions reached in response to the previous planning application in relation to the potential for harm to the heritage asset are not deemed to be necessarily relevant or attributable to the proposed allocation.

4.473 It is recognised that the Sustainability Appraisal identifies that the proposal has the potential to have an adverse impact on heritage. The Sustainability Appraisal does not however currently reflect the Policy position that offers mitigation in relation to this potential harm. The outcomes of the SHLAA in relation of the site did not consider that the proximity to the heritage asset would be a fundamental barrier to residential development. Furthermore, consultation with the Council’s Conservation Officer has established that development of the site for the scale of housing proposed could be realistically achieved without unacceptable harm on the Grade I listed Church or its setting, subject to careful design, layout and landscaping.

4.474 Part (2)(c) of Policy MON01 seeks to safeguard heritage assets from unacceptable harm by requiring proposals to have a layout and design that reflects the historic character of the surrounding area. Recognising that the Plan needs to be read and applied as a whole, Policy DM07: Historic Environment further provides safeguards, offering support for proposals that conserve or enhance the significance of any heritage assets, whist recognising that where there is potential for harm, that this will be weighed against the potential benefits of the proposal. As such, it is considered that the matters raised through consultation do not cause a risk to the soundness of the Local Plan and that no main changes are required to address them.

4.475 It is however considered appropriate, through a minor amendment, to add explicit reference in Policy MON01 and supporting text, for clarification and reflecting the provisions of Policy DM07, that proposals should be subject to appropriate layout, design and landscaping so as to prevent unacceptable harm on the nearby Grade I heritage asset and its setting.

4.476 It is not considered that there are any reasonable alternative sites available in and around Monkliegh capable of delivering a scale of housing development reflective of proposed growth and that offer the opportunity to do so in a way that is reflective of community aspirations (in-fill development).

Conclusion

4.477 The comments in response to draft Local Plan Policy MON01 are not considered to raise any issues that challenge the soundness of the Local Plan. Only minor areas of change, correction or clarification are sought in respect of Policy MON01: Land North of Barton Farm.

Agreed Action

1. No Main Change to Policy MON01 or the associated supporting text. 2. The following is agreed as Minor Changes to Policy MON01 and the supporting text:

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

a. add reference to Policy and supporting text to state that proposals should be subject to appropriate layout, design and landscaping so as to prevent unacceptable harm on the nearby Grade I heritage asset and its setting.

Parkham

Comments made in response to Policy PAR: Parkham Spatial Strategy

Total Number of Responses 4

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 3 -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - 4

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 3 -

Table 4.1

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy PAR: Parkham Spatial Strategy plp number

Typographical error – second sentence refers to Woolsery not Parkham. 519

Policy is too prescriptive. Must be more flexible in terms of number of houses. Amend 519, 766, policy wording accordingly to increase the housing numbers to “at least 15” with a 855 reference to windfalls as part of the housing supply

Site Proposal – Penhaven Hotel, proposed as a housing site. 519

Site Proposal – further 25 units should be provided in field south of Culver Lodge. 200

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.478 A respondent refers to an error in second sentence, this point is noted and the correction will be made as a minor change.

4.479 Two site proposals have been put forward for Parkham, one being the Penhaven Hotel site (plp 519) and another at Culver Lodge (plp 200).

4.480 The Penhaven Hotel is presented as a suitable housing site, which the respondent advocates is required to improve the prospects of delivering sufficient housing to meet local needs over the plan period. The Penhaven Hotel site is a sizeable site located to east of the village. The site was assessed through the Strategic Housing Land Availability process (SHA/PAR/4), which concluded that the site was developable but on a limited basis in the context of the site area of 1.6 hectares and with the following conclusion:

4.481 “The site is considered to be potentially developable for a limited element of residential development. The site has potential for some residential development and workshop space. If the development purely involved the conversion of existing buildings there would be minimal visual impact.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

New build would clearly have a greater impact and is unlikely to be able to be accommodated without significant landscape and townscape harm through the loss of mature trees. The farmyard is on slightly more elevated land and would require comprehensive development as none of the agricultural sheds are capable of conversion.”

4.482 The strategy for the village, including establishing the appropriate scale of growth, the selection of sites for allocation and the location of the development boundary has been established through a comprehensive process including local community engagement. In doing so, the site in question was presented to the community for consideration and at that stage a response was received from the Parish Council indicating that they did not consider the site appropriate for inclusion in the Local Plan. The selected strategy for Parkham and the included site allocation has been subject to appraisal prior to publication of the draft Local Plan including consideration through the SHLAA (for housing sites) and the Sustainability Appraisal process. It is considered that sufficient land has already been proposed for allocation through the Draft Local Plan to meet the baseline scale of growth sought from the settlement. As such, it is therefore not considered necessary to allocate this additional site.

4.483 A site at Culver Lodge has been promoted as a housing site; the site is located to the east of the village adjoining the draft development boundary. The respondent advocates that the scale of housing provided for in Parkham is insufficient to meet the needs of the village over the plan period, the need to accommodate a further 25 dwellings is suggested. As indicated above, the strategy for the village has been established through a comprehensive process including local community engagement, from which clear local preferences where established with regard to the scale and location of development sought to meet local aspirations for growth. The draft Local Plan has taken forward the views of the local community in the spatial strategy for the village. The presented site has not been subject to a Strategic Housing Land Availably Assessment or Sustainability Appraisal, as a result of the sites late presentation to the Council for consideration as a housing allocation. The suitably of the site has therefore not been tested. However, irrespective of this position it is considered that sufficient land has already been proposed for allocation through the Draft Local Plan to meet the baseline scale of growth sought from the settlement.

4.484 A respondent feels the policy is too prescriptive with regard to the level of enabled development. It is suggested that more flexibly should be introduced to the policy by introducing the indicated level of housing by “at least” rather than “approximately” and that windfalls should be recognised as a contributor to the housing supply. The need to positively plan to meet assessed housing needs and demands is accepted, to do otherwise could constitute a risk to the Local Plan with regard to soundness. It is recommended that “approximately” is replaced with “as a minimum” in setting the planned level of growth in the spatial strategy. If accepted this approach would be required to be undertaken across the Local Plan for all Policy ST06 and ST07 defined settlements where a housing supply is identified. The advocated approach would introduce a change of emphasis, in being more positive towards growth. The suggestion with regard to windfall is not however considered necessary; the Local Plan allows for development to come forward on windfall sites, subject to the acceptability of proposals, no change in response this point is considered necessary in the interest of soundness. This issue is considered through Policy ST08: Scale and distribution of New Development in Northern Devon.

4.485 A respondent feels the policy is unsound and not consistent with national policy having regard to the scale of housing provided for in the village. The scale of housing provided for Parkham is consistent with the community’s aspirations for growth and goes beyond the sought level of growth for Villages on the basis of a 5% baseline level as set out in paragraph 4.13 in support of Policy ST07: Spatial Development Strategy for Northern Devon’s Rural Area. No change in response this comment is considered necessary in the interest of soundness.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

Conclusion

4.486 The comments in response to the draft Local Plan Policy PAR are considered not to raise any issues that challenge the soundness of the Local Plan with regard to the allocation of housing sites or the scale of planned development. In not allocating the promoted sites, the Local Plan is not considered to be subject to a soundness or legal compliance challenge.

4.487 The Local Plan is however considered to be at potential risk on the basis of a soundness challenge, if additional flexibility is not introduced to the level of planned housing growth. Introducing the planned level of growth with at least in the Spatial Strategies of: the Sub-regional Centre, Strategic Centre, Main Centres, Local Canters and Villages is consider a necessary main change, which will be required to be made across the draft Local Plan.

Agreed Action

1. The following are agreed as Main Changes to Policy PAR:

a. amend Policy PAR (a): provision of approximately as a minimum 15 new dwellings to meet a range of housing needs in the community. The supply of housing will be delivered through a single site allocation. b. replicate the replacement of “approximately” with “as a minimum” on a plan wide basis in the Spatial Strategies of ST06 and ST07 defined settlement.

2. The following is agreed as a Minor Change to Policy PAR:

4.488 a. replace the reference to Woolsery with Parkham.

Comments made in response to Policy PAR01: Land South of Allardice Hall

Total Number of Responses 1

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 1 -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 1 -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1 -

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy PAR01: Land South of Allardice Hall plp number

Support Policy 323

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.489 The respondent’s comments in support of the allocation are noted.

Conclusion

4.490 No areas of change, correction or clarification are sought.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

Agreed Actions

1. No change Policy PAR01 or the associated supporting text. Pyworthy

Comments made in response to Policy PYW: Pyworthy Spatial Strategy

4.491 No consultation comments were received in response to Policy PYW: Pyworthy Spatial Strategy (including the associated supporting text).

4.492 No main or minor changes are identified; no areas of change, correction or clarification are sought in respect of Policy PYW: Pyworthy Spatial Strategy.

Agreed Action

1. No change to Policy PYW or the associated supporting text.

Comments made in response to Policy PYW01: Land Adjacent to Village Hall

Total Number of Responses 2

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” - 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” - 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1 -

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy PYW01: Land Adjacent to Pyworthy Village Hall and supporting plp number text

Site is unviable with current housing numbers unable to cover costs of drainage 160 solutions –higher housing numbers required.

Amend access requirements to require single or combined access points, reflecting 283 local preference and narrowness of site; it has insufficient depth for an estate road.

4.493 Additional Information – the following comment is provided by DCC (Highways) in response to issues raised by plp 283: “Due to the shape/size of the allocated land I can’t see that a single access road would be possible to serve 15 dwellings here without considerable land take and viability issues. Accesses onto the road are unlikely to cause a significant (certainly not severe) issue, but I would want to see a link left open for possible future expansion to the field behind, this would act as a turning area on the main road in the shorter term.

4.494 Ideally, I would suggest that the site increased in size to include the whole field and a through route estate road created. But this would most likely require more than 15 dwellings to make it viable.”

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.495 A respondent believes that the site is unviable with proposed housing numbers due to high drainage costs; no additional housing numbers are suggested or increased site area proposed. The site subject to Policy PYW01 represents the Parish Council’s preference for housing growth in the village. The allocated site was considered through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, on which basis the 10 dwellings provided for in the Local Plan was considered to provide the sites development potential. In coming to this conclusion the Stakeholder Panel considered the raised drainage issues. No change to the policy is considered necessary in respect of a soundness challenge to the Local Plan.

Conclusion

4.496 The comments made in response to Policy PYW01 with regard to the site yield do not raise issues that are considered to challenge the soundness of the Local Plan. The issue raised with regard to the suitably of the proposed access arrangements are considered to represent a challenge to the Local Plan with regard to deliverable, on which basis amendment is sought to provide a more flexible approach in line with the comments provided by DCC (Highways).

Agreed Action

1. The following is agreed as a Main Change to Policy PWY01:

a. 2(a) delete the requirement to provide an access from Derriton Road, and add a requirement to safeguard an appropriate vehicular access, extending to the northern boundary, to enable future development to the north of the site. Rackenford

Comments made in response to Policy RAC and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 0

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” ~ ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy RAC: and supporting text plp number

~ ~

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.497 No issues were raised relating to the Rackenford chapter.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

Other Matters

4.498 Policy RAC02 (Land at Prospect Farm) does not recognise the need to safeguard the setting of the listed building immediately to the north of the site, the Ebenezer Bible Christian Chapel. Paragraph 13.785 should be amended to safeguard the setting of this listed building.

4.499 Amendment to the pre-fix to the housing numbers is additionally recommended to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of” through Policy ST08: Scale and Distribution of New Development in Northern Devon.

Conclusion

4.500 The issues could threaten the soundness of the local plan, particularly with reference to the delivery of affordable housing.

Agreed Actions

The following is agreed as a Main Change to the Local Plan:

1. To undertake a Main Change to Policy RAC, consequential of agreed Main Changes to Policy ST08 to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of”. Delete reference to “including affordable homes” in criterion (a).

Policy RAC01: Land at Rackenford Cross

4.501 No consultation comments were received in response to RAC01 (including supporting text).

Other Matters

4.502 A consequential amendment to Policy RAC01 to delete the wording “including a proportion of affordable homes” following Government changes to S106 obligations within national planning policy.

Agreed Actions

The following are agreed as Main Changes to the Local Plan:

1. To undertake a Main Change to Policy RAC01, to delete the wording “including a proportion of affordable homes” from criterion (1a). 2. Typographical error. Amend criterion 1(b) to criterion 1(c) of Policy RAC01 “an area of up to 0.2 hectares for use as allotments”. 3. Add new text to paragraph 13.783 to read “A financial contribution will be required towards the delivery of affordable housing in accordance with Policy ST18 (Affordable Housing on Development Sites)”.

Policy RAC02: Land at Prospect Farm

4.503 No consultation comments were received in response to RAC02 (including supporting text).

Agreed Actions

The following is agreed as a Main Change to the Local Plan:

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

1. Acknowledge the need for a main change to amend paragraph 13.785 to recognise the setting of “the adjacent Grade II listed Ebenezer Bible Christian Chapel”.

The following is agreed as a Minor Change to the Local Plan:

1. Typographical error. Amend criterion 2(d) to read 2(b) of Policy RAC02. Sheepwash

Comments made in response to Policy SHP: Sheepwash Spatial Strategy

4.504 No consultation comments were received in response to Policy SHP: Sheepwash Spatial Strategy (including the associated supporting text).

4.505 No main or minor changes are identified; no areas of change, correction or clarification are sought in respect of SHP Spatial Strategy.

Agreed Action

1. No change to Policy SHP or the associated supporting text. Shirwell

Comments made in response to Policy SHW and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 2

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 2 ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 1 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 2 ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy SHW: and supporting text plp number

A list of businesses operating in the parish is provided by the Parish Council. 144 (PC)

The development of 8 houses is not sufficient for future need over the lifetime of 145 (PC) the plan.

Site Proposals

No additional sites have been promoted

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.506 The only responses received are from the Parish Council. Paragraph 13.804 recognises that there are a number of small businesses operating within the parish, but it is not considered necessary to list these within the local plan.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

4.507 The Parish Council’s aspiration for further growth is welcomed and this can be accommodated under Policy DM23: Residential Development in defined Settlements without development boundaries. Approximately 8 new dwellings identified for Shirwell in the spatial strategy relates exclusively to commitments (see footnote 94) and is not an upper limit. In the absence of an allocated site, it summarises the identified level of housing growth but does not include any potential windfall sites which, if approved, would contribute additional homes.

Other Matters

4.508 The Shirwell chapter does not recognise and safeguard adequately the setting of Youlston historic park and garden referenced in paragraph 13.805 and other listed buildings. The spatial strategy should be amended to meet this requirement.

4.509 Amendment to the pre-fix to the housing numbers is additionally recommended to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of” through Policy ST08: Scale and Distribution of New Development in Northern Devon.

Conclusion

4.510 Issues raised are not considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan.

Agreed Actions

The following are agreed as Main Changes to the Local Plan:

1. To undertake a Main Change to Policy SHW, consequential of agreed Main Changes to Policy ST08 to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of” 2. Add a new criterion to Policy SHW: ”protection of listed buildings and their setting, and the character and appearance of Youlston Historic Park and Garden including key vistas within it”. Consequential change to labelling of existing criteria following the insertion of a new criterion (d). 3. Amend paragraph 13.808 to read “Shirwell has no defined development boundary. Proposals that are well related to the existing settlements of Shirwell Cross or Shirwell village, appropriate to the scale of the locality and address locally generated and quantified need will be considered against Policy DM23: Residential Development in Defined Settlements without Development Boundaries, and other general development management policies of the Local Plan. The impact of proposals on the setting of the historic Youlston Park and the wider historic environment will also be important considerations. St Giles on the Heath

Comments made in response to Policy STG: St Giles on the Heath Spatial Strategy

4.511 No consultation comments were received in response to Policy STG: St Giles on the Heath Spatial Strategy (including the associated supporting text).

4.512 No main or minor changes are identified; no areas of change, correction or clarification are sought in respect of STG Spatial Strategy.

Agreed Action

1. No change to Policy STG or the associated supporting text.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

Sutcombe

Comments made in response to Policies SUT: Sutcombe Spatial Strategy and SUT01: Land to the North of Sutcombe Primary School and SUT02: Land adjacent to the Parish Hall.

4.513 No consultation comments were received in response to Policies SUT and SUT01 and SUT02 (including the associated supporting text).

4.514 No main or minor changes are identified; no areas of change, correction or clarification are sought in respect of SUT: Sutcombe Spatial Strategy and SUT01: Land to the North of Sutcombe Primary School and SUT02: Land adjacent to the Parish Hall.

Agreed Action

1. No change to Policies SUT, SUT01 and SUT02 or the associated supporting text. Swimbridge

Comments made in response to Policy SWM and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 0

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” ~ ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy SWM: and supporting text plp number

~ ~

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.515 No issues were raised through consultation relating to the Swimbridge chapter.

Other Matters

4.516 Amendment to the pre-fix to the housing numbers is additionally recommended to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of” through Policy ST08: Scale and Distribution of New Development in Northern Devon.

Conclusion

4.517 The issue raised is not considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

Agreed Actions

The following is agreed as a Main Change to the Local Plan:

1. To undertake a Main Change to Policy SWM, consequential of agreed Main Changes to Policy ST08 to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of”. Tetcott

Comments made in response to Policies TET: Tetcott Spatial Strategy and TET01: Land at Tetcott

4.518 No consultation comments were received in response to Policies TET and TET01 (including the associated supporting text).

4.519 No main or minor changes are identified; no areas of change, correction or clarification are sought in respect of TET: Tetcott Spatial Strategy and TET01: Land at Tetcott.

Agreed Action

1. No change to Policies TET and TET01 or the associated supporting text. Umberleigh

Comments made in response to Policy UMB and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 1

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 1 ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 1 ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1 ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy UMB: and supporting text plp number

Paragraph 13.877 seems like reasonable approach to future development and could 592 be applied to Chittlehampton.

Site Proposals

There are no additional housing sites promoted

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.520 The representation is noted, but the paragraph relates explicitly to Umberleigh as Chittlehampton has a development boundary, has an allocated site and does not face the same risks of flooding. No change is necessary.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

Other Matters

4.521 There are a number of listed buildings within Umberleigh that are not currently protected as part of the spatial strategy, especially as the dispersed settlement pattern provides opportunities for windfall sites in different locations. The spatial strategy should be amended to recognise the village’s heritage assets and historic environment.

4.522 Amendment to the pre-fix to the housing numbers is additionally recommended to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of” through Policy ST08: Scale and Distribution of New Development in Northern Devon.

Conclusion

4.523 The issues raised are not considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan.

Agreed Actions

The following are agreed as Main Changes to the Local Plan:

1. To undertake a Main Change to Policy UMB, consequential of agreed Main Changes to Policy ST08 to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of”. 2. Amend criterion (c) of Policy UMB to read “retention and conservation of the village’s historic environment, heritage assets and character, and its relationship with the countryside”.

The following is agreed as a Minor Change to the Local Plan:

1. Amend paragraph 13.877 to read “Where suitable land is available for development that meets a local need, has local support, is appropriate in terms of its scale and location in relation to flood risks and has no significant impact on listed buildings in the village, it will be considered for development in accordance with the Plan’s relevant development management polices. Acceptable development will also need to meet the respective requirements for a village in Policy ST07: Spatial Strategy for northern Devon's Rural Area. Other opportunities to secure additional housing to meet local needs will continue to be explored”. Welcombe / Darracott

Comments made in response to Policy WDA: Welcombe/Darracott Spatial Strategy

Total Number of Responses 3

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 1 -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 1 -

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 1 -

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy WDA: Welcombe/Darracott Spatial Strategy and supporting plp number text

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

Village in AONB. Wording needs to be added to this effect to conform with NPPF. 257, 2061(NE)

Site Proposal – land adjacent to Linton Roost for housing for local social needs. 606

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.524 Natural England advise the following wording should be added to the strategy to take account of the settlements location within the AONB to conform with the NPPF; ‘The settlement is within the AONB. Consequently great weight will be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in consideration of proposals for development’.

4.525 The suggestion from Natural England is considered acceptable having regard to paragraph 114 of the NPPF. The addition of the provided text within the strategy is considered to be a minor change having regard to the established provisions of ST14: Enhancing Environmental Assets.

4.526 A respondent puts forward Linton Roost, Welcombe for housing (plp 606). The development strategy for Welcombe/Darracott is directly informed by engagement with the Parish Council. The basis for the strategy is to secure the delivery of affordable housing focused development, on which basis no housing allocations were defined. The approach is considered to be valid with regard to the opportunity to provide affordable housing on exceptions sites, as enabled by ST19: Affordable Housing on Exception Sites, and having regard to the nature and location (within the AONB) of Welcome/Darracott. The proposed site is presented for local needs housing, the Local Plan does not allocate sites for affordable housing. Subject to the provisions of the referenced Policy ST19, affordable housing schemes are enabled without allocation. The presented site has not been subject to assessment (SHLAA) or suitability Appraisal. No change is recommended in response to the raised issue.

Conclusion

4.527 The comments in response to the draft Local Plan Policy WDA are considered not to raise any issues that challenge the soundness of the Local Plan. A minor change is proposed which is considered appropriate in the interest of adding clarity to the Local Plan in providing a clearer emphasis on the nature of development required as a consequence of the location of Welcombe/Darracotts within the AONB.

Agreed Action

1. No Main Change to Policy WDA or the associated supporting text. 2. The following is agreed as a Minor Changes to Policy WDA and the associated supporting text:

a. add: The village is within the designated AONB. Consequently great weight will be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in consideration of proposals for development;

West Down

Comments made in response to Policy WED and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 17 (from 8 separate individuals)

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” ~ ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy WED: and supporting text plp number

Fully supports the West Down Spatial Strategy. 2293

There are no employment opportunities in the village. Local services and facilities 1028 (PC) are run by volunteers.

What support is there to meet additional employment provision, employment should 1030 (PC) come first and to secure community facilities to meet locally generated needs.

Additional employment opportunities at Mullacott Business Park are welcomed. 1033 (PC) Ilfracombe Hill requires improvement; upgrades are required to provide suitable traffic movement. With the development of 750 dwellings in Ilfracombe competition for existing employment will be increase, which will require substantial investment/assistance in the Business Park.

Most Parish Councillors are retired and are able to do voluntary work. The vast 1093 majority of residents work locally in Barnstaple or Ilfracombe. There is also an increasing amount of self employed people.

There is an unmet need in West Down for affordable housing. It is not considered 1098 acceptable that this need should be met through the development of the southern extension in Ilfracombe. The development boundary in the draft plan should remain.

The village needs more development to attract new families. 1097

West Down does not need any more housing as there are 750 new units being built 2285 in Ilfracombe.

Strongvox broadly supports the Council’s approach to the distribution of additional 2565 housing at the District’s villages such as West Down (strategy seeks the provision of around 21 dwellings over the Plan period). It can contribute positively to the overall supply of housing and needs to be allowed the opportunity to grow in order to help maintain their role and function and to help support existing services provided.

The road network in and around the village are unsatisfactory and need improving. 1026 (PC)

Access in to the village is not a problem as indicated by some local residents through 1091 the parish council. It is unfounded that additional development would make the traffic flow intolerable.

How and who will deliver the necessary infrastructure to meet the needs of West 1029 (PC) Down?

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

Amend reference to Policies Map 72 and not 70. 1031 (PC)

Site Proposals

Allocate the Foxhunters area for housing. 2286

Proposes additional housing site - Former Foxhunters Inn, off A361, West Down. 2405

Consider the Foxhunters garage site for housing. 2351

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.528 A range of responses have been submitted to the West Down spatial strategy, including one of general support. In relation to employment opportunities, the lack of employment within the village is recognised, although Mullacott Business Park is also within West Down parish. Additional employment opportunities at Mullacott Business Park being welcomed are noted, although comments to this policy are considered under Policy ILF04. An increasing numbers of self employed people is noted, although no amendments are considered necessary.

4.529 This is a mismatch between representations relating to the village’s housing requirements. The need for more development to attract new families is recognised and supported to help maintain the village’s role and function. One representation indicates Ilfracombe’s strategic southern extension (ILF01) will meet the housing needs of West Down so it does not need any further housing, although a contrary view indicates the village’s unmet need for affordable housing should be met in the village not through Ilfracombe’s southern extension. The strategy for West Down has already been established through community consultation during 2013 and it is considered inappropriate to reduce housing provision within the village or to rely on growth within Ilfracombe.

4.530 The road network serving the village was questioned, although a contrary view indicates that additional development would not make the traffic flow intolerable. No strategic highway improvements are proposed for the village and DCC as local highway authority have not objected to growth within the village based on the capacity of the existing road network. Other necessary infrastructure will be delivered through CIL and s106 agreements, such as public open space contributions (Policy DM10) and education contributions to school expansion. Service providers, such as South West Water, will fund any upgrades through their capital programmes. Policy ST23: Infrastructure sets out the policy framework for infrastructure provision. No amendments in relation to infrastructure provision are considered necessary.

4.531 It is accepted that paragraph 13.981 should refer to Policies Map 72 rather than 70, which should be amended accordingly.

4.532 A number of additional housing sites have been promoted in West Down, all along the A361 at Foxhunters. None of these sites have been considered previously by the SHLAA panel, although one has since been submitted as a new SHLAA site. All sites are previously developed and one, the former Foxhunters garage, remains in used and is identified by the local plan for economic development (WED01). Whilst remote from the centre of the village, the sites adjoin a good public transport link between Braunton and Ilfracombe. The former Foxhunters Inn could be permitted as a windfall site where it meets the requirements of Policy DM27: Re-Use of Rural Buildings. The strategy for West Down has already been established through community consultation during 2013 and alternative sites have been through a robust assessment prior to publication of the draft Local Plan. It is not considered necessary to allocate these additional sites for housing.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

Other Matters

4.533 Amendment to the pre-fix to the housing numbers is additionally recommended to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of” through Policy ST08: Scale and Distribution of New Development in Northern Devon.

Conclusion

4.534 Issues raised are not considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan.

Agreed Actions

The following is agreed as a Main Change to the Local Plan:

1. To undertake a Main Change to Policy WED, consequential of agreed Main Changes to Policy ST08 to change from “approximately” to “a minimum of”.

The following is an agreed Minor Change:

1. Acknowledge the need for a minor change to correct Policies Map 70 to Policies Map 72 in paragraph 13.891.

Policy WED01: Former Foxhunters Garage

4.535 No consultation comments were received in response to WED01 (including supporting text).

Other Matters

4.536 A consequential amendment to Paragraph 13.896 to amend the wording “(Policy ST10 1(h))” to read “(Policy ST10 1(g))” following a main change to Policy ST10 : Transport Strategy.

Agreed Actions

The following is agreed as Minor Change to the Local Plan:

1. To undertake a Minor Change to Paragraph 13.896, to amend the wording from “(Policy ST10 1(h))” to read “(Policy ST10 1(g))”.

Comments made in response to Policy WED02: Land off Ilfracombe Hill and the associated supporting text

Total Number of Responses 13 (from 10 separate individuals)

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally ~ ~ compliant?”

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with ~ ~ the Duty to Co-operate?”

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policy WED02: and supporting text plp number

Supports housing allocation under Policy WED02. 2291, 2292, 2295, 2296, 2298

The comments made by the parish council are not representative of the local 1100 community and are perceived to be negative towards further development in the village and not encouraging towards providing affordable homes for local people.

Delete housing allocation, Policy WED02 as the local need requirement has not 2325 been demonstrated.

Proposed access not wide enough, primary school at capacity, SWW drainage 2345 equipment at capacity. Site is exposed therefore planting could be problematic. Wish to ensure that any future development will be of a quality that is in keeping with the character and style of existing dwellings.

The vehicular access to the development would be problematic and is unsuitable. 1036 Concerned about a future access being safeguarded using land to the south which is outside the development boundary and the potential extension of the boundary, under appeal (see paragraph 13.891).

Access roads are unsuitable. No employment in West Down. Limited public 1101 transport. Affordable housing will be payed for by tax payers. Private houses will not be occupied as they would not want to live next to low cost housing. Develop in Ilfracombe, as more employment and better transport. Development would have a huge impact on the village.

How will a phased delivery be implemented on such a small site? Any developer 1034 will want to complete the site for cost effectiveness.

Development should not be phased as there will be a requirement for necessary 2333 infrastructure.

Do not believe that a satisfactory relationship between existing and new housing 1037 could be achieved.

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.537 There was a significant level of support received for this policy. The comment about local need not having been demonstrated is invalid. In addition to need across the plan area and other representations supporting some growth within West Down, a re-assessment of the Housing Needs Survey for West Down was undertaken by the Rural Housing Project in November 2012. This survey has shown a need for 7 x2-bed units as social rent and 4 x3-bed units mixed between social rent and low cost ownership.

4.538 Issues about vehicular access are considered above as part of representations to Policy WED: the spatial strategy. DCC as local highway authority has not objected to growth within the village based on the capacity of the existing road network.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

4.539 The aspiration for phasing of development (paragraph 13.898) is valid to spread delivery of new homes across the plan period. However, it may be unnecessarily restrictive and inflexible affecting the viability of infrastructure delivery. To assist with delivery of this development, and in view of the relatively small scale (15 dwellings), the final sentence of paragraph 13.898 should be deleted. The phasing of delivery will be determined by market forces.

4.540 The perceived impact between proposed and existing homes is not considered to restrict this development. Criterion (2d) and paragraph 13.900 require design and layout to minimise any impact on amenities of adjoining residential properties. Design policies within the local plan seek development to be of good quality. The spatial strategy (Policy WED) requires protecting the character of the village. No amendments are considered necessary.

Other Matters

4.541 Paragraph 13.900 refers to “substantial new planting adjoining the play area” to integrate the development into its countryside setting. A proposed play area to the south of WED01 was deleted before the local plan was published, and this reference to planting in this area should be removed.

Conclusion

4.542 An unjustified requirement for phasing of development on this site could potentially threaten the soundness of the local plan.

Agreed Actions

The following is agreed as a Main Change to the Local Plan:

1. Amend paragraph 13.898 to read “The site is well related to the existing settlement and with a suitable design and landscaping scheme can be developed without undue harm to the landscape setting of the village. The site slopes from north to south. Development will provide a range of dwellings of sizes and types that address local community needs. The site will provide the majority of new dwellings required in the village over the Plan period. Phased delivery to meet incremental local needs would require a flexible approach to development or a review of detailed proposals as community needs are identified”.

The following is agreed as a Minor Change to the Local Plan:

1. Amend paragraph 13.900 to read “The western boundary will require enhancement of the existing hedgerow and substantial new planting adjoining the play area to integrate the development into its countryside setting. Enhanced landscaping on the southern part of the site will provide a visual and amenity buffer between the development and the adjoining sewage works to the south-west of the site. A number of established properties border the site, including the Grade II listed Old Vicarage. Detailed design, layout and landscaping should minimise the impact of development on properties in the immediate area. A satisfactory relationship between these properties and new housing is required in order to protect the amenities of both”.

Comments made in response to Paragraphs 13.901 to 13.903

Total Number of Responses 4 (from 2 separate individuals)

Yes No

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” ~ ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on Paragraphs 13.901 to 13.903 plp number

As well as the historic core there are a number of buildings that date back to the 1027 (PC) Doomsday Book and the existing field pattern retains medieval strip farming.

The Primary School and Pre-School are currently full with no room for expansion 1038 (PC) without detriment to their facilities. All community facilities are run by volunteers.

The existing community services in the village are vulnerable to closure or are not 2328 equipped to accept more development in the village.

Welcomes facilities to meet locally generated needs, however local opinion is that 1039 (PC) additional housing is not necessary.

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.543 The recognition of historic buildings outside the historic core and the field pattern retaining medieval strip farming are noted. Paragraph 13.901 could be amended to clarify this.

4.544 It is noted that the Primary School and Pre-School are full with no room for expansion, but their capacity may change over time and the scale of growth proposed (21 dwellings) is not considered to be undermined by lack of education capacity. Many pupils at the school are currently understood to come from outside the village. If community facilities are vulnerable to closure then limited growth would potentially help to support existing services to keep them open and/or help deliver additional capacity. No amendments are considered necessary.

Conclusion

4.545 These representations are not considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan. However, minor wording changes are proposed.

Agreed Actions

The following is an agreed Minor Change to the Local Plan:

1. Amend paragraph 13.901 to read “West Down does not have a designated Conservation Area. Should the local community identify the need for a future designation to protect the historic core of the village during the plan period, then it would be supported. There are other historic assets outside the village core, including a field pattern retaining medieval strip farming”.

Comments made in response to Policies Map 72: West Down

Total Number of Responses 4

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: 4: Rural Strategies)

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” ~ ~

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” ~ ~

Summary of Issues

Comments on Policies Map 72: West Down plp number

Retain the existing development boundary as amended in 2003. 1032 (PC)

Support proposed development boundary for West Down. 2294, 2297

Include Foxhunters garage within the development boundary. 2284

Consideration of Issues Arising

4.546 The Parish Council sought to retain the development boundary from the adopted local plan, which excludes the allocation (WED02) and would leave it outside the development boundary. The advice note on ‘Development Boundary Review and Rural Village Allocations’ indicates that proposed local plan allocations are included within the boundary. Excluding site WED02 would be inconsistent with the rest of the local plan where allocated sites on the edge of towns and villages are included within the development boundary. Two further representations supported the proposed development boundary. No change to the development boundary is considered necessary.

4.547 Foxhunters garage (WED01) is an existing business west of the A361, separate from the main village. The defined villages are the locations where it is considered acceptable to plan for some housing growth, which is facilitated in many by setting out development boundaries that enable development and by the provision of site allocations. Foxhunters is divorced from the main village and its community facilities and is not considered a sustainable location for housing growth. No other development boundaries within the local plan include discrete areas outside the main village, even for more substantial business parks such as Mullacott (ILF04) and Pathfields (SM03). As such, it is not considered an appropriate location to facilitate the provision of additional housing and be subject to a separate development boundary.

Conclusion

4.548 These representations are not considered to threaten the soundness of the local plan.

Agreed Actions

1. No change to Policies Map 72 of the Local Plan is recommended in response to the issues raised through consultation. Woolfardisworthy (Woolsery)

Comments made in response to Policy WFD: Woolfardisworthy Spatial Strategy

4.549 No consultation comments were received in response to Policy WFD: Woolfardisworthy Spatial Strategy (including the associated supporting text).

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Part 3: Appendix Rural Strategies) 4:

4.550 No main or minor changes are identified; no areas of change, correction or clarification are sought in respect of WFD Spatial Strategy.

Agreed Action

1. No change Policy WFD or the associated supporting text.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Glossary 5: and Appendicies)

Appendix 5: Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Glossary and Appendicies)

Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Glossary and Appendicies)

Comments made in response to Monitoring Framework, Appendices 1,3 and 3 and the Glossary

Total Number of Responses 8

Yes No

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is legally compliant?” 0 0

Response to “Do you consider the Plan is sound?” 0 1

Response to “Do you consider the Plan complies with the Duty to Co-operate?” 0 0

Table 5.1

Summary of Issues

Comments on Monitoring Framework and Appendix 3 plp number

Part 1 of ST21 should be moved to Monitoring Framework 1683, 1808, 1909, 1997

Highways Agency agrees that monitoring and review are key components of the 1344 (HA) planning system and that Local Plans need to be continually reviewed and revised.

Support is given to paragraph 11.2. National policy is being implemented through 927 (EA) the catchment based approach. As part of this approach Catchment partnerships have formed. The North Devon Catchment Partnership is embedded into the Biosphere Reserve.

The Environment Agency would like to offer water quality data and evidence to 931 (EA) demonstrate no deterioration and achievement of the targets in the RBMP

Monitoring Framework Appendix 3- Under Aim 2 ST02 should be applicable to d 281 and g.

Aim 2 b needs clarification as it does not make sense. 281

Under Aim 3, ST02 should be referenced as a key policy. 281

Target for delivering affordable housing should be higher than 30%. 281

Table 5.2

Consideration of Issues Arising

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Glossary Appendix and Appendicies) 5:

5.1 The Highways Agency concur that monitoring and review are key components of the planning system and that Local Plans need to be continually reviewed and revised. The Highways Agency is keen to be involved in the process as required. The comment is noted and welcomed.

5.2 The Environment Agency welcomes reference in paragraph 11.2 to working in partnership and they request that the North Devon Catchment Partnership is referenced. Paragraph 11.2 states that ‘the implementation of policies contained in the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan will require concerted action by a range of public, private and voluntary sector bodies working in partnership’. No organisations are mentioned explicitly and therefore, although the comment is noted it is not considered to raise a soundness challenge. No amendment is sought.

5.3 The Environment Agency offer to share appropriate water quality data and evidence with both Councils. The comment is noted and welcomed.

5.4 A number of respondents request that part 1 of Policy ST21 is moved to the Monitoring Framework. Policy ST21 relates to managing the delivery of housing, with Part 1 of the policy asserting that a positive ‘plan, monitor, manage’ approach will be adopted to ensure the timely delivery and provision of appropriate housing. It is considered a statement of intent rather than providing any detailed targets and indicators and should therefore remain within the housing chapter of the Plan. No amendment is sought.

5.5 No issues were raised in response to Appendix 1:Superseded Policies, Appendix 4: Policies Map legend or to the Glossary. A number of changes are however proposed to the glossary as a result of comments received on individual policies, which are set out in the related reports.

5.6 One respondent would like to see the following changes to Appendix 3 – Monitoring Framework;

5.7 Policy ST02 referenced under points (d) and (g) of Aim 2. The comment is considered justified and an amendment is sought.

5.8 Policy ST02 referenced as a key policy under part (a) and (c) of Aim 3. Comment is considered justified and an amendment is sought.

5.9 Clarification of target 1 of Aim 2 is requested as respondent feels it currently makes no sense. The target states a ‘Net increase in % SSSI units with favourable condition or unfavourable recovering condition’. The comment is noted but monitoring is carried out by trained technical officers who use nationally endorsed indicators and targets. The target is considered appropriate and no change is considered necessary in response to the representation, although a minor wording change is recommended for clarification; inserting the word ‘of’ within the target, to read: ‘Net increase in % of SSSI units…’.

5.10 Finally, the respondent would like to see the affordable housing target increased. They feel 30% is too low for an area with a high percentage of low paid jobs. The Plan recognises there is a substantial need for affordable housing across northern Devon. Open market housing is out of reach of many due to a significant imbalance between wages and house prices with evidence showing that residents have some of the lowest earnings in the UK. The issue has been exacerbated by northern Devon having a relatively small stock of affordable housing allied with a low level of affordable housing delivery. This is reflected by the two Councils who both identify affordable housing delivery as a strategic priority. Evidence indicates that over half of all housing required to meet the needs and demands of northern Devon’s communities over the plan period needs to be affordable. However providing the scale of affordable housing required poses a significant challenge as viability needs to be maintained. The figure of 30% has been derived from robust evidence including the Economic

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix Consideration of Representations and Other Matters (Glossary 5: and Appendicies)

Viability Assessment of Housing Development in North Devon and Torridge (Adams Integra, September 2013). The comment is noted but there is no justification to change the target level of affordable housing provision. No change is sought.

Conclusion

5.11 The comments raised in response to the Monitoring Framework are considered not to raise any major issues that would challenge the soundness of the Local Plan.

Agreed Actions

1. No Major Changes to the Local Plan are proposed in response to the issues raised through consultation. 2. The following Minor Changes are agreed in response to the issues raised:

a. Amend Target 1 of Aim 2 to read ‘Net increase in % of SSSI units with favourable condition or unfavourable recovering condition’. b. Reference Policy ST02 under points (d) and (g) of Aim 2 and under part (a) and (c) of Aim 3.

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Torridge District Council North Devon Council Riverbank House Civic Centre Bideford Barnstaple EX39 2QG EX31 1EA [email protected] [email protected]

01237 428748 01271 388392